Dear Editor, As a former Rocky View County (RVC) councillor, I was disturbed to witness the complete disregard of residents’ concerns displayed by my successors at the Feb. 12 council meeting. Council approved the Indigo Hills redesignation application 5-4 in spite of overwhelming opposition from local Bearspaw residents. This wasn’t a situation where the residents were split over the merits of the application – 37 residents sent in letters of opposition, while only two sent in letters of support. People are obviously as deeply concerned about this application now as they were when the land was formerly known as Lochend Corners, which was refused twice by Council – in September 2011 and April 2013. Reeve Greg Boehlke, with his "father knows best” attitude, had the nerve to imply that the residents who opposed the application were not really in the majority, since there was the “silent majority” who had not sent in letters. Oddly, when the same opposition occurred with regards to the 2013 Lochend Corners application Boehlke stated, “Something is wrong if you miss the mark this bad from people who live relatively close.” (Rocky View Weekly, April 13, 2013) Councillors may be correct that the application ticked all the boxes in terms of complying with policy, but these decisions come to a public hearing for one purpose – to hear from the public. If council is going to blatantly ignore the almost unanimous opposition from the affected public, why bother having a council? The simplest solution would be to simply have administration able to approve any application it deemed compliant with policy. Given that the Bearspaw Area Structure Plan (ASP) is being reviewed in the immediate future, it would have been logical for council to defer a decision on this application until after that review is completed. If the application was consistent with the revised Bearspaw ASP, council might then be able to conclude that the broader Bearspaw community had indicated its support for this type of application and use that as a justification for overriding the strong local opposition. But they don’t even have that crutch to rely on in ignoring residents’ concerns. The arrogance displayed by Couns. Mark Kamachi, Kim McKylor, Jerry Gautreau, Deputy Reeve Al Schule and Boehlke was disarming; they know better than affected residents. The developer may have submitted an application that met policy but, in my opinion, if the developer has failed to gain the support of the local residents, the developer has failed in its most important task – ensuring residents’ concerns and interests are protected. With the majority of this council, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the will of the people is of little consequence. Kim Magnuson Former RVC councillor Division 2
