LDA23-0160 Athlone Rezoning/ Road Closure/ Subdivision

I am not in support of the rezoning of 13107, 13023, 13019, and 13007 – 128 Avenue into an apartment building. This space was left for a reason but the city wants to violate its own environmental policy about protecting the green space. How can an apartment be built beside a grain factory? What feasibility studies have we done to ensure the safety of the people of Athlone? This project should be suspended because the space was left for a reason. There are numerous supportive housing that are not fully utilized. Why is it that the city wants to sacrifice this beautiful green space for another supportive housing? Despite my support for affordable housing, this location is not suitable for that. Before destroying this beautiful green space, it should be first asked why it was left empty. Check the archives for the history of this location and answers will be found.
This green space provides a habitat for wildlife, as well as supports ecosystem functions. The grain factory emits carbon dioxide, and plants breathe in carbon dioxide. This minimizes the amount of air pollution within the community. If this project proceeds, it will be in violation of the United Nations' environmental sustainability policy. Canada as a nation believes in protecting the environment and destroying this part of the city will limit our green spaces and there will be climate consequences in the future.
I plead with councilors to withdraw this application because this location was not designed for an affordable housing unit.
Thank you
Athlone Resident

I have read through all of the feedback on this page and may be the last to post before the deadline. Everyone has covered many of my concerns but here are a few more of why I strongly oppose this rezoning.

As others have mentioned the timing of the mailouts by the city is atrocious. The long weekend when people may be out of town is a great time to sneak in this proposal. But that was not my first issue….
A bunch of survey stakes appeared in the field one day, then a few weeks later I had a front row seat to a big drilling truck driving all over the field drilling holes and leaving huge piles of dirt with no explanation. We had NO warning this drilling would happen, when I ventured out to ask what was going on they were evasive and gave me an email that didn’t exist. Apparently they “just drill the holes”.
Next I emailed our councillors office and when I asked if they were going to build something because of the city wide Rezoning they responded no it looks like it’s going to stay Public Parks/Alternative Jurisdiction. A blatant lie. They knew exactly what was going on.

The first letter mailed asked about the direct impacts on the neighbourhood and how this proposed building(s) would fit in. The answer is obvious, no one who moved here for the million dollar view wants a building that’s triple the height of their home built in front of it. That’s a major negative imposition on those who will live in its shadow. A building like that does not “fit in”… it stands out, stands up, and stands over everyone around it. I face directly south onto the field, I do not want to stare at a 4 storey wall.

The response I got from the two emails we were given was telling. After a week, and the other a week and a half, were both completely dismissive of my concerns. In fact when I suggested that the city should not fill in existing green space but should plant more trees, the response to that was “Providing land to non-market housing developers is one of most significant ways the City can help. At the same time, the City is committed to driving climate resilience ahead and strengthening our natural systems. This includes a commitment to plant two million trees, as well as planting native species in naturalized areas. Additionally, allowing a higher density built form helps cities reduce carbon emissions by becoming more compact and complete communities.”
Not only is this some form of auto-reply or AI answer but it’s basically gaslighting… Yes, let’s fight climate change by building more buildings, and where do you plan on planting those trees exactly when you have no greenspace left?
The gaslighting is another thing that’s bothered me. They have taken the core concerns of the people who live here eg. Property resale opportunities/value, safety concerns, high risk behaviours and crime and direct you to the webpage that labels all these concerns as “myths”. No, it’s not myth. The reality is I know two EPS officers personally who have said the calls received to a particular area of the city (which I will not mention) are on average once a week near housing of this sort.

Despite the city’s utter lack of concern for older, less affluent neighbourhoods and its residents I want to believe they want to help get people off the streets. These buildings and the folks that would live there need good access to transit, amenities and support. The land which was once the Wellington school could be such a location. There is already RA7 zoning in that area and there is even MORE space to set the building back to be less imposing. Front door access to public transit, 5 minute walk to major grocery stores and other shops in Kensington Square. Not to mention if they need help there is a small police detachment there as well, and easy access for emergency services.

