Remaining neutral on Three Sisters Mountain Village development plans

So, you want to know how I would have voted on the Three Sisters Mountain Village area structure plans rejected by council earlier this year? Or you want to know if I support or oppose Three Sisters and how I would vote in the future should another development application come forward?

If your vote in the upcoming municipal election requires me to declare myself firmly against Three Sisters, then I respect your passion and deep resolve, but I may not be the candidate for you.

I am not running in this election to stand as a candidate that opposes or supports TSMV’s development plans. I don’t agree with the framing of this development as a dichotomy of only two possibilities: for or against. As an editor and journalist, I have gone through these application processes objectively in the past.

But I have also learned that when it comes to these kinds of decisions – council has a legal responsibility to remain open-minded. With that knowledge, I will continue to remain objective or neutral when it comes to this issue.

However, I feel strongly that responsible development that delivers results that meets our community’s needs is the solution we should be pursuing. I think it is the job of council and the community to scrutinize all development applications to ensure they meet our community’s needs.

For those who want to know how I would have voted on the development proposal, this is a meaningless question. I do not have enough information to provide an answer that would be fair and honest.

I was not a council member at the time and as a result, I had no participation in the debate, held no role asking questions or proposing amendments and did not receive the benefit of any in-camera information.

By way of my thoughts on the application, as a resident and longtime political observer, I can offer some insight. I thought the application was fatally flawed from the outset and council made the decision that was best for the community. I fully support council’s decision. Whether or not the decision will be upheld through two different appeal processes, however, is up for debate.

The fact that the developer has appealed the decision and it is now before the courts and the Property and Land Rights Tribunal, means that it would be inappropriate for council candidates to take a position with respect to future decisions.

I want our council decisions to be bulletproof and to stand the test of legal appeal. That means taking the oath of office and legislated role an elected municipal official in Alberta holds seriously, and reserving my judgement on this matter.

If I have learned anything covering council for 15 years, it is that the best decisions are made when there are open-minded and hard-working people around the table. That is the kind of councillor I want to be – one that takes that duty seriously.

I will continue observing and gathering as much information and background possible to prepare myself for any potential future decisions. I will also continue to study and follow the legal appeal processes that are ongoing.

I want to also be guided through this process with a mind to reconciliation and creating space for Indigenous knowledge in the conversation. We have never done that before. Why not? In B.C., there is required consultation with First Nations when it comes to certain kinds of statutory planning documents.

The Stoney Nakoda First Nation has applied for interveror status for to the Property and Land Rights Tribunal, as well.

I would further add that after observing planning and development processes in our municipality, I stand as a candidate that will use the full force of our statutory planning documents to make decisions that have a net benefit for our community.

Using policy and legislation as our tools, council can achieve our vision for the future.