I forgot to post these from the other day
1000001373.jpg
1000001374.jpg
1000001375.jpg
1000001376.jpg
1000001377.jpg
1000001378.jpg
1000001379.jpg
1000001383.jpg
1000001384.jpg
1000001385.jpg
1000001386.jpg
1000001388.jpg
1000001390.jpg
1000001391.jpg
1000001392.jpg
 
MacLac said:
Are these aluminum bollards just bolted to the dirt in your 4th pic?
Click to expand...
They're at the end of a road to ensure people turn into the adjacent alley instead of driving into the park on the other side.
 
Aaron Paquette to move this motion at council on August 19. I can see this being a win-win situation all around. There is also a proposed sale-under-market-value of land in Blatchford to the Metis Nation coming up in September. With amiskwaciy academy and the Metis Nation offices already located in/adjacent to the community, a lot can work together for good in the area (for the City, the development and indigenous people in and around Edmonton).

10.2 Urban Reserve in Blatchford (A. Paquette)
Councillor A. Paquette stated that at the next regular meeting of City Council, the following motion would be moved:
That Administration invite Kehewin Cree Nation to work together to outline the next steps in establishing an Urban Reserve in Blatchford, to serve as an economic and cultural area, and provide a report to Committee in First Quarter of 2026 that includes the following:
1. a Business case prepared by Kehewin Cree Nation that outlines a detailed plan for the potential land in the Blatchford Development;
2. an analysis of policy considerations/exemptions necessary to facilitate a land transfer (Blatchford Development), including consideration for a below-market land transfer;
3. an overview of the potential impact to the Blatchford Development including impact to the vision, impact to the operations and sustainability of the Blatchford District Energy System, the area redevelopment plan, anticipated revenue, impact to the development pace, sustainable goals and others; and 4. identification of potential timelines and any further recommendations and considerations in order to advance an Urban Reserve in the Blatchford Development.
● Notice of Motion Given: July 2/4, 2025, City Council
 
fjordgard said:
Aaron Paquette to move this motion at council on August 19. I can see this being a win-win situation all around. There is also a proposed sale-under-market-value of land in Blatchford to the Metis Nation coming up in September. With amiskwaciy academy and the Metis Nation offices already located in/adjacent to the community, a lot can work together for good in the area (for the City, the development and indigenous people in and around Edmonton).

10.2 Urban Reserve in Blatchford (A. Paquette)
Councillor A. Paquette stated that at the next regular meeting of City Council, the following motion would be moved:
That Administration invite Kehewin Cree Nation to work together to outline the next steps in establishing an Urban Reserve in Blatchford, to serve as an economic and cultural area, and provide a report to Committee in First Quarter of 2026 that includes the following:
1. a Business case prepared by Kehewin Cree Nation that outlines a detailed plan for the potential land in the Blatchford Development;
2. an analysis of policy considerations/exemptions necessary to facilitate a land transfer (Blatchford Development), including consideration for a below-market land transfer;
3. an overview of the potential impact to the Blatchford Development including impact to the vision, impact to the operations and sustainability of the Blatchford District Energy System, the area redevelopment plan, anticipated revenue, impact to the development pace, sustainable goals and others; and 4. identification of potential timelines and any further recommendations and considerations in order to advance an Urban Reserve in the Blatchford Development.
● Notice of Motion Given: July 2/4, 2025, City Council
Click to expand...
So would you essentially have to belong to this First Nation in order to live within this sub-area of Blatchford if this went through?
 
Garceyues said:
So would you essentially have to belong to this First Nation in order to live within this sub-area of Blatchford if this went through?
Click to expand...
Based only on my reading of the motion, I think that would all need to be worked out over time. For example, in Vancouver, the Squamish Nation is leading this development on their reserve lands (https://senakw.com/) that will have units available for anyone to rent. I doubt this would be similar in any way but just making the point that I think all of that is up to the parties involved (with the First Nation obviously having the most say once the reserve is created).
 
^I know this will be voted down: but as someone who abhors the idea of segregation, I find this appalling. This goes against the very idea that we are a multi-cultural society, where we have to work and live together.

I just don't understand the current progressive group think on this. For generations, people have fought to live where they want, NOT based on the colour of their skin. And yet, here we are. Shameful. This will not promote societal integration at all.

