It's not only politicians at the LOCAL level who get developer, construction industry and bank payolla, but Provincial and Federal politicians. The result of this is our immigration policy. Canada can NOT bring in over 250,000 people (closer to 400,000, when 'temporary' and illegal immigration is factored in), without requiring new greenland for development. No amount of New Urbanist 'smart growth' will stop wilderness areas and farmland from becoming residential developments.

Corporate money also plays a part in keeping 'environmental' groups silent on the issue. The David Suzuki Foundation gets much of its funding from RBC and BMO-Financial, who've lobbied for nearly doubling immigration. The Sierra Club accepted nearly $100M, from a wealthy U.S. patron (David Gelbaum), on the condition that it not raise the topic of immigration.

With Ruby Dhalla's actuarial armageddon Bill C-428, one of the façades of the mass-immigration lobby--that we 'need' all of these YOUNG, warm bodies to keep the pension system solvent--has finally fallen off. The developers, construction industry and banks need constant population growth, in order to justify the construction of housing and associated infrastructure (roads, schools).

If environmentalists REALLY want to halt urban sprawl, then they'll lobby for putting a stop to the single, preventable cause of sprawl-generating population growth: the unsustainable intake of over a QUARTER MILLION people into our metropolitan areas anually. Even politicians in Austrailia's Labour Party are now admitting that mass immigration to their country (on par with our volumes) is THE cause of urban sprawl. We need a hard population cap, as has been recently proposed in the UK. There should also be an absolute ban on further greenfield development, or conversion of farmland for non-agricultural uses.

I think a better solution would be for more white people to off themselves... You guys just whine about everything anyhow.

Another nice solution would be to ban airlines. This way only people that would be willing to boat here would be allowed to enter. Also, jets use lots of fossil fuels and emit lots of CO2.

Some articles, re. Australia, overpopulation and immigration:
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20090110-19911.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/18/2658750.htm

Some background on the David Suzuki Foundation and the Sierra Club:
http://suzukiwatch.wordpress.com/
http://www.susps.org/

More on the issues of immigration and demographics in Canada:
http://www.greenparty.ca/node/4058
http://ecologicalcrash.blogspot.com/2009/03/canadas-policy-of-mass-immigration.html

Racist quips about 'white people off[ing] themselves' aside, immigration policy must NOT be a politically-incorrect, forbidden topic of discusion. Since the City already lobbies the Federal government over things like gas tax revenue, surely immigration policy can be up for discussion, as well.

Forget Plan It: Calgary should not become a city of two million, in the first place. No population growth, no sprawl.

Immigration policy isn't a forbidden topic. It's just that any time anything is mentioned about developers you bring you immigration and start dancing around like it's the only problem in town.

"Ban immigrants and we'll solve all of our problems!" you scream over and over again, and then you link to articles that actually talk about how population growth is a global problem, not a territorial problem. There are some opinion piece of politicians pandering to the uniformed masses trying to say that immigration is the cause of overpopulation. And then there is the whole counter-argument about how often immigrants from other countries don't buy large houses, pile person upon person into the houses they do own, bringing the density up WAY more than the average, Canadian family of 3 living in a 5 bedroom house, with a 3 car garage, the Hum-V, MiniVan and vacation cabin in the mountains.

Preventing people from crossing arbitrary boundaries such as borders does nothing to stabilize population globally. It also probably has less an effect on suburban growth that you'd like to think. At best, reducing immigration in Canada will only delay the problems locally. Maybe we should be educating people on global issues - something that's impossible to do if we keep everyone out of our country.

"Preventing people from crossing arbitrary boundaries such as borders does nothing to stabilize population globally."

It does stabilize the population LOCALLY...which is the factor ultimately determining how much land our metropolitan areas occupy. Additionally, every person in Canada is another strain on our freshwater supply. All of the low-flush toilets in the country won't solve that issue.

"...immigrants from other countries don't buy large houses, pile person upon person into the houses they do own, bringing the density up WAY more than the average..."

