Explain what “planning” means in city plebiscite


By the time you read this letter, the Gazette will have hopefully explained the changes to the capital projects’ plebiscite wording that was amended by city council on Sept. 5, 2017. Yes, just six weeks before we vote, the questions were changed to omit all financial details and instead, were replaced with simple questions to ask if we should continue ‘planning’ the three projects.

Who would vote ‘no’ to ‘planning’? So here is what I’m going to do. I am going to ask candidates what ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to planning really means. What will they do if more want to ‘plan’ one project more than the other. And what mix of ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to planning tells city council what to build, what not to build, and what to compromise on.

I’ll need to ask those questions because many on city council were too afraid to treat us like adults and allow us to give specific answers to specific financial considerations. With an economy still teetering on getting better, more fixed income residents than ever, and a city no longer just made up of high income earners, clarity is more important than ever.

I need to know the tax hit on my budget. It’s about ‘planning’ whether I can afford to stay in St. Albert, my community and home for the last 25 years.

Ken Klak, St. Albert



About Author

Letter to the Editor

We welcome letters to the editor. Letters submitted for publication must bear the name, address, phone number and email address of the writer. Letters should be kept to 500 words or less. We will edit for grammar, punctuation, spelling, length and libel.