A community spat over high-density development spills into a new forum

Sure, they believed in housing. And sure, they agreed with adding denser development as an alternative to Calgary sprawling endlessly.

With those sentiments out of the way, the concerned residents of Bayview, Pumphill and nearby neigbourhoods delved into the real points they wanted to make to city councillors this week about a proposed condo tower project at the Glenmore Landing shopping centre.

Traffic would be snarled. Parking would overflow.

Precious green space would be ruined. Nearby seniors would be endangered. The adjacent Glenmore Reservoir might be threatened, and half of Calgary’s drinking water supply with it.

Some community denizens who genuinely emphasized the public benefits of more new homes over feared local impacts came out to speak, too. But they were vastly outnumbered at Wednesday’s committee hearing, and by 2,692 to six in written submissions to the city.

Councillors listened to these qualms for hours, then nonetheless voted 8-3 to sell city-owned parcels of adjacent lawn to the complex’s owners as a prelude to the residential highrise project.

It’s largely similar to the way many other highrise proposals have played out at city hall, almost any time a development threatens to bring more cars and cast shadows onto an established low-density neighbourhood.

What’s different in the ongoing Glenmore Landing saga is how this debate unfolded in private in the community hall — and then spilled over in an usually public way, in the pages of the local community association’s newsletters.

The newsletter wars

Huh? The newsletter?

That normally harmless monthly mailout with some blithely season-appropriate cover art, notes about upcoming casino nights or mural projects, and realtor ads?

Yes.

One mild evening last November, nearly two dozen residents strongly opposed to the Glenmore Landing project elected a slew of like-minded neighbours to the board of the Palliser-Bayview-Pumphill Community Association (PBPCA).

Days later, the existing members of what was until then a more development-neutral community board crafted their resignation letters. And just before the December newsletter’s publication deadlines, they rushed in their parting shots at the new board crew they cast as one-issue naysayers.

On the issue’s…