On August 12th, 2009 the Mayor published a two page article in The Daily Townsman newspaper (pages 12-13) in support of the East Hill Boundary Expansion. His references to the Citizens for a Livable Cranbrook and statements made in response to the following questions require comment:

1.  Is this an issue that deserves to go to referendum?

The Mayor justified the City’s use of the Alternative Approval Process (AAP) on the basis that it would cost only $2,000 compared to $30,000 for a referendum. In fact the City spent nearly $7,000 for the article, handouts and mailing to support its position.

Despite this expenditure, a grass roots initiative on the part of many volunteers resulted in more than twice the required minimum of 1,475 Elector Response forms being submitted to City hall prior to the August 27th deadline. Through their efforts a democratic voice in this important decision has been ensured, and the boundary expansion has been prevented from being carried out by default.

2.  Does the expansion proposal fit with Smart Growth principles?

Contrary to the claim that “Smart Growth … is an aging concept”, it is but one set of generally accepted planning principles that complement and support goals for long term social, environmental, and economic sustainability. Like Smart Growth, an Integrated Community Planning Process (ICSP), also requires informed public involvement to succeed.

Regardless of the approach, there is a need to develop a clear and broadly supported vision for our city before undertaking major, and potentially premature, decisions that affect our future.

3. The City’s Official Community Plan states that the city had sufficient land within its boundaries before the most recent boundary expansion towards the St Mary River, to accommodate an additional 14,000 people. If the City can accommodate these numbers is expansion really needed?  

This most basic question cannot be answered effectively without knowing how much potentially developable land is either in or adjacent to the City, and how much is needed to meet current and projected growth rates. (Provincial government statistics show that the City’s population increased by only 136 persons between 1996 and 2006. Interior Health figures to 2014 estimate a growth rate for Cranbrook and area of 0.2%).

These low rates of growth do not suggest an urgent need to proceed with an extension of city boundaries at this time. At the very least, the City should find out what capacity for growth it already has and provide an opportunity for informed community discussion before proceeding with a costly referendum.

Also, promises of “long term, planned development” are difficult to reconcile with the City’s recent piecemeal expansion to the north where development preceded zoning and major questions around road and other infrastructure development remain unanswered. 

References to density as a measure to justify expansion are misleading since they do not compare communities with similar characteristics. 

Whistler (see map below) is a specialized resort municipality and much of its area is taken up by a ski hill. Lands suited for development represent only a fraction of the total area within its boundaries. Issues around affordable housing reflect the seasonal and economic characteristic of a resort rather than a community of full time residents.

Olds and Airdrie are possibly closer but both have evolved as bedroom communities of Calgary and are directly influenced by the demands from this much larger urban centre. By comparison, Cranbrook’s growth is dependant upon meeting its own needs and those of the surrounding region.

Quick Facts

Several items require comment:

Does the City, and do I as a current taxpayer, pay for new roads and other services to these lands?

Developers do pay for construction of roads, water and sewer lines on their own property. If they are not adjacent to an existing serviced area - leapfrogging over undeveloped land – they can also be required to extend services to the nearest connection at their own cost.

Taxpayers become involved where the City is required to increase its water and sewer capacity or upgrade roads outside the development area. These costs are recovered in part through Development Cost Charges (DCC’s). The City’s current rate of $2,032 per residential lot is about half the amount recommended when it was put in place ten years ago and has not been updated to reflect current construction costs. By comparison, Invermere’s rate is $16,300 and Fernie’s is $12,016. The shortfall must be made up by City taxpayers.

Who pays for police, fire and other services in the newly developed areas?

Under normal circumstances these services are paid for by all City taxpayers. However, the East Hill expansion proposal would not only freeze taxes at rural rates for a period of 20 years but extend this benefit to include subdivision as long as the lots are larger than 50 acres. The total property taxes for the entire 9,100 acre area is currently $21,400. The amount received by the City after school, hospital and BC Assessment levies are subtracted would be $4,717 – barely enough to cover the benefits for a single additional staff person.

What other options for growth are there?

As stated, there are significant limitations for major expansion to the south, to the west and the north but no information has been provided to identify the capacity for further development already within the City’s boundaries, or the potential for additional growth on adjacent rural lands.

The issues around the East Hill relate more to questions of when this area might become necessary and how it can be protected until it is needed.

According to the City’s Official Community Plan, there was enough land before the most recent expansion to accommodate an additional 14,000 people. At the present rate of growth, the need for this area appears well into the future. As for protection, conditions of the current boundary expansion proposal actually encourage fragmentation of this area by providing a financial inducement for subdivision into 50+ acre lots - almost three times as many as would be allowed under its present rural zoning.

The real issue is sprawl.

Here's a letter seen in Maclean's about sprawl in Charlottetown that we think resonates well with our local issues:

The 45 vacant buildings in downtown Charlottetown reflect not only a lack of immigrants to nurture new business, but also a problem Charlottetown shares with many medium size cities: runaway suburban sprawl on the periphery. This causes economic functions to leave the core, creating an economic and social vacuum which can't be filled by tourist shops or other seasonal and marginal sectors of the economy, including tattoo parlours or strip clubs--although all have their place in a vibrant, mixed downtown economy. A lively downtown gives character to cities and makes it easier for municipal government to promote the city and attract new inward investment.

Michael Carley, London, UK

MacLean's 6 Aug. 2009: 6.

Charlottetown is a city of 32,174 in an area of 4429 hectares (2006 data), which gives Charlottetown a higher population density than Cranbrook, yet it is dealing with a lot of vacant buildings in the downtown core. We share the letter writer's general concern about sprawl and the harm it does to a dynamic community. In our opinion, City council is not articulating a vision of Cranbrook as a compact, efficient community. Council does not seem to recognize a role for itself in defining and defending compact boundaries, which would give businesses and developers stability for planning their own growth and would support a dynamic city core. 

City Council should learn from the mistakes of other communities that wound up with suburban sprawl. It will be doing the business community a favor if it supports public debate on Cranbrook's growth as a compact, efficient, and vibrant community.

Growth involves tradeoffs and requires vision. The problem with the city's approach is that promoting sprawl at a developer's request is not a vision, even if it were profitable, and the many costs of sprawl are not being accounted for. People who live here will want the city's growth to be governed by what people value about livable communities. The debate about boundary expansion needs to be a discussion about what we value, not what we can afford, and Cranbrook residents need a voice in that discussion.