The Bingham Crossing development may have been approved by Rocky View County council Nov. 1, but the dust kicked up from those opposed still hasn’t settled.
On Nov. 1 council voted to approve land redesignation for Bingham Crossing, a village centre with a multi-level senior housing complex, office, retail and commercial space in a 5-4 vote.
The public hearings spanned over two days and lasted close to 20 hours and dozens of people spoke for and against the development, to be located kitty-corner to Calaway Park, west of Calgary and adjacent to Highway 1.
In last week’s Rocky View Weekly, a half-page advertisement paid for by a Rocky View councillor reflected his concerns that the people of Springbank weren’t rightly supported by council’s decision.
“How many customers would it take for the gang of five to listen?” Al Sacuta wrote, referring to the five councillors who approved the application, which he dubs the Bingham 5.
“Eighty-five per cent isn’t enough. I expect 100 per cent wouldn’t be enough,” Sacuta wrote referring to the amount of people who were opposed to the development.
“They clearly don’t understand who the customer is.”
His advertisement went on to suggest that Springbank residents about the decision should take the County to court by stating, “it so richly deserves to go there.”
Two Rocky View County residents have filed an application for a judicial review of council proceedings during the 12-hour Sept. 11 public hearing where the Bingham Crossing conceptual scheme was approved.
The duo sought a court injunction to halt to Oct. 30 public hearing but a decision was made by a judge on Oct. 29 to not allow an injunction.
The review may still go ahead on a yet to be determined date.
When contacted, Sacuta said it’s important for him to put these ads out so people in the county knows what’s going on. He said the news stories don’t necessarily cover everything and he “owes it to the people” who elected him to get the information out.
This isn’t the first time Sacuta has placed an ad — he said he’s been doing it for quite some time and finds the feedback from residents in Rocky View County has generally been positive so he continues with it.
Other concerns raised in his announcement stated the transportation levy is too low and the reserve account can only pay to build six kilometres of road. He also mentioned how a review for the Langdon Wastewater Plant, which is currently overcommitted for future developments is being conducted.
He pays for the advertisement and takes full responsibility for its content. He expands on his concerns on a website, www.ourbearspaw.ca
Reeve Rolly Ashdown said there is no Bingham 5 and argued each councillor voted on the merit of the information presented to them. He also expressed frustration with Sacuta’s ad.
“When council makes a decision it is based on the nine (votes),” he said. “To continue to comment on the decision after that isn’t appropriate.”
He added this is a personal opinion of someone who is on council and shouldn’t be considered council’s opinion.
Whether or not a councillor speaking out against a vote is inappropriate is determined via each municipality’s code of ethics, said Cameron Traynor, a municipal affairs spokesman, who added it is not something regulated by the Municipal Government Act.
However, Rocky View County does not currently have a code of ethics in place for its councillors.
Former councillor Rick Butler, committed to developing one during his election campaign in 2010. Divisions one, two and three councillors have continued work on the code since Butler passed away last December. The first version can be downloaded at DearRockyView.ca.
The code of ethics still needs to be reviewed by all of council to be adopted into the County, said Ashdown.
