On Sept. 29, I had the privilege of attending a council emergency meeting to deal with the Habitat for Humanity project on 70 Arlington Dr. The only reason that I was able to attend was because one of my neighbours found a Twitter exchange between two Gazette editors. If she hadn’t come across this exchange, none of us in our community would ever have known about the meeting. The meeting might be legal, but it is highly objectionable. So much for council’s transparency!
At the meeting Mayor Nolan Crouse stated that he had two pieces of information to disclose. First, the Protestant School Board had extended the time that Habitat has to finalize the sale of the property only until Nov. 30. Second, the president of Habitat had phoned him and informed him that building 24 units was unacceptable.
One of the local residents requested to speak at the meeting and was denied because she was told there wasn’t any new information presented. As far as I am concerned, both points that Mayor Crouse raised were new to us. This is a flagrant violation of the democratic process.
Council rescinded the 24 units agreed to at the prior meeting and went back to 30 units. It was never explained why the 24 units or the 18 units that Coun. James Burrows supported were not feasible. Did Habitat require more funding from the city to undertake a smaller project? The entire project is heavily subsidised so is it unreasonable for council to provide some additional funding to support a project that the surrounding community would find acceptable? Surely if it can find $250,000 for some statues, it could find some funding for an acceptable project. Perhaps Akinsdale is just not as important as statues.
One of the concerns of the community is the length of time that a project of this size will take since the project depends solely on donations and volunteer labour to complete. This project takes up half of our Attwood Park. A construction project of this size is a danger to our children who will be using the remainder of the park that is not under construction. Council set a time limit of three years for Habitat to complete the project. What possible penalties will Habitat incur if they fail to finish in time? Perhaps a mild word of caution from our mayor? This could very easily end up as a long-term project.
The surrounding community has tried to accommodate council by supporting 16 to 20 units because they could be built in a cul-de-sac that would provide 25 metres of separation between the units and the existing residential properties. The approved 30 units only provides for 10 metres of separation. Our cul-de-sac would also have provided backyards for the units.
This whole undertaking has been a council fiasco from day one. St. Albert has ample undeveloped property where this project could have been built without having to force it on an established community. But of course that is council’s plan for all these ‘underutilized’ communities. Well, what’s next? Hopefully a new council.
Dave Evans, St. Albert
