The Franciscans proposed development plan on the slopes of Big Hill is seeking further stakeholder input. The face to face public engagement sessions in November presented three options: 1) no residential development, 2) partial residential development and 3) a full residential development. The Franciscans are now advancing the partial residential development option consisting of over 450 residences including low and mid-level apartments/condos. Their online survey is being presented as a COVID-19 driven substitute for a more rigorous public engagement/interaction process. An online survey of leading questions is “NOT” a substitute for a public forum. The questions are being asked by the proponent instead of the public and there is little interaction and dialogue on the issues. There are many important events that have been either cancelled or deferred locally or provincially as a result of COVID-19 yet this online survey is considered as an effective alternative to a face to face public session. One has to wonder “why the urgency” in the middle of a pandemic. Why not wait until proper public engagement can occur?
It appears that the only development options that the Franciscans have ever seriously considered were those which included residential development and the financial gain associated with those developments. A development option with only recreational park/environmental reserve development was never a serious contender. Though claims are made that there are no plans or schedule to take action on their proposed development plan that can easily and quickly change once an approved plan is in place. This development is an economic decision. Having said that, it is their land (though much of this land was donated to them back in 1949) and they are entitled to make a profit. Why not admit that profit is a consideration instead of camouflaging it with words about leaving a legacy. Their financial gain should not be to the detriment of the two neighbouring communities or the town of Cochrane.
I find it interesting that the Franciscans don’t want any of the construction and residential traffic related to this development to utilize retreat road in order to maintain their quiet and unobtrusive lifestyle yet they seem less concerned about degrading that very same lifestyle of their neighbours. The online survey suggested a traffic study/modelling confirmed there would be no traffic issues on 4th avenue yet the majority of the proposed development is immediately adjacent to Sunterra so human nature being what it is, those residents will take the shortest path to town. The alternate proposed exit from the south lands takes the traffic to Cochrane’s most congested intersection. It is difficult to understand how tripling the number of residences connected to 4th avenue would not create additional traffic issues for Cochrane Heights and Sunterra.
To the leaders of our community, I acknowledge that growth is inevitable (though many would prefer it moved at a much slower pace) but I am hopeful that growth is in areas which minimize negative effects on existing communities and reduces or as a minimum does not add to our existing infrastructure issues.
Manachaban is a heritage and historical site (officially or unofficially), from Highway 1A to the top of the hill. We live in Big Hill Country and we need to preserve our most recognizable landmark, now and forever. We can’t get it back once it’s gone. It is hard to imagine how a housing development enhances our most important landmark.
The Franciscans are interested in establishing a legacy that respects the spirituality of their religious institution and celebrates their 70 years in Cochrane. Creating a Big Hill environmental and recreational parkland (i.e., Franciscan Memorial Park) seems like a much better legacy than “Franciscan Estates”, the newest neighbourhood in Cochrane. Which is the real legacy Cochranites would prefer and which the Franciscans would be most proud of?
Darryl Butchko