Singapore knows this: https://www.hdb.gov.sg/residential/...ontract/planning-considerations/eip-spr-quota

The policy was first introduced in 1989, and aims to foster social harmony and mutual understanding by ensuring that no single racial group dominates any particular area, which can help to prevent racial segregation and prevent the formation of ethnic enclaves.
 
whattheheck said:
^I know this will be voted down: but as someone who abhors the idea of segregation, I find this appalling. This goes against the very idea that we are a multi-cultural society, where we have to work and live together.

I just don't understand the current progressive group think on this. For generations, people have fought to live where they want, NOT based on the colour of their skin. And yet, here we are. Shameful. This will not promote societal integration at all.

Singapore knows this: https://www.hdb.gov.sg/residential/...ontract/planning-considerations/eip-spr-quota

The policy was first introduced in 1989, and aims to foster social harmony and mutual understanding by ensuring that no single racial group dominates any particular area, which can help to prevent racial segregation and prevent the formation of ethnic enclaves.
Click to expand...
I think you're completely missing both the intent and the management of Singapore's policies in this regard.

The initial "forced multiculturalism" within projects in Singapore does indeed impose restrictions on the initial occupants within any project whether it is built for sale or for rent with most projects initially being rental and most tenants being strongly encouraged and incentivized to purchase their unit.

That initial multicultural occupancy is both set and enforced such that all defined ethnicities are allocated a proportion of the overall units and that proportion cannot be exceeded. You would "qualify'" for a unit allocated for "your" ethnicity but you are legally barred from purchasing a unit elsewhere in the building. It should be noted as well that those allocations are scattered throughout the project and not segregated on a floor by floor basis.

It should also be noted that those initial ethnic restrictions (as clearly noted in your link) continue to be applied to each unit as subsequent tenancies and/or sales take place (ie an "ethnic Chinese" unit can only be resold to an ethnic Chinese purchaser and an ethnic Chinese purchaser cannot purchase a unit allocated to a different ethnicity).

All in all, it works extremely well in ensuring an integrated multi-cultural community within buildings and societally and it does foster social harmony and mutual understanding. It could however be said that it is not free of racial segregation as much as it is forced segregation at a very fine-grained level. One thing it is not is a purely market driven choice of accommodation free of racial segregation.

In relating this to Blatchford, I have no concerns with a proportion of the project being dedicated initially and over the long term to an indigenous component with or without a formal designation as an urban reserve any more than I would have an issue with a Chinese Benevolent Society Seniors Facility or a Sudanese Newcomers' Residence...
 
Last edited:
whattheheck said:
^I know this will be voted down: but as someone who abhors the idea of segregation, I find this appalling. This goes against the very idea that we are a multi-cultural society, where we have to work and live together.

I just don't understand the current progressive group think on this. For generations, people have fought to live where they want, NOT based on the colour of their skin. And yet, here we are. Shameful. This will not promote societal integration at all.

Singapore knows this: https://www.hdb.gov.sg/residential/...ontract/planning-considerations/eip-spr-quota

The policy was first introduced in 1989, and aims to foster social harmony and mutual understanding by ensuring that no single racial group dominates any particular area, which can help to prevent racial segregation and prevent the formation of ethnic enclaves.
Click to expand...
I suppose a lot will depend on the details, but I am not sure how you are arriving at the conclusion that people will be segregated. How is this different that the ownership of any property? Cultural or ethnic groups purchase property all the time and it isn't the end of the world. Also, you do realize that you are allowed to enter a reservation even if you are not indigenous, right?
 
roe_ said:
I suppose a lot will depend on the details, but I am not sure how you are arriving at the conclusion that people will be segregated. How is this different that the ownership of any property? Cultural or ethnic groups purchase property all the time and it isn't the end of the world. Also, you do realize that you are allowed to enter a reservation even if you are not indigenous, right?
Click to expand...
Every indigenous casino and casino hotel and golf course would be in big trouble if that wasn't the case! :)
 
People getting upset and debating something we don’t yet fully understand. If you’re going to be against something, maybe you should have the most basic of knowledge of how it works. I’m not saying it’s a good idea, just saying how stupid it is to get mad about something we have ZERO details about yet.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top