The development at 50 Edinburgh North is slated to be serviced shortly and construction is underway for a 59-unit condominium complex. The entrances, designated at the north end of the cul-de-sacs, Edinburgh Court and Elise Place, put students of Lois E. Hole School in danger by forcing traffic down Everitt Drive and directly in front of the school.
The residents of Erin Ridge North have been quite vocal about their opposition to the proposed entrances for safety reasons, but do not oppose the development itself. Common sense, it has been argued, would suggest that the development entrances use Neil Ross Road to the north. The development would have better access to the commercial spaces (Costco, etc.), and, when the road eventually extends to 127 Street, those residents will have quick access in and out of St. Albert.
The city’s planning division, with leadership by chief administrative officer Kevin Scoble, has argued that the entrances were determined long ago and that the period for public consultation has long passed. While it’s true that public hearings did take place back in 2010, the lone resident of the area at that time was the original developer (Landrex).
Residents and St. Albert Public Schools spoke out about the traffic concerns and access to this development in 2015, and again as recently as this summer, but in both cases, these were ignored. Responses residents have received, both from the City and from the developer, are that they should have done more digging when they purchased their homes – in other words, they should have known. This is not an issue of what people knew when buying their homes. The issues are safety of the students who attend Lois E. Hole School and how to keep those students as safe as possible.
At the Aug. 12 governance, finance and priorities committee meeting, residents were invited to speak to council. To be clear, there was never any intention on the part of council or administration to change course; residents were left with the impression that only the developer can change the entrances if they were willing to incur the costs associated with this change, when, in fact, Mr. Scoble has since clarified that “administration is not going to, nor would it support a voluntary application from the developer to add the new access points.” Mr. Scoble further stated that he ”appreciate(s) and respect(s) that economic, legal and broader community considerations are not priorities for residents in the local area of this project.” What considerations must be given if a child dies crossing the street in front of that school? What are the economic, legal and broader community considerations in that scenario?
Mr. Scoble’s attitude remains that the residents do not understand what they are asking for and could not possibly appreciate or understand the impact of their requests. Council, by letting Mr. Scoble call the shots, appears to support this perspective. Residents have no recourse – and no ability to further their concerns. This is a failure of leadership on all levels: by pitting residents against the developer, there has been no effort on the part of administration or Mr. Scoble to mediate this escalating situation.
Nowhere in this process has the question been asked by the City, council, or the developer – what entrance actually makes sense? Can residents turn back time or to know in 2010 that they would live there so they could engage in this process earlier? Unlikely. Could the City and council have anticipated the dynamics of the over-capacity school? Probably not. But the hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in traffic calming measures in the Erin Ridge area and in front of the school should have been a trigger to the City that perhaps they needed to revisit the pre-determined entrances for 50 Edinburgh Court. Furthermore, the City’s “rule” that access can’t go on an arterial roadway like Neil Ross Road, is not universally applied. There are plenty of examples of this rule being broken throughout St. Albert. It is selectively being applied here.
Has the City followed the legislative requirement they are required to? Yes, to the bare minimum. Did the developer follow all processes they were required to? Most likely, yes. Does that process leave out residents? Yes, and it appears that may be intentional. In fact, Mr. Scoble has expressed interest in doing away with the courtesy notices to residents altogether as they create "too much work" for the City. Doesn’t common sense suggest that City, the developer, and the community come together to find a solution that doesn’t put the children, staff, neighbours and drivers at unnecessary risk? Just because the City has followed the regulatory process doesn’t mean the result is best practice. What is best practice when children’s lives are at risk?
Kari McKnight, St. Albert
