Emrald - Your thoughts on Rural Development

[cakadu]

Emrald, what did you think of the Rural Development Initiative that was recently completed (within the last year) by AAFRD? Our MLA was co-chair of that initiative as was Doug Griffiths, whom I'm not sure would have been your MLA or not.

What do you think about the difficulties in bringing enterprise to rural areas that will create jobs and then meeting with difficulty by local residents? It seems to me that it is a double-edged sword of sorts because you want the jobs and infrastructure to keep the rural areas alive and sustainable, yet there is some apparent resistance to certain initiatives.

What do you see as some of the best strategies for brining commerce and growth to rural areas?

It is so hard to know what to do because rural development and ag development are negatively correlated in many respects, so how does this gap get closed?

I'd be interested in hearing everyone's thoughts because we all likely live in communities where some changes need to be embraced in order to survive into the future.

[pandiana]

Attacting development and people is a real challenge, and of course people go where the jobs are .Rural communities have to draw on the strengths they have in order to attract development. Resource based municipalities don't have any problem doing this as the service sector for resources seems to grow each year. Other areas have to be creative to attract development and people. The major problem these areas have is the ability to keep up with services, recreation and educational needs.
I find that the agricultural based municipalities both rural and urban seem to be having the toughest time as far as growth is concerned. Value added agriculture will certainly encourage growth and jobs, but in the tough times we are in, it is sometimes difficult to raise venture capital for ag related development.
Land development in some areas of the province is growing by leaps and bounds as you are aware Linda, and even in some of the more remote areas recreational developments are popping up all over the place. However, these don't necessarily add much to the local economy if those that choose to live there don't do their shopping there. Residential taxes aren't the golden egg that some folks think they are, the cost of services and particulary recreational services outweighs the tax base more often than not.
Unless they contain significant commercial and industrial assessment rural hamlets are usually not a break even for the municipality, the cost of services are subsidized by the rest of the tax base.
Some areas have been very creative in attracting growth, I think of Camrose for instance, where the Economic Development Dept. marketed the city as a wonderful place to retire. There has been a real boom in seniors housing and new box stores all over the place, but the downtown has suffered .
Some of the more remote areas have a problem attracting staff for various occupations, so distance is a real factor as is the proximity to good shopping and medical care.

[cakadu]

Red Deer County is definitely one that isn't having any trouble attracting growth, yet keeping a handle on that growth and planning wisely is becoming more and more of a challenge every day. Right now a lot of the growth is coming from non-ag related business i.e. the energy sector. We are seeing an increase in agri-tourism here and there are some value-added ventures that are looking promising. There are some steady players here that do quite well and it would be nice to see that translate into more growth.

What sorts of things are they doing to ensure that they don't loose downtown Camrose? I think many centres are struggling to keep the downtown areas going as the cities continue extending their reach.

I was at a conference last week that had a segment on innovation in small communities and one of the speakers was from the Temple Gardens Mineral Spa in Moose Jaw and the story of how they built that spa is actually quite inspiring, despite all of the challenges they met along the way. They just kept saying they could do it and never thought they couldn't.

One of her strongest messages was that you need to find what is unique about your area and work with that because what will work in one area won't necessarily work the same way in another.

It isn't an easy process and it is one that must have input from as many as possible in order to make it work. I agree that sometimes the costs of maintaining the infrastructure far outweigh any taxes gleaned from it. I know that in one study - in Virginia I believe - it cost them $1 to put in the services and $1.50 to maintain them.

Another point brought up by another speaker was the fact that through high speed internet, the rural kids could have access to many of the things their urban counterparts had, which helped out immensely.

In a recent study, urban folks agreed that they want rural areas and people on the land. What we need to do now is begin the dialogues to strengthen those relationships and help get them working so that all benefit.

