If you live in Ermineskin, you will soon have countless vehicles short-cutting past your home, schools, playgrounds, and parks.
In City Council on September 3, Don Iveson led a vote to deny Ermineskin Community their requested postponement of the Public Hearing re: Century Park, on the basis that most of the impacted Ermineskin residents had not even had the opportunity to be informed on the matter. Here is Ermineskin Community League's formal request for postponement.
Don then led a second vote to pass the proposed Bylaw amendment, despite not having answered any of the 28 questions that Ermineskin Community League formally posed on this matter at the Public Hearing.
No Public Engagement
The biggest slap in the face to his constituents was that I had personally objected to the only real "public engagement" process that was done - namely an open house which I covered extensively here, literally the day after it was held. In response to this post, Councillor Don Iveson reassured me and the residents of Ermineskin that the open house was "to commence public engagement." and that "it is the beginning of due process, not the end." in this June 28 tweet:
In City Council on September 3, Don Iveson led a vote to deny Ermineskin Community their requested postponement of the Public Hearing re: Century Park, on the basis that most of the impacted Ermineskin residents had not even had the opportunity to be informed on the matter. Here is Ermineskin Community League's formal request for postponement.
Don then led a second vote to pass the proposed Bylaw amendment, despite not having answered any of the 28 questions that Ermineskin Community League formally posed on this matter at the Public Hearing.
No Public Engagement
The biggest slap in the face to his constituents was that I had personally objected to the only real "public engagement" process that was done - namely an open house which I covered extensively here, literally the day after it was held. In response to this post, Councillor Don Iveson reassured me and the residents of Ermineskin that the open house was "to commence public engagement." and that "it is the beginning of due process, not the end." in this June 28 tweet:
No Transparency
In a question on Mr. Iveson's blog entitled "Twitter Questions Meriting Longer Answers", I posted the following question, which Mr. Iveson did not publish despite making claims that he has "only ever rejected three out nearly 1000 comments made":
"If (your tweet above) is the case, what are the next steps in the public engagement process? Surely the Public Hearing is not, because the Public Hearing is, based on our community experience, a fait accomplit for most developers. Mayor Mandel bragged to the Urban Development Institute in April of this year that "only two projects have been rejected by Council".
Don did not publish this question on his blog. But it is reproduced here, along with a screenshot of the original unpublished question on Don Iveson's blog for historical reference.
No Accountability
On August 29, Ermineskin Community League formally requested a postponement of the scheduled public hearing on the basis that most residents impacted by the matter had not been informed. Click here to download our request for postponement.
After I hounded him all day on Twitter, Mr. Iveson was gracious enough to answer our request for postponement with a brief email indicating that "Council will consider your postponement request on Tuesday. I suggest you attend to speak to it and be prepared to participate in the hearing should council chose to proceed with the hearing from the public on the matter." To me, his response did not bode well for our request for postponement, so I immediately blogged a further analysis of the bylaw's impacts to the community that same day in an attempt to reach as many people as possible as swiftly as possible. Click here to read the entire bylaw, with the revisions highlighted in yellow and our associated comments in red.
Council Kowtows to the Developer
On September 3, at the Edmonton City Council Public Hearing over this matter, Councillor Iveson personally lead the initiative to vote "no" on our community's request for postponement. He then led the initiative to vote "yes" on a Bylaw which contains no benefit whatsoever for Ermineskin residents, despite his own promises of public engagement and due process, and despite my providing council with a 9-page paper showing collusion between the developer and city staff to mislead the Edmonton public regarding the outcome of the bylaw. An outcome which was agreed on prior to the "public engagement" process even beginning, that will conclude with a "full fledge redesign" of the Century Park site, according to the City's own admissions in internal memorandums. To read the City memorandums and our questions to Council, click here.