All said and done… no I do not want to live in the shade year round and have someone be able to look into my BACK yard from their 4th storey window while I stare out my window at a wall. All the while being gaslit into believing that it won’t affect my resale value, or bring any risky behaviour along with it, or damage the environment.

If this application goes through it will be a testament that all of this public feedback and asking for our opinions was a complete fraud, and proves a total lack of care that the city has for its mature neighbourhoods and residents.

My wife and I would like to voice our displeasure at the city’s decision to redone and “proposed” build on this green space.
The city appears to be underhanded and sneaky when it comes to getting this application through. A minuscule amount if residents effected by this proposed development were notified when it affects the ALL in this community and the timeframe to voice one’s opinion was just as small and frankly unacceptable. At the very least the athlone community league should have been contacted directly so they could send out a newsletter letting everyone know and direct them to where to voice their opinions.
There are already several of this type of building proposed in surrounding communities. Some in use, some not. How about we fill up those ones not in use before planning more.
It is also said that there will be retail in this proposed site. We have 3 convenience stores within 10 blocks of this site. Will you not be taking business away from them? S as bud do they know? I know for a fact they do not.
There are no services at this site or near it. The closest bus stop is a 10 min walk, on the dead of winter do you think this will be an option for residents? Are there not better places to build?
Along with all the other residents citing property prices being effected, safety, security and crime most likely increasing. We agree and voice our opposition opinion here too.
The grain terminal has a setback for a very valid snd safe reason, should we not be considering the safety of all in this community?
Then there’s the negative impact on wildlife, the fact that people to the north of the building will probably not see the sun especially in winter as the height of the building will cast a huge shadow. The traffic to this area will increase, parking will be an issue and so will the safety of children playing in the area.
There are better uses for this land- keep it a green space, put in a park or dog park.
Decisions should NOT be made without proper discussion with the WHOLE community.
We vehemently oppose this planned development.

My family and I would like to add our voices to the numerous other people in the Athlone neighbourhood and beyond who oppose this rezoning application.

One of the biggest concerns that most people have in regards to this proposal is that of the supportive housing and, more specifically, how it will be made available to those who have experienced homelessness. Although the city attempts to explain how the construction of affordable housing can help when it comes to dealing with homelessness, no mention whatsoever is made about the fact that the vast majority of those experiencing homelessness have underlying substance abuse problems and/or mental health conditions that would make their presence in an established neighbourhood like Athlone outright dangerous. While problems such as these will usually require years of counselling and other forms of intervention, the likelihood of regression or relapse during and even after treatment cannot be entirely eliminated. Consequently, the general feeling of safety that the residents of Athlone have come to expect as part of living in our neighbourhood will be completely sacrificed all in the name of reaching the City of Edmonton's affordable housing goals.

While the city endeavors to place these individuals into affordable housing on 128 Avenue, the city's proposal conveniently leaves out the fact that this would be located only one full avenue south of Athlone Elementary School (with the school's southern edge bordering on 129 Avenue). Since children 12 years of age and under attend this school, placing this type of development within such close proximity would pose serious concerns for the safety of the children that attend the school. This is in addition to the heightened safety concerns that parents will have with simply letting their children go out to play in their own front or back yard. By creating a situation where children are less safe in our neighbourhood than they have ever been, the city would be acting in a manner that can only be described as willfully and utterly negligent. The people of Athlone who originally chose to buy a house in this neighbourhood did not choose to do so thinking that they would have to live with the disorder problems that we have all too frequently seen occurring in the downtown core and the outright safety concerns that will inherently come along with bringing individuals into the neighbourhood who have longstanding problems with substance abuse, mental health, and the numerous other issues that afflict the homeless population.

