Every week I scan both our local papers looking for nuggets of tomfoolery, incompetence, inappropriate actions, poor planning, etc. As per usual I wasn’t disappointed in recent week’s papers.
First the pool. I still can’t help but be get angry every time I think about the fact that the people that caused the problems in the first place are the ones in charge of trying to fix them; all the while pretending to be “outraged.”
I actually liked suggestions of financial penalties but think its naiveté at its worse to suggest that that Stantec would be embarrassed by the current cost over runs and/or worried about its reputation to absorb the costs of these mistakes.
Even if Stantec was motivated by embarrassment or concern about its reputation – which I’m willing to bet it is not and is instead “laughing all the way to the bank” – do you honestly expect this company to pay for the added costs out of the existing contract? Not a chance!
Why couldn’t the town ensure that all the companies bidding for the contract knew that they would be responsible to fix their mistakes as part of the bidding process in the first place?
Then there are residents’ concerns about plans changing after they have already bought their homes. It’s not fair to buy a home only to find out that what you were promised or what was implied when you bought your home has changed.
Then there’s the “concerns” about the density targets for developments. Here’s some facts that some municipal planners from across the world have stated:
1: proper density is essential for a sustainable tax base while simultaneously providing a town with a sustainable mix of residential variability that actually promotes further development.
2: there is no reason why estate properties cannot be part of a community that meets residential density targets.
3: While residential density targets can be challenging, especially if our councillors actually hold firm on minimal slope requirements, it can lead to unique subdivisions versus a cookie cutter approach that is too often promoted by developers.
So here’s my thought. Slow down and/or change the planning process! There was no reason why the problems with the pool could not have been anticipated if council wasn’t focused on having its completion date prior to the next municipal election.
There is no reason why we can’t include a proper macro level planning approach for developments versus continuing to allow piecemeal development throughout Cochrane. Yes I know this type of planning already exists but then why do we continue to have problems?
If we don’t start to do things smarter - and planning to spend more money to ensure that financial cushion exists is not planning smarter; it is only planning to spend more money – then we will continue to see the traffic gridlock, knee jerk politically motivated reaction and cost over runs that were prominent throughout our local papers this week.
And my thoughts don’t even include the missed opportunities such as connectivity of green spaces, the possibilities of planning wildlife corridors, inclusion of pre-planned environmentally sustainability building practices, a properly integrated multi-purpose transportation strategy and generally speaking, spending less money for a better quality of life!
Dan Cunin
