Welcome to Banff The battle over Urban Development in Banff National Park Banff National Park is the most highly developed national park in the world. It is in complete disarray and has been overcome by development. Wildlife habitat has been destroyed by the ski hills, the Trans-Canada Highway, the CP railway, the Banff townsite and by many “wreck-reationists” that use the park as their playground. The September 16th 1997 decision by Federal Heritage Minister Sheila Copp’s to deny approval of the Banff Town council’s Community Plan made sure that questions over the proper extent of urban development within this national Park town to continue well into the year 2000. Banff’s Community Plan to guide overall growth, was developed through a two-year process of community input and consultations, a process that nonetheless left some businesspeople and many environmentalists feeling that their concerns had not been addressed. Opposition from these disgruntled groups undoubtedly contributed to the Minister’s decision to send Banff’s politicians back to the drawing board. (Beaubien, Elisabeth) The Commercial and residential development within the Banff town site has been an emotionally charged issue for many years. The intervention of the federal minister in with this instance marks Ottawa’s return to a field that has largely distanced itself, since the town site gained a limited form of municipal autonomy in 1990.
The Term Paper on WARRINGA CITY PARK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Overview of the Project Warringa city council is planning to set up a park at the south east corridor of the city. Proposed by city mayor Angel Kenny and approved by the city council. The project is still undergoing an intensive study. The city council had formulated a steering committee last January 6, 2007, whose main purpose is to conduct feasibility studies for the proposed project. The ...
Before that time decisions about the form and the extent of the development in Banff were the responsibility of National Parks officials. (Lock, Harvey) However, the desire of local business and community leaders to have more say in such decisions, combined with Ottawa’s wish to reduce the administrative burdens generated by a town of more than 6,000 permanent residents, led to the creation in Banff of the first municipal government within the boarders of any Canadian national park. This arrangement appears to have served its purpose: development issues in Banff have probably never received so much public attention, input, and debate as they have within this decade, yet federal officials have been able to concern themselves more with the “big picture” problems of how best to conserve and protect the park’s ecosystem, and less with the minutia of zoning and building permits. (Beaubien, Elisabeth) The Beginning term of Banff’s inaugural town council (1990-1992) was consumed with the development of a land use bylaw that the Federal government had laid out in a General Municipal Plan, prepared in the late 1980’s. This land use bylaw set stricter limits upon the extent and nature of allowable development in the town site than had ever before existed. The revised Community Plan which the Heritage Minister rejected would have tightened these restrictions even further, amounting to an almost two-thirds reduction in the amount of new commercial construction that would have been legal within the town’s boundaries.
The potential 850, 000 square feet of new development this plan would have authorized nonetheless still unnerved many ardent environmentalists and long-time town residents. (Beaubien, Elisabeth) The context in which the preparation of this revised Community Plan happened, however, was one of increased national and international attention to the integrity of Banff National Park’s environment. A two-year study of the National Park-Bow River Valley ecosystem headed by the Dean of the University of Calgary Faculty of Environmental Design, Dr. Robert Page, had released its final report in the fall of 1996. This report suggested that the town needed to introduced a “Limits to growth” policy. The federal decision to block the town’s development plans can be seen as a response to this criticism and a re-assertion of Ottawa’s ultimate right to protect what it perceives as the “national interest” of Canadians in limiting the human influence within a sensitive natural environment. (Dolphin, rick) The pendulum of national parks policy is slowly swinging away from the extreme of unlimited access to the backcountry areas and unlimited growth of townships and commercial operations within the park boundaries, to a more moderate “Limits to growth” policy. New rules to overcome the town’s own development plan to set new boundaries for the town, to restrict growth, to cap ski hill development, to limit expansion of outlying family run lodges and even to shut down or move existing businesses to build a new interpretive center have reinforced Ottawa’s firm grip on the park. (The Calgary Herald, October 30th, 1999) Copp’s critics in the Rockies have attacked proposals in lawsuits filed by four Alberta Ski Resorts.
