There was a letter to the editor in Wednesday’s Gazette in which the writer said he would prefer to pay higher taxes to keep St. Albert a bedroom community rather than see more light industrial and commercial development.
The writer notes that planning “driven by a desperate need for more growth just to pay for the costs of previous growth becomes an unsustainable Ponzi scheme.”
He’s right on when it comes to growth. At the initial presentation of this year’s budget, Mayor Nolan Crouse asked: is growth paying for growth?
Unfortunately, administration’s answer was no. Projected additional revenue from new residential areas would not be enough to cover the costs associated with the developments.
So why does the city continue to allow developers to go ahead with new low-density residential areas? If the growth doesn’t play for the growth — it also doesn’t address the need for lower-cost housing — then why continue down that path?
The October building permit report from the city shows that to date this year St. Albert has issued permits for 172 single-family houses. Permits have been issued for only eight semi-detached buildings and not a single townhouse or condo. There were permits for two apartment buildings this year, with a total of 96 units. Through the same 10-month period in 2010 there were only four semi-detached permits and not one for a townhouse, condo or apartment building.
There are three major issues associated with St. Albert’s obsession with building these large single-family houses — costs, people and urban sprawl.
Costs: If growth doesn’t pay for growth then something has to change. Eventually St. Albert will run out of land, even with the latest annexation, and there won’t be more growth to pay for the previous growth. Allowing the city to remain a bedroom community is its own Ponzi scheme as, in the absence of more light industrial development, residential taxes will rise to a breaking point where much of the populace will be priced out of residency or the city will have to cut services. Then annexation by Edmonton will be a real threat (or perhaps a salvation).
People: How long can we keep chasing our young people out of the city and into Edmonton, or other surrounding communities, because they can’t afford the houses or the taxes in St. Albert? If the city is ever to become sustainable, it simply must look at light industrial growth.
Urban sprawl: This is where St. Albert is headed. To see just how ugly the landscape around the city will become if the present trend continues, take a look at places like Airdrie or Calgary or Cochrane. Virtually every study done on urban sprawl says it’s a bad policy for municipalities to follow. It leads to higher taxes, higher costs for transportation and education, increased pollution, food supply problems as farms and ranches disappear and significant erosion in the quality of life.
The American Journal of Public Health and the American Journal of Health Promotion say there is a significant connection between sprawl and obesity and hypertension because those living in the areas do less walking and more driving.
Rather than continue down this path towards endless pavement, bigger and bigger houses, longer commutes and poorer health, we should be looking at ways to create compact, higher-density neighbourhoods, saving precious farmland and green spaces and encouraging neighbours to actually get to know each other again.
