Attachment 2
Proposed Sale – Feedback Forms – Submitted June 17, 2014
Community
Cliff Bungalow
What considerations do you think Council should keep in mind
when making a decision on this land?
Historical land use. Wishes from the community. Plans for parks
development in the community
Any other thoughts or comments?
City departments oppose the sale of the land. This
should have put an end to the sale process. End
the sale process now to correct the error
Mount Royal
Mount Royal
Mission
NO sale of parkland
Transparency first
Once public park land has been sold, you can never get it back.
People of this community could use this land if it had not been
made to look like private property
(comment removed)
Mission
It is public parkland dedicated to citizens of Calgary in 1920. The
City never enforced the encroachment issues. Selling the land
benefits family vs. thousands of family for generations to come.
The City admitted that mistakes were made and proper
procedures were not followed. Thousands of people are
opposed to the sale and have voiced their opinions. Mr. Taylor
has 3 properties to create a buffer for his house.
My husband and I like many other community
members love walking up to enjoy the view from
the hill. We cannot fathom that the City would
enter into an agreement to sell it without
transparency or consulting the public. Many
mistakes have been made but it’s not too late to
please FIX this and make it right. It's obvious that
the benefit of the view should be for thousands of
people versus one family who has donated millions
of dollars to the City.
Mount Royal
The importance of upholding the intent of the CPR when
donating this land. The danger of setting a precedent. The need
for transparency when dealing with these issues. Mr. Taylor
made an error by not knowing his property boundaries and that
should not be overlooked
If we pat ourselves on the back for our community
spirit during a flood, stampede, etc, we must also
understand the importance of listening to
community. The importance of green space in all
communities
Elbow Park
Why has real property report or lack of not been considered?
Care of a space does not mean ownership.
1
Please note editing took place to remove identifiers and inflammatory comments only
Attachment 2
Mount Royal
That the agreement with Mr. Taylor required the approval of Cliff
Bungalow and Mt. Royal Community Associations
CB MCA
There is a common understanding that misinterpreted use of
public space by a private individual overrides the public use of
the space. This appears to be a classic example of this given the
public land has been privately used for 70 years
Mount Royal
Two wrongs don't make a right. If this process with the City was
flawed or things fell between the cracks - then fix it but not at
the cost of the communities.
I regard that it is reasonable for the interests of this
community to take precedence over the interest of
an individual however well intentioned this
individual may be
MRCA
Promise to create a process that includes the affected
communities. Why have taxes been so low? Listen to this
community
How can a neighbour see this opposition and not
back down?
CBMCA
The community needs more green spaces and
needs to be protected
Mount Royal
The integrity of the City in keeping and fulfilling a "bargain" made
with Mr. Taylor - albeit the process was flawed. The opportunity
of compromise is more than fair to the City in these unique
circumstances. The reference to Mr. Taylor's tax assessment on
his property and inference that there was some special deal
made with him and The City is unfair.
Mount Royal
It will make future donors wary that their wishes will not be
respected so why donate? This park can be improved and with
proper landscaping and lighting considerations, reduce vagrants;
a benefit for public and adjacent property owners. City, inner
city especially, needs parkland - benefits on many levels.
2
Please note editing took place to remove identifiers and inflammatory comments only
Attachment 2
Lower Mount
Royal
Where public land is concerned you should take a 1000 year
perspective. The absence of public input is totally unacceptable
where the sale of our common heritage is concerned.
All buyer and seller or land use real property
reports. All applications for subdivision required
real property reports, this land could not be
mistaken as anything but public.
Mount Royal
Do not sell the land, reject the proposal
The format of the meeting was muzzling.
Sometimes no answers were given to the
questions. No chance for rebuttal.
Mount Royal
Taylor bought land without a surveyor's cut, why? He owns 3
lots - doesn’t need land.
Mount Royal
Go back to the original CPR deal. Repay Mr. Taylor and improve
their dealing with communities for future.
