News   Apr 03, 2020
From the Editor: A Message to Our Readers
 8.3K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Topping Off March 2020: What's Hot on SkyriseEdmonton
 9.5K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 3.1K     0 

Urban National Park Option for the River Valley

Would you support the River Valley becoming an Urban National Park?

  • Total voters
    47
edmontonjournal.com

Edmonton's mayor says city must keep control if river valley becomes national urban park

Edmonton’s mayor is insistent that the city maintain ownership and control of the river valley as exploration of it becoming a national urban park continues.
edmontonjournal.com edmontonjournal.com

edmonton.ctvnews.ca

Edmonton takes next step in establishing river valley national urban park

Edmonton city council’s urban planning committee voted unanimously on Wednesday to recommend to the rest of their elected colleagues that city administration move to the planning stage of the National Urban Parks program pending approval by Parks Canada.
edmonton.ctvnews.ca edmonton.ctvnews.ca
 
Gerein usually does a better job, maybe he was having an off day. Rather than only referring to Jasper or Banff which are not urban, it would make more sense to look at the existing Urban National Park that has been around for a while and the ones currently in progress in various other cities to try figure out or explain how this would work.

As someone who is an Edmontonian and a Canadian, the main issue for me is not who controls this as I have a vote for both levels of government. In any event, I doubt it will be one or the other, probably there will be some sort of agreement for shared management allowing the city to also benefit from Parks Canada's resources, expertise and focus.
 
David A said:
Gerein usually does a better job, maybe he was having an off day. Rather than only referring to Jasper or Banff which are not urban, it would make more sense to look at the existing Urban National Park that has been around for a while and the ones currently in progress in various other cities to try figure out or explain how this would work.

As someone who is an Edmontonian and a Canadian, the main issue for me is not who controls this as I have a vote for both levels of government. In any event, I doubt it will be one or the other, probably there will be some sort of agreement for shared management allowing the city to also benefit from Parks Canada's resources, expertise and focus.
Click to expand...
If there is a minuscule role for Parks Canada why bother at all. Personally I would like the land transferred to the Feds, There was a time the Province was going to deliver a Provincial Park but as usual it was all bull shit from the PC/UCP. Hopefully City and Feds come up with something that is a win for all the parties.
 
Last edited:
trevorhayden said:
What about joint City, indigenous (Enoch), federal stewardship?
Click to expand...
Are the Enoch the right First Nation? City website says "Edmonton is located within Treaty 6 Territory and within the Métis homelands and Métis Nation of Alberta Region 4. We acknowledge this land as the traditional territories of many First Nations such as the Nehiyaw (Cree), Denesuliné (Dene), Nakota Sioux (Stoney), Anishinaabe (Saulteaux) and Niitsitapi (Blackfoot)." Treaty 6 members should decide themselves what representation, if any, they wish to provide and what if any roles they see themselves providing. Lets remember the land belongs to the City and the Mayor is not supportive of transferring it. My worry is too many interests may be clamouring for Federal funds and may leave Edmonton on the hook to provide more maintenance and security of the river valley. Somewhere there is a role for the Province - as they pursue development of Big Island. Lets hope the UCP don't become anther headache for the people of Edmonton by messing up this opportunity for Edmonton and Region.
 
archited said:
Since there is no "there" there yet, I would like to see what comes out of discussions and ideas forums before deciding if it is good or bad.
Click to expand...
Agreed, I think council made the right step by agreeing to the next phase to shed light on the pros and cons, the governance structure, etc. There is room for improvement here; the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society estimates that around 30 hectares of our river valley are lost to industrial development annually.

edmonton.taproot.news

Parks Canada to consider Edmonton-area river valley for national urban park network

Canada's largest urban park is in the running to gain official status as a national urban park, which proponents say would help protect local ecology and bring tourism to the region.
edmonton.taproot.news edmonton.taproot.news
 
Gronk! said:
David Staples is an idiot and I take everything he writes with a grain of salt. I prefer to read an actual news article from Postmedia, CBC, CTV, Global or Taproot.
Click to expand...
Yeah I don't disagree, just posted it for discussion + it does have some interesting tidbits about various councilor's and resident's thoughts regarding this discussion.

CplKlinger said:
Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society estimates that around 30 hectares of our river valley are lost to industrial development annually.
Click to expand...
I do wish they would contextualize that estimate with the economic benefit as well of losing that river valley land. Lets say IPL's Heartland Petrochemical Complex 75 hectare development was included in their calculation (I have no idea whether it was or not, but it was built right next to the river just NE of Fort Sask). The construction cost alone was over $4.3 bln. That's $57m per hectare before factoring in operational/production economics where the gravy is really made.

Does Parks Canada allow it to move forward?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top