In the Gazette article titled “Akinsdale Split on Habitat Plan” published Friday Jan. 15, two fundamental flaws in city council readily discern themselves in a very odd land transaction.
Originally the St. Albert Separate School Board acquired the land from Qualico developments in 1974 for a nominal fee, and now the city will acquire the land for $840,000 from the school board. The city will then donate said land to Habitat for Humanity who will in turn give the land to a developer for considerations in creating 14 low income housing units (out of the 58 units proposed). In addition, Habitat for Humanity will receive a 20 per cent financing interest in the remaining 44 units.
First of all, it is never encouraging to see an elected official explain to local residents that he and his council members will not be bullied into listening to their concerns about local development. St. Albert does not have local representation via a ward system like Edmonton; rather, councillors and the mayor are elected by St. Albert residents, as a whole. This can lead to a dangerous trend where political issues desired by the majority are paid for by forcing the burden of cost onto a minority.
Secondly, and ironically, we see the exact opposite democratic flaw emerge where a minority benefits by urging a large financial and opportunity cost onto all taxpayers but it is kept small enough to be hidden from view and forgotten in time. Taxpayers own a piece of the land in Akinsdale that is worth millions, land that we will be paying $840,000 to donate. Unfortunately, these types of fiduciary management issues compound to a point that pennies turn into dollars and dollars into debt.
It is incumbent on city council to be aware of the philosophical disadvantages of our municipal democracy and to ensure that they act on behalf of all residents. Since municipal issues are always so close to our hearts and our homes, we should strive for 100 per cent consensus rather than 50 per cent-plus-one. Why should taxpayers pay $840,000 to donate land we effectively own, and why are the issues of local residents a secondary concern of their democratic representatives?
I would suggest that alternative solutions be examined, solutions such as selling the land for fair market value (millions) to the developer with the understanding that lower cost housing be built and that residents of Akinsdale be financially compensated with some of the sale proceeds in a onetime payout to offset their reduced home values. Alternatively, city council could set aside some of the city’s annexed land for a new low cost housing development, then people buying and developing in the area would know what they are buying and it would not be forced upon anyone — this would resolve the “not in my backyard” dilemma. Either of these two solutions would be of increased value to all residents and address local concerns about the proposed development.
Cam MacKay, St. Albert
