Editor:
I felt both saddened and gratified after reading D.G.L. Rees’ letter “A Disturbing Trend in Canmore” that both the Crag and the Outlook published last week.
Saddened by the realization that at least one Canmore resident, and probably many more, feels exactly about their municipal government as hundreds of Banff residents feel about our municipal government. It was also gratifying to have someone else express shared opinions, which, I hope, will create more credibility for the following.
It has become more obvious to Banff residents that our elected officials have, to a growing degree, become figureheads that govern according to the wishes of the administration – not according to the wishes of many, and frequently most, of their electorate.
Examples are:
1. The planning department’s handling of the Enarson’s vinyl picket fence. I told Randall McKay that his handling of that issue had really struck a nerve with many long-term residents. Given that he forced the Enarsons to spend thousands of dollars to remove and replace the vinyl fence, it is obvious he did not care.
2. Policy C-122: this poorly-thought out policy allows developers, including the Town, to provide fewer underground parking stalls than previously, and sensibly, required in multi-unit residential complexes. This policy will worsen the parking shortage.
3. Allowing Caribou Properties to build five buildings that are expected to house approximately 150 people at 405/407/409 Beaver Street. The Land Use Bylaw should be rewritten to reflect the community’s majority opinion that the allowed density should be reduced to approximately 30 people per lot rather than the authorized 50 (or more) people per lot.
4. Elimination of parking, during the summer, on Buffalo Street in front of the post office.
5. Closing of portions of Banff Avenue, most recently on Saturday, Jan. 10 for the SnowDays Kick-Off Street Party, and the closing of the portion of Caribou Street between Banff Avenue and Bear Street on Thursday, Jan. 22 to hold a rail jam.
6. The pay parking “trial” inflicted upon both visitors and locals alike. The 1,458 signatures (more on that in the near future) proved that administration-driven policy was not supported by the majority of Banff residents.
7. Now the administration has plans to assess a tax levy on Banff taxpayers in order to fund another taxpayer-owned residential structure. This one to be located beside the high school. The corporate services department prepared four scenarios to determine the net operating loss “assuming rents at 15 per cent below the current market rent” for this project after construction is complete. The average projected annual deficit is $128,682. Taxpayers will fund construction, and will be expected to finance an annual $100,000+ loss for an indefinite time period.
As regards this proposed levy to subsidize, theoretically, low income earners, the real subsidy is to the business community, particularly members of the BLLHMA, who will benefit from the creation of taxpayer-funded staff accommodation.
In all of the above, and other issues, council should have addressed each obviously controversial subject by truly assessing the wishes of the electorate.
I will repeat here my previously printed opinion that Councillor Christensen is the only elected official who is representing the majority of Banff citizens. That opinion is shared by the majority of the 1,458 Banffites who signed the anti-pay parking petition.
It is highly likely that a petition against point 7 will be circulated.
Jon Whelan, Banff
