Prairie Sky Gondola | 76.2m | ?s | Prairie Sky | DIALOG

What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    56
edmontonidiot said:
They did lead in this case, unfortunately it didn't lead to the outcome you, and many others wanted. This decision was made with the respect to the feedback that city counselors received from their constituents.
Click to expand...
I don't see how you can call what council did as leadership. If anything, it was an abdication of leadership.
 
cpnfantstk said:
Prairie Sky's twitter account no longer exists. Ugh....this city infuriates me. @PrairieSkyGondola , please update us when you're ready to do so. You have a lot of supporters here.
Click to expand...
Thanks everyone for sharing you ideas and keeping the discussion alive. We are taking some time to regroup and you will be first on our list when we have an update. While waiting, thank you all for your questions and support but also respectful and constructive suggestions over the years, and especially over the past few months. It has meant a lot to our team to have a safe and respectful forum to make this urban ropeway project something that equally works for yeg, those that are living and have been living here for thousands of years. We continue to be committed to Edmonton and to learning. Again, thank you and talk soon.
 
CplKlinger said:
That's not true.

"Sohi and Coun. Aaron Paquette ended the discussion with a motion to start the process of creating a governance structure to empower Indigenous partners and communities with historical and cultural connections to Rossdale to provide direct input into the future of the site."

As I said previously, I think this is the only way to allow future projects in the area — including the Gondola — to proceed without running into this debate each time.
Click to expand...
Well, nothing has been done with this building for years, the inaction has long preceded the recent discussion about the gondola and related and legitimate indigenous concerns about the site that arose from that.

Sadly, I suspect the result of this motion will be nothing continues to happen. It is a default bureaucratic response. Other cities move ahead, while we will sit around talking about shuffling the deck chairs.
 
edmontonidiot said:
What would be a preferable outcome? Is there any other outcome you'd accept than "yes", go ahead?
Click to expand...
Numerous options here that would have been better than what council did. I believe it should have been accepted as is, but alternatives included amending the lease agreement to reflect community concerns, offering funding to address issues, directing admin to carry out their own Indigenous engagement, or even simply delaying to give everyone a chance to cool off and then decide (not in heat of the moment). Instead they just kind of pooped on the project and left it there. Absolutely no plan forward was issued.
 
I will just add that this came out of the Edmonton project, when people were actually encouraged to think differently. Leadership would be seeing that through. Council has to stick their neck out sometimes and not just listen to a vocal minority who don't want to do anything different than what's been done in the past.
 
occidentalcapital said:
Numerous options here that would have been better than what council did. I believe it should have been accepted as is, but alternatives included amending the lease agreement to reflect community concerns, offering funding to address issues, directing admin to carry out their own Indigenous engagement, or even simply delaying to give everyone a chance to cool off and then decide (not in heat of the moment). Instead they just kind of pooped on the project and left it there. Absolutely no plan forward was issued.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly what Aaron Paquette was concerned about during the counsel meetings. The goal was always to get to a "yes". There isn't any set of circumstances where a "no" would be okay, even with proper indigenous engagement or direct involvement.
 
edmontonidiot said:
Which is exactly what Aaron Paquette was concerned about during the counsel meetings. The goal was always to get to a "yes". There isn't any set of circumstances where a "no" would be okay, even with proper indigenous engagement or direct involvement.
Click to expand...
A number of Indigenous people did say "yes", and they said so loudly and clearly at the public hearing!

I don't think anyone should think that all Indigenous people are opposed (or in favour) of this or any other project...it is just applying a racial lens that is inappropriate IMO.

Councillors were completly free to vote "no" - that they did - so to suggest that there was some kind of conspiracy where it wasn't "okay" for them to vote against leasing the land is just...bizzare. There's no conspiracy here. Just an attempt by a person who responded to a competition of ideas to create something unique in Edmonton, and just a project that would have woven new life into the centre of the City...
 
occidentalcapital said:
A number of Indigenous people did say "yes", and they said so loudly and clearly at the public hearing!

I don't think anyone should think that all Indigenous people are opposed (or in favour) of this or any other project...it is just applying a racial lens that is inappropriate IMO.

Councillors were completly free to vote "no" - that they did - so to suggest that there was some kind of conspiracy where it wasn't "okay" for them to vote against leasing the land is just...bizzare. There's no conspiracy here. Just an attempt by a person who responded to a competition of ideas to create something unique in Edmonton, and just a project that would have woven new life into the centre of the City...
Click to expand...
Those people don't represent all indigenous peoples.

I'm not saying all indigenous people are opposed, I'm saying we don't know. Proper consultation hasn't happened.

You're misunderstanding what I said. Aaron Paquette specifically brought up the topic of indigenous peoples engagement during the counsel meetings. He challenged Prairie Sky what would happen if during consultation with indigenous people, if they determined it wouldn't be appropriate to go forward. Prairie Sky gave a round around answer but said they wanted to get to "yes". Aaron Paquette was concerned about Prairie Sky, not other city city counsel members.

You list out all things city council could have done different, all of which lead to your preferred result, "yes". There's no outcome where "no" would be acceptable, just like Prairie Sky.

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy, I'm saying you don't care about how indigenous peoples may feel, and neither does Prairie Sky.

We are talking about a potential grave site, and an area already known to have cultural significance. Have some respect.
 
You would agree that it may very well be the case that the result of Indigenous engagement on this issue would be a level of broad support to create an alternative way to access the river valley, which supports traditional ceremonies, universal access, cultural appropriateness, yes? That is surely a possibility here, just based on who spoke. Council's actions have failed to provide that opportunity at all. That is simply a lack of leadership. We should be able to expect better.
 
Last edited:
Gronk! said:
If Prairie Sky wants to revise their plans, relocate that stop from the Rossdale Power Plant to RE/MAX Field. The gondola stop can be SW or NW of the baseball diamond. From that stop, the gondola can sail above the power plant and across the river. The power plant is just a 1 or 2 minute walk from RE/MAX Field. The effects on the Rossdale Transportation project would be minimal at best. And it should be reasonably far enough from the indigenous sacred lands and burial site.
Click to expand...

SW of RE/MAX Field. If they can persuade EPCOR to move their Substation 060 building then all the better.

20220829_193121.jpg


20220829_193140.jpg

20220829_193231.jpg


20220829_193256.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top