Another pressing concern is that, according to the proposal, buildings up to 16 metres in height (or approximately 4 storeys) will be constructed on the site. The huge shadow cast by buildings of this height in an established residential neighbourhood like Athlone will leave many of the surrounding homes (predominantly one-storey structures) in the shade all day and year round. This alone will be a huge imposition on the homeowners that live in these surrounding houses, many of which originally chose to move to Athlone because of the delightful field with wide-open skies. This also emphasizes just how completely inconsiderate this proposed rezoning will be to these homeowners and it effectively demonstrates how the interests of others have been placed ahead of those who already live in the neighbourhood. Furthermore, the idea of allowing for commercial opportunities this far deep into a neighbourhood is completely ludicrous and only highlights just how obviously ill informed this proposal truly is about life in a quiet residential area. If this site was indeed the right place for building affordable housing, all amenities should already be available in the surrounding areas and be readily accessible by foot or via transit service. The fact that so-called limited commercial opportunities are also being included in this proposal only emphasizes just how this site is indeed not the right place for affordable housing. The people of this neighbourhood chose to buy a house in Athlone, live in Athlone, and pay property taxes for owning a house in Athlone with the thought that they were going to have an open field in front of their house and not some overtly out-of-place development.

We don't want this. Not now, not ever. Period. Full stop. The idea that every neighbourhood in the city should set a target of 16% of its housing units to be non-market affordable housing is completely absurd if it is to be implemented in the way it has been thus far with the older neighbourhoods being singled out for such projects far ahead of newer and often more affluent neighbourhoods. Why is Athlone being chosen as a location to build affordable housing for those who have experienced homelessness when the same was done in Wellington, the neighbourhood directly north of Athlone, not too long ago when the decision was made to go ahead with a similar type of project in the northwest corner of that neighbourhood? Why isn't a neighbourhood with an unused parcel of land elsewhere in the city (such as an affluent neighbourhood in the southwest portion of the city) being asked to accommodate the construction of affordable housing instead of Athlone? While the city says that all neighbourhoods are to play a role in the efforts to deal with homelessness, it would appear that the city is attempting to put much more of a heavier burden on older neighbourhoods as early on in the process of increasing the stock of affordable housing units in Edmonton. This appears to be all in the hopes that the city will never have to actually pursue the construction of affordable housing in more affluent areas at the same intensity as they have in older neighbourhoods such as Athlone to meet their affordable housing unit targets. Why isn't the city spreading out these developments so that they are more equitably shouldered by neighbourhoods across the city instead of being disproportionately located in older neighbourhoods?

If the city moves ahead with approving this proposal, it would be doing so by imposing it outright over the heads of the people of this neighbourhood and in direct opposition to their wishes. Please be considerate and remember that our opinions matter. Asking the public for its input should not be seen by the city as a simple formality that has to occur in order for a proposal to build affordable housing to nevertheless move forward. I also call on the city to stop answering our legitimate questions and concerns with prefabricated responses aggregated in a knowledgebase designed to deal with all affordable housing development proposals in as generic a manner as possible. Each proposal to build affordable housing must be examined separately and in the context of each neighbourhood. A given answer applicable in one neighbourhood may not necessarily be applicable in all other neighbourhoods. Finally, please remember to ask yourselves whether you would be alright with what is being proposed for Athlone were it to be instead proposed for the neighbourhood in which you live? Wouldn't you feel desperate if no one appeared to be listening to your concerns?

Athlone does need added density (and RA7 is a fairly gentle and suitable increase for this neighbourhood) but I'm not sure that this space fits the needs of the residents of supportive housing units very well. Improving access to transit would be great, as this neighbourhood is not very transit accessible. I do see the site is within 500m of stops on 127 Street, but service is relatively infrequent and does not connect directly to many services and destinations that residents will require.

However, it is important that we provide many options for supportive housing. What works for some might not work for others so having options in various settings makes a lot of sense. Maybe work with the supportive housing provider to ensure that this property is right for those who are going to be living here. Therefore, I am supportive of this rezoning for adding density where it is desperately needed.

I am writing this to express how against the proposed rezoning of 13107, 13023, 13019, and 13007 – 128 Avenue NW I am.

