Friday, October 18, 2013

Viability Study-Dissolution-Fear Factor

First of all the recommendation of council looking at a viability study was just that a recommendation, next council does not have to go down that path unless Municipal Affairs forces it which as never been implied. From 2006 to 2011 there were 18 municipal dissolution studies conducted which resulted in five villages being dissolved and thirteen were not.
The villages that were dissolved were population wise very small and absorbed by counties surrounding them with much larger populations in most cases ten to thirty times larger.
They were:
Village of Sangudo pop 398 absorbed by Lac Ste Anne County pop 10260
Village of Thorhild pop 478 absorbed by County of Thorhild pop 3417
Village of Kinuso pop 231 absorbed by M.D of Big Lakes pop 5912
Village of New Sarepta pop 401 absorbed by Leduc County pop 13541
Village of Derwent pop 111 absorbed by County of Two Hills pop 3160

Of the thirteen municipalities that did not dissolve they ranged in size from the village of Gadsby with 25 people up to the Town of Falher with 1075 people.

I am not suggesting for a moment that we as residents, or future council's should not take seriously the issue of strengthening this community. But let's not lose sight of the facts all the communities that participated in the studies between 2006 and 2011 were significantly smaller than the Crowsnest Pass, of those two thirds did not dissolve, and finally of all five that did dissolve they were taken in by neighbors with much larger populations than themselves. Certainly an option we do not have.


Anonymous said...

Dean, this whole dissolution issue was inserted into the report as a talking point for the Mayor and should be not taken seriously . In the same breath they uttered this nonsense, they said our municipality is on a solid financial footing because of our low debt load.

We have very low debt load because of how our previous councils have behaved, and not because of anything the current council has done.

If anything, our present council, if given chance, would use our good financial position to borrow more money. If they are given a chance, we may have to, in four years, reexamine this whole question.

Right now, it is a "red herring" thrown by one bureaucrat to another bureaucrat.

Anonymous said...

Dean its all about self preservation.
That little recommendation will be the fuel for another heritage, recreation, unification, breaking down boundaries, building communities study. Which will then be followed up by a consultant with the analytic skills to best determine the out come of the studies and how best to mesh them together to build a glorious future for all of us.

Anonymous said...

Right from the moment this report was released just weeks prior to the election I have been very skeptical to say the least. Strongly believe the dissolution issue was a gift for this council to scare the voters. What's the old saying "the best way to predict the future is to look at the past" . What ever happens Monday Dean I appreciate all the time you have put into this blog over the last three years. Especially the research such as what you presented here on the issue of dissolution.

Thanks Alex

Anonymous said...


What ever happens on Monday, the next administration will be left to deal with the 'gifts' of our last.

Anonymous said...

Dean for goodness sake quit clouding the issue with facts. !!

Anonymous said...

Over the years, the Municipal Government Board has established precedents and principles about annexation, such as it should be for logical growth and not just a tax grab. Unless they toss all this out, Bruce's plan would not qualify.

So Doug Griffiths put the "Viability Study" into the Inspector's Report to enable annexation without going through the MGB.

Anonymous said...

Alex 6:56 :

It's called a "legacy issue". Like how to pay for backfilling the hole after CLC demolition. I'm sure Dean is staying up nights worrying about that.


Anonymous said...

Every government likes to cover its shortcomings by pointing to the "legacy issues" left by the previous government.

Bruce did not invent this, but he sure made a lot of use of this idea. Even at the very last meeting of Council, instead of looking forward, he spent time looking backwards at LEGACY ISSUES from all the previous incompetent councils.

One trick pony.

He sure is leaving big legacy issues himself. You can't go forward if your head is always looking back. Good way to trip.