Why the low property assessment and more
importantly why will no one answer? Sounds like
collusion to me is all I can guess since no one will
answer. Alderman Woolley has known about this
for months and yet no answer. Why not rectify
today?
I question the developer's intentions
Mount Royal
Council should reject the sale
Mount Royal
This is a democracy and The City needs to represent the people
of the communities. You don't use money to get policy.
Cliff Bungalow
The precedent this will set for future parkland purchases. Is it
right to put a single families wants ahead of the greater need of
the community and future generations?
Inner city parkland should not be a commodity for
sale
MRCA
What is the benefit to the community to sell this land? How is
this even being considered?
This matter should be put to bed immediately. The
community has spoken
Connaught
Precedence (bad)
I may live in an adjacent community, but have
visited the park many times. No inner city parkland
should be available for sale
Mount Royal
3
Give Taylor back his money. Taylor's cost
($950,000) of the wall and $150,000 only equates
to the current market value of the land he wants to
buy or lease
Councillor Woolley is fantastic and doing an
amazing job. Keep up the great work!
Please note editing took place to remove identifiers and inflammatory comments only
Attachment 2
Mount Royal
Past mistakes by City's departments do not place an obligation
on the City to perpetuate the errors. Do the right thing now.
Calgary does not have surplus park and public green spaces, we
must protect all of them
Mount Royal
Do not sell the parkland in question
Mount Royal
What right did the council have to be able to sell the land when
Parks objected and there was a CPR caveat on the land. This was
a flawed decision. They should consider the value of the park
both for beauty, for mental health and for peaceful time to relax.
We have too few green spaces in the inner city and we cannot
afford to lose this park.
The Taylor tax assessments should be investigated.
Proper management of parks needs to be
considered and park laws need to be enforced
Mount Royal
The principal of preserving public parklands. Exceptional
circumstances only. Are these exceptional circumstances?
It appears the applicant wants this land, doesn’t
need it. We shouldn’t sell parkland for an
individual's wants
Mount Royal
The wishes of the affected communities. The benefit/cost to the
majority of Calgarians and community members rather than the
wishes of one family. The spirit in which the land was donated
by the CPR. The council should not be blinded by the fact that
Mr. Taylor is a philanthropist - that should have no bearing on
their decision
Mr. Taylor should not have any expectation that
this land should be sold to him based on a backdoor deal. (comment removed) This land belongs
to all Calgarians.
Mount Royal
Listen to the people you represent and what is best for future
Calgarians
Do the right thing, parkland is for public use.
Mount Royal
That both communities, Cliff Bungalow and Mt. Royal are very
opposed to the sale of any park land. The sale of park land
would set a very bad precedent for all park land in the city.
4
The park can be a treasure for the communities, for
the future use of my great grand children. I hope
the Parks Dept will re-evaluate their deal with Mr.
Taylor and maintain the designated parkland as
park
This is a precedent that must be squashed
Please note editing took place to remove identifiers and inflammatory comments only
Attachment 2
Mount Royal
Never sell park land, especially when it is so scarce already
Don Taylor and his lawyers and his team of people
know what his property was - they obviously have
never heard of a Real Property Report?? (comment
removed) It should never come to this.
Cliff Bungalow
Though we can't change the past, the issue is still very current
and so, make offer to reimburse Mr. Taylor, fix any other similar
scenarios from other communities.
Need a stronger and more articulate moderator.
Panel should be sitting on stage - more visibility.
Too bad the presenters who support saving the
parkland didn’t work together to make ONE
coherent professional looking PowerPoint
presentation. Mr. Taylor was slicker, obviously he
spent the money to make it.
Mount Royal
Precedent - if you can sell one piece of parkland, what else is for
sale?
Where are the public documents i.e.. The paper
trail that must exist?
Mount Royal
Lack of enforcement/contradiction of its own policies. Original
moral commitment by the City when it received the gift from
CPR. The willingness to find architectural and landscaping
solutions as well as refunding the applicant his $150K. The City's
job is to work for the best interests of all citizens not give
preferential treatment to one citizen. The City's process and
continued support of this application is vilifying one citizen and
dividing a community: is this the outcome councillors’ support?
