Dear Editor, Reading the Rocky View Weekly over the last few weeks is starting to seem disappointingly like an exercise in déjà vu. Our current councillors, with a few notable exceptions, have constituted a long-awaited breath of fresh air. The majority work collaboratively, have a positive attitude and seem determined to advance sensible initiatives and do their best to keep the destiny of our County in the hands of local residents and property owners as opposed to ceding autonomy to the urban entities that would be delighted to dictate our future. All these things, of course, are anathema to a certain long-standing obstructionist faction within Rocky View County (RVC) whose only apparent goal is to halt any and all growth. It has always been painfully obvious that, no matter what overblown rhetoric this group employs to clothe indefensible arguments in lofty disguises, their real motivation remains the classic NIMBY cliché: “I’m here now, so lock the gate.” The recent reaction to the advancement of the Indigo Hills proposal in Bearspaw is a case in point. Once again, we’re hearing the tired refrain about “residents’ voices” being ignored. The problem with this is it ignores – blatantly – several inconvenient realities. First and most obvious is that the only residents this argument deems worthy of being heard are those who subscribe to the “do nothing, ever” agenda. The truth is, the vast majority of RVC residents are also property owners, who – oddly – often want to do things with their own property. Second, those who invariably invoke “policy,” such as existing Area Structure Plans and the County Plan, as sacred when it suits them, now decry council for adhering “only” to these very things, since Indigo Hills ticks absolutely every legislative box and approval was – unsurprisingly – recommended by administration. When council disagrees with an administrative recommendation against a project, this is stridently branded “disrespectful.” Agreement with staff regarding Indigo Hills, on the other hand, apparently has no merit whatsoever. Finally, most fundamentally, the obstructionists ignore the fact that the “policy” they now choose to disdain has been created by exhaustive consultative processes, and thus itself articulates the overall wishes of residents much better than a trumped-up appearance of mass objection to a particular project. Council – and staff – did indeed, as the Rocky View Weekly suggests they should, take residents’ concerns, such as those with traffic or storm water, into consideration. They determined that, by virtue of complying with existing policy, the proposal addresses valid concerns. It is to be hoped that, Feb. 26, council will send a firm message to RVC residents that, yes, their voices are being heard and their rights to manage their own property, within the overarching policy guidelines, are being upheld. Council is to be commended for recognizing that “because I don’t want it” does not constitute a credible objection to a proposal that fulfills every identified objective in the legislative framework that County residents played a key role in creating. Louise Locke Division 7
