We debated the restriction on gravel mining in the river valley, which was upheld in a close vote. The Kanata Metis gravel put proposal is still free to come forward on its own merits and will get its day in front of Council.

We also debated growth allocation between suburban and established areas, and density targets, which picks up on a conversation I blogged about previously concerning development trajectory in our city. On this, I proposed a small but significant shift in language that the 25% target for infill vs. suburban growth is now a minimum, not an aspiration, which was approved unanimously.

It came time to speak to the main document and this is more or less what I said tonight:

I sought this seat to be part of this work and I am proud of most of this plan.

I am proud of the entrenchment of the link between planning and transportation; that most crucial link between what we build and where, and how we move about our city.

I am proud that we are so clearly committed to providing meaningful alternatives to car reliance with transit – especially LRT – and with better facilities for active transportation.

I am proud that we’ve (hopefully) put to rest the question of mining and land speculation in our river valley.

I am proud that we’ve joined cities around the world in acknowledging food and urban agriculture as key considerations in our planning.

I’m most proud of the policies we added designed to make medium-density living actually work for families with children. City council has already moved in this direction with the approval of Strathearn Heights rezoning and a smaller development in Pleasantview, each with a significant proportion of units on the ground level with sufficient space and amenities to support families with children. However, I believe that until projects like these, and other smaller land-efficient infill projects like brownstones and stacked townhouses are actually built, most Edmontonians will continue to choose detached homes, large yards and the automobile-dependant lifestyle that accompanies the business-as-usual pattern of development.

So the question is whether this shift toward walkable, mixed-use, medium density, transit-enabled development will occur and, if so, when? In other words: will a market shift occur any time soon? The city, the region, the province, the industry and – ultimately – homebuyers will all shape the answer to these questions.

The trajectory of development may not be entirely within Council’s control, but our challenge for the 10 year life of this plan is to adhere to the best principles embedded within it, such that these next 10 years mark the /transition/ to our vision for that compact city, that efficient city, that vibrant city and that less unsustainable, and hopefully – one day – that sustainable community we envision.

My concern with this plan has always been with the business-as-usual assumptions about growth over the next 30 years.

However, I have a great deal of hope that the shift can occur within the next 10 years – that shift can come with LRT; it can come with a change in our values around the ecological impacts of our lifestyle; it can come with a change in the cost of hydrocarbons and/or the cost of emissions resulting from burning those same hydrocarbons. I just don’t see the business-as-usual assumptions lasting for the 30 years.

Three months ago I called this plan “The Way we Sprawl” but it honestly contains the potential for two outcomes: sprawl is one outcome, yes, but the other possible outcome is a maturity beyond that.

The difference is a question of will.

With diligence in implementation on the part of the city, with innovation from industry, and with the will and cooperation of citizens and homebuyers, this plan can live up to its potential and become known more optimistically as “The Way we Grow Up.”

This attitude does require a measure of faith that our will will be strong, and a measure of faith that change pressures from citizens, from homebuyers, and economic shifts will make change we can respond to resiliently – and not timidly – under this plan, which I will support.

I had previously requested a report on what Bill 203 could mean for Edmonton, as well as on changes that Calgary had enacted in the fall; on February 17, City staff provided the report. Some of the Act’s implementation details are quite ridiculous, given the nearness of the 2010 election.

The City report included a draft letter to the province articulating a number of concerns and questions, although the letter was updated considerably after debate. I can’t yet locate a copy of the updated letter on the city’s website. This was the original draft.

The revised letter approved by Council called for the outright repeal of the Act and included some additional questions and concerns about the audit requirements, about whose onus it is to establish which corporations are related for purposes of the $5,000 contribution limit, and about whether volunteer hours count as campaign contributions. I supported sending the letter, though I didn’t agree with all the points in it.

I spoke against asking for repeal of the whole Act, since I think the principles of the Act are good. Most of the contribution disclosure requirements and rules about campaign surpluses mirror our existing Disclosure Bylaw. Really the only additions are a $5,000 limit to contributions by a person, corporation, or labour group to a given campaign, and a requirement to disclose the identity of anyone whose contribution exceeds $100 per three-year period (under our current bylaw, this threshold is $300).

