Glenmore Landing: Efforts to Sell and Rezone Designated Parkland to build Residential Towers – Update on City Procedure and Public Engagement
On December 21, 2022, when I expect that most of us were making final plans for the festive season (and not looking for instructions to respond on short notice) a notice from our alderman appeared at https://www.co11aborate.ca/statements which was found several days later by one of our board members.
The notice stated that there would be a January 10, 2024 meeting of the Infrastructure and Planning Committee (IPC) and that the Committee would review the terms of the sale to RioCan (which could be done in closed session) and answer the question of whether this land should be sold for redevelopment, which decision was made would then be forwarded to Council for consideration and final approval at the January 30 Regular Meeting of Council.
The notice stated that the public would have opportunity to speak to the item on January 10 at 9:30 am, but comments were to be specific to this land sale, and not the land use application being made by the proposed purchaser.
This notice followed the many requests that have been made to the City by citizens living near Glenmore Landing, for records and information, relevant to the how this parkland (without our knowledge) became “surplus” (in order that it could be sold) and the agreement by the City to sell it.
The decision to sell parkland is not made in a vacuum. We already know that the City has made an agreement with RioCan which is in play and is being considered.
The problem is that (as at the time I am writing this) the agreement continues to remain hidden from the public. Although neither the agreement nor its most basic terms has yet been revealed to the public, I think it is reasonable to assume that the agreement is conditional on the seller (the City, which is supposed to protect us and this green space) granting the land use redesignation that the buyer wants.
In the private sector, it would be considered a conflict of interest, for someone with an interest in the outcome to take part in a decision. For this reason, a judge or board member would recuse himself and not adjudicate or take part in deciding where (s)he had a personal interest in the outcome.
In this situation, it would seem reasonable to assume that the City stands to receive a higher price for the land and receive a tremendous amount of property tax from future high-rise development, if it decides to sell the greenspace and rezone the land for that sort of development.
We know that the City’s received a traffic impact assessment and other expert reports that were required to be submitted by RioCan thus far and is considering them.
How could it be said that the decision to sell this parkland is independent of the buyer’s application for the land use redesignation that it wants?
Is there anyone who would believe that our elected officials would decide to sell this parkland without knowing the land use redesignation that the buyer wants?
On the buyer’s side, how could anyone believe that it would buy the land if it had to remain parkland, and it did not get the land use redesignation that they want?
We are told that the Traffic Impact Report is not yet finalized, and one cannot yet predict the effect of the proposed development on traffic congestion next to Glenmore Landing or (since there is not yet any expert advice on this) whether the excavation needed for the proposed towers will puncture an impervious layer of rock and cause a loss of water from the Glenmore Reservoir (our drinking water).
Shouldn’t this greenspace be preserved, so that it continues to provide an important buffer, separating people at Glenmore Landing from the busy traffic on 90 Avenue and 14 Street SW?
Wouldn’t it be rational for the decision on whether to sell this parkland be postponed until after we can safely predict these things? Shouldn’t the area around Glenmore Landing (with its traffic congestion and proximity to the Glenmore Reservoir) like other, less vulnerable, parts of the City, require a carefully prepared Area Redevelopment Plan, before any decisions to sell this parkland and allow this drastic change in the type of development allowed? Wouldn’t it be patently unreasonable not to postpone the decision on selling the parkland until the effect of such development can be safely predicted?
Doesn’t fair procedure require that those, or at least the findings, be produced to the public, well in advance of any decision, so that there is opportunity for meaningful response by other experts?
In matters relating to the proposed redevelopment of Glenmore Landing, don’t we deserve better than to be subjected to a shell game, where the relevant records and information continue to be withheld?
If things continue as they are, won’t the rezoning be pushed through, without our being properly informed and having the opportunity for meaningful response, leaving us with little or nothing we can do to prevent the construction of the towers, with all of the (still unpredictable) consequences?
What do you think?
Please inform the City by emailing [email protected].
Click here to the Bayview Community News home page for the latest Bayview community updates.
Click here to the Palliser Community News home page for the latest Palliser community updates.
Click here to the Pumphill Community News home page for the latest Pumphill community updates.