More stereotyping, about 'poor' immigrants, who favour high-density living arangements. Thanks to Canada's Immigrant Entrepreneur ($400,000+ and you're in) Program, the majority of immigrants to Canada are middle-to-upper-class. These are the ones buying large, detatched homes in Coventry Hills (and even in the 'exburbs', in Rockyview). They're the ones who bought those large homes overlooking Nose Hill (developers REALLY wanted to build on Nose Hill, with Al Duerr on side). Temple and other 70s-80s suburbs were largely the products of massive waves of Tudeau and Mulroney-era immigration.

Wherever people come from, you simply can't ad hundreds of thousands of people to the country anually, without expecting to lose natural areas and farmland to housing. The bulk (not the entirety) of Calgary's growth IS coming from immigration. Many new[ish] developments--like those endless, chipboard condos in Country Hills--ARE high-density housing. Regardless of how densely you pack those quarter million plus a year, they ARE going to need more land. Less farmland and more people also means costlier food, since many staples (cereals, beef) ARE sourced within the 100 mile zone.

There is simply NO reason that we have to sit by and let Calgary double in population, something that Plan It treats as an inevitability. Along with cutting immigration levels to sane, sustainable numbers, there are other, more concrete things we can do to stop urban sprawl in its tracks. For one, there should be a FEDERAL food security and wild lands protection program, with an absolute ban on further greenspace, or farmland development.

As for global issues: environmentalists have to face the politically-incorrect fact that people in developing countries have unsustainable birthrates. Certainly, we have to restart the family-planning initiatives that were killed under the Bush years. However, I wouldn't hold out much hope. When the Soviet government introduced mass literacy for women, mass-vaccinations, industrialization and other material improvements to Central Asia, the population actually INCREASED. This is because, while infant mortality dropped, the traditional (Muslim) cultures stubbornly clung to their large-family preferences.

When you quote me, you should quote the entire sentence - I said they "often" do. Not even "most" or "all". I was careful in choosing that word to indicate that wanting a TON of space is very often a North American dream, and that people from developing countries are often used to living in smaller spaces with higher density. Not all of them do.

Immigration is NOT the only reason our population grows. Sure it is a reason, but it's not the only reason. From a simple google search and basic math skills it appears our population grows by about 330k births per year and 250k immigrants per year. Sounds like birth rates are more of a problem than immigration. Maybe we should ban births too? To be honest 250k immigrants a year does not sound that high, it's not as high as I was expecting from hearing you talk about it.

"There is simply NO reason that we have to sit by and let Calgary double in population, something that Plan It treats as an inevitability."

You're right. We don't have to. But you've given me no good reasons to side with you. FWIW I also don't HAVE to sit by and listen to you blather on about how banning Immigration is the solution to all our problems. Nor do I HAVE to care about the overpopulation of the world. It's unlikely to have a large impact while I'm alive and I don't have, nor do I plan to have any kids, so why should I care?

On the other hand, Calgary's long term plan will be in effect for the duration of my life, and I live here so it directly affects me.

"Wherever people come from, you simply can't ad hundreds of thousands of people to the country anually, without expecting to lose natural areas and farmland to housing."

I (we?) disagree. Yes, more housing _is_ needed to house these people. And Calgary is a prime example of a place that _does_ does lose natural areas and farmland to population increases. Calgary wastes land usage through it's developer centric policies and planning. Regardless of our rate of population increase through immigration or birth rates, we SHOULD be improving on this.

I guess all of this is to say that reducing population growth through federal policies is a secondary concern when talking about city planners. They can try to effect change federally, but in the end they have to deal with the reality of how growth will affect us in the future. And until we actually do reduce immigration and birth rates, growth IS an inevitability.

On one hand, mass immigration advocates say that we 'need' 250-400k immigrants, per year, because our birthrate is not high enough. Then, people such as yourself maintain that resident Canadians are already reproducing at above-replacement levels. It can't be both. The pundits also try to tell us that we 'need' mass immigration, because our pension system won't remain solvent with our 'aging' population. Then, Bill C-428 comes along, allowing people to migrate to canada and be elligible for Old Age Security in three years. A bit of Doublethink, no?