I spoke in support of the contribution limits and in support of the $100 disclosure threshold. Sadly, this was not reported in yesterday’s Journal story (nor the Sun story), so it appeared as if all of Council opposed the whole bill, which is not quite accurate. In any case, I had intended to observe these rules in the conduct of my own campaign this fall.

Like my colleagues, I believe there are some poor policies specific to 2010 election implementation, such as the requirement to submit any accumulated surpluses within 90 days of proclamation (that is, by May 3, 2010). The way this is written, any funds raised since the last election must also be handed to the City in trust; a candidate won’t get the funds back until nomination day, which is September 20, 2010. This could unfairly impact a campaign’s cash flow, and it will essentially force all prospective candidates — if they have raised more than $500 — to declare their candidacy by May 3.

The big issue that irks many of my colleagues–and me somewhat, but less so–is the province’s imposition on municipal autonomy. This territoriality came up when I discussed Bill 203 in May last year. To my eyes, incorporating the majority of our Disclosure Bylaw in provincial law is a testament to our city’s leadership in this area and a commentary on Calgary’s comparatively Wild West rules.

Either way, I was more or less dared to put amendments forward to our Disclosure Bylaw if I really think the $5,000 limit and the $100 disclosure threshold are good policy. So I gave Notice of Motion on Wednesday to do just that:

Councillor D. Iveson stated that at the next regular meeting of Council, he will make the following motion:

That Administration bring forward amendments to the Disclosure Bylaw as follows:

a) limiting campaign contributions by any person or corporation to (figure to be added) in any campaign period

b) requiring disclosure of contributions $100 and above from any one contributor during the campaign period, and the disclosure of the total amount of contributions below $100

So we’ll debate this at our March 10 Council meeting.

The other issues I noted were more practical challenges I have with the proposal and overall situation. I simply judged the principles more important to my decision making that the practicalities.

I accept that the well orchestrated public relations effort will, if nothing else, cause this to be an election issue again which will give anyone who goes door knocking a chance to take a fresh sample. I look forward to that. I think there are probably now more than one in a thousand who would support this type of proposal, but my read from questions I get asked at Community League events and in correspondence with the public is that there remains an overwhelming degree of skepticism among the people I represent about the financing. I think public opinion is more mixed about whether it’s compatible with Downtown. I’m open in principle to such a development downtown, and would evaluate an application for rezoning coming forward to Council with an open mind.

Meanwhile, Paula Simons at the Journal has addressed some of the factors in play with the Community Revitalization Levy (CRL) model in today’s paper. She notes that $1 billion in development (if and when completed) would yield on the order of $14 Million in annual property tax revenue (quoting a city official). At today’s interest rates this might leverage up to $150 million in borrowing. Presumably it will take other revenue streams (casino bucks, ticket surcharges, expanding the levy area into Downtown North Edge, and maybe others) to cover $400M borrowed.

There is another issue she didn’t cover which I call the zero sum problem. No doubt the hypothetical new hotel next to the hypothetical arena is induced by the arena. However, the demand for at least some of those new hotel rooms already exists for people coming to events at the current Rexall Place. Same with pubs and restaurants, etc. This is about moving demand around, and creating some new demand in the process, which is fine. But a new arena can’t be given credit for all the demand for new property development nearby. A related consideration: if new capital is invested in an arena complex hotel instead of a hotel in the Quarters, we’ve lost the tax revenue elsewhere. It’s just false to argue that all the tax lift in the hypothtical CRL can and should be linked to a new arena.

I anticipate a retort to this: why use a CRL in the Quarters and not for an arena? Simple: the $160M we plan to spend in the Quarters is for sidewalks, streets, parks, and so on – in other words, municipal infrastructure. Yes it’s designed to attract capital to develop the area that might go elsewhere, but the success of turning around Downtown East hinges on that. While I have said that a new arena complex could be positive for Downtown, I don’t think that the success of Downtown Edmonton hinges on it. Indeed, Hyperbolic suggestions that the future of our city depend on this development have added little to the debate.

I think the sport and entertainment industry and development business together need to build a business case and a project scope they can afford, then what we’d be talking about is something sustainable in its own right, and therefore not requiring government involvement.

But If this is really about small market NHL hockey not being sustainable without government involvement, let’s debate that and let’s talk about which orders of government should be involved in solving that issue, bearing in mind that municipal government has five cents from the average Edmontonian’s tax dollar, while the province has 26 cents and the Feds have 69 cents.