Mount Royal
Not setting a precedent to selling park/public lands
Mount Royal
The man bought his property without a survey - he has
absolutely NO RIGHT to buy park land that belongs to the City.
Period.
5
If this land is sold to Mr. Taylor it will set a
precedent that would be deplorable
Please note editing took place to remove identifiers and inflammatory comments only
Attachment 2
Mount Royal
The citizens of the City of Calgary value parkland; very clearly so.
The land in question was given to the City for its citizens under
caveat. Given the obvious attractiveness of the land, Council
should morally ensure that this land is retained for current and
future citizens and visitors to the park. If, in fact, Mr. Taylor was
brought into funding the retaining under false or erroneous
ground then compensation to him would be reasonable.
Let's get a process in place that is fair, e.g. do not
send notices on Dec 24 and expect answers by Jan
7 for instance, and allows reasonable time for all
stakeholders to prepare and present in a fair forum
Windsor Park
Is the applicant willing to move his proposed residence further
west? (than the existing residence)
What has been the results of the illegal cutting of
parkland trees off Britannia Drive and above
Landsdown Ave just west of Elbow Drive?
Mount Royal
This is parkland to be enjoyed by many
Opposed to sale of parkland given to be enjoyed by
the community at large and not just 1 single family
Mount Royal
This is a public park - not for sale to private interest no matter
how much money they dangle in front of the City. You cannot
give with one hand and take back with 2. The deal was
calculated to not be seen - i.e. community was not involved and
when finally it was, Dec 24th to Jan 6th for a response that is
considered, is suspect
PARKS are permanent - forever. Mr. Taylor's house, his life, his
family are temporary. The decision cannot be to sell to a private
owner and lose permanent piece of parkland. Please consider
the property tax assessment of his house which was ridiculously
low. How and why?
Was this hoped to be a closed deal? What was
councillor Mar's position? (comment removed)
Community opposition is highly significant. Is there or is there
not a City policy to not sell parkland to private citizens?
The statement that Mr. Taylor only agreed to pay
for the retaining if he was able to purchase the
parkland makes it appear that policies may be
overturned if the private citizen pays enough
money to the right place - surely not city policy?
The argument that "there was a deal" does not
mean that the deal is morally right or legally or
ethically.
Mount Royal
Mount Royal
6
This process tonight and going forward is not
helping the democratic process by shutting people
up when they ask or comment publicly. We need
to be heard and some very angry/upset people are
being stifled (comment removed)
Please note editing took place to remove identifiers and inflammatory comments only
Attachment 2
Cliff Bungalow
Because there was not community input into the potential sale
of parkland and there is widespread opposition, Council should
not sell this land to a private land owner
Mount Royal
It was wrong of the city employee to force a decision from Mr.
Taylor and wrong that it was undertaken by one individual.
What was the seniority of this individual and what was the effect
on his career? Is he still an employee?
Clearly a city employee made a serious error. Who
is responsible for this forceful manner?
Cliff Bungalow
This land is not actually remnant land. The councillor - alderman
that agreed to this proposal (i.e.. Did not object) is no longer in
office. The City engineers - indicated - over Mr. Taylor's
objections - that his existing land edge would need
reinforcement regardless. Neither parks nor roads agreed to this
sale - so it would not/ should not have gone any further.
Enforcement of land boundaries did not occur as they should
The City made a legal agreement that it did not
have the moral right to make, and one that it did
not show due concern to its citizens
Mount Royal
Does the City have the right to sell the land to a private citizen
when clearly that was not the intent of the donor? Many of the
MR residents have had to abide by CPR caveats on their home
building and renovations. What makes Mr. Taylor so special?
The City made a mistake...reimburse Mr. Taylor for his expenses.
The fact that the communities were not consulted.
