Ring Road To Nowhere

[browna]

Originally Posted by getbak

Wasn't the last vote supposed to be an easy "Yes" too though, and everyone was surprised when it was voted down?

Yeah, last vote, the Chief supported the proposal and suggested the Band do the same, as late as the day before the vote; it got voted down.

It worked out to around $60k per band member last time, in addition for the 3 or (4) to 1 land swap.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

If they vote yes can we have shovels in the ground on nov 1st?

The federal government is prepared to give its full backing to an agreement on the long-sought southwest ring road if it is approved by the Tsuu T’ina Nation, Jason Kenney said Thursday.

The Alberta government and the First Nation reached a tentative deal last month that will be subject to a referendum by band members on Oct. 24.

Terms of the deal have not been made public but it is believed to include land swaps between the province and First Nation similar to those included in a 2009 agreement that went down to defeat.

However, any transfer of reserve land will require the approval of the federal cabinet.

They want to do it, but the bolded part could still take a year. They've got to redraw the boundaries of the reserve.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Wow.. $70,000 per person. Is this not essentially bribery of the band to get this done?

Bribery is probably the wrong word but they are using the leverage they have to their advantage. We want the road built, they have the land. Of course if they turn it down again they'll incur an insane amount of wrath though.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by 4X4

So does anyone know whether they'll twin the overpass bridge at McLeod when the SW ring road goes ahead? Pretty sure I asked that before and someone told me yes.

Yeah, the plans are drawn up, looks like it never went to tender. Twinning that bridge will be a drop in the bucket considering the extent of this project.

[browna]

Originally Posted by Acey

They want to do it, but the bolded part could still take a year. They've got to redraw the boundaries of the reserve.

That delay/uncertainty, as the quote says, is the exact same issue which supposedly quashed the deal last time. There is no way that the province has all the deeds in hand to transfer the land over as of Oct 25th, or clear through all the other administrative tape, just like last time.

Fact is, this deal may add a bit more money then the 2009 deal, outside of that, all the terms and timelines for land swaps and completion of the road, remain similar.

So what's the difference now and why this has a better chance of going through, outside of a bit more money? The fact that the nation has a larger casino and a hotel is now part of that project, and a bunch of land that they can't develop.

Add to that the single rickety road in there, which the city was nice enough to allow stay open, is not viable for what's there, let alone being built, and its restricting the plans that developers have undoubtedly approached the nation about.

They will need a new road in and out of there, as part of this project, to service the commercial plans they have for that huge section of land bordering 37 St.

[Slava]

Anyone else a little concerned that if/when the SW portion gets completed it becomes a target for 'national days of action' or whatever future protests? I'm not suggesting for a second that its a reason not to build it, and I do want it done. Just curious about that factor down the line.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by browna

Fact is, this deal may add a bit more money then the 2009 deal, outside of that, all the terms and timelines for land swaps and completion of the road, remain similar.

Do you have insider info on that? The last I heard the issues were the "conditional" clauses about the land swap; as the province had very long leases on the lands that were set to expire in 2012. I cannot imagine with that being the sticking point; that the province would have renewed those leases.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by browna

That delay/uncertainty, as the quote says, is the exact same issue which supposedly quashed the deal last time. There is no way that the province has all the deeds in hand to transfer the land over as of Oct 25th, or clear through all the other administrative tape, just like last time.

I think the uncertainty is with the specific wording regarding the land the province had promised in exchange for the Stoney ROW. The redrawing of the boundaries by the feds to make room for the ROW is an entirely separate issue around which there has been no uncertainty, if I'm reading everything correctly.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

Anyone else a little concerned that if/when the SW portion gets completed it becomes a target for 'national days of action' or whatever future protests? I'm not suggesting for a second that its a reason not to build it, and I do want it done. Just curious about that factor down the line.

They could just as easily stand on Highway 1.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

They could just as easily stand on Highway 1.

Hwy 1 is actually in the reserve, while when this is done, no part of Stoney Trail will actually be on the reserve.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Hwy 1 is actually in the reserve, while when this is done, no part of Stoney Trail will actually be on the reserve.

I know that, and agree. But honestly, a lot of these things aren't sensible to begin with!

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by browna

That delay/uncertainty, as the quote says, is the exact same issue which supposedly quashed the deal last time. There is no way that the province has all the deeds in hand to transfer the land over as of Oct 25th, or clear through all the other administrative tape, just like last time.

