While a major sewage line (Project 9) would be needed to develop the annexed lands, it should not be a priority for building at this time. Emphasis needs to be placed on addressing challenges from existing and already approved land development.
Higher priority challenges exist, like addressing transportation gridlock on St. Albert Trail and Ray Gibbon Drive. It is anticipated to only worsen with the already approved land development at Jensen Lakes, Erin Ridge North and South Riel. Add to this the demand to address the shortfall in library and recreation facilities, and Project 9 pales in priority.
What is the sense of creating infrastructure that brings on more developed land when St. Albert cannot adequately handle what it has? Project 9 is for all intents and purposes a speculative venture. It is quite questionable for St. Albert to be speculative at a time when there exists a considerable inventory of land zoned for residential and business development in South Riel, Jensen Lakes, Erin Ridge North, Lacombe Park and Pinewood.
The present economic slowdown in the Alberta/Canadian economy makes it unlikely that there will be a rush for land development. This can be evidenced by a trail of developers who were recently petitioning council to give stronger consideration for residential development than pursue the commercial corridor along St. Albert Trail. St. Albert needs to direct its foreseeable tax investments in road infrastructure, library, pools and, arenas instead of pursuing speculative outcomes.
Does it not make sense to resolve current shortcomings instead of letting them drag on in favour of speculative returns. The promises, and many will make them who have a vested interest in the lands to be serviced, of increased tax revenue. These promises of taxation windfall are dangled in front of council as givens when in fact, without timelines, they are not guarantees. The promise of increased tax revenue is a weak justification for Project 9.
One has only to look at St. Albert’s storied past with Campbell Business Park to see the effects of much promise and poor delivery. One could call that development as a product of bad timing and/or bad planning; however, the bottom line is that it was the taxpayer who carried the burden. Do not be swayed by the argument that the developer will pay for the infrastructure. Of critical import is the fact that St. Albert will “front end” the construction only on the promise of the monies being paid back as lands are zoned for development. No levy is collected until the lands are ready. Until then St. Albert pays the costs of borrowed money for the Project 9 construction. This will constrain St. Albert’s ability to meet the challenges of the existing population.
St. Albert Council needs to hear from all of us on where we want out future tax dollars to be spent and it should not be on Project 9.
K Crutchfield, St. Albert