Here’s one of the most important questions about the future: If the new arena were built, in 20 years will it then be too small and dated and whathaveyou? I just want to be mindful of getting onto a treadmill of having to do this over and over again. I think that if we go for this once it will never stop.

I am not saying no because the request was announced to a room full of people other than City Councilors (at a building owners and managers industry luncheon).

I am not saying no because our municipal borrowing power is limited by law, nor because what’s left within our ‘credit limit’ will be needed for the most part to fund our portion of the next phases of LRT, should the province in turn come forward to fund the NAIT, West and Millwoods LRT lines.

I am not saying no because the Coliseum (as I knew it growing up) has a generation of functional life left in it as far as I can tell, nor am I saying no because Northlands needs a better seat for any new scheme than the spot in the nose-bleeds they currently occupy.

I am not saying no because the deal seems to be changing and Katz’s $100M seems to be off the table for the arena and is now proposed to go toward the surrounding development.

I am not saying no because the province just cut the Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI) grants for infrastructure from $260M to $160M for 2010.

All of these are related issues, but the two reasons I am saying no are:

Firstly, because it’s not our City’s place to give private industry access to government borrowing power. We are fortunate enough as municipalities in Alberta to borrow through something called Alberta Capital Finance, which – thanks to the fiscal discipline of both local governments and the province – enjoys among the best credit ratings you’ll find (and thus lowest interest rates) anywhere. The public sector has earned this. The private sector has not. Which raises another question about who else would we do this for, or alternately why for an arena and not, say, for a hotel/spa?

The second reason I am saying no is that I knocked on thousands of doors in 2007 and this issue was raised by at least a thousand people. Only one told me the city should help finance a new arena. So I have my marching orders.

This is a relief. I was waiting for something concrete I could react to. So there you have it.

(Update: this has provoked some vigorous follow up debate in the blogosphere and on Twitter. Some fair critiques of style and rhetoric. Guess I shouldn’t write these while taking a redeye flight. One clarification I should have added: I am not against a planning application to develop something like what’s been proposed. It could be compatible and positive for downtown. However, I’ve always seen the financing question as separate.)

City staff are for the most part achieving the 48 hour response target on main roads and bus routes, and they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do under the policy for residential side streets, which is to maintain a snow pack at 10 cm or less by ‘blading’ or smoothing with the sanding truck-plows.

I am receiving mixed feedback as to whether this is working for citizens, but what is clear is that there are many residential streets where the blading practice is not working. This is a pdf of a brief circulated to members of council from City staff indicating that they intend to change their practice to blade more frequently and more preemptively.

I’m not convinced that this is enough.

Precisely because there are too many variables (weight of the truck, skill of the operator, micro-climates in different parts of the city, traffic volumes, width of the street, presence of driveways) I do not think the 10 cm snow pack standard will suffice on a city-wide basis. I believe the many citizens who’ve contacted me are correct that blading when this 10 cm pack is loose is not an effective use of public dollars.

Winnipeg has been frequently cited this week as an example of a city where snow is handled well on side streets. We learned at the Transportation Committee presentation on Tuesday that their policy is also to maintain a snow pack, but their threshold is 5 cm which can’t break up as easily.

They do not remove snow from side streets, they generally pile it to one side of the street and ban parking there. They clear driveways if the windrows are higher that 8”. A handy FAQ on Winnipeg’s practices can be found here and their overall policy is here.

I think we should look seriously at lowering the snow pack from the current 10 cm to 5 cm if nothing else.

This approach has some advantages compared to going to bare pavement (which can then require more sanding if the pavement begins to ice up). When this pack does breaks up in warmer spells or in the spring the accumulations are insufficient to cause that ‘oatmeal’ effect which is so confounding to motorists and pedestrians.

I think plowing to bare pavement and removal of the windrows from all streets should be a last resort, and I’m not sure it would be a prudent use of public dollars outside of an extreme snowfall.

The city is doing a survey in February of citizens’ experiences and expectations, which will likely confirm what Councillors are hearing from citizens and reading in the papers.

I think Council needs to have the policy debate first, being mindful of the costs, and then talk about how we might pay for it. A tax increase should be the last resort, and I agree that threatening the public with that is not helping. I haven’t been doing that.

