{"id":1147,"date":"2007-06-29T09:10:25","date_gmt":"2007-06-29T16:10:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.ourthoughts.ca\/2007\/06\/29\/lethbridge-growth-management-review\/"},"modified":"2015-09-20T20:56:50","modified_gmt":"2015-09-21T03:56:50","slug":"lethbridge-growth-management-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ourthoughts.ca\/2007\/06\/29\/lethbridge-growth-management-review\/","title":{"rendered":"Lethbridge Growth Management Review"},"content":{"rendered":"
Apparently the City of Lethbridge requested public comments regarding their Growth Management review. I missed it, so I sent the following letter to Tom Wickersham, who was acting mayor at the time.<\/p>\n
Dear Mr. Wickersham,<\/p>\n
I apologise for the lateness of my message. I heard about the request
\nfor comments on the Growth Management Review only yesterday in the
\nLethbridge Herald. I check the city’s website frequently and had
\nfailed to notice any requests posted there. I am not sure if my
\ncomments will still be regarded given the timeframe, but I think they
\nare still valid.<\/p>\n
I welcome manageable growth. I am not opposed to growth in Lethbridge
\nper se, but I do feel, it should not be unmanageable as we have seen
\nin other Alberta centres.<\/p>\n
That being said, I also think as stewards of the city’s resources
\n(financial and physical), city council is ultimately responsible for
\njudicious use of these resources. As such, I think it behooves city
\ncouncil to seriously consider the current trend of having the bulk of
\ndevelopment being low density, single-family homes.<\/p>\n
Lethbridge has one of the lowest high-density housing start rates
\namong the province’s cities.<\/p>\n
This is unfortunate. The City has plenty of opportunity to address
\nmany of the growing concerns that come with urban sprawl. By
\nencouraging higher density developments, all of the following concerns
\ncan be addressed:<\/p>\n
* Lower off-site levies
\n* Lower infrastructure costs
\n* Increased use of transit (leading to reduced cost to run transit)
\n* Decrease in traffic
\n* Revitilisation of downtown
\n* Lower crime
\n* Improved emergency response times (again, leading to lower operating costs)
\n* Increased use of public facilities (arts, library, etc)
\n* Decreased air pollution<\/p>\n
The list, frankly, goes on.<\/p>\n
Obviously, Lethbridge isn’t in a position where it needs to build
\n30-storey residential and office towers downtown. Nevertheless, it is
\napparent that if the City does not address the above mentioned trend
\nsoon, we will find ourselves in the midst of many problems that will
\nbe very difficult to eliminate.<\/p>\n
One of the things I have loved about city councils (and city
\nadministration) past and present is their foresight in managing
\ngrowth. I honestly hope Council will continue to uphold this
\nexpectation I, and many other fellow Lethbridgians, have for them.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Apparently the City of Lethbridge requested public comments regarding their Growth Management review. I missed it, so I sent the … Continue reading Lethbridge Growth Management Review<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1,29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1147","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","category-lethbridge"],"yoast_head":"\n