Skip to content

Gazette trying to sweep away facts with rhetoric

There is probably one thing worse than giving a vandal a can of spray paint and that is providing two editors with pens and a space in a newspaper to write about it.

There is probably one thing worse than giving a vandal a can of spray paint and that is providing two editors with pens and a space in a newspaper to write about it.

When I found out about the Habitat sign being vandalized, I sent an email to both Alfred Nikolai, president of Habitat for Humanity Edmonton, and Mayor Nolan Crouse expressing my regrets for the incident. They both responded that they did not want to take issue with the incident since it would needlessly reflect negatively on my community as well as the rest of St. Albert. It is unfortunate that someone didn’t explain this to the Gazette’s editors since they jumped on the incident with both feet in order to use it to advance their own views. One editorial referred to past comments such as this project will be a crime-filled ghetto, Habitat is sinister, this will be a place where drugs will be sold, it will contain lechers and of course the too-frequent term used against us: NIMBYS.

The comments may have been made but they do not reflect the views of my community any more than the terms elitists, unco-operative, discriminatory, virulent and embarrassing reflect the opinions of most of St. Albert’s residents regarding us. We have just reasons for our concerns regarding this project and these editors are attempting to have these concerns swept aside by their own rhetoric.

In case you are not aware of our concerns, here is a brief summary of a few:

• Our concerns are not about the project itself so much as where the project is being located. St. Albert is a growing city. This project could have been located where it would have access to those amenities that we have all grown to appreciate rather than being placed in an established neighbourhood’s limited green-space.

• With the sale of this property we have now lost two of our three school grounds to development.

• We were told that the reason that the school division was allowed to sell this property was because the property was acquired through its own negotiations with Akindale’s developer Qualico. The fact is these negotiations were at a standstill until the city offered to provide property out of its own road allowances to Qualico so it could provide two school properties to the school division. When the city’s chief planner later found out about the school board’s taking credit for the acquisition and their attempt to sell the property, he referred to it as a ‘gross breach of responsible conduct.’

• The city sought a legal opinion at the time it decided to provide the road allowances and the opinion stated that the city should lease the properties to the school division as was done in other municipalities. If it did allow the school division to gain title to the properties, then a caveat should be placed on the properties that they revert back to the city if not used for schools. This property was provided to the school division for $1. Although council at the time believed that a caveat should be placed, it failed to do so.

• During Richard Plain’s tenure as mayor from 1974 to 1977, he negotiated a joint use agreement between the city and school boards that had a disposal clause that stated, “Any school properties not used for schools will revert to the city.” The Protestant School Division’s main contribution was, “Any such properties shall be used for public benefit.” Richard Plain was replaced by Ron Harvey in 1977 and the agreement never received a final signing. Ron Harvey had a distinguished role as a trustee for the school board for many years before becoming mayor. In fact, he has a school named after him. Perhaps he had divided loyalties and failed to act in the city’s best interests.

• The planning for the Akindale district stated that residential properties that border on public reserves will be 10 feet shorter than standard. Those homes bordering this property are shorter, which implies that the property was intended as a reserve.

It is apparent that the Habitat project on this property is the result of failures of past and current councils to look after St. Albert’s interests in it. Incidentally, much of the above information came from the Gazette’s archives, the rest from the city’s archives.

For those of you who reside outside my community and who wish to condemn us over this issue, please feel free to move the project to your own community and save it from this most unappreciated situation.

Dave Evans, St. Albert

push icon
Be the first to read breaking stories. Enable push notifications on your device. Disable anytime.
No thanks