To reiterate: the simplest solution to absolutely halt urban sprawl (and screw the developers) would be to slash immigration rates to below-replacement and impose an absolute, Provincial and/or Federal ban on greenspace development. Cutting immigration to reasonable levels will also reduce crime: CSIS estimates that only 10% of LEGAL immigrants are screened for criminality. Do you WANT more Jackie Trans and Fresh Off the Boat/FOB-Killer gangsters?

"Do you WANT more Jackie Trans and Fresh Off the Boat/FOB-Killer gangsters?"

And I'm the one who's stereo-typing?

Your solution doesn't sound like the simplest to me.

Anyways, in this particular case I'm no longer saying I'm necessarily against the things you're proposing. I don't have all the facts. You (we?) can argue all you want that this growth should be addressed by other areas of Government (federal). Even if you're right, the reality is that until these laws are actually in place, Calgary's population is growing. So why not enact a plan that does its best to deal with this reality? It won't hurt.

I guess maybe the reason you're constantly changing the subject back to immigration is that "Plan it Calgary" doesn't help you build the exclusive Canadian society you so obviously desire.

Just as Canadian and American criminals flee to third-world countries (Mexico, Cuba, Thailand), so to do fugitives from these countries escape justice here...only, in Canada, they get a better standard of living, lower real estate prices, free healthcare and, possibly soon (Bill C-428) pensions. Prior to the bulk-import of the Fresh Off the Boat (yes--that's their politically-incorrect name) crowd, thinks like bystanders being shot by duelling drug bandits were unheard of. Remember that Jane & Finch was once a Toronto-area FARM; now, it's a Brutallist slum, producing bystander-killing gangbangers. Ditto for doda and khat, 'honour killings', female genital mutillation and Al Qaeda, Tamil Tiger and Babbar Khalsa terrorist cells. We can thank Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien and now Harper for bringing this trash in.

There is simply no way Plan It, or any other local-government initiative, will stop urban sprawl. Certainly, were going nowhere, once we fatalistically accept the 'reality' that our population is going to double. Canada's growing population is even more a preventable 'reality' than global warming. Halting sprawl is as simple as throttling-down our unsustainable immigrant intake, as well as banning further greenspace development. End of story. Here's a really bad metaphor: if you're watermain is leaking and flooding your house, you don't send your spouse out to buy more buckets--you turn the tap off.

Though ACS's comments reek of privileged agenda, even as the child of first generation Canadians (i.e. immigrants), I have to agree with him/her on at least one point.

When my parents came to Canada in search of a better quality of life (for their children, as they weren't even necessarily expecting it for themselves - immigration even to Canada rarely is completely advantageous for first generation Canadians) about thirty to fourty years ago, Canada, and Calgary was a very different place. I grew up in Calgary and at that time Calgary didn't have anywhere near the sprawl it does now. My parents very deliberately chose to live in an inner city location (and buy another house in an inner city location in Calgary to rent out) as they were not interested in a car-driven lifestyle and wanted to be living in a more vibrant community. Nowadays the concept of vibrant communities seems to strike fear into people's hearts about having too many pot-smoking hippie artists around. It is sad. I see it from white Canadians and newly arrived Canadians alike.

I believe we do have to curb immigration to half of where it's at now. This is the only point on which I agree with ACS but not because I'm racist (I'm not), but because right now our government is using immigration as a way to flood the economy with overly qualified individuals (that's right ACS - immigrants today on average have *gasp* higher and more qualifications than "Canadians" of mainly European descent who were born here) to wash our dishes, clean our homes, drive our taxis, and in the end provide a cheap labour source that will keep paying taxes. Statiscally immigrants use far fewer social services than those born in Canada - this actually means that for the same amount of taxes paid, immigrants actually cost the Canadian government less. Of course people like to bring up cases such as Jackie Tran to represent immigrants wholescale, which futher blurries the real issue.

