Skip to content

Lawsuit off-base when it comes to MDP

I'd like to comment on the headline story in the Mountain View Gazette on Aug. 6 where Mountain View County (MVC) is being sued for more than $32 million over Netook Crossing.

I'd like to comment on the headline story in the Mountain View Gazette on Aug. 6 where Mountain View County (MVC) is being sued for more than $32 million over Netook Crossing.The article states the defendants, MVC, acted in bad faith by amending and repealing Municipal Development Plan (MDP) 10/07 with the current MDP 09/12. MDP 17/07 states in Section 12.3.9 that MVC shall conduct a review of the MDP within five years, including a public consultation process, to test the validity of the document in the community.MDP 09/12 was an 18-month review process including roundtables, telephone surveys, written questionnaires and public hearings at the county office. I felt this council truly engaged and listened to the public during that lengthy process. They truly tried to compile what the majority of the taxpayers wanted, not that of a special interest group, nor their own agendas. It seems that in the past with other councils, the public engagement process has been treated as only a necessary formality with a predetermined outcome. The vast majority of the county taxpayers made it very clear that they didn't want our MVC to incur the majority of the costs to establish nor operate a town on the east side of Olds.As per the Municipal Government Act (MGA), the Highway 2/27 Area Structure Plan (ASP) required amending so it complied with the MDP. The 2/27 ASP Bylaw 10/17 states in Section 1.3 that it's to be reviewed every five years, to ensure its ongoing relevancy. Articles in the Gazette since April keep us informed about the proceedings and the committee has stated it's not fast-tracking the process.In March 2012, the county's Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) agreed to extend the subdivision approval for the Netook Crossing North Business Park for three more years, demonstrating to the developers that MVC periodically does extend an olive branch to them.The claimant contends that councillors Munro and Good have no basis for saying that the Netook Crossing Project would be a financial burden to MVC. Their Fiscal Impact Analysis, presented to MVC in April 2012, claims their development will be such a good thing. At various times, the developers have claimed they'll pay for all the costs of the services, but to date, they haven't initiated those proceedings. In order for Neuroese to develop the first phase, a water reservoir and pumps and a sanitary lift station will be required, as well as aquiring the actually water which will cost many millions. These large capital costs must be paid for entirely by the developers, not MVC taxpayers. Even the monthly operations and maintenance and the long-term infrastructure replacement costs will be a drain on the county coffers. All of our MVC urban areas have long-standing financial struggles and this development wouldn't be any different.Ron VogelHarmattan area of Mountain View County

push icon
Be the first to read breaking stories. Enable push notifications on your device. Disable anytime.
No thanks