Collusion Between Council and Procura
Moving the Park and Ride was step one of an agreed two-part process between City management and Procura, with part one being the Park and Ride move, where Procura urged city staff to "expedite...to a public hearing with the minimum amount of time required", and indicating that they "would not want to provide less consultation than what is legally required," while urging the City towards a speedy outcome, and part two being a process in which everything we know about Century Park will change. All formal notices regarding this Park and Ride move reiterates that "in the future, the parking uses will cease and the site will redevelop in accordance with the approved Century Park site plan." (italics are mine). Yet city staff, and Councillor Don Iveson himself, KNOW THIS TO BE FALSE. I personally pointed out to City Council that this was false, both on and off mic, at the September 3 public hearing.
The only justification the City provided in bending over for Procura is an alleged provision in the City's lease with ProCura (which we were denied a copy of), indicating that the City can be asked to move from their current location if development is to occur. I personally drew to the attention of City Counsel that the development currently drawn in this location, which I quote from the existing DC zoning, is an upscale commercial mall and plus fifteen connecting the terminal:
In short, the only reason that the City ought to be required to move from its premium lease of the best land on the Century Park site is for ProCura to deliver on its promise to provide a premium development with a plus fifteen for pedestrians.
So why is City Council jumping at the first opportunity to abandon their lease on this premium location, with no promise that this plus fifteen will be developed? In fact, the exact opposite is going to occur: a promise that Procure will "move forward immediately with a new comprehensive rezoning application for Century Park" (italics are mine).
A Promise of Broken Promises
City Council is consciously allowing ProCura to put the cart before the horse on Century Park, by moving off the best development land in exchange for only a vague promise that what will be developed there will be entirely different than what was promised. All while telling Edmonton that "the parking uses will cease and the site will redevelop in accordance with the approved Century Park site plan" (italics are mine).
Council did not even seek to clarify that the promised plus fifteen for pedestrians would indeed remain! We don't even get a plus fifteen for our $690 million dollar investment in the site - not to mention the added slap in the face of being punted from the land adjacent to the train station to land that is far away, in direct contravention of the City's own Policy C554, specifying Park and Rides are to be located within 250 metres of the transit terminal. Thanks Council. Thanks a lot.
This whole process has been a complete sham. It undermined my respect for Edmonton City Council, City of Edmonton staff, and for Councillor Iveson, who is named personally in these documents as "open to conducting a redesign exercise" on Century Park. Don! If you are "open to conducting a redesign exercise", then why aren't you open to giving the adjacent communities who are impacted by these redesign exercises a voice? Why aren't you representing your constituents, Don???
It's already linked above, but again, here are the unanswered questions and internal City of Edmonton memorandums which we submitted to Council on September 3.
I personally lost faith in both Don Iveson as a City Councillor, and in our Public Engagement process generally, at City Hall on September 3, 2013. I'm very curious to see what ProCura's campaign donations amount to in the upcoming election. Because our council seems to be stuffed with sell outs.
In a question on Mr. Iveson's blog entitled "Twitter Questions Meriting Longer Answers", I posted the following question, which Mr. Iveson did not publish despite making claims that he has "only ever rejected three out nearly 1000 comments made":
"If (your tweet above) is the case, what are the next steps in the public engagement process? Surely the Public Hearing is not, because the Public Hearing is, based on our community experience, a fait accomplit for most developers. Mayor Mandel bragged to the Urban Development Institute in April of this year that "only two projects have been rejected by Council".
Don did not publish this question on his blog. But it is reproduced here, along with a screenshot of the original unpublished question on Don Iveson's blog for historical reference.
No Accountability
On August 29, Ermineskin Community League formally requested a postponement of the scheduled public hearing on the basis that most residents impacted by the matter had not been informed. Click here to download our request for postponement.
After I hounded him all day on Twitter, Mr. Iveson was gracious enough to answer our request for postponement with a brief email indicating that "Council will consider your postponement request on Tuesday. I suggest you attend to speak to it and be prepared to participate in the hearing should council chose to proceed with the hearing from the public on the matter." To me, his response did not bode well for our request for postponement, so I immediately blogged a further analysis of the bylaw's impacts to the community that same day in an attempt to reach as many people as possible as swiftly as possible. Click here to read the entire bylaw, with the revisions highlighted in yellow and our associated comments in red.
