'No means no': Protesters express frustration over tribunal order to allow major Canmore developments

Proposed developments frustrate Canmore residents Canmore residents are expressing frustration over a recent decision allowing two major housing developments to go forward.

Dozens of protesters in Canmore are expressing their frustration over a recent Alberta Court of Appeal decision to allow two major developments on the town’s eastern edge to proceed, which would almost double the area’s population.

Demonstrators held signs Thursday in opposition of the Three Sisters Mountain Village (TSMV) and Smith Creek projects outside of an event hosted by the Bow Valley Builders and Developers Association.

The event was attended by Premier Danielle Smith and some local residents like Naia West, who says she wanted to send a message that the development will destroy an important wildlife corridor.

“I've lived here my entire life," West said. "You live in a place and feel connected to it and you spend all day, every day, putting a lot of input into caring so much about the community -- and then you wake up one day to realize that actually, this one person in Edmonton gets to decide everything."

“I don't have a say," she added, "even though I've spent my whole life living here, caring about this place. I don’t matter.”

ORIGINALLY REJECTED

Canmore town council originally rejected the projects, but the Land and Property Rights Tribunal of Alberta ruled in May 2022 that both developments could go ahead.

The town, west of Calgary had applied for permission to appeal decision, but its appeal was dismissed earlier this month.

Residents like John Meyer say the democratic process of the town was not respected.

“I've never seen a democratic process like what this town engaged in, back a few years ago when we rejected the area structural plan," Meyer said. "That was one of the most inspiring movements I've ever been part of."

“I was very proud to be part of that," he added. "Then to have it overturned by the land and property rights tribunal decision, it feels like something out of communism. I hate to say that even the name ‘tribunal’ seems disgusting to me. That is not what I wanted to happen.”

'THIS WAS INDEPENDENTLY EVALUATED': TSMV

Chris Ollenberger, director of strategy and development for TSMV, also noted that the process has been long, but says due diligence was done.

“This was independently evaluated by third parties during the process," Ollenberger said. "Independently evaluated by the Town of Canmore administration during the process and then we had to go to the Land and Property Rights Tribunal which is an independent body."

“They went through thousands of pages of documents over five weeks," Ollenberger added. "Finally, the Alberta Court of Appeal said the findings were valid so we’ve done everything a project could be asked of to balance the best for environment, financial capacity of a town and affordable housing.”

Ollenberger added that when it comes to mitigating wildlife concerns that those steps were taken decades ago.

“In the early 90s there was a multi-week NRCB review, with a full-blown environmental assessment and then we’ve kept updating over time with environmental impact statements and reviews," he said.

“We’ve done the work over and over again and we’re now the longest, widest wildlife corridor in the valley, bar none.

"We’re very proud of the wildlife corridor system we put in," he added. "We know that the mitigations will work and we’ve had independent biologists with the province review the work as well and they believe this will work for animal movement.”

The next stage of development approvals will go before Canmore town council in the next month, but Ollenberger said there are still many more approvals to go through and there won’t be any construction before 2025.

‘NOW WE MOVE FORWARD’: CANMORE MAYOR

The two proposals on Canmore’s eastern edge include about 80 per cent of the town’s remaining developable land and raised concerns about affordable housing and wildlife.

The decisions by the tribunal, however, found both developments met parameters set out in a 1992 review of the Three Sisters area by the Natural Resource Conservation Board.

Canmore Mayor, Sean Krausert says this decision means that the town will respect the decision and continue the development and planning process.”

“I do not concur with their (the protesters) characterization of the decision and as for the claim about growth, well the town has been projecting and planning for this type of growth since the early 90s,” he said.

“So what I say is that I appreciate the clarity of the decision and now we move forward.”

Local NDP MLA for Banff-Kananaskis Sarah echoed statements from Krausert that it’s time to move forward, but adds that it's clear her constituents are upset.

“This was a decision that was pushed on the community by the UCP over the last several years and that’s just unfortunate really and really frustrating for the people of Canmore,” she said.

“If this development must happen it must serve our community, so there is no doubt the community is under increasing pressure infrastructure-wise, healthcare wise, to welcome the world here. We are a small town and we welcome millions of people, so the province must follow up with improved infrastructure that could be water, sewage or roads or any of those things, but also increased support for our healthcare system.”

In a statement from the province, Scott Johnston, municipal affairs press secretary said that the decision to move forward with this project went through all checks and balances.

“The decision was made by the independent Land and Property Rights Tribunal, which is committed to supporting decisions that are fair, unbiased, well–reasoned, and thoughtful,” read the statement.

“In deciding these matters, the tribunal followed the legislated process set out in section 619 of the Municipal Government Act, which included a public hearing where parties had the opportunity to put forward their concerns and arguments.

Alberta’s Court of Appeal, which is the highest court in Alberta, ruled that the tribunal followed the legislated processes appropriately in this case.”