This is a non exhaustive list of reasons why I am against the proposed rezoning of 13107, 13023, 13019, and 13007 – 128 Avenue NW:

1. Safety. This greenbelt exists for safety reasons. The Alberta Grain Terminal is a large, dust filled building. The greenbelt is a buffer between the Alberta Grain Terminal and the community of Athlone. Taken from a Land Use Risk Assessment Study: “Grain Elevators are considered high-hazard industrial occupancies under the National Fire Code of Canada and present an inherent dust explosion risk given the high quantities of combustible materials handled.”
2. The negative impact on wildlife
a) Edmonton has a significant urban coyote population. Many coyotes inhabit this area and will be displaced if this rezoning and development is approved. Where will they go?
b) In the immediate vicinity of the Alberta Grain Terminal are many species of birds, throughout the year. The organization called eBird has documented proof of 30 species of birds observed. This would be extremely disruptive. Most species of birds in Canada are protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (MBCA).
3. The extremely short comment period given to property owners with information regarding this rezoning proposal was absolutely unacceptable.
4. Property values will likely be negatively affected.
5. Property owners should be able to park in front of their own homes.
6. Potential increase in crime.
7. It is unacceptable that a street zoned for one level homes should have to look across the street at a 4 story complex.
8. This development would significantly increase the population of the neighbourhood, which will considerably increase the noise.
9. There is actual, calculable value of mature trees. Online you can find Guidelines For Evaluation of Trees from the City Operations Department. The basic unit value of all shade and other ornamental trees is $71.94 per square inch. https://www.edmonton.ca/public-files/assets/document?path=COE_Guidelines_for_Evaluation_of_Trees_20170424.pdf Would valuable, mature trees be destroyed for this rezoning and development​?
10. The importance of an urban tree canopy: trees reduce the urban heat island effect (reduce heating and cooling costs, filter air pollution, generate oxygen, cool streets, shade in summer, protection from winds in winter).
11. For residents immediately across from the location of this proposed development, would their trees and gardens survive with considerably less sunlight gracing their property? A 4 story building is between 12 and 20 metres tall.

Here is a list of other uses that the community would welcome and benefit from:
1. A sanctioned off-leash dog park
2. Community gardens
3. Naturalization (City of Edmonton's webpage re: benefits of naturalization within the city: environmental, economic, and quality of life: https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/environmental_stewardship/benefits-of-naturalization)

The most significant reason that I am against this development is that this is clearly an inappropriate location. Safety and reason dictates that this is not an appropriate location for this development. This green space has existed since the grain terminal was built, for safety reasons. Online, available to the public, is a Land Use Risk Assessment study specific to a grain terminal near a residential area. I have tried myself, as well as with assistance of 311, and even through provincial government employees, to find such a document for this grain terminal. I was not able to locate one, nor was anyone else I was in contact with.

I did obtain contact information for city planners through 311, specifically the Risk Assessment planner for our zone, Thomas Lippiatt (thomas.lippiatt@edmonton.ca). I emailed Thomas Lippiatt (and CC-ed our City Councillor, Erin Rutherford, as well as the planner on this project who has not responded to anyone that I am aware of, Carla Semeniuk). Thomas Lippiatt responded to my email without answering whether there was in fact already a land use risk assessment study for this area, or if one was being created because of the proposed rezoning. He only said that “the granary is 100% on our radar.” I emailed back, asking specifically if this report was being created, and if so would it be made available to the decision makers at the appropriate stage. I sent this email on September 21st. Today it is October 5th and I still have not received a response.

I do not appreciate the feeling that this is being rushed through without adequate information or consultation, and I don't appreciate the lack of contact or response from those associated with the proposed rezoning and development.

I would like to express my displeasure regarding this proposed development. When choosing this property, there was a grain terminal and railway tracks right by my house. Probably not great things for resale. The upside, beautiful park, all single family homes and low crime according to crime map. I feel my property value and resale will be negatively impacted. Also, it is extremely frustrating that there was little public imput. A few letters mailed out. A sign in the park with an email address of a planner that does not reply, or when she does just sends out a stock response. If I had not seen this link on my community league's Facebook page, I would not have known about this forum for "engagement". How many people without computers/ Facebook or simply didn't see this do not even have the option for imput? It seems the city is trying to skip the public imput portion. Signed, Disheartened in Athlone.

