As many of you know, because many of you were participants, Alderman Bob Hawkesworth, with the facilitation of Bob Chartier and the support of volunteers, organized and hosted two gatherings designed to facilitate discussion regarding significant Calgary issues.  The most recent event, Conversation Calgary II , on October 31 was attended by 200 people who were given one page conversation starters (read them in pdf form here) on various topics including: 

What if Calgary had effective citizenship and participation? by Roger Gibbins

What if Art was considered an essential service?  by Mary Roza De Coquet

What if Calgary made local communities the focus of Economic Development?  by James Schwinn

What if Calgary committed to be the Sustainable energy capital of North America?   by Senator Elaine McCoy

What if Calgary understood its quality of life depended on nature?  by Rob Abbott

What if Calgary committed to being a socially just community?  by Janet Keeping

What if Calgary were designed around people rather than cars?  by Gian-Carlo Carra

What if Calgary inspired us (and we inspired Calgary)?  by Dennis Bathory

What if Calgary planned for the end of cheap energy? by David Hughes

This is an initiative worthy of attention for many reasons.

In these events there is modeling for a different kind of Alderman, an elected official who sees their responsibility including bringing their neighbors together to discuss common issues.  This shifts a number of things. It changes the role of Alderman from service provider to partner and convener and it invites resident to behave as citizens rather that consumers.  Rather than Alderman as public servant who does what we want – meeting our needs and requests, the Alderman instead becomes one who can identify significant community opportunities and provide occasions for us to attend to them together.

The customer model in which elected officials exist to satisfy citizen demands is a disservice to community. . . . Elected officials are partners with citizens not suppliers.  The most useful role that elected officials can perform is to bring citizens together.  They have convening capacity like no one else in a city but it is way underutilized.

Peter Block, Community:  The Structure of Belonging

This convening model is important in Calgary for two very specific reasons.  Voter turnout in our last civic election was 33%.  As voter turnout slides, the very backbone of our governmental system is weakened and the representative legitimacy of our officials plummets.  Aldermen have a unique opportunity to engage their constituents in civic and community issues and to help address our democratic deficit.

As Calgary’s development initiatives turn inward due to increased fuel costs,  decreased city budgets as will as increased support for sustainable communities as demonstrated by the marked citizen support for Plan It,  Aldermen are going to need to take the lead in helping their neighbors reap the benefits of this opportunity.  We need them to be leaders, helping us to not get stuck in our very human, knee jerk, negative reaction to change (the only thing that likes change is a wet baby!).  We will all be together on the learning journey of how to do development within the context of an established neighborhood versus a farmer’s field.  .  .

Shout outs to Aldermen Bob Hawkesworth for exploring this manifestation of the Aldermen’s role and this kind of relationship with his neighbors and constituents.  It takes a great deal of integrity and intention to begin something new; especially when you don’t know how it will be received, where it will go or exactly what to do next.  I am glad he is modeling to us how aldermen can convene citizens, joining all of our diverse voices to create the Calgary we want. As we consider the kind of civic leadership we need in 2010, we should be evaluating our Aldermanic choices based on their capacity to convene citizens in genuine and productive dialogue.

The recent debate at city council over the merits and demerits of a municipal food policy raises some interesting questions, particularly as concerns about our municipal fiscal condition come centre stage.

I don’t want to focus too much on the policy side of the debate. Rather, I want to share a few thoughts about the economic sensibility of urban agriculture.

First, consider the economic productivity of lawn grass. Those of us who have it don’t derive a positive monetary return from it. It’s a cost, pure and simple. Now, pick a crop. Beans. Lettuce. Lentils. Strawberries. Crops have revenue as well as cost reduction potential. You can sell the lentils you grow, or you can consume them and reduce your expenditures at the grocery store.

In addition, urban agriculture contributes to reductions in transport costs and carbon emissions throughout the food production and delivery supply chain. Sounds good so far, but it gets even better because there is a potential fiscal benefit for the municipality.

Through the introduction of agriculture, the total economic value of land increases. In most places, increased land value means a higher assessed value for property tax purposes. Did someone say, “taxes”? (That can’t be good.) Here’s the good part…

As with the addition of a swimming pool, a garage or a set of rooms, it is the property owner – not the municipality – who decides if it makes sense to take action to increase the economic value of the property and risk a higher assessed value. Nothing new.

Might the introduction of agriculture on an intensive scale make economic sense under certain circumstances?