Mount Royal
The sale of land is non-binding on the City. Both communities
rejected and are very much against it. The City should apologize
to both communities, reimburse Mr. Taylor and do a good job of
managing the park for all neighbours privacy and enjoyment in
the future.
Mount Royal
Do not sell public parkland. The City messed up, apologize,
compensate and fix your policies.
7
Please do the right thing!
Please note editing took place to remove identifiers and inflammatory comments only
Attachment 2
Mount Royal
The only person who benefits from the sale of this parkland is
Don Taylor. Regardless of past mistakes made by the City,
council needs to do the right thing and stop the sale. How will
we explain to our grandchildren why we gave up valuable and
rare inner city parkland?
If council votes for this land sale - residents of
Calgary will have no faith in the democratic process
nor it's elected officials
Mount Royal
Public land should not be sold to private individuals (a principle).
The City agreement was made without any public consultation.
Is shocking this would occur. Decision to sell/lease appears to be
a "fait accompli"
City appears to ignore community input. Error
needs to be corrected appropriately (no sale or
lease)
Cliff Bungalow
Public property shouldn’t be sold. Developing the park using this
encroached area could help develop a social solution for the
buffer requested by Mr. Taylor. The City has ignored Parks &
Roads' objections and not brought it through proper process.
The City has made mistakes and should own them.
Apologize to Mr. Taylor for leading him on. Should
answer for low assessed values.
Mount Royal
The decision to sell parkland, public designated parkland, should
not have anything to do with building a retaining wall to protect
private property. If the realization that the real property report
indicated a different property line then what Mr. Taylor originally
thought, his options should be to replan his proposed build or to
find a different lot. Selling this parkland would set a precedent
for encroaching and purchasing public land. It puts all our parks
at risk.
I think council needs to consider how this proposal
"fell through the cracks". If Parks had denied the
proposal, council should revisit what the fault was
in the process and make their decision to correct
this error. I also think council needs to consider the
response of the community associations in this
matter. There is obviously great opposition to this
sale.
Mount Royal
Full recognition that the land in question is the result of a
corporate grant of land to be held for public use in perpetuity.
Past administrations ignored this fundamental responsibility the
City should have honoured. Any recompense, if any owed to the
Taylor's cannot impede the obligations of the City as steward and
trustee of "granted" land.
The process used for this public meeting frustrated
citizens and no representatives of administration
was made available to explain past practice.
8
Please note editing took place to remove identifiers and inflammatory comments only
Attachment 2
Mount Royal
They totally screwed up in the decision to sell him the land in the
first place - they now have a chance to right that wrong by voting
against it. Seriously - does the City want to piss off everyone in
Mt. Royal & Cliff Bungalow for 1 vote/person i.e.. Don Taylor?
See above
Mount Royal
The moral obligation to maintain parkland as indicated by CPR
originally. The clear and unwavering desire by the communities
of voters who live in the area and use the parkland. The need to
not set such a dangerous precedent.
I am disturbed by what appears to be an old boy’s
club agreement that has been made with the clear
intention to mislead Calgarians. That the City has
participated in this is disappointing.
Mount Royal
Council has an opportunity to fix a previous wrong when the
original proposal to sell the land inappropriately went forward.
Council has the opportunity to vote according to the
demonstrated and overwhelming opposition to the sale by
voting no.
Inappropriate for City to sell parkland to private individual. Sale
is inconsistent with caveat, intended land use. Sale is opposed
by significant number of community members and community
associations. Flawed process to date; essential that past errors
do not continue. Parks Dept has opposed sale; sale should stop
immediately.
All members of council who vote for the sale can
expect major aid to their opponents in the next
election.
Mount Royal
We should not be selling parkland. This is no way to celebrate
100 years of Parks in Mt. Royal. We are presently subjected to 3
derelict houses on Hope & Hillcrest Avenues. Can we expect to
go all summer with this eyesore?