[cowman]

Well here is a novel idea? Let the market decide? Throw the whole thing wide open?
And how about the concept of user pay? If you can't afford the facilities/maintenance then sell to someone who can? If it isn't viable without the government propping it up then maybe it needs to die?
We've got too much government involvement in too many things. The government wants to promote certain types of "developement" so they offer grants/tax incentives to help them along. If there was a real demand for that type of developement then someone will supply it...if the price is right!
If agriculture can't compete with other uses then the market is saying this "Get that land out of agriculture. It is a loser!"
Instead we have these little "experts"(planners) trying to tell us they know what is best for us and they will save us from ourselves! Of course they don't know what is best for us at all, only we know that!
In any kind of situation there is a buyer and there is a seller. The highest buyer gets the product? Isn't that how free enterprize works?

[cowman]

Throwing the whole development process wide open is scary to say the least. If the market decides that putting up a SPA in the middle of an agricultural area that specializes in beef production will be a money making proposition, what are the folks who are in that industry to do when the complaints start to come in about their generally accepted farming practices. Some people enjoy farming and want to preserve the land for future generations. This will become increasingly difficult if conflicting landuses are allowed. Just ask anyone who has tried to site a hog operation, feedlot or dairy in rural Alberta lately !!! Letting the market decide isn't all that easy when you have set backs you must comply with as far as environmental reserves, and oil and gas installations are concerned. In some areas of this province there are pipelines criss crossing under almost every quarter of land and it is very difficult to site a business in some areas as there can be no structures built over the pipelines.
Years ago, it was anything goes when developments occured in hamlets etc., most people built on half an acre, or one acre parcels and now those settlements don't qualify for Hamlet status, which is one more example of what can happen when 'anything goes'.
Linda, the last time I was in downtown Camrose, which is a couple of months ago, there really wasn't anything new to entice people there vs going to the box store malls. The one drawing card in downtown Camrose is the ladies wear and it draws a clientelle from a wide area. The mall in Camrose is full of empty spaces as well, as the shoppers are drawn to the new shopping area across the highway.
Red Deer County is trying to keep up with the pressures that come their but they have done somethings in their Land Use By-Law to protect ag lands I understand.

[cakadu]

Cowman, I can't see where letting the market bear whatever it needs to can come to any good at all, especially for land owners.

I'll give you an example that is right in my own backyard so to speak. Gleniffer Lake has been promoted as being the best kept secret in the province and as a great place to settle. People that live at the lake will tell you that some $400,000 per year is collected annually in taxes from this area. I haven't seen any figures, so cannot speak to the validity of them. For the sake of argument, lets say they are right.

Now, in their attempt to capture the business that Emrald refers to - i.e. to get these lake people shopping in Spruce View, the Co-op here started really going after the lake residents. As the majority of the lake residents are only here for part of the year i.e. the summer months, that leaves the local residents to provide the Co-op with the business. That move has cost the Co-op dearly and I understand that they are in real trouble. Now, in all fairness, it wasn't just this move that hurt the Co-op, the strike at the Federated Warehouse hasn't helped and there was at least one really bad choice in terms of management that did cost them a LOT of business.

The point is that they spent much of their resources going after what would only provide income for a short period of time, forgetting who their bread and butter really is and has been since 1946 when the Co-op first opened up out here. They are now in the unenviable position of trying to figure out how to get out of the predicament that they find themselves in.

Going ahead without taking into consideration the consequences in both the short and long-term can be very detrimental. That is why even the land use and "right to farm" issues must be considered very carefully and on a case-by-case basis. One size fits all does not really apply.

[cakadu]

Linda that is an excellent example of what happens when municipalities cater to a specific development. In Camrose they were successful in marketing the city as a haven for seniors, but the demand for soft services such as long term care, home care etc. went up as those seniors aged. Most seniors aren't shopping for furniture and sporting goods etc, so I am willing to bet that those businesses had a rough time.
Whitecourt markets themselves as the snomobile capital of Alberta, but there aren't many snowmobilers in the summer and fall, so they are fortunate to have the resource base they do to keep their economy bouyant.