As chair of the Transportation and Public Works committee I will be personally following up on this in April when a report comes to us outlining alternatives to the current policy.

In the mean time I am applying pressure to city administration to consider a proper grader pass in the areas where the oatmeal is worst.

Matthew Dance, a Grad Student in Geography at the University of Alberta spoke eloquently to the possibilities, academic and otherwise, that having more civic information readily available could lead to, especially using locational information. Blogger extraordinaire Mack Male was there too, blogging and live-tweeting away.

In my mind, Open Data fulfills some of what I called yesterday ‘our noblest democratic instincts’.

First, open Data is all about transparency; not simply putting information out, but making it truly accessible and barrier free. To this end, the City took the opportunity to launch its open data catalogue yesterday, which will grow as more data sets are adapted. What’s different about this data is that it’s in generic formats: think of the difference between a Word document (for which you would need Word) and a plain old text file that can be opened on any computer.

The other inspiring democratic opportunity is for collaboration. This kind of information can be used by industries like utility companies and developers, by groups who advocate to the city such as the Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues or the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I mean collaboration with the city, and among users of data, all of which is quite empowering for the public.

Good facts are still the bedrock of good debate, and the more information that the public has, the better debate will be. Many people who have expressed frustration with government to me have felt in some way disempowered by a lack of information or barriers to information. I think only good can come from making government data as transparent as possible.

I want to acknowledge the leadership of Chris Moore, the City’s Chief Information Officer, who really gets it and is driving this initiative hard within the City, as well as his staff who’ve been instrumental. I should also thank David Edey, the General Manager of Corporate Services and Mr. Moore’s boss, for seeing the democratic potential in all this as well.

It’s official: I plan to run in Ward 10 (‘barring death or dismemberment’ as Cllr. Anderson put it to me yesterday).

Cllr. Anderson and I came to a working understanding late last year that we would not run against each other, desiring instead that the bulk of our current Ward 5 constituents should have an experienced representative on their ballot. That way we might both continue to offer responsive services and knowledgeable representation. Should we each be fourtunate enough to receive another term we plan to continue to work together as we have on common issues and opportunities in the Southwest.

Neighbourhoods from today’s Ward 5 found their way into three of the new smaller wards. [Here's a map of the current 6 wards.]

The bulk of the current Ward 5 is to be divided along the Whitemud ravine, and then the Blackmud ravine south of 23rd Avenue. The eastern area where I will run (Southgate and Century Park area) will be Ward 10, the western area where Cllr. Anderson plans to run (Riverbend, Terwillegar, Windermere, Heritage Valley and Twin Brooks) will be Ward 9.

The three northernmost neighbourhoods in current Ward 5 (Belgravia, McKernan and Queen Alexandra) are in the new Ward 8, along with the campus area, Strathcona, Bonnie Doon and Capilano. My family bought a house in Belgravia last year to be closer to the new LRT, which means we do live just inside the new Ward 8.

I expect that I am not the only incumbent who will seek re-election in an area he or she represents now but doesn’t reside in because of the boundary changes. Nonetheless, I grew up in Ward 10 and my roots remain as deep as my commitment. I am excited to continue work on the challenges and opportunities that come with the LRT extension to Century Park, and other issues affecting older neighbourhoods in our city, such as fixing sidewalks, side streets and alleys and making new development as positive as possible when it occurs in established areas.

It remains an honour to represent all parts of Ward 5 until election day, though it is difficult in a way to think of ‘losing’ those parts of it that will be in the new Wards 8 and 9. I still strongly support the move to the smaller wards, though, and think this will be positive for reasons previously recorded here.

I’m looking forward to knocking on doors in the spring. Knowing that I have half as many doorsteps to reach means I have twice the opportunity to connect with the people I would like to continue to represent.

Since the Examiner is split run (there are, I believe, seven different versions, each localized to different parts of the city) people outside the South West would not see this. But I thought it might be of interest to readers of this blog, who seem to come from across the city.

This is my version; I haven’t compared it to what was published in the paper:

The news stories about the city with the greatest reverberation tend, unsurprisingly, to be about when things are going poorly. Sometimes this means citizens don’t hear about some of the successes we can all be proud of, though this newspaper is an excellent source of just that kind of news.