(comment removed) I'm a long time resident of
Calgary and Mt. Royal. I remember when the
"Oughton" House was built. There was nothing
else south - to the hill
Mount Royal
This deal was always conditioned on council approval. Do what
is right after hearing unanimous disapproval. Say NO. He should
have surveyed the property when he bought it. Parks opposed
this deal, why did it proceed?
Very unhappy about this deal, being secretly
negotiated and pushed through over Christmas
holidays
Mount Royal
Public opinion and the fact that it's vastly against the sale of this
land
Public opinion should guide your actions and
decisions in everything you do as public servants
Cliff Bungalow
9
Very poor commentation & engagement process
on June 17th. This was a controlled format, with
inadequate process for Q&A and poor facilitation.
Not adequate process and very disappointed in
tonight's format
Please note editing took place to remove identifiers and inflammatory comments only
Attachment 2
Mount Royal
City made an agreement with Mr. Taylor, he was a victim of
inferior process. The land is too small to be use as park. Mr.
Taylor should be able to either buy or lease the land in order to
build a buffer for his property.
The City should remedy the situation and come to a
solution that is amenable to Mr. Taylor - either
lease the land or allow him to buy it, or reimburse
Mr. Taylor for the money used to build the wall and
compensate him for any damages
Mount Royal
The legal agreement entered into between the City and the
applicant
This is a very small parcel of land and not well used
by the residents, although they claim to do so
Mount Royal
The City entered into an agreement with Don Taylor and should
either sell the land or agree to recommend to the City to sell it.
If not, negotiate a settlement. Failure to reimburse Don for the
payment of the retaining wall, dispose of the land or portion
thereof is simply not fair. Many community members are
opposed to the sale, but many are not. If the land remains
parkland, how will it be used and how often? Residents never
used this land prior to finding out it was in fact park land.
The issue here lies with City process. Don Taylor
should not be treated unfairly
Mount Royal
We hope that The City on behalf of all taxpayers
seek compensation from previous land owners for
the encroachment on public land over the last 70
years
Tear up the agreement, or just plain ignore the
agreement, just like BDA routinely does with SDAB
rulings
Elbow Park
Council should not be selling or relinquishing any park lands,
especially in a park deficient community
Mount Royal
This homeowner must have had full knowledge of his property
lines - if he was ignorant of this then that is his loss. The land
was never his property thus, what is the obvious conclusion?
Should not be Mr. Taylor's property.
This to me is a black and white issue. IF it were ??
Or I am asking for this the answer would be NO
way. This is a chance to make it right.
Elbow Park
The City should consider the fact that this will set a precedent for
future decisions on parkland for sale
When will the City start enforcing their rules and
laws. When will they start enforcing SDBA
decisions so will not have to hire a lawyer to
enforce (comment removed)!!! We still want it
BACK!!
10
Please note editing took place to remove identifiers and inflammatory comments only
Attachment 2
Mount Royal
That the owner got to use the land for free for all the years that
they did. They should not use it now.
Before they put up the basketball hoop I DID use
the said property
Mount Royal
One family should not opt to enjoy parkland intended for all of
the community. No one questions that there was an error - why
won't The City fix it? Why the insanely low property value? That
is seriously - SERIOUSLY questionable
Both the communities actively oppose this
proposal. Mr. Taylor is proposing an enormous
home - cannot he just move it over? Is this
necessary to enrage a community?
Mount Royal
I have 3 young children and will be in Mt. Royal near the said
park for the next 20 years. How would I explain this sale to my
children? Look at the property (full park area) and imagine it
without the driveway and hedge. It would be the most
spectacular park in the city.
There are enough people in MR that would
contribute money to repay the applicant for the
retaining wall and develop the park. If the
community are losing nothing, why is the land so
important to the applicant given the applicant
owns the 3 adjacent lots
Mount Royal
Mr. Taylor is a philanthropy booster of Calgary who has
contributed greatly to the City. He should be treated fairly in this
matter and if council decides against this agreement, he should
be compensated.