[cakadu]

Linda, I should have provided th following example of how one small community created economic growth.
The Council of a small village was approached by a health care professional wanting to locate to their community. His intention was to build a clinic and he wanted tax concessions. The Council went one further and gave him a village owned lot and a tax concession of no municipal taxes for five years.
The clinic was built and it has created a real spin off in the village. Patients come from fifty miles in each direction to the clinic, and eat in the little restaurant in the same building, buy groceries at the new store, buy hardware items at the True Value store and buy gas at the local gas station as well as get any prescriptions filled at the pharmacy.
This spin off injects far more into the community than the property taxes and once the five years are up the Village will get those taxes as well.
There were those in the community that opposed the 'gift' of the lot but the clinic provides a much needed service and local residents have it in their own community, so the lot was a small price to pay.

[Horse]

Emerald thats a nice story but when does the biding stop The county or Red Deer and strathcona or whitecourt or any of the centers with a resource base could out bid any one else if they decided they wanted the facility, we now have Swanhills advertising as a retirement town and the health care will all have to end up in edmonton at a horendus cost, no doubt some will make good money but as usual the working tax payer will pick up the actual costs.

[cowman]

Linda: Personally I think the Glennifer Lake developement was a good idea? I mean, why not? You have a lake, why not let people enjoy it?
The fact the co-op might have counted on a larger business than they eventually got really speaks about a bad business decision rather than saying the developement was a bad thing?
Emerald: Your example of the town giving the doctor(or whatever) could apply equally to a bar or casino or golf course? Where do we draw the line on the freebies? Or do we give every business free land and tax concessions so they'll set up shop?
My whole point here is this: Why should the various governments decide in their infinite wisdom where developement should go? Why should my neighbor across the road be in an area where he can reap the benifits of developement, while I am designated as the bumpkin area and must accept a devaluing of my property and get to live the life as the poor happy peasant? If saving the "rural agricultural area" is such a desirable thing for society, then don't you think everyone should pay for it, instead of the unlucky rural landowner?
Even the reasoning for some of this garbage is really flawed. At a recent public hearing I asked the planner how they could possibly justify "protecting good farmland" while they continued to allow the city of Red Deer to gobble up the very best farmland in the county for housing. I got the usual BS about how their hands are tied etc.etc.!
It also always amazes me how easy it is to have the rules changed once the dumb old farmer gets tired of losing money and sells the land to some slick speculator! Suddenly all that "protecting the good farm land" doesn't seem to cut it anymore! Not just sure how that works? I suspect it probably involves greasing the right people or something?

[cowman]

cowman, any urban centre that files an annexation with Municipal Affairs has a process that must be followed. Its not as simple as the rural municipality telling the urban one to take a flying leap !!
If it is proven that the urban town or city is out of developable land then the annexation will be allowed although mediation is required etc.
The point I was making about the clinic in the local village is that this service was a necessary one for the residents and by giving a tax concession they got the service in their home town vs having to travel for miles. I would never compare that to a casino, although I agree that casinos do create an economic spin off.

[cakadu]

Cowman, I didn't mean to imply that the lake development was a bad thing. Yes, the Co-op did make a very bad decision and miscalculated in terms of just how much support they would get from the lake people. They also didn't realize it quick enough because it has been going on a downhill slide for several years now. There is only so far out that the land around the lake can be used for development until such time as they are getting into farm land. Some of it may very well be in that marginal class because we have so much gumbo out here.

The point I hope to make with my example is that the business decision was not taken with the values of the community in mind, instead they went after the new business - which they are more than able to do - but in order for it to work and find balance, it might have gone better had they found out what the locals would have wanted to have happen before they made their decisions. Many of the people around here have lived here their whole lives and for several generations, so there were some hard feelings when all of this was taking place. You've got to do what is right for the community as a whole, not just a certain segment. I'm sure it didn't occur to them that many of the lake citizens even brought in what goods they would need because they could have better selection and pricing brining them from a larger centre. Not to mention that some of the permanent residents at the lake are like many other folks who settle in the country - they do their shopping elsewhere because that is what they know. It isn't good or bad, just what they do.

I agree with you on one point - that if society wants these green spaces, biodiversity and the environment protected, then it becomes a societal cost to bear and not just the landowners.

Nothing is ever totally black and white and rural development is far from it.