Fact is, this deal may add a bit more money then the 2009 deal, outside of that, all the terms and timelines for land swaps and completion of the road, remain similar.

So what's the difference now and why this has a better chance of going through, outside of a bit more money? The fact that the nation has a larger casino and a hotel is now part of that project, and a bunch of land that they can't develop.

Add to that the single rickety road in there, which the city was nice enough to allow stay open, is not viable for what's there, let alone being built, and its restricting the plans that developers have undoubtedly approached the nation about.

They will need a new road in and out of there, as part of this project, to service the commercial plans they have for that huge section of land bordering 37 St.

There has been some concern that the new transferred land will not become a reserve, thought I think that the primary concern was that the land was not guaranteed to be made available at all. The Province have said that the land in any new deal will be guaranteed, so that would hopefully eliminate that uncertainty. As for changing the status of the land into a reserve, I wrote a post about that exact issue, and I think a lot of people misunderstand the transfer. The land is not being given from the Province to the Tsuu T'ina, it is being given from Alberta to the Federal Government directly and specifically to be turned into a reserve. If that change is not made, then the deal can be voided with no penalty and the road would not be built. (More here: http://calgaryringroad.wordpress.com...and-transfers/ )

The Province does own the land in question, and I think the compensation changes in the new deal will not be as straightforward as you make out.

As for the road that 'the City was nice enough to leave open', nice has nothing to do with it. The road predates the city, and all signs point to the access being a legally protected right of the Nation. As well, the development of the lands bordering 37th street have always factored in the Nation's interest in a ring road deal (going back to at least 1984), so I suspect that will likely not add a new dimension to the new vote. (That's not to say that development of that land is not important; in fact it is so important as to be the primary factor in even considering a deal, IMO, but that has always been the case.)

It's going to be a very interesting vote, and I don't think anyone can say one way or the other which way it will go right now.

[browna]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

As for the road that 'the City was nice enough to leave open', nice has nothing to do with it. The road predates the city, and all signs point to the access being a legally protected right of the Nation. As well, the development of the lands bordering 37th street have always factored in the Nation's interest in a ring road deal (going back to at least 1984), so I suspect that will likely not add a new dimension to the new vote. (That's not to say that development of that land is not important; in fact it is so important as to be the primary factor in even considering a deal, IMO, but that has always been the case.)

Yes, access is part of the treaty. However, from my understanding, there is access via west of Anderson Rd (near the 7 Chiefs Sportsplex IIRC), so technically there are 2 access roads. Thus the city is within its right to close that road off 37st at any time and not be in violation of the treaty.

As for development, yes, it's always been expected. However, the development company that is doing the developing on behalf of the TNN has to have a business case to add in shopping malls/theatres/hotels/whatever.

It took 5 years for the casino on that land before they could justify/fund the expansion and hotel that is going up there. Plans are now likely moving ahead, with the hotel there, to provide more of a destination. Getting people to be attracted to the hotel are going to need more of a reason then just a casino to stay there...an entertainment district of some sort I assume. Deerfoot Casino, for example is in a industrial business park and convenient for people doing work in the area to stay there, but nothing like that out west in a residential area with no other hotel for 10km.

As mentioned, that current road is beyond capacity. Add it a hundred or so hotel room and a bigger casino, and its overloaded. Anything else going in there in the next few years, which is needed to help the hotel stay full at very least, will need another road ASAP.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by browna

Yes, access is part of the treaty. However, from my understanding, there is access via west of Anderson Rd (near the 7 Chiefs Sportsplex IIRC), so technically there are 2 access roads. Thus the city is within its right to close that road off 37st at any time and not be in violation of the treaty.

As for development, yes, it's always been expected. However, the development company that is doing the developing on behalf of the TNN has to have a business case to add in shopping malls/theatres/hotels/whatever.

It took 5 years for the casino on that land before they could justify/fund the expansion and hotel that is going up there. Plans are now likely moving ahead, with the hotel there, to provide more of a destination. Getting people to be attracted to the hotel are going to need more of a reason then just a casino to stay there...an entertainment district of some sort I assume. Deerfoot Casino, for example is in a industrial business park and convenient for people doing work in the area to stay there, but nothing like that out west in a residential area with no other hotel for 10km.