The Term Paper on Technologt Parks and Their Role in National Development
Industrial and technology parks are places which, due to a concentrations of firms from one sector and supporting science and research facilities, are enabled to develop quickly. This is a pro-development model that is increasingly being implemented in our country. The facilities being offered, are applicable both to Polish and foreign businesses. Though there are many common factors in the ...
The resorts first filed an application for a judicial appeal in May after the federal government announced plans to set new limits on ski area development within Banff National Parks. Some ski hills include; Sunshine Village, Norquay, Lake Louise. Other development proposals by CP were also rejected, such as a ten story conference building. (The Vancouver Sun, October 16th, 1999) It seems that the commercial community has something to complain about, with hold on development in Banff. One commercial developer stated, “We have hired an architect, a transport consultant, an environmental assessment firm to start putting all the support information together that the town of Banff would need for our application.” So even if you do get the chance to had in a application, you are taking a big risk of loosing a great deal of money. (Novack, Phil) Among environmentalists the Copps initiatives are generally approved of, but there are exceptions and provisos.
The Essay on Jurassic Park
Jurassic Park, by Michael Crichton is an incredible book, which describes genetic engineering and the creation of an extinct species. Michael Crichton uses marvelous detail throughout the book. As great as the book is, it is not that appropriate for children who are 15 and under because of the gore, description, violence, and obscenities through out the story. Jurassic Park is a great book. ...
One of the exceptions is the plan to erect life-sized statues of Lucy Maud Montgomery and Wayne Gretzky, among others, outside the parks Canada headquarters in Banff. “It just sounds very cheap and has nothing to do with the values that should be enshrined in a national park facility,” said Dave Poulton, conservation director for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. (The Calgary Herald, October 30th, 1999) Commercial interests in national parks may be the most outspoken stakeholders advancing their interests and perception of the future of national parks. However, they do not hold the majority opinion of Canadians who see a different future for national parks in Canada: one where ecological values are taken in consideration with human values. For years Concerned Canadians have watched in dismay as politicians and Parks Canada administrators offered up Canada’s oldest and best loved national park as a sacrificial lamb to the pressures of large multinational corporations. Now it would seem Copps is willing to stand up for Canadians Values and Alberta’s heritage and state that a new vision is needed for national parks. I encourage Heritage Minister Sheila Copps to continue aggressive anti-development policies for the national parks.
Bibliography: Bibliography 1. “Cops doing the right thing.” (October 30th, 1999).
The Calgary Herald, section O, page 4. 2. Dolphin, Rick. (March 29th, 2000).
“Copps under fire in Banff over a new plan for park: Some residence fear the minister is leading a charge to turn the national park back to critters and eco-folk.” The Vancouver Sun, Section A, page 10. 3. Lock, Harvey & Poulton, Dave.
(May 28th, 2000).
“Saving Banff from being loved to death.” The Edmonton Journal, section A, page 11. 4. Novak, Phil. (March 2nd, 2000).
“Legislation Limits Growth.” The Calgary Herald, section A, page 13. 5. Struzik, Ed.
(March 24th, 2000).
“Copps puts lid on development in parks.” The Edmonton Journal, section A, page 1. 6. “Resorts want Copps in court: Four ski resorts within Jasper and Banff national parks claim the heritage minister is in contempt of court over development limits.” (October 16th, 1999).
The Essay on Harriet Tumban And Rosa Parks
Harriet Tumban and Rosa Parks Playing undoubtedly a most prominent part in the civil rights movement in the United States, Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks have got much in common in their aspiration to make this world a better and fairer place to live. Their commitment to the cause they pursued was above and beyond ordinary dedication. Both Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks came from the lowest class of ...
The Vancouver Sun, section A, page 5. 7.
Beaubien, Elisabeth. (June 21st, 1998).
“Copps right to stop Banff park development.” The Edmonton Journal, section A, page 3..
