THOMAS: Scathing letter rebukes City of Calgary's ‘deeply flawed consultation process’

There were sparks a-flying in Calgary city council chambers a year ago, when a majority of council approved the blanket upzoning bylaw, despite 78% of Calgarians who participated in a public hearing saying it should be a ‘no’ not a ‘go.’

Expect more sparks, maybe fireworks, at the May 6 council meeting, a public hearing for Calgarians to have their say about the West Elbow Communities plan, an extremely ambitious plan, designed to further densify 16 inner-city communities. 

The plan was reviewed by the city’s Infrastructure and Planning Committee last week, which voted to send it to council, despite Calgarians saying the plan is not ready for prime time. 

It incorporates the city’s overall development plan to increase residential density and interfere with traffic patterns, regardless of the impacts it will have on established neighbourhoods. 

And, even if you don’t live in one of the targeted communities, which include Altadore, Bankview, Cliff Bungalow, Elbow Park, Erlton, Garrison Woods, Lower Mount Royal, Mission, Rideau Park, Roxboro, Scarboro, South Calgary, Sunalta, Upper Mount Royal, the portion of North Glenmore Park north of Glenmore Trail SW, and the portion of Richmond east of Crowchild Trail SW, you should keep abreast of the upcoming proceedings, because this type of top-down, democracy-be-demand governance is likely to be on your doorstep soon. 

The city’s bureau-speak literature reads, “The West Elbow Communities are a diverse and vibrant set of communities that are defined by their proximity to downtown, walkable neighbourhoods, an exceptional park network highlighted by the Elbow River valley, and unique commercial areas such as 17 Ave. SW and Marda Loop. The West Elbow Communities will continue to grow and develop as well-connected areas that offer a wide range of housing, recreational, and commercial opportunities for both residents and visitors.” 

The homes to be built? “Housing for All Enable a diversity of new housing at different building scales throughout the West Elbow Communities. Support housing options that meet the needs of all ages, abilities, incomes, and household compositions.”

Translation: four-storey multi-residential buildings, with up to 16 residences in each, between two single-family homes, with no increase in parking.  

And 16- to 20-storey high-rise apartment buildings, each containing 100 to 120 apartments (or more) without increasing infrastructure capacity on what the city says are the ‘main streets’ of 10 Ave. SW, 17 Ave. SW, 33 Ave. SW, Macleod Tr. SW, 4 St. SW, and 14 St. SW, “while,” says the city “exploring opportunities for neighbourhood commercial uses along secondary streets and nodes.” 

The city conducted a series of public engagement events on site and online, suggesting it found there is public support for the West Elbow Communities Plan, but not saying how much support it has. 

“I am disappointed to report that the West Elbow Local Area Plan was approved 8 to 2 by the Infrastructure and Planning (IPC) Committee and will come before City Council in May. The voice of Calgarians has been ignored again,” Lisa Poole wrote on Linkedin, adding “HALF-BAKED LAP SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED: It takes a special kind of audacity to claim that "meaningful" engagement was conducted for the West Elbow Local Area Plan when 8 of the 11 community associations involved have submitted a joint letter expressing concern with the inadequate engagement process.” 

The letter reads, in part, "This letter is primarily focused on procedural concerns, notably a deeply flawed consultation process and a lack of alignment with both the Municipal Development Plan and the proposed Calgary Plan.” 

“Working with city planners, community association volunteers were selected for a “working group” and dedicated considerable time and energy to achieve a successful planning process that would help guide our communities into the future. However, the WELAP process did not promote genuine community engagement, rather, it gave the illusion of consultation without fostering meaningful participation." 

“Through the process, committee members were assigned peripheral tasks that advanced what appeared to be predetermined city objectives and conclusions. Any attempt to challenge the basis assumptions underlying the city’s approach was quickly curtailed,” 

“This letter is intended to convey our strong sense that, overall, this process was more about the city claiming (italics in original) it engaged with West Elbow residents, citing numerous meetings and countless hours of discussion, than actually valuing meaningful input."

"We believe that our concerns have not been acknowledged, let alone taken into account. Our voices have not been heard. This one-size-fits-all approach to urban planning fails to acknowledge and respect the distinctive characteristics of each community.” 

On LinkedIn, Brian Talbot wrote, “Unfortunately, the standard operating procedure for most municipalities is to "inform" versus "involve." These days public engagement is simply to check a box, not to gather input.” 

To which Lisa Poole responded, “Sadly that accurately describes the City of Calgary’s approach to engagement. If it’s all been predetermined, I would prefer that they didn’t waste people’s time and taxpayer dollars on the pretense.” 

It would appear the city’s definition of ‘public hearing’ is ‘we don’t want the public hearing what we’re doing’.