While the capital costs of intensive greenhouse agriculture vary, annualized returns of 10% or more are not uncommon. One can argue, on the basis of these numbers, that the introduction of intensive agriculture into the land use mix of residential property developments – as a substitute for select, under-utilized green space areas or as a substitute for building additional housing units in cases where demand shows signs of flagging – would add or recapture economic value to the project, reduce municipal cost recovery risk and accelerate the return of capital to investors.

The introduction of intensive agriculture into new community development is not a financially far-fetched idea. The necessary capital costs could be organized using variations of well-established private sector investment structures that have been applied to the finance of district energy and wastewater management utilities by companies like the Corix Group.

If you still have doubts about the merits and practicalities of urban and near urban agriculture, I would invite you to fly into Schiphol Airport on the outskirts of Amsterdam between dusk and dawn to see what lights up the ground below on your approach. What you will see are kilometers of greenhouses located in the heart of one of Europe’s most densely populated regions.

With only 1.6% of the cultivated land surface of Europe, the Netherlands accounts for about 8% of the total European agricultural production. This statistic on its own suggests it is sensible economic strategy to increase agricultural intensification in and near major urban population centres as land and energy costs increase.

The first energy-producing greenhouses were delivered in the Netherlands in 2006. Greenhouse-Village is a new design concept for greenhouse-powered neighborhoods with decentralized water and wastewater facilities. Two-hectare greenhouses that use this design concept can heat and provide facilities for 200 houses with cost effectiveness achieved at this scale.

Which takes me to the recent quip made by Alderman Connelly at council, “There’s a good reason they don’t grow bananas in Airdrie.” If there is, I would like to know what it is because it seems to me that urban agriculture makes economic sense no matter how you peel it.

This writer notes that the latitude of Airdrie is 51 degrees 16 minutes north, and the latitude of Amsterdam is 52 degrees 20 minutes north.

CivicCamp note:  An action group on Land-Food Connection is meeting this week to discuss the value of urban agriculture and other land-food related issues.  For more information, email us at civiccamp at gmail dot com.

WALK AND TALK OUR CITY’S NEIGHBOURHOODS

Jane’s Walk 2010 is a weekend of free walking tours led by local people to engage their community.  Join communities across North America to take part in this inspirational event about life in our city’s neighbourhoods.  Walking tours are led by volunteer leaders who want to share stories, joys and challenges of our communities. 

Jane’s Walk honours the legacy and ideas of urban activist and writer Jane Jacobs who championed the interests of local residents and pedestrians over a car-centered approach to planning. 

Sign up as a volunteer Jane’s Walk leader.  Think of stories you want to share, a route you want to walk and some neighbours and friends who can help out.  You might want to contact your local library and community association for information to bring your ideas to life.  Then give us a call and discuss your ideas.  We’re booking leaders now.

Visit www.calgaryfoundation.orgin April to see the roster of Jane’s Walks.  Set aside some time on the first weekend of May and join a Jane’s Walk for insight and conversation.  Calgary’s Jane’s Walk is organized by The Calgary Foundation as part of its vision of a community with citizens engaged in community building at all levels.  Contact:Julie Black, Citizen Engagement Associate, The Calgary Foundation at 403-802-7720 or jblack@thecalgaryfoundation.org

To read more posts from CivicCampers about Jane’s Walks, check out  CivicCamp:  A Grassroots Kind of Thing and Jane’s Walk in Ramsay.  Then for a little more inspiration on building a sense of community with your own two feet, we recommend  On Meeting Our Neighbours.

My summary of Saturday’s CivicCamp 2.0 event at EPCOR CENTRE:  there’s work to be done and no shortage of CivicCampers eager to get after it.  

The topics chosen by participants for the day’s breakouts included transportation, food policy, urban villages, youth and seniors, public spaces and civic governance.  Interest in civic governance was so intense that it had to be divided into three subgroups to allow everyone to participate in the discussion.  With each breakout group coming back to the plenary with specific action items for CivicCamp to focus on in the coming months, the call went out for volunteers to work on each of the action items.  People moved quickly to sign up, often for more than one item.  It was thrilling to see, as was the number of new faces at CivicCamp.

We’re still compiling all the breakout notes and action items and we’ll share them with everyone as soon as poossible.  While you’re waiting, check out this article about Saturday’s activities by Markham Hislop from the S.E. Calgary News.  Interested in a citizens’ movement that is grassroots, engaging and timely?  Then CivicCamp is for you.  Our email address is civiccamp at gmail dot com 

Click here for a great article about CivicCamp by Lauren Barr over at the Calgary Journal.

Looking forward to a day of action tomorrow at CivicCamp 2.0!

The next event is this week, Wednesday, October 21, 6 PM at the Central Library. The library provides reserved copies of the book of the month at the main circulation desk – or pick up a copy at your local book store.