I am quite upset about this proposed project. More and more I do not feel safe in this city. I did feel safe in my neighborhood. I believe that will change with this project. I will not feel comfortable with my children playing on the sidewalks without direct supervision. I will worry about the increased traffic in the alleys etc... I hope this does not pass.

Good afternoon, I am writing due to concerns with the notification process for this project. I live just around the corner yet still have not received a notification letter, none of my neighbors on 134 and 135 street have either. Who were the letters sent to in the area? It really seems as though the City of Edmonton is trying to push this project through without providing adequate information to the residents in the area. I only found out this site existed after the community hall had sent a copy of the notice because no one in the community received it. I called the number on the sign and reached the City of Edmonton who provided me with an incorrect email address to send my concerns. This consultation process is extremely unorganized and the residents who should be contacted about this have not been.
Currently the only information about this proposal is a sign on one side of the site. There hasn’t been any information distributed by mail to the residents that live next to and near this site. I don’t feel the residents in the neighborhood are being provided the proper notice or information about this proposal.

This site is a green space that is enjoyed by the local community. There is considerable biodiversity on this site that would be destroyed if it were to be built on. This is also the only greenspace within walking distance for many seniors, children and others who embrace it as our own accessible piece of nature. I have a 94 year old neighbor and an 80 year old neighbor as well as many others who both enjoy the peaceful green space daily

I am in favor of building housing as I grew up with a single parent in subsidized housing and also know Edmonton needs housing. This green space is absolutely not the proper site for this project. On 127th street north and south of the library (near 132 ave) there are vacant serviced buildings lots where this project would be a success (on a bus route, walking distances to schools, services and amenities) and most importantly do not require the destruction of a biodiverse habitat to build on.

Please investigate all other options on vacant lots that already exist in the area and seriously consider them before deciding to harm this greenspace. I find it unbelievable that of all spaces the COE would want to build a 4 story building on this green space.
This project shows a portion might be left as a park, however the disruption and noise from construction to build on one part of this space would endanger the wildlife that lives here.
The COE states this on your site "In 1985, the City passed the River Valley Bylaw which states: As Edmonton grows and changes and as land becomes more valuable the River Valley may become threatened by commercial and industrial uses, as well as by civic uses such as public utilities. In spite of this, threats to the river valley continue. We can follow the example of early citizens and advocate to protect our beloved green spaces. "
This is Athlone's green space and we are advocating to protect it.
Thank you

I am opposed to this project. This is a greenspace I use everyday. If more housing is needed, please use the vacant lots/fields in this neighborhood or anywhere in the city. Or use the 24% vacant buildings sitting in the downtown core. I moved to this neighborhood because there were no apartments or businesses within 3 blocks of my home. I do not want a 4 storey building with retail in the park I love and use. Furthermore, I feel the public was not engaged in the process. As a tax payer I am pleading that you please reconsider this development.

I oppose the zoning changes.

I do not support City Council in regards to the affordable housing project being proposed in the community of Athlone. As a lifelong resident of Edmonton, I have always been able to feel heard and I hope you take into consideration the consequences of approving this development. With social disorder and crime at an all time high in this city, I do not feel comfortable with the decision to proceed with this development. I am a Law Enforcement Officer and do not condone this type of development as history has proven that along with these types of developments comes problems, and I as a tax paying citizen do not endorse this development in my backyard. Please consider my request as I speak on behalf of msny community members who feel as strongly as I do. Thank you for your time.

