Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays & Seasons Greetings

The Board of Friends of McIntyre Creek wish you a happy holiday season!  We hope you have a great Christmas with good bird watching, skiing, hiking and dog walking activities in McIntyre Creek area.   We ask the snowmobile users to please stick to the authorized designated trails as you enjoy your sledding activities.

Be safe and let's hope the weather warms up so can better enjoy our outdoor activities along McIntyre Creek.

Letter from Yukon Conservatrion Society to Mayor & Council

December 19, 2012

To: City of Whitehorse Mayor and Council

Dear Mayor and Council,

Thank you for the December 12, 2012 consultation meeting regarding the proposed Porter Creek D (PC-D) subdivision, and for delaying your decision about whether to proceed with additional planning for PC-D in order to hear once again from the public. We appreciated your open-minded approach at the meeting and the useful questions that you raised.

I have summarized below a number of the points that I presented at the December 12^th meeting on behalf of the Yukon Conservation Society, and some that I did not have time to present.

The Yukon Conservation Society is asking you not to proceed with planning for PC-D, because:

-       there is no need for PC-D;

-       moving ahead with planning for PC-D would be a waste of money, and prejudice a decision in favor of developing PC-D;

-       there is no compromise or “smaller, gentler PC-D” that will end the opposition to this contentious proposal;

-       Whitehorse people gave up a well loved green space – the Porter Creek Lower Bench, and helped plan Whistle Bend with the understanding that Whistle Bend was the alternative to PC-D;

-       Middle McIntyre Creek has far more to offer as a natural area for recreation, education and wildlife than it would as a housing subdivision. 

No need for PC-D

At the November 27 Council and Senior Management Meeting about PC-D, the highest forecasts for population growth, and hence housing needs, were presented as the ‘safe’ assumption, to ensure that Whitehorse does not again experience a housing shortage. The information presented by City staff assumed a Whitehorse housing demand of 6,000 units (Yukon government’s high prediction) to 9,500 units (Official Community Plan’s high prediction) over the next 20 years. A ‘unit’ is a household of 2.5 people.  The Yukon government’s high growth scenario assumes the need for 300 units per year. The OCP high growth scenario assumes 450 new units will be needed per year.

The difference of 3500 units between the Yukon government and OCP 20 year estimates shows how imprecise these predictions of housing requirements are.  

YCS examined population growth numbers for Whitehorse for the 20 years between 1991 and 2011. During that time the population grew by about 3757 (about 188 people per year). This means that over that 20 year period, at 2.5 people per unit, 1503 units would have been required, not 6,000 – 9,500 units. It is unclear how many units were actually built or the number of occupants per unit. What we can determine from these numbers is that over the past 20 years, 75 units per year would have been required at a rate of 2.5 people per unit – not 300 to 450 units per year.

Even in the 10 years between 2001 and 2011 when population growth was faster than the previous decade, it has been nowhere near the high growth predictions. Between 2001 and 2011 Whitehorse’s population grew by 4,218. At 2.5 people per unit of housing, this translates into 1687 units, or 169 units per year. This demand is still far short of the high growth predictions of 300 to 450 units per year. 

Part of the reason that City staff suggest basing planning decisions on the highest forecasts is the Conference Board of Canada’s prediction that “over the next decade, several new mines will come into production. Between 2013 and 2020, mining output in Yukon will grow by an average compound rate of 10.7 per cent per year.”

However, we all know that the likelihood of all proposed mines coming on line is highly questionable given that mineral prices have already slumped since last year. And we know that new mines in remote locations do not lead to much housing demand in Whitehorse, since so many workers live outside of the Yukon and fly in and out of the mine site.

Using the highest population growth forecasts does not seem ‘safe’ unless citizens agree that, in order to be ‘safe’ they are willing to trade their green spaces for housing that may not be needed.

Even assuming the high forecasts for growth in housing demand, the numbers do not show a need for PC-D. Here are the estimates that City staff provided for potential new housing units coming on line over the next 20 years:

Public:

• Whistle Bend 3500

• Porter Creek D 600

• Infill 730

Total Public Units: 4830

Private:

• First Nations land 850

• Vacant/Underused lots 1500

• Existing Residential with zoning changes 400

Total Private Units: 2750

TOTAL UNITS (Public and Private): 7580

If the 600 units that were assumed for PC-D are subtracted from the total, according to these estimates there will be approximately 6980 units coming on line over the next 20 years. This number sits between the high forecast scenarios presented by Yukon government (6000) and the Official Community Plan (9500). And this number does not include the new rural residential housing that is being developed around Whitehorse.

Even at 600 units PC-D would be a small contribution to overall housing needs for the next 20 years.