This week the featured book will be THE LIFE YOU CAN SAVE by Peter Singer. Singer is an acclaimed author who brings a global perspective and accessible style to his writing. In this latest book he tackles the question of how those of us in the richer countries can best live in ethical relationship with those in poorer countries. It promises to be a lively discussion. See you there!!

You can find information on this year’s book selections and book club schedule by following the link.

Noel

“More than two million Canadians have diabetes, a number that’s expected to rise to three million by the end of this decade. (The vast majority of people with diabetes have Type 2.) Despite the epidemic of Type 2 diabetes, the disease is largely preventable though physical activity, healthy eating and controlling weight.

Observational studies have linked the increase in diabetes to changes in our environment. We rely on cars to take us – and our kids – everywhere. Many of us live in suburbs so spread out that biking or walking to work, school, or the grocery store isn’t an option.”

Beck goes on to mention several studies in the article, including one that found that: 

“Residents of Salt Lake City who lived in neighbourhoods built before 1950 were leaner than people who lived in more modern communities.  Older neighbourhoods were thought to protect from obesity because they were built with pedestrians – not cars – in mind. They had more trees, more sidewalks, more intersections, and offered a pleasant walking environment.”

“Such findings”, says Beck, “suggest it may be possible to halt and reverse the epidemics of obesity and Type 2 diabetes by modifying the environment in which we live.”  Click here to read the full article.  And thanks go out to Margaret for bringing the article to our attention.

Only six months have passed since the first CivicCampers gathered downtown at Knox United to start a conversation about the city we want to build for ourselves and our children.  Out of that conversation, a list emerged of things CivicCampers value:

• Great public spaces
• A city and region of vibrant urban villages
• An integrated, interconnected, sustainable and equitable transportation system for all people and all modes – walk, bike, bus, train, auto, air
• Coordinated development of transportation and land use
• Affordable housing
• A social environment in which diversity is respected, human rights are protected, responsibilities are fulfilled, individual and community progress is supported and cooperation prevails over conflict
• An intimate connection to the land and the food that sustains us
• Child, youth and senior-friendly development
• Transparent, fair and citizen-driven governance
• A network of citizens that can respond quickly to issues

CivicCampers are preparing to gather again on October 24 at the Jack Singer Concert Hall, EPCOR CENTRE for the Performing Arts.  There we will dive into the conversation once more, this time talking about how to create and support a city that reflects the very things we value.  This is a day to translate our ideas into sustainable actions.  We’ll brainstorm and inspire each other to come up with steps big and small we can take in our neighbourhoods, in the larger community, across the city and beyond.  And we’ll talk about how CivicCamp will continue to support such steps.

CivicCamp 2.0:  building a city that works for us all…join us October 24th!

When yesterday’s agenda finally moved to Plan It, we learned that Alderman Fox-Mellway would be introducing a new amendment on behalf of the Mayor, lowering the bar for intensity thresholds in future greenfield developments.  Presumably the City’s Plan It team would have used this density target in their recommendations to Council if they could support it.  Likewise the stakeholder advisory committee to Plan It would have endorsed the lower standard but, in fact, some members thought it should be higher.  Doesn’t matter, they weren’t consulted on this anyway.  Instead the Mayor made a deal with UDI and the CHBA, representatives of the greenfield development industry who didn’t like the number proposed in Plan It.  Exactly what transpired and who participated, we don’t know at this point.  We do know that, prior to opening deliberations on Plan It, Council met in camera.  That’s where a letter was shared by the Mayor.  Afterwards, the letter was made part of the public record but its content was not shared with those following the proceedings.  And then an amendment was introduced to substantially water down a key intensity threshold for greenfield development.  Only three Aldermen – Ceci, Farrell and Pincott - voiced concerns about the lack of transparency and consultation on the amendment and voted against it.   It passed, and so, too, did Plan It.  Unanimously.

Before the vote on this surprise amendment, the Mayor stated that Council shouldn’t get too hung up on this one number, that the overall plan is strong enough to see us well into the future.  Which begs a number of questions:  if the number is no big deal, why did UDI and CHBA lobby so forcefully for it?  Why the backroom deal to cement it if it really didn’t matter?  And why did a number of Alderman who have been opponents of Plan It for months suddenly jump on board when that insignificant number was changed in the document?

History may judge that members of Council held their noses to pass a plan which by no means had unanimous support going into this meeting but those who brokered the deal sacrificed transparency to get it done and did an end run around the stakeholders who represented interests other than those of the greenfield development industry.   Does the end justify the means?