I wanted to share one such ‘good news’ story that I knew nothing about until this past year: the city’s Aggregate Recycling program. This is different from our very successful road sand recycling program, which has received a lot of good coverage and for which the city has been recognized with several awards.

The Aggregate Recycling program started with the city’s own supply of broken concrete and stripped asphalt more than thirty years ago. The thinking was that this waste material, rather then being landfilled as was the prevailing practice, could be crushed and sorted like gravel for use in city projects.

Our transportation department has tested the large aggregate in use and found the rough edges hold up better as a road bed then smoother river rock gravel of the sort normally used, meaning roads can last longer.

The City now processes more than 200,000 tonnes of concrete, soil cement, asphalt, gravel, bricks, paving stones and coarse sand annually. The city also accepts this material from citizens.

Of course it’s good to recycle, but the business case for this activity is very strong. In 2008 73,586 tonnes of waste were diverted from the landfill, saving $6.3 million in disposal costs; 187,449 tonnes of large aggregate was used in city construction projects, saving $3.8 million; 4,270 tonnes of smaller aggregate was used by roadway maintenance saving $320,000.

The total savings to the city were more than $10 million in 2008, and this value continues to grow.

Using recycled material also reduces the need to disturb land for quarrying in our region, which has a value too, though harder to quantify.

So next time you’re driving down a stretch of new or rebuilt road, remember it’s actually paved in part with good intentions – the kind that save public money and reduce our environmental impacts.

If you would like more information on public drop-off sites you can go to: tinyurl.com/aggregaterecycling

The video recording is not posted yet on the city website, but the PDF of their presentation is downloadable at this link.

Some of the potential upsides of 107 Ave that I had been interested in exploring were discussed, and the main one was the cost difference. On closer examination, the spread between SPR and 107 Ave was not $200-300 million, it’s more like $30 million cheaper to build 107 Ave, but it would be more expensive to operate because it’s further and would require more Light Rail Vehicles.

Admittedly, there is an interpretation of the slide above that would lead one right back to 87 Ave route, but the slide below is the best visual representation of what’s wrong with 87 Ave from an urban point of view.

I do think there’s still a lot at risk with this choice, but I think that Council is aware of those risks and will work to mitigate them. I was reminded of an earlier amendment I proposed to our Transportation Master Plan that established a policy of ‘precursor’ premium bus service on planned LRT routes, which if followed through on will be positive for SPR.

So after yesterday’s debate, I felt able to support the bylaw. Much of the concerns citizens and councillors still have will be dealt with at the next phases of more detailed design and engineering (like snow removal, managing the construction disruption, etc.). Many people would like to see that level of detail before a route is settled on by council, but it’s very expensive and, therefore, impractical to do this for all the alternatives. So now we can study SPR and if a fatal flaw emerges in that analysis Council and the public will know about it.

Incidentally, the bylaw also included the plan for Downtown to Millwoods and a small change to the NAIT line to shift the tracks onto the airport lands instead of running up 106 Street, which is a big step toward airport redevelopment.

My main message yesterday is speaking to the bylaw: now we have a plan to show Ottawa and the province, and we can press the question of whether they will invest in Edmonton or not. Our citizens want LRT, but it won’t get built without at least one more order of government in the mix.

So who’s in?

That Admin provide an information report to Council on:

1. recent bylaw changes in Calgary to disclosure and campaign finance rules coming into effect for the 2010 election (including voluntary commitments) and with a comparison to our current rules,
2. any other similar substantive changes in other Alberta municipalities that they may be aware of,
3. any update on the Government’s consideration of Bill 203, the ‘LOCAL AUTHORITIES ELECTION (FINANCE AND CONTRIBUTION DISCLOSURE) AMENDMENT ACT, 2009′

For some background, see this blog post about Council’s ruminations on the Province’s Bill 203 from the spring.

Some background from Calgary is also relevant: This was the first story, and the big change is a $5000 limit to donations from any one part, which jives with Bill 203.

Further clippings of interest:

• Dec 2 Herald follow up;
• Don Braid’s Comment;
• Dec. 4 Herald Editorial.

We’re still better in many respects than either Bill 203 or Calgary in our current practices, but we’re now officially behind when it comes to limits to individual contributions.

Calgary’s also encouraging a voluntary pre-disclosure of all funds raised prior to nomination day.