Council Kowtows to the Developer
On September 3, at the Edmonton City Council Public Hearing over this matter, Councillor Iveson personally lead the initiative to vote "no" on our community's request for postponement. He then led the initiative to vote "yes" on a Bylaw which contains no benefit whatsoever for Ermineskin residents, despite his own promises of public engagement and due process, and despite my providing council with a 9-page paper showing collusion between the developer and city staff to mislead the Edmonton public regarding the outcome of the bylaw. An outcome which was agreed on prior to the "public engagement" process even beginning, that will conclude with a "full fledge redesign" of the Century Park site, according to the City's own admissions in internal memorandums. To read the City memorandums and our questions to Council, click here.
Collusion Between Council and Procura
Moving the Park and Ride was step one of an agreed two-part process between City management and Procura, with part one being the Park and Ride move, where Procura urged city staff to "expedite...to a public hearing with the minimum amount of time required", and indicating that they "would not want to provide less consultation than what is legally required," while urging the City towards a speedy outcome, and part two being a process in which everything we know about Century Park will change. All formal notices regarding this Park and Ride move reiterates that "in the future, the parking uses will cease and the site will redevelop in accordance with the approved Century Park site plan." (italics are mine). Yet city staff, and Councillor Don Iveson himself, KNOW THIS TO BE FALSE. I personally pointed out to City Council that this was false, both on and off mic, at the September 3 public hearing.
The only justification the City provided in bending over for Procura is an alleged provision in the City's lease with ProCura (which we were denied a copy of), indicating that the City can be asked to move from their current location if development is to occur. I personally drew to the attention of City Counsel that the development currently drawn in this location, which I quote from the existing DC zoning, is an upscale commercial mall and plus fifteen connecting the terminal:
- 5.hh(page 30): “The developer shall enter into a servicing agreement to construct a grade separated enclosed pedestrian walkway between the commercial mall and the transit terminal in conjunction with the City’s extension of LRT to the development.”
In short, the only reason that the City ought to be required to move from its premium lease of the best land on the Century Park site is for ProCura to deliver on its promise to provide a premium development with a plus fifteen for pedestrians.
So why is City Council jumping at the first opportunity to abandon their lease on this premium location, with no promise that this plus fifteen will be developed? In fact, the exact opposite is going to occur: a promise that Procure will "move forward immediately with a new comprehensive rezoning application for Century Park" (italics are mine).
A Promise of Broken Promises
City Council is consciously allowing ProCura to put the cart before the horse on Century Park, by moving off the best development land in exchange for only a vague promise that what will be developed there will be entirely different than what was promised. All while telling Edmonton that "the parking uses will cease and the site will redevelop in accordance with the approved Century Park site plan" (italics are mine).
Council did not even seek to clarify that the promised plus fifteen for pedestrians would indeed remain! We don't even get a plus fifteen for our $690 million dollar investment in the site - not to mention the added slap in the face of being punted from the land adjacent to the train station to land that is far away, in direct contravention of the City's own Policy C554, specifying Park and Rides are to be located within 250 metres of the transit terminal. Thanks Council. Thanks a lot.
This whole process has been a complete sham. It undermined my respect for Edmonton City Council, City of Edmonton staff, and for Councillor Iveson, who is named personally in these documents as "open to conducting a redesign exercise" on Century Park. Don! If you are "open to conducting a redesign exercise", then why aren't you open to giving the adjacent communities who are impacted by these redesign exercises a voice? Why aren't you representing your constituents, Don???
It's already linked above, but again, here are the unanswered questions and internal City of Edmonton memorandums which we submitted to Council on September 3.
I personally lost faith in both Don Iveson as a City Councillor, and in our Public Engagement process generally, at City Hall on September 3, 2013. I'm very curious to see what ProCura's campaign donations amount to in the upcoming election. Because our council seems to be stuffed with sell outs.