News   Apr 03, 2020
 7.2K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 7.4K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 2.5K     0 

Urban National Park Option for the River Valley

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


  • Total voters
    45

MCXavierL

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
723
Reaction score
4,406
Came across this items due report showing a (verbal) report due to Council and Admin in Aug, 2021 from the Urban Planning Committee regarding an "Urban National Park Option", for the River Valley, I imagine.

There are several benefits, some of them outlined here regarding the Rouge National Urban Park in Ontario (the first national urban park in Canada).
 
Just don't say it out loud. If the UCP people hear the words "federal" or "national" they'll put a prize on your head!
One f the reasons I live out of country is to distance myself from the UCP nutcases. I will always put Canada first, Edmonton second and Alberta third as to my identity, my loyalty and my private interests.
 
One f the reasons I live out of country is to distance myself from the UCP nutcases. I will always put Canada first, Edmonton second and Alberta third as to my identity, my loyalty and my private interests.
I came to love all 3, probably in the same order, but I deeply wish that Alberta was less conservative (politically speaking). The UCP will end up dragging Edmonton down for at least a whole generation, with the Kenney government.
 
As someone who primarily recreates in the river valley on a mountain bike, this sounds like a nightmare. The city is bad enough when it comes to sanitizing the fun trails, I would hate to see what happens to the trail network if Parks was in charge.
Agree, EMBA has worked hard for what we have out there now. I remember the restrictions we had in the late 80s and 90s with trail building.
 
I'd be worried about this permanently and irreversibly changing the priorities for the River Valley from being more focused on the human experiences there to environmental considerations. Would a project like Touch the Water really be compatible with the typical conservation goals of a National Park?

Also while I'm not necessarily a UCP person I still would really rather not see something as precious as our River Valley essentially be given to the Federal Government. I'd be skeptical that the feds would give us the same sort of financial support they'd give a park in their own backyard and I think it's much more likely they'll just become an extra layer of obstructionist bureaucracy with regard to anything the RVA or city or province would want to do to enhance the River Valley.
 
I'd be worried about this permanently and irreversibly changing the priorities for the River Valley from being more focused on the human experiences there to environmental considerations. Would a project like Touch the Water really be compatible with the typical conservation goals of a National Park?
I would depend on the exact proposal, but isn't the whole point of a NP to focus on environmental considerations over "human experiences"? I support a redevelopment of former industrial lands like Rossdale, but I don't want our river valley to end up like the Bow River, which is highly development and in many places, not very natural anymore.
 
The Conservative governments in Alberta have long mused about creating a capital city river valley park for Edmonton and nothing ever happened. But Fish Creek and Kananaskis did for Calgary. That the current Liberal federal government appears poised to step in and help achieve this for Edmonton is much appreciated.
 
I like mountain biking too much to support this.
I'm fine with mountain biking since the trails are pretty low impact, but I'm in favour of a national park partially because of this statistic: "Kerr estimates that 15 hectares of the river valley between Devon and Fort Saskatchewan have been lost to industrial development over the past 15 years."

Speaking of which, can someone please tell me why we have so manu friggin river valley golf courses in Edmonton?
 

Back
Top