From the Calgary Herald – Sept 24, 2009

On Monday, Calgary city council makes a decision bigger and more important than all the other decisions it has made since being elected . . . combined. In determining whether to move forward with Plan It Calgary, council sets the direction for the city’s growth over the next 60 years, and puts into play tens of billions of dollars of public and private investment.

At that time, we will get to see the true colours of our aldermen. Are those who claim to be fiscally conservative truly willing to stand up to vested interests and make a move that will save Calgarians billions? Or will we just see more of the same: employment centres turning into big box retail and infrastructure falling far behind? In short, will alderman show that they represent citizens more than their campaign donors?

I’ve written before that Plan It arose from incredible amounts of engagement with the public. Tens of thousands of people participated, and most used the same kind of language to describe what they wanted: neighbourhoods where you can walk to the grocery store, where people of different backgrounds mix freely, where seniors can stay in their own homes, where kids can walk to school, where everyone can feel safe and welcomed, and where using a car is a choice, not a necessity.

The good news is that not only are such neighbourhoods more desirable, they are a heck of a lot cheaper for the taxpayer. Not as many giant interchanges are needed, it’s easier to manage water and sewage, and transit can come closer to covering its costs when there are more people, since there are fewer empty buses.

Indeed, as James Schwinn reminded us on this page on Monday, a detailed report suggests that the savings of this approach over the status quo are 33 per cent of the total investment, or a staggering $11.2 billion. (To get a sense of how big that is, consider that 11.2 billion seconds ago was about the year 1655).

So, no brainer, right? In a city that has endless squabbles over a $25-million bridge and a festival that cost the taxpayer less than $5,000, saving that kind of money makes a lot of sense, particularly if it’s also what people have been asking for.

Yet, the passage of the plan in an unadulterated form is not at all certain. The development industry has been lobbying hard against it, and has succeeded in getting much of the language watered down.

One of the changes in particular is deeply troubling –the density targets for new communities have been changed to include density of not just people, but also jobs. The net impact of this change is to build neighbourhoods that could in fact be less dense than the ones being built today–which could lead one to ask why we’re even bothering with a new plan. (By some calculations, the current plan for the land around Macleod Trail south of Highway 22X is about one-third more dense than what this amendment would specify).

The ironic part is that even these compromises have not satisfied the developers. In the latest of an increasing bizarre series of public pronouncements, the developers’ chief lobbyist, Michael Flynn, suggested in Monday’s Herald that he would not be happy if there were any numbers whatsoever in the plan. (Quick aside: as someone who teaches this stuff every day, I can suggest that plans without targets are not in fact plans, but dreams with documentation. Or, if you prefer, fairy tales).

This makes me wonder why the city even tried. Why negotiate with people who have no intention of compromising with you?

On Monday, the right choice is clear. Standing up for taxpayers present and future means passing an unadulterated Plan It.

Will aldermen have the courage to do so?

Naheed Nenshi teaches At Mount Royal University’s Bissett School Of Business

« Back to “In His Own Words”