Dear Editor,

It was with complete shock and dismay when my builder recently called me to say that there is likely going to be a huge increase in our building costs on our acreage to the tune of possibly $25,000 to $40,000, as the MD of Foothills is now going to probably require a Professionally Engineered Lot Development Plan and/or a Development Permit application to build on all existing or new country residential (acreage) lots in the municipality.

Beyond the regular building permit, apparently these lot plans and development permit applications will require reports and plans showing grades, floor elevations, driveway locations, water conservation methods, soil analysis — even exterior lighting and vegetation design.

I checked the local ad in the paper today and found this only to be a few of the things they will want.

Why does the MD want to do this? Up until this point in time, the current guidelines in the municipality, only required certain lots with obvious physical constraints to be zoned as CR-A to ensure homebuilders take the appropriate steps to remedy any issues that may exist. In this regard, only those with problems needed to do extra checks and studies, as it should be.  Surely the MD council must realize that the bulk of the population should not be made to pay for outrageous engineering studies when not necessary. It is not my fault that dummies of the past may have built their home in a slough which then floods their home or over a precipice that suddenly falls away.

Who is responsible for these new ideas? MD staff? Council? Who will review them? For what cost? Are only the very rich allowed to live here?

So, a big “heads up” warning needs to get out to all MD of Foothills acreage owners, future home owners, home builders, developers and contractors if the newly proposed changes to the MD Land Use Bylaw are passed by the MD council after the public hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Feb. 25.   This new set of rules must be opposed before it is too late — people need to be involved to prevent this totally unnecessary overly excessive set of rules becoming law. I intend to call the councillor on this one in my area and I hope all those reading this will do the same and show up for the hearing.

W. F. Mansell

DeWinton

Okotoks wouldn’t gain from Holmes’ development

Dear Editor,

I was quite amused after reading last week’s editorial about the Mike Holmes’ project that is planned for just across Highway 7 from the Walmart. If this project was located across the street from its proposed location, Okotoks would have received $50,834 x 145 acres or $7,370,930 in offsite fees alone.  Just in case anyone doesn’t know what offsite fees are used for, I can tell you that a large part of the money that builds amenities all over Okotoks came from developer paid offsite levies.

These 457 houses (if they were in Okotoks) would have to pay approximately (457 x $1,800) $822,600 in taxes (education tax not counted) in 2009 to our town. Our 3.2 per cent increase in taxes this year netted less money than this amount.

Let’s see what Okotoks gets out of this deal: no offsite fees, no tax revenue but these people would use our town just as much as the rest of us and they would represent 6.5 per cent of our population.

They want the project here because of Okotoks’ environmental record and yet there is nothing in this deal for us.

David Clark

Okotoks

Harper needs more medals

Dear Editor,

Harper prorogued parliament to avoid it suggesting his government lied about Afghan detainees being tortured.

In the style of George Bush he accused his opponents of being against the troops, when it was him, not the troops, being questioned.

Now the government is offering more money to Canadian athletes to win medals. Never mind if they achieve their lifetime best performance, Harper needs medals. His bet that the Canadian people will be dazzled by Olympic gold and forget his affront to democracy might work, but you can bet he is biting his nails that Canada wins a lot of medals.

Larry Mackillop

Nanton