Hello everyone:


A couple of people asked me about this, so I'll take this opportunity to (I hope) clarify ...

Some of you may have noticed the letter in the paper regarding my comments about the proposed lane marking with "sharrows" (a new kind of traffic symbol with a bike silhouette plus two chevrons).  I was quoted as/criticized for saying something like "I'm concerned about anything that requires us to educate people".   That does make it sound like I'm opposed to educating people, which must have been a bit of a puzzle to those of you who know me.

 Well, yes, I did say that ... and the rest of the sentence was something like:  "about brand-new traffic safety signs, because our population of drivers turns over every single day and our job of educating them will never be done".  I went on to recommend, therefore, that we install signs at the entries to town that show the symbol along with the words "share the road", so that drivers new to town will get some indication of what the symbol is supposed to mean.  Council then agreed to that idea as part of the new sharrow program, which I and every other member of council voted for.

I tried to get hold of the letter-writer to answer him directly, but unfortunately couldn't find him in the phone book or on Facebook.  So if any of you happen to know him, please pass this info along!


Here are some highlights of tomorrow's council agenda (you can see the full package at http://www.banff.ca/Assets/PDFs/Town+Hall+PDF/Council+Agendas+PDF/2009+Agendas+PDF/council-agenda-090713.pdf ):

Water conservation and energy efficiency

Council voted at the last meeting to extend the rebate program for water conservation and energy-saving to include various new possibilities for both residential and business properties.  We're being asked to look back at that list and add support of energy audits to the business list (it's already included for residential).  I think this is a great idea and will be supporting it.  You can see the report by clicking on the link above and scrolling down to page 30.

Busking and other street use items

Council is being asked to consolidate and update some bylaws about the use of streets and public spaces.  Most of the updates centre around the busking permit process.  These come after a review by a committee that included reps from Parks Canada, the Small Business Association, and Banff-Lake Louise Tourism.  One of the great new innovations is that the town will soon be asked by Parks to regulate busking on Park-owned locations such as Banff Avenue Square.  This means that town regulations such as no amplifiers and no selling of merchandise will now apply there as well.  You can see the whole report by clicking on the link for the agenda package (above) and scrolling down to page 33.

Land Use Bylaw public input process

On page 70 of the package, you'll find a report summarizing the work that the planning staff have been doing on public input for phase 1 on the Land Use Bylaw review.  If you've visited with the planners when their tent came to your neighbourhood, you'll know that they have really been making an effort to make it easy for people to engage in this process.  Besides the tent stops, they've met with groups that have asked them to come, held an open house, provided the proposals on the website and given people a chance to comment online.  I think this is a great effort, and hope that you are all taking the chance to have your say.

Remember, you don't want to wait until a new building project starts up next to you -- that's too late.  You need to say up front what you want your neighbourhood and your town to look like, and the Land Use Bylaw is how we do that.

Banff Housing Corporation -- next steps for public process

Council will also meet as the shareholders of the BHC tomorrow, and you can see the package for that right here:


At the request of some homeowners, council postponed five "next steps" ideas and agreed to consider them at this meeting, to give people a chance to respond to them. 

The proposed next steps include:

  • confirming that the sublease agreement will not be changed:  I think this is premature, because council has promised to provide certainty on the price cap issue, and it is possible that a sublease amendment may turn out to be the best way to do this.
  • providing a "plain English" version of the key provisions of the sublease:  I'm very much in support of this, as discussions have shown that many people find the sublease difficult to understand.
  • structuring a working group to carry forward discussions:  I support this, but I'm open to various possible structures and members.