Our governments on a municipal, provincial, and federal level are all simply subsidiaries of the corporate elite, and as such are used to construct a society in which all advantage continues to be concentrated to them. If we curb immigration, what this would help every average Canadian with (including recently arrived immigrants) in a failing economy is to be able to not lose that precarious balance of power that (corporate) employers have over us - to hire whoever they want and at whatever salary they want. Also fewer recently arrived immigrants mean that a larger proportion of the population will be able to influence government policies (including municipal) such as PlanIt, as those who have been here longer naturally have a vested interest in seeing progressive change - and even knowing what progresssive change means - in their communities instead of accepting things as they are (as many recently arrived immigrants tend to do - not saying this is either good or bad, but simply something that tends to happen when you are just getting to a new country and learning the ropes there as it were).

The issue of flooding of our country with immigrants is a situation that works for our country's elite, and that is why they keep pushing for an agenda in that direction. The "Canadian Dream" is sold and misrepresented deceptively to many educated professionals abroad, and that is what keeps people coming. When many of them realize the truth of life here, it is often too late, savings have been lost (it's expensive to move to another country!) and then it just becomes about survival rather than living a better life. I don't think we need to keep perpetuating it as long as we don't have our $h!t in order (i.e. at least until we can create livable and vibrant communities to invite immigrants into!).

"that's right ACS - immigrants today on average have *gasp* higher and more qualifications than "Canadians" of mainly European descent who were born here"

Yeah. People forget that the fastest way to legally come to Canada is via the Immigrant Entrepreneur Program:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/business/entrepreneurs/index.asp
Granted, there ARE the odd cabbie, or nanny, but most of the newcomers are fairly wealthy. Recently, there's also been a flood of Mexican 'refugees', with quite a bit of money, escaping 'general criminality' in Mexico. Some of these people ARE, in fact, criminals themselves (either fleeing justice, or rival criminals). Like postwar, Eichler-buying baby boomers, these people tend to aspire to own large, detatched homes and lots of cars.

Other than the real estate market, there really is no need to bring 'workers' over. Some of the foreign labour immigration has been thinly-veiled cover for criminality (e.g., Strippergate). As for social services, the old yarn that immigrants don't use welfare, &c. really isn't true:
http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/pubs/immig/imm004sf.pdf
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08021207.html

There's also more to 'social services' than welfare. Much has been said about heavier useage of medicare resources in the NE quadrant, due to immigration. Some cultures (Muslim, Sikh, Hindus) also have higher-than-average rates of domestic abuse, which has been increasing the burden on shelters. Also, family reunification has brought many ELDERLY immigrants--with all their medical costs--into the system. Ruby 'Indentured Labour' Dhalla's Bill C-428 really nails that point home--if it passes, it will be an actuarial timebomb on the pension system.

This was never a 'race' issue, because annual influxes of hundreds of thousands of people of ANY color, or ethnicity (though most 'traditional' cultures have very high birthrates) create a demand for developable greenspace. There is also the very serious issue of Calgary's freshwater supply, which Plan It never addressed (when one of our cyclical drought spells hits Southern Alberta, a 2M Calgary Metro population is going to be a disaster).

The proverbial 'pot-smoking hippies' are rather harmless. I happen to live next to a few, and they're great neighbors. However, I can't fathom why people who'll only buy Fair Trade, pesticide-free coffee buy possibly chemically-laced dope from criminals. Another thing about Plan It: one of the most contentious issues was the 'Asian Mall' thing:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/03/09/cgy-plan-it-malls.html
(What's the point of Multiculturalism, if you just replace one monoculture with another?)

There is nothing "racist" about saying that white people should off yourselves. You're the dominant "colour" here. Therefore, if you want to reduce the "overall impact" of human activity here in Calgary, the best thing to do is to remove the majority component.

ACS, most of your policy is absurd. Therefore, expect only absurd answers back. You're obviously off the deep end.

So, banning further greenspace development is 'absurd'? Only, if you're a developer.

Again, Plan It doesn't say a thing about where a 2M-strong Calgary Metro Region will get its fresh water. There will be no 'deep end', when the Glenmore Reservoir dries up:
http://www.ecojustice.ca/publications/reports/fight-to-the-last-drop-a-glimpse-into-alberta2019s-water-future/attachment
Pack 'em in as tight as you want, install all the low-flush toilets you want, but the freshwater issue isn't going to go away.