Back in 1997, the council of the day was sold on the idea of capping the size and population of Okotoks. Also, the town was to live within the capacity of what the Sheep River could supply for water for consumption.
One wonders about the purpose of that policy. The administrator of the town conceived this concept at that time. That individual, I think, eventually was made to realize the inherent folly of the idea and possibly that is why he moved on to become an administrator of another municipality in British Columbia.
To cap the size and population of this great town would be nothing more than selfishness in its worst form. If those of us who were here back when the population was less than 2,000 ever would have thought this idea would have ever been brought forward, and it was valid, we would certainly have installed the cap long before several members of Okotoks town council would have ever arrived. I am not sure whether to cap the population and size of a town is really wise or even applicable. After all, this is Alberta and people should be free to live, under reasonable circumstances, where they choose. To cap the population and size of Okotoks would be an open invitation to the MD of Foothills to allow satellite towns on our borders. No brainer. Do we see Vulcan, Black Diamond, Turner Valley, and High River applying a population/growth cap? I haven’t noticed the above-mentioned towns doing so. I would wonder if there were to be satellite towns on our borders, would we not be forced to share our facilities and resources?
Okotoks council met on Sept. 24 to vote on whether or not to maintain the growth cap. A motion to allow the Town to move forward to prepare to annex more land adjacent to our borders was on the agenda, to be debated and voted on. (This motion was first tabled and presented in February 2012.) The purpose of the motion was to allow Okotoks to have a land bank for the period of the next 10 to 30 years. This in itself proves where some councillors, as council should, showed foresight in guiding and realizing what the Town must do to prepare itself for the future. This is especially important in Okotoks as we must look ahead. A caretaker council following a status quo policy is not what Okotoks needs. Fiscal prudence, yes, but not at the risk of our future. We cannot have a council that would foist arbitrary and unnecessary shackles on our growth and development. Again, I contend those who would want this are selfish, shortsighted and narrow-minded.
The motion took 90 minutes to be debated and voted on. There can be no complaints with this as this is democracy in progress. It is to be admitted the mayor conducted this part of the meeting well and is to be congratulated for his stewardship on the matter. All members of council were given the privilege of six minutes to speak on the issue and a two-minute rebuttal, although several members spoke over their time, as could be expected with an issue of this magnitude. Some of the members spoke in favor of the motion, and some spoke against it, which is each councillor’s privilege. As the discussion drew near to the end, however, I was appalled to listen to two councillors speak from what appeared to be prepared notes, and as it turned out would oppose the motion. One seemed to speak not to his peers, nor the taxpayers present, but to the camera filming the procedure. To me at least, that suggested the councilor felt no one else present was of any importance. The diatribe in which the councillor engaged, was, in my opinion, abusive towards the other councillors who it appeared, would vote yea to the motion. In one such instance, the notion was offered annexing land for future expansion and development was akin to putting lipstick on a pig. Well, this is not the most complimentary way of referring to Okotoks nor its female residents I would argue.
One other oratorical outburst from another councilor stated should the motion pass, it would be a black day for Okotoks. Not quite so, I submit. Oh yes, he told council they would realize the error of expanding because he felt he was best informed on whether to expand or not, he would gleefully tell his peers “I told you so.”
It was also stated by one councillor the council of the MD of Foothills might show some feelings of conscience and leave us alone to make our own decisions. I had not noticed the MD of Foothills was interfering in our governance of this issue, and is not fair to accuse them of doing so. Sometimes it appears we may have some memory lapse here.
I must congratulate those members who supported the motion on their composure during the delivery of the above remarks. They were not altered in their determination to do what they believed was right and secure for our town. I respectively offer my congratulations to those councillors with the ability and power to prepare for the future. It is wise to have land on our borders for future development which shows you have the ability to look into the future. There is no shame in having a land bank to provide for times ahead. In fact, it is just good policy, which is what we elect our councillors for. Will expanding the borders have some problems? Yes it will, but they are surmountable.
It is wonderful to see some councillors “grab the bull by the horns” and move on to higher aspirations for the town. You are the type of councillors we need.