As mentioned, that current road is beyond capacity. Add it a hundred or so hotel room and a bigger casino, and its overloaded. Anything else going in there in the next few years, which is needed to help the hotel stay full at very least, will need another road ASAP.

Access to the reserve is not actually part of Treaty 7, and the concept of a single required access to the reserve has no legal basis. The access at Anderson might be the main access into the reserve, but the road at 37th cannot be closed unilaterally by the City. This argument seems to have come out of the Bronconier administration, and has been repeated endlessly, but would appear to have no basis.

I think we are essentially saying the same thing about development, except that since the need for a larger road for future developments has been known for years, I don't think it will be a new factor in voting this time.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Access to the reserve is not actually part of Treaty 7, and the concept of a single required access to the reserve has no legal basis. The access at Anderson might be the main access into the reserve, but the road at 37th cannot be closed unilaterally by the City. This argument seems to have come out of the Bronconier administration, and has been repeated endlessly, but would appear to have no basis.

I think we are essentially saying the same thing about development, except that since the need for a larger road for future developments has been known for years, I don't think it will be a new factor in voting this time.

Why can't that road be closed by the city? I'm not saying it should be, but how is the city forced to keep it open and maintained?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Slava

Why can't that road be closed by the city? I'm not saying it should be, but how is the city forced to keep it open and maintained?

Keep the connection at the city limit, I imagine.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by Slava

Why can't that road be closed by the city? I'm not saying it should be, but how is the city forced to keep it open and maintained?

The road pre-dates not only the City of Calgary and the Province of Alberta, but it also predates Treaty 7, and I would speculate that it existed before European contact.

All Nations in Canada enjoy constitutionally protected 'Aboriginal Rights'. In the case of the Tsuu T'ina, I believe that unfettered access at this location could well be argued as an Aboriginal Right. The Supreme Court has upheld the need to consult and accommodate with First Nations on any projects or decisions that have the potential to impact on Treaty and Aboriginal Rights, even in cases where the projects are adjacent to, but not even actually on, the reserve. That's not to say that the road absolutely could not be closed, but it would have to go through consultation and accommodation first, and could not be done unilaterally. Even then, accommodation might mean that the road could have to be kept open as long as it was needed by the Nation. As this has never been tested, it is not entirely clear, but the Nation has much of the law and history on it's side.

Some commentators have even argued that the Nation would be within their rights to build a road outside of the reserve to connect to a public road so long as the road was located on Crown land. I am not sure this has been tested in court.

I have written about this here: http://calgaryringroad.wordpress.com...gaining-chips/

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

I have written about this here: http://calgaryringroad.wordpress.com...gaining-chips/

I just want to encourage people with questions to have a read of 5seconds' blog. While it is a lot to read, the info is about as complete as one could hope to find.

[5seconds]

Thanks! I really find the entire story and history interesting, and I wanted to get the best information together so that anyone could have as close as we can get to the real story behind this project. Sometimes that means going back hundreds of years, and challenging ideas we might take for granted.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

The road pre-dates not only the City of Calgary and the Province of Alberta, but it also predates Treaty 7, and I would speculate that it existed before European contact.

All Nations in Canada enjoy constitutionally protected 'Aboriginal Rights'. In the case of the Tsuu T'ina, I believe that unfettered access at this location could well be argued as an Aboriginal Right. The Supreme Court has upheld the need to consult and accommodate with First Nations on any projects or decisions that have the potential to impact on Treaty and Aboriginal Rights, even in cases where the projects are adjacent to, but not even actually on, the reserve. That's not to say that the road absolutely could not be closed, but it would have to go through consultation and accommodation first, and could not be done unilaterally. Even then, accommodation might mean that the road could have to be kept open as long as it was needed by the Nation. As this has never been tested, it is not entirely clear, but the Nation has much of the law and history on it's side.

Some commentators have even argued that the Nation would be within their rights to build a road outside of the reserve to connect to a public road so long as the road was located on Crown land. I am not sure this has been tested in court.

I have written about this here: http://calgaryringroad.wordpress.com...gaining-chips/

Thats a great blog and very well done!

I'm just wondering whether having access at a particular location is a right though? Is there legal precedent of this? What if the city wanted to make changes on their own land....are they precluded to do so? I would suggest that having a road in a specific place is a fairly tenuous definition of a right, but I could definitely be wrong about that.