Can you stop filling in our green spaces with low quality buildings. If you desperately need to wreck a nice green space at least put up single family homes

I live (as a homeowner) at 128 Ave and 134 St, and have never been consulted about this project, nor have my neighbours or anybody I have spoken with. In correspondence with our Community League you stated that "a notification letter was sent to 127 property owners on July 26, 2023."
A few questions regarding that:
127 letters? We have over 1200 dwellings in our neighbourhood, why is 127 letters with a mere 16 responses sufficient? with 16 responses it should have been CLEAR that the attempt to reach residence was not successful and additional attempts in other ways should have occurred (ie. phone calls, door-to-door interaction, social media advertising, signs, etc).
Were these letters addressed to the OWNERS or to the occupants? renters can move, owners have a much harder time doing the same thing. Owners are invested in our community, we like it here, we value how quiet it is, how neighbourly it is, and the character of our homes. We have mortgages, and with rates the way they are, cannot simply sell and move elsewhere.
Where are the properties who received letters located? ie. do they surround the perimeter of the proposed development, the X number of blocks within walking distance of the proposed development, etc.
Why was the Community League not one of the recipients of this letter? The community League received a letter YESTERDAY (September 27, 2023)...informing them that the deadline to express their concerns, or for our community members to express concerns is October 9, 2023. How does that give our League NEARLY enough time to communicate with over 1200 dwellings to inform them of this development and their opportunity to express their thoughts?
The sign on the property went up on August 18, 2023, with very little information. Within that week my husband attempted to contact the person on the sign MULTIPLE times (via email and phone) and to this day has not heard back. Our neighbours have ALSO tried to contact this person, to no avail. Eventually he ended up in contact with their supervisor, who had no information. Eventually this supervisor found buried away the plans for the land: TRANSITIONAL housing...this information was provided verbally over the phone.

I have questions regarding the wording that is being used in this communication as well.
Question of most concern: what EXACTLY is this "supportive housing"? Is this transitional housing? is this low income housing? is this affordable housing? those are all very different and we deserve to know EXACTLY what is being proposed for our neighbourhood.
Our neighbourhood currently has no houseless Edmontonians walking the streets. However, we do have plenty of "supportive housing" (i use astrix because I feel supportive housing is an umbrella term for many different types of housing). We have affordable rental units near Athlone Community League, we have affordable housing AND the new Transitional Housing in Wellington, which is arguably the same neighbourhood as Athlone (mere blocks from the proposed new development), we have the Salvation Army supportive housing behind the Superstore on 137ave, Inglewood (within our same ward) has Transitional housing, and that heatmap shows many many more.
I saw the heatmap our Councillor provided to the Athlone Community League...isn't it astounding how many supportive housing buildings are on the north end compared to the southside? I was under the impression that the city had plans to spread out services throughout the city for our houseless neighbours. Well, that is CLEARLY not the plan.
Allow me to refer back to a letter I sent to my councillor's office (which they then brought to a city meeting) regarding our LRT and ETS services. In this email I stated that it is clear what the city has planned for our houseless population, and the north side of our beautiful city. Whether it has been stated by city representatives or not, all data I have been privy to shows that the houseless population is been driven to the north end, public transit is being GREATLY limited, and the houseless population is being CONFINED to the north end. How is moving these individuals from our downtown to the north end solving ANY problems?
We are such a welcoming community, truly we are, but why are the communities on the North side the only communities being asked to be welcoming? Why are communities on the southside not being asked to welcome our houseless neighbours?The communication states "The City has a goal to help create 16% non-market affordable housing in every neighbourhood." The Southside is nowhere near this goal,  and it doesn't look like any plans have been made to help them reach it. It appears the city is hoping they will have sequestered enough of the less fortunate to the Northside by the time the Southside is considered they will say there's no longer a need for it. Prove me wrong. I'm begging you.
Can we talk about the actual location being considered? How does this make sense? It's smack in the middle of residential,  FAMILY homes. There is no public transit on these roads. No public transit within Athlone AT ALL, it is all on the outskirts...along 127st and 132ave actually.
Can I make a suggestion for a compromise? There is currently a site in Athlone (132ave and 127st) in the planning stages for the new Africa Community Centre....can we swap the development plans? What if we gave AMCC the land near the grain elevator, to create the park they have planned, the new community centre, the space to bring everybody together. Put it WITHIN our community, not on the outskirts. This would solve the problem of DunVegan children not having a play park with walking distance (as AMCC has this in their suggestions for developing the space) as a pathway links that space directly with the DunVegan residents. Additionally, the majority of our African desendant neighbours live in DunVegan, and this site would allow them easier access (and walkable access) to the Africa Centre.Build the supportive housing on 132ave and 127st. This is on a transit route, across from groceries at H& W and Giant Tiger, medical centre, pharmacy, and the library for other services. They are still in Athlone, but on the edge, so they have a choice to be a part of our community. With this compromise, the risks that come with transitional/supportive housing are not directly amongst our residential homes where children play free throughout the day, and the residents of this housing hae easier access to services which may be essential to them.