Mount Royal
As of Jan11/11 the residents and the City agreed to go ahead
without the applicant. March 17/11 deal struck with applicant.
The applicant needed the wall because of setbacks. He
requested the wall to be angled to change the set back so as to
be able to build.
The 3 other residents did not include the applicant
in the negotiations. It was only in Feb/08 that he
said he wanted to be included after reading the
Golden Report. June 11/08 a slump appears next
to 638. Dec 6/10 again he opts out. Jan 11/11
others will proceed without him. March 17/11
applicant agrees to join in with the wall
Mount Royal
That this will set a major precedent. Do the right thing
Parkland remains and exists for everyone, not
those for individual purposes
Mount Royal
It would appear that most residents of Mt. Royal & Bridgeland
are opposed to the sale of the public parkland. Therefore,
council should listen to the majority and act accordingly. I do not
support the sale of public parkland!
I hope the Land & Asset Committee also listen to
what the residents of both communities want
11
Please note editing took place to remove identifiers and inflammatory comments only
Attachment 2
Mount Royal
CPR land given to the community for community use, with their
input on use.
Has a wildlife corridor study been done or
proposed on this site?
Mount Royal
The communities strongly disagree to this. It was given to the
citizens of Calgary not an individual
I don't agree to sale of the land or a 30 year lease. I
would support returning the money to Mr. Taylor
and cancelling the agreement he has with the City.
I am sure the communities would be happy to
reimburse this money to ensure the parkland stays
accessible to all Calgarians.
Mount Royal
Not acting illegally, for one thing! Such as ignoring a binding
caveat, not following their own policies and pushing it through
when it was already turned down (as announced by Evan
Woolley on June 17). Setting a dangerous precedent! Selling off
portions of parkland should not be the norm of the future.
Council should not ignore 90% of the community! If that many
are against it, they have a duty and an obligation to listen!
(comment removed) Make him take 'no' for an answer
12
Please note editing took place to remove identifiers and inflammatory comments only
Attachment 2
Mount Royal
Public input is a must!
City of Calgary parkland should not be sold,
especially inner city land. As a realtor, I know it is a
requirement that a survey or real property report is
mandatory when a purchase of land is to be
conducted. The applicant cannot plead no
knowledge of his property boundaries. The
applicant has approximately one acre of land
assembled and they may build a fence on their own
property without need for the land in dispute.
Actually this land should be enhanced by taking out
the basketball court and hedge and improving the
parklands views. The home next to this parkland
will be demolished and any new home can be
located well away from the existing parkland. The
undesirable activities that the applicant notes exist
in many parks in this city. Should we sell pieces of
these parks as well?
Mount Royal
Past errors, false assumptions, and inaction should not influence
decisions of the present. Mr. Taylor does not have "dibs" on the
parkland property
As a land developer, does Mr. Taylor assume the
property line on all his land deals?
Mount Royal
The existing available park is too small. It's often difficult to find
a spot to read or have a private conversation, it overflows into
the street at fireworks time. Restoring the park to its original
size is necessary in view of the present situation and the
expected growth of the city (higher density in the inner city is the
general policy isn't it?)
The smell of backroom deals and arbitrary tax
reductions is destroying the confidence of many in
the fairness of City procedures and decisions
13
Please note editing took place to remove identifiers and inflammatory comments only
Attachment 2
Mount Royal
Preserve public parkland. Respect CPR caveat. Respect deal
struck with D. Taylor - return his money
Mount Royal
The land is held in trust and the City has been violating that trust
by the sale of the land
Beltline
CPR covenants are clear. How the owners "feel" or what they
"think" doesn’t change the facts about where the property line is
14
We were informed by 2 neighbours that they were
approached by City and asked if they would like to
purchase land adjacent(behind) part of green space
south of Earl Grey School. Is this true? Seems
rather odd with the concern over green space
beside Mr. Taylor
Who was responsible for allowing the sale process
to continue despite objections by Parks?
Please note editing took place to remove identifiers and inflammatory comments only