Council recently considered a bylaw to remove all parking requirements from residential development. Just to be clear, decoupling means you could build a 30-unit apartment building and have no on-site parking. Like other Banffites, I commented at the public hearing on this bylaw. My comments are below:

I believe that we have a parking problem as well as a housing problem, and making one significantly worse in the hope that we might have a positive effect on the other is abdicating our responsibility to plan for our overall future as a community.

We are assuming that developers will build parking if it’s needed, rather than save money and maximize development. We are assuming that if they don’t, and parking turns out to be needed, the public realm will just absorb it, somehow.

These assumptions will lead to very different outcomes in different parts of town, depending on the parking spots available, whether the area is in the RPP restricted zone, whether area residents are short-term renters or long-term owners, and so on.

I think decoupling is not a good solution for Banff. I think the assumptions are flawed. However, if you decide you want to do this, I have a couple of suggestions for you to consider:

Instead of complete decoupling, how about allowing parking requirements to be varied up to 100%, but only after going through a review process that takes into account:
• The number of dwelling units
• The intended residents (rental housing for short-term staff vs owned condos for longterm residents)
• The parking supply in the neighbourhood where the development is proposed – in numbers of on-street spots available in that neighbourhood, not %age occupancy
• Whether the development is within the RPP zone
We have good information on average vehicle ownership depending on type of unit/type of resident, and apparently we have the ability to calculate parking availability. Yes, it would be work, but surely it’s better than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Or, if you really want to go with developer-driven parking space decisions, then let’s have a formula regarding resident parking permits for residents of such developments. If the developer and the development approving authority can imagine that no parking spaces are needed because the residents will not have cars, then certainly these non-cars will not need RPPs. If the developer builds only half of what would be normal for a building of that size, then perhaps half the residents get RPPs, and so on.

We are the densest community in Alberta. Additional density is more easily accepted in neighbourhoods if the neighbours can see that the impacts of the additional density are largely dealt with onsite. Spreading those impacts into the public realm is guaranteed to increase neighbourhood reaction.

There are lots of people in the Town of Banff who are carefully mulling over their voting decision for the upcoming provincial election. I'm making no secret of my preference! I'm working hard to re-elect Cam Westhead, who - IMHO - has been an outstanding representative for the Bow Valley.

But lots of you are legitimately undecided and trying to figure out your best choice. The best way to do that is to see the candidates in action. Head to the All-Candidates' Forum, at the BPL, April 8 at 7 pm.

And huge kudos to the Banff Lake Louise Hospitality Association for putting this on. These folks have been really community-minded in giving Banff this opportunity to listen to and question their candidates in person.

I've been helping Bow Valley Regional Housing with some of their communications work, and today was a highlight! Alberta Minister of Seniors and Housing Lori Sigurdson, along with our MLA Cam Westhead, CMHC rep Elena Salikhov, elected reps from the partner municipalities and resident representative Hilda Slavin were in festive mood as they cut the ribbon on 63 beautiful new units of seniors' housing. This is Phase One, and Phase Two (60 more units, with a focus on level 4 care) should start this summer.

Municipal elections are coming up fast!

Our democracy is best served when a range of candidates, with a range of ideas, present themselves to the voters for their consideration. There's no "political class" in Banff. If you are engaged in our community, if you have ideas about how to make it better, if you are willing to put those ideas out there, you can be a candidate. Information on the technicalities of running can be found here:
http://banff.ca/index.aspx?nid=900

If you're not able to be a candidate, find a candidate or two that you can support and get behind. Encourage them, volunteer for them, help them with their campaigns.

Voting is the absolute minimum responsibility of a citizen. Take it up a notch or two!!

I've been following with interest the Calgary Southway controversy: Mayor Nenshi's decision to take public engagement for this process online, and to stop the open houses. It's unfortunate, but I can understand why the City of Calgary has made this decision. It seems that some people are unwilling to express concerns and disagreement about a project without personal attacks. I observe that sometimes people who are uncomfortable with confrontation (and there are many such people) have to work themselves into a rage just to get past their discomfort and be able to express disagreement. This leads to unproductive situations.

So here are a few hints on how to effectively provide feedback on a municipal plan or proposal with which you may disagree:

1. Make sure you have the facts. Don't try to get them from Letters to the Editor. Do your research, look at drawings, read proposals, understand applicable bylaws. If this seems daunting, do it with a group - each take a part of the research and share your results with each other. Ask questions of administration about points you don't understand from your research: "Please show me where in the bylaw this is permitted?" "Where will the four corners of this building be?" "What are the safety regulations for this playground?" "Where is the legal road allowance on the survey?"

2. Decide on what you like and what concerns you about what you've learned. Make notes on these key points. Don't bother with anything that is retroactive -- not liking something that is allowed in a bylaw won't make that bylaw inapplicable to this project. By all means, lobby to get it changed in the future, but bylaws that are in place today govern today's projects.

3. Decide what would have to change about the proposal to make it acceptable to you. Frame these concerns in the form of questions to be solved working together: "How could we mitigate the traffic flows?" "How can we ensure that litter from the site is appropriately handled?" "How can we protect view lines?"

4. Go to open houses or online feedback sessions with these questions, or contact your councillor(s) or mayor and ask them how to work together to solve the issues.

5. If, after all that, you don't get the outcome you want, don't say "They didn't listen", unless they really didn't! Perhaps they listened, but they didn't agree. That's different.

6. Take it up a level. The time to express your concerns about a development is NOT just before the shovels go into the ground. Pay attention when your community is revising its community master plan or transportation master plan or land use bylaw. Look at the sections that will affect you in the future, even the distant future, and lobby for the changes you'd like to see. Getting involved and staying involved in the planning and regulation of your community is an effective way to make sure your voice is heard.

7. Take it up two levels. If you don't see your point of view represented on your local council, then it's up to you to get it to the table. Find a candidate who is of like mind, and support him/her actively. Or BE a candidate. Being an elected decision-maker, at the council table, is THE most effective way to make sure your voice is heard.