The dispute between some Springbank residents and  Rocky View councillors continues with some members of the Central Springbank Task Force calling for a complete break from Rocky View County to align itself with the Municipal District of Bighorn.

“This is an initiative that’s come out of the blue,” admitted task force member Sharon Anderson.

“But I’ll tell you  — there’s a dedicated group behind it. And I’m not opposed to it. I kinda like it.”

Anderson said the proposed split comes amidst concerns about the County’s $54 million debt, and fears that commercial development and a residential neighbourhood is set to bring in an additional 10,000 people to the area.

“It’s all about paving the countryside,” said Anderson. “They’re looking at totally commercial on both sides of the highway. That’s what they have in mind. There is no vision.”

Earlier this year Couns. Harvey Buckley and Gordon Branson made a motion to council to halt development in the County until it became more stable financially.

But a month or so later the motion was scrapped, drawing the ire of task force members who had been pleased that development might cease or at least slow down.

In a letter to the media and interested stakeholders, Springbank residents Jerry and Diane Arshinoff questioned the fact that they say Branson and Buckley backed down after an in-camera meeting.

“Discussions in-camera are legitimate when specific topics such as land, legal and labour need confidentiality when debated,” they wrote in a letter on the  ourspringbank.ca web site. “However, the Buckley-Branson motion did not belong to any one of these.”

Not so, said Springbank-area councillor Mitch Yurchak who claims the motion was illegal.

“They didn’t back down after an in-camera meeting,” he said. “We had lunch with a legal opinion, Joanne Klauer, who said the motion would be challenged at the provincial level. They’re saying it was at an in-camera meeting because that’s what they do.”

But Jerry Arshinoff insists there’s nonetheless something “fishy” about the way the decision to withdraw the cease-development motion was made.

“I think the only way they can balance the budget is through more development,” he said. “They’re afraid of being made personally liable for the debt. I’m not saying that’s the case, I’m just saying that’s all we can think of.”

But Yurchak argued it’s unlikely county councillors could become responsible for the debt of the district.

“If that’s being said it came from Branson,” he said. “He’s always worried about being held personally liable for everything.”

Arshinoff said the frustration within the community stems in part from a lack of communication from councillors.

No related stories.

• Filed under News | Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.