Editor:
Re: Peaks of Grassi Land Use Bylaw amendment
The purpose of the developer is to maximize profit on investment. That objective trumps any consideration on the part of the developer for what is in the interest of the community, now or in the future.
This particular development team has a poor record in this community. This development team, now reincarnated, was well aware of the development restrictions in existence when they purchased the property, or by whatever means they acquired it on two occasions separated by a bankruptcy process.
It is now asking that the rules be changed in the interest of their profit margin. That is the developer’s only concern; lectures about what is good for the community, in this context, insult intelligence. The good of the community is the purview of council.
The developer holds a trump card which could negate a responsible decision – they can appeal to the province. They may well be inclined to do so in the interest of maximizing profits. Groundwork needs to be done by council and the community to try to have the community’s interests prevail should the developer appeal to the province. The provincial government has the last word.
Canmore council can risk again be ing referred to as “a bunch of communists” (Rod Love representing an earlier Three Sisters) for attempting to balance the demands of laissez-faire corporatism with the wider society’s environmental stewardship.
On another topical and pressing issue with similar overtures: affordable housing. In Canmore, a significant land holding of the “arms length” Alberta Social Housing Corporation, with a mandate to provide affordable housing and seniors’ accommodation, overnight became an elite golf course community – building lots $1 million and up (see Alberta Hansard March 20 1996 at page 696).
David Owen,
Canmore