Sorry if this is duplicate. Had difficulty with form on my mobile.

It's so important to have diverse types of housing in neighborhoods. Supportive housing is so needed in our city. I hope the parkland could have a community garden. Athlone, Calder and Kensington have great amenities and services and great bus service to support these new neighbours. I fully support this change.

Good Afternoon,

I am writing this afternoon to express my personal thoughts on the newly proposed Supportive Housing Complex in the Athlone neighbourhood. The site I am speaking of is located near the grain elevator at 130/131st and 128ave in Athlone.
My email is long, but please hear me out. There is compromise in my email, I promise!

I live (as a homeowner) at 128 Ave and 134 St, and have never been consulted about this project, nor have my neighbours or anybody I have spoken with. In correspondence with our Community League you stated that "a notification letter was sent to 127 property owners on July 26, 2023."
A few questions regarding that:
127 letters? We have over 1200 dwellings in our neighbourhood, why is 127 letters with a mere 16 responses sufficient? with 16 responses it should have been CLEAR that the attempt to reach residence was not successful and additional attempts in other ways should have occurred (ie. phone calls, door-to-door interaction, social media advertising, signs, etc).
Were these letters addressed to the OWNERS or to the occupants? renters can move, owners have a much harder time doing the same thing. Owners are invested in our community, we like it here, we value how quiet it is, how neighbourly it is, and the character of our homes. We have mortgages, and with rates the way they are, cannot simply sell and move elsewhere.
Where are the properties who received letters located? ie. do they surround the perimeter of the proposed development, the X number of blocks within walking distance of the proposed development, etc.
Why was the Community League not one of the recipients of this letter? The community League received a letter YESTERDAY (September 27, 2023)...informing them that the deadline to express their concerns, or for our community members to express concerns is October 9, 2023. How does that give our League NEARLY enough time to communicate with over 1200 dwellings to inform them of this development and their opportunity to express their thoughts?
The sign on the property went up on August 18, 2023, with very little information. Within that week my husband attempted to contact the person on the sign MULTIPLE times (via email and phone) and to this day has not heard back. Our neighbours have ALSO tried to contact this person, Carla Seminuk to no avail. Eventually he ended up in contact with their supervisor, who had no information. Eventually they found buried away the plans for the land: TRANSITIONAL housing...this information was provided verbally over the phone.

