‘People feel they’re being railroaded into a development’
After dropping planning work for Porter Creek D, city planners are picking up their pencils again and may soon set their long-term sights on the areas of McLean Creek and along Long Lake.
Photo by Whitehorse Star
Pictured above: MIKE ELLIS and KAREN BALTGAILIS
After dropping planning work for Porter Creek D, city planners are picking up their pencils again and may soon set their long-term sights on the areas of McLean Creek and along Long Lake.
At Monday evening’s city council meeting, senior planner Mike Ellis brought forward a recommendation that council sign off on two $300,000 contribution agreements with the Yukon government.
The agreements would see city planners look at the possibility of one day putting housing in the two areas.
Throughout his presentation, Ellis stressed the work would not cement any housing plans for the areas, but do the background work to see if residential development is even possible.
“At this time, there is no information regarding the feasibility of residential development at these three locations,” it’s noted in Ellis’ report.
“All of these locations are mainly designated ‘future planning’ in the Official Community Plan, with the exception that development in any of them would not be contemplated until other properly designated areas have been developed first.
“The proposed contribution agreements would provide funds to complete the appropriate background research to determine even at a broad level, potential for housing development and examination of the potential consequences of future development.”
In the immediate future, Whistle Bend will serve as the site for new residential development with the second set of lots expected to go on sale later this year as planning for phases three to seven gets underway.
The city is also focusing on the downtown area in the short term.
Mike Gau, the city’s director of development services, noted it would be similar to work done in the 1990s on the background of Porter Creek’s lower bench, or Whistle Bend, as it’s now called.
That work didn’t contemplate types of housing nor what would go in there, but rather looked at whether development could even take place.
This would look at the same for McLean Creek and along Long Lake. South of Copper Ridge is contemplated as a site for long-term planning as well.
“This is very long-term stuff we’re looking at,” Ellis said.
He stressed the importance of being proactive in planning for the city’s future in exploring the potential development areas, as it can take many years to complete, and housing demand could increase again.
While development may or may not happen, city council members couldn’t help but express some concern it could find itself in the same situation it did with Porter Creek D.
The planning for that – which was much further along – was dropped last week. That happened amid substantial public concern around developing in middle McIntyre Creek as well as there being less demand for housing.
Coun. Kirk Cameron noted his worry of environmental issues taking over the discussion. He noted the importance of balanced consideration for environmental and social and economic impacts.
Meanwhile, Coun. John Streicker stressed that a first look at the areas does not commit the city to developing them. Rather, he suggested, it would give a sense of the potential there.
He then questioned whether there are any creeks that run through the areas affected – noting creeks are well-known as wildlife corridors – with Ellis noting that the McLean Creek site is near the creek’s border with Croucher Creek near the Long Lake site.
Karen Baltgailis, the Yukon Conservation Society’s executive director, argued this morning the city should be consulting with residents to find out whether they even support development in those areas before spending $600,000 on studies.
There’s a danger of the same thing happening as occurred with Porter Creek D, she added.
“People feel they’re being railroaded into a development,” she said, emphasizing the important wildlife and recreational values of both the McLean Creek and Long Lake areas.
It’s amazing the city is even considering the Long Lake area, Baltgailis noted.
It would cost millions of dollars to build a bridge there, she said.
Croucher Creek, she noted, is a salmon-bearing waterway.
As well, the area is known as a caribou habitat, and there’s at least one trapline in the vicinity.
Long Lake itself, Baltgailis pointed out, is one of the few areas in the city used by many for swimming.
Meanwhile, at McLean Creek, nearby residents of McLean Lake have already been vocally opposed to quarrying and concrete batch operations.
Baltgailis suggested the city would save a lot of money by going through a consultation process first to determine whether people even want development there.
The conservation society, she commented, would be happy to design and be part of that process, which wouldn’t cost anywhere near $600,000.
Council will vote on whether to sign off on the agreements next week.
M. Fenton
Jan 22, 2013 at 5:37 pm
I honestly had support for Baltgailis and the conservation society. But unfortunetly they are becoming much as there name implies “conservative” and very afraid of change. The fact that she so vigorously opposed a background report tells me she is just parroting her points about macintyre creek. This seems like a political tactic from the worst of our political parties. Sticking to one position and not moving at all to accommodate others that may think differently then them.
From a young age most are taught to give a little to get a little. Some maybe don’t learn that lesson and feel the world should bend to their will. Left and right wing both have them and they do a disservice to both groups. I desperately hope the conservative society starts looking at actually working with the community it says it represents and realize that people need places to live, the city must grow, and that repeating the same militant position for different circumstances makes them lose supporters.