Whistle Bend properties are not selling at the moment with so many private housing options coming on line. It doesn’t make sense to create competition for both private developments and Whistle Bend by creating PC-D.

Single family dwellings along this beautiful creek would only be accessible to the wealthy, which does not address the pressing need for low cost housing in Whitehorse, regardless of how much or little our population grows.

There are several reasons not to proceed with planning for PC-D:

City staff tell Mayor and Council that a decision to move ahead with pre-design and consultation about PC-D, including a Charrette, does not constitute a decision to move ahead with developing the subdivision. This may be technically correct. But, as Counsellor Irwin pointed out at the November 27 CASM meeting, it is obvious that the more money spent and the further along in the process the City of Whitehorse gets, the more pressure there will be to build PC-D.

Creating a plan now, to potentially “put on the shelf” if the City decides not to go ahead with PC-D at this time does not make sense. The 2005 Pine Street Extension Porter Creek Feasibility Study commissioned by the City isn’t useable now because conditions, costs and situations have changed. Spending more money on developing a plan for PC-D that may never be used does not make fiscal sense.

The number of housing units proposed for PC-D is a moving target: is it 400, 600, 250, or 150? City staff have said that the minimum number of housing units required for cost recovery for PC-D is 400. Therefore, there will be pressure to have at least 400 houses in Middle McIntyre Creek.

The City doesn’t necessarily have to recover costs when creating the infrastructure for a new subdivision; currently City Planners are talking about something in the range of 150 to 250 units. Regardless of the number of units being proposed, one has to ask why contemplate creating a huge conflict, including possible civil disobedience, and ruining a beautiful natural area, for such a small housing gain?

It has been suggested that there needs to be a plan on the table so that everyone knows what we are really talking about. We disagree, because any amount of housing and roads in Middle McIntyre Creek is too much.  YCS, Friends of McIntyre Creek and others have already extensively laid out our concerns about the likely impacts of housing and associated infrastructure in this area. These are the predictions of people who are familiar with development practices in the city, and the ecology and recreational and educational uses of Middle McIntyre Creek. 

If not PC-D, where?

At the December 12^th meeting we were asked “If not PC-D, then where is new housing development acceptable?”

We would like to clarify that it was our understanding that Whistle Bend was the alternative to PC-D. Before the land for Whistle Bend was cleared, the Porter Creek Lower Bench was a very popular recreation area. It was used by horse riders, walkers, skiers, bird watchers, and ORV users. Nonetheless, the Yukon Conservation Society and many other community organizations and individuals supported the development of Whistle Bend. We spent much staff and volunteer time helping to plan Whistle Bend through the Charrette process.

We supported and helped plan Whistle Bend in good faith, with the understanding that by building this massive new neighborhood, PC-D would not be required.  While we may never have been explicitly promised that Whistle bend negated the need for PC-D, that was our assumption. Local people have already voluntarily and cooperatively made a huge sacrifice by supporting Whistle Bend. Whistle Bend is one of the answers to the question “If not PC-D, then where?”

In addition, City planners have identified other options to meet housing demand over the next 20 years: infill, First Nations land, vacant/underused lots, and existing residential with zoning changes.

On behalf of the Yukon Conservation Society and the many people who use and enjoy Middle McIntyre Creek every day all year round, as well as the wildlife that live in, and travel through this area, I am asking you, Mayor and Council, to vote not to proceed with further planning for Porter Creek D.  Please let us end this conflict and work together to create affordable housing solutions elsewhere, and a new plan for Middle McIntyre Creek that protects and enhances the environmental, educational and recreational values of this cherished area. 

Sincerely,

Karen Baltgailis

Executive Director

Yukon Conservation Society

Dec 12, 2012 Porter Creek D Public Information Session

Hi Friends of McIntyre Creek,

here's a chance to speak with our new Mayor and Council about how you feel about the proposed Porter Creek D subdivision.  This is an important opportunity to tell Mayor and Council "NO" to further planning of Porter Creek D!

Porter Creek “D” Public Information Session

City Hall, Council Chambers

5-7pm, Wednesday December 12^th

The former City Council awarded a contract to a consultants’ group to do planning for Porter Creek “D” approximately one year ago. The new Council will be revisiting that decision at a Council meeting in the new year. A decision about whether or not to allow development to occur would only occur much later, if and when planning is complete.

This meeting on December 12^th will provide a chance for the public to ask questions, share views and help inform Council’s decision on whether or not to proceed with doing planning in Porter Creek “D”. It will also give Council a chance to ask questions of the public.

Snacks will be provided.

If you have questions, please write to me directly and I will make sure all information is shared. Please also forward this on to whomever you would like. The meeting will be publicly advertised as well.

Thanks!

Mike EllisA/Manager

Planning Services