I have questions regarding the wording that is being used in this communication as well (which I understand was gathered by yourself from the City, so are not in your own words).
question of most concern: what EXACTLY is this "supportive housing"? Is this transitional housing? is this low income housing? is this affordable housing? those are all very different and we deserve to know EXACTLY what is being proposed for our neighbourhood.
Our neighbourhood currently has no houseless Edmontonians walking the streets. However, we do have plenty of "supportive housing" (i use astrix because I feel supportive housing is an umbrella term for many different types of housing). We have low income rental units near Athlone Community League, we have the new Transitional Housing in Wellington, which is arguably the same neighbourhood as Athlone (mere blocks from the proposed new development), we have the Salvation Army supportive housing behind the Superstore on 137ave, Inglewood (within our same ward) has Transitional housing, and that heatmap shows many many more.
I saw the heatmap you provided to the Athlone Community League...isn't it astounding how many supportive housing buildings are on the north end compared to the southside? I was under the impression that the city had plans to spread out services throughout the city for our houseless neighbours. Well, that is CLEARLY not the plan.
Allow me to refer back to a letter I sent to your office (which you then brought to a city meeting) regarding our LRT and ETS services. In this email I stated that it is clear what the city has planned for our houseless population, and the north side of our beautiful city. Whether it has been stated by city representatives or not, all data I have been privy to shows that the houseless population is been driven to the north end, public transit is being GREATLY limited, and the houseless population is being CONFINED to the north end. How is moving these individuals from our downtown to the north end solving ANY problems?
We are such a welcoming community, truly we are, but why are the communities on the North side the only communities being asked to be welcoming? Why are communities on the southside not being asked to welcome our houseless neighbours?
The communication states "The City has a goal to help create 16% non-market affordable housing in every neighbourhood." The Southside is nowhere near this goal, and it doesn't look like any plans have been made to help them reach it. It appears the city is hoping they will have sequestered enough of the less fortunate to the Northside by the time the Southside is considered they will say there's no longer a need for it. Prove me wrong. I'm begging you.

Can we talk about the actual location being considered? How does this make sense? It's smack in the middle of residential, FAMILY homes. There is no public transit on these roads. No public transit within Athlone AT ALL, it is all on the outskirts...along 127st and 132ave actually.

Can I make a suggestion for a compromise? There is currently a site in Athlone (132ave and 127st) in the planning stages for the new Africa Community Centre....can we swap the development plans? What if we gave AMCC the land near the grain elevator, to create the park they have planned, the new community centre, the space to bring everybody together. Put it WITHIN our community, not on the outskirts. This would solve the problem of DunVegan children not having a play park with walking distance (as AMCC has this in their suggestions for developing the space) as a pathway links that space directly with the DunVegan residents. Additionally, the majority of our African desendant neighbours live in DunVegan, and this site would allow them easier access (and walkable access) to the Africa Centre.
Build the supportive housing on 132ave and 127st. This is on a transit route, across from groceries at H& W and Giant Tiger, medical centre, pharmacy, and the library for other services. They are still in Athlone, but on the edge, so they have a choice to be a part of our community. With this compromise, the risks that come with transitional/supportive housing are not directly amongst our residential homes where children play free throughout the day.

I feel like my efforts may be futile. Nobody can get in touch with this Carla Seminuk (who I don't think actually exists. I think they are made-up by the city of Edmonton to act as a sounding board that no official ever looks at).
I don't know how all these developments are being approved and pushed through by the city, with the number of people pushing back with each new proposal. Are they not listening to you, Erin? Why are our voices in Anirniq not being heard? How loud do we have to be? I don't intend this as an attack on you in any way whatsoever, I know you work hard for us. But what I think Councillors forget is that they are paid to be our voice, to ensure we are heard, to represent us; we as citizens are trying to be heard on our own, as volunteers, as parents, as neighbours, because we CARE, not because we are being paid. We NEED you. We need you more than ever. You are the ONLY one who can help us. PLEASE be our voice. BE LOUD ERIN! The entire north side, not just Anirniq, depends on it.

I love the idea of the majority of this space being used for park land and recreational purposes, there is a lot of potential for this and I believe residents are using this space for recreational purposes already.
I am concerned about supportive housing being built here. I believe supportive housing is important, however I this location isn't the most conducive. Many potential residents of supportive housing would be without means to meet basic necessities. The transit system in this neighborhood is poor, there are no major grocery stores within close proximity, and very few other stores/businesses within the 15minute walk/bike area that the city is arriving for. I feel that by moving low income residents or homeless residents to this location they are going to be isolated and struggle to get the support and hand up that they need.
Another concern is that there are other supportive housing in neighbouring areas that aren't being utilized for their intended purposes. Why not see how the current supportive housing do and how they effect the neighborhood and how the residents do in the area before building more that may be in a poorly thought out location.