Share your U of A South Campus development and consultation stories

  • Tuesday, August 30, 2011 9:54 PM
    Message # 688742
    Cory Doll (Administrator)
    What has the U of A done well?  What haven't they done well?  Where do they need to improve?  How can the SCNC improve things?
  • Saturday, October 29, 2011 12:41 AM
    Reply # 736816 on 688742
    I attended the Balmoral re-purposing open house; it was essentially the university telling what is going to happen.   At this point the only input seems to be about choosing landscaping and what the exterior of the building is going to look like.  When I mentioned that this was the first official forum where the university had communicated publicly about the re-purposing of the Balmoral site, I was informed that legislation required the university to consult only with Belgravia for this and the university had done that.   I pointed out that this repurposing is start of many development proposals the cumulative impact of which will extend not just to 'across the street community' but others in  the area and that a good neighbour should have engaged other nearby communities during re-purposing proposal early on and within the context of other planned development.  The university cited the open house as evidence of listening to local communities.  This situation is quite absurd.  On one had the university uses a very closed, practically secret process, to amend the LRDP for this re purposing even though this has significant land use implications for this area.  On the other hand, they hold open house for all communities in vicinity of south campus to ask about landscaping and building exterior, which one could argue mostly affects the immediate neighbours only.  Even at that, it was a miserable failure, all I saw were drawings so abstract in detail and without context of surrounding land use, the drawings might all have been a mini GO centre.  Also, there was no proposals regarding traffic flow and access, things which would also impact neighbours.
  • Monday, November 21, 2011 5:10 PM
    Reply # 756299 on 688742
    The whole South Campus "Consultation" process is remarkably insulting to those of us who still use our brains.

    The GO Centre is a monstrous box which is a huge eyesore. It defines the UA's lack of willingness to consult with anyone.

    The Balmoral Radioactive Dumpsite is another example of their secretive ways. They're even building this pile of **** in the middle of the winter before everyone realises it's there. Very sneaky. Remember those signs they put up when building the GO Centre about bike paths? Where the **** are they now?

    Hopefully this SCNC web site will add some means of communication about this travesty of architecture, health safety, and justice.
  • Thursday, December 01, 2011 2:04 PM
    Reply # 763811 on 688742
    Is it possible for this coalition to stage protests of a sort that the members of the SCNC could agree to, that would bring to the public's attention that a radioactive centre is to be in this area? The newsmedia should know of this and all who live anywhere in Edmonton should know of this. The secretive nature of the decisions and the issues of this not being decided with public consultation should be made very public. The dangers of having a radioactive site in a city should be repeatedly and regularly brought to the attention of the newsmedia and the public, and the only way I know to do thus is through public protests, often.
  • Saturday, December 03, 2011 5:43 PM
    Reply # 765262 on 688742
    Chalk River ,the oldest place of radioisotope production is in a community of 800 people .
  • Monday, December 05, 2011 11:02 PM
    Reply # 766793 on 688742
    I've read a couple of newsletters now from the SCNC and I'm very pleased that you're doing the work that you're doing. I'm unclear, however, about what it means when you say that the group "has asked for court intervention on the latest South Campus development." I read through the newsletter quite carefully and, as I say, I'm pleased that action's being taken but it's not clear to me what the action is. For example, it would be good to know when we "go to court" or where we are in the process.

    Well, thanks and keep up the good work.

    Robyn
  • Thursday, December 08, 2011 9:35 AM
    Reply # 769175 on 766793
    Cory Doll (Administrator)
    Robyn Braun wrote:I've read a couple of newsletters now from the SCNC and I'm very pleased that you're doing the work that you're doing. I'm unclear, however, about what it means when you say that the group "has asked for court intervention on the latest South Campus development." I read through the newsletter quite carefully and, as I say, I'm pleased that action's being taken but it's not clear to me what the action is. For example, it would be good to know when we "go to court" or where we are in the process.

    Well, thanks and keep up the good work.

    Robyn

    The court action would be working towards an 'Order of Prohibition' and an ‘Order of Mandamus’: A writ which commands an individual, organization (eg. government), administrative tribunal or court to perform a certain action, usually to correct a prior illegal action or a failure to act in the first place.
© South Campus Neighbourhood Coalition
Powered by Wild Apricot. Try our all-in-one platform for easy membership management