Dear editor:
Re: ‘Inappropriate use of funding’, Rocky View Weekly (online Feb. 13)
I would suggest your editorial comment illustrates a total lack of understanding regarding the origin of the Cochrane Lake issue.
I certainly agree homeowners or owners of anything do often find they have purchased, to use your term, a “lemon”. I also agree that in such situations it is basically too bad for the owner - it is not the taxpayers’ responsibility to bail them out. However, the Cochrane Lake case is much more analogous to a careless truck driver smashing into your parked vehicle - surely the offending driver must be responsible for repairs.
The creation of Monterra resulted in a much greater volume of water going into a much smaller area. The developer fully recognized - and stated in writing - the need for an exit pipe to the Bow River. Without such a pipe it was obvious sooner or later those along Cochrane Lake would flood. Nevertheless, the county decided such a pipe was unnecessary and Alberta Environment approved. Cochrane Lake people were therefore let down (or sold out) by two levels of government.
In the long run, compensation for property damage in Cochrane Lake may save taxpayers and individual property owners vast sums of money. Hopefully this will create a precedent whereby developers, developments, Rocky View County and Alberta Environment must take responsibility for any development that causes damage to the community. It is really no different from the careless driver damaging your parked vehicle.
It is also curious logic for you to state that since Cochrane Lake homes may be valued at $600,000 the owners should be able to afford to pay for the damages themselves. For one thing, many of those homeowners are not rich people - many have virtually all of their total net worth in their homes. Furthermore, DRP approved applications from homeowners in Calgary who own homes valued at far, far more than $600,000. In any case, if I owned a very expensive vehicle it would not give someone the right to smash it and not expect to pay for damages.
It is also totally unfair and absolutely unreasonable for you to say the funds should only go to those who own a “beautiful home washed away off the banks of the Bow River in a 100-year flood”.
While there is no doubt such people are deserving, it negates your previous comment. More to the point, the situations are not equivalent - one is a natural (although horrific) occurrence while the other was caused by negligence. We can’t stop “Acts of God” but we can be far more vigilant in terms of negligent approvals.
Jerry Arshinoff, RVC councillor
