As the City Council begins debating the Calgary Plan, Administration is recommending one final phase of public engagement before the document proceeds to a public hearing. For a plan that will shape Calgary’s growth, infrastructure priorities, transportation investments, and land use decisions for the next three decades, that is simply not enough.
The Calgary Plan is one of the most significant policy documents City Hall has considered in a generation. It will influence where billions of taxpayer dollars are invested, how communities evolve, and how future councils make decisions about growth. Whether one supports the plan or opposes it, the scale of its impact should be beyond dispute.
Administration notes that nearly 48,000 Calgarians have participated in engagement activities since 2023. While that level of participation is noteworthy, consultation is not merely a numbers exercise. The goal should not be to count participants. The goal should be to ensure Calgarians understand what is being proposed and have confidence that their views are reflected in the final product.
That confidence does not currently exist.
Over the past several years, planning debates at City Hall have become increasingly divisive. The blanket rezoning debate exposed a growing disconnect between City Hall and many residents who felt major decisions were moving forward despite widespread public concern. Regardless of where individuals stood on that issue, the controversy demonstrated that public trust cannot be assumed. It must be earned.
Those concerns were reinforced this week when Councillor Rob Ward brought forward an amendment that would have stopped work on the Calgary Plan and instead focused on targeted improvements to Calgary’s existing Municipal Development Plan. Although the amendment failed, the concerns behind it deserve serious consideration.
Ward argued that before replacing one of Calgary’s most important planning documents, the Administration should clearly demonstrate what is broken in the existing framework and why targeted amendments would not achieve the same objectives. That is a reasonable question and one that many Calgarians are asking themselves.
He also raised concerns about how much of Ward 11 could be affected by the Plan’s intensification policies. Using the Calgary Plan’s own framework, maps showing areas around major transit corridors and stations suggest that significant portions of established communities could be captured by policies encouraging higher-intensity development. Whether one agrees with that approach or not, residents deserve a clear understanding of what those policies could mean for their neighbourhoods.
The fact that an elected councillor attempted to halt the process and pursue targeted updates to the existing Municipal Development Plan demonstrates that there is not yet a broad consensus around replacing Calgary’s current growth framework. That reality should encourage the Council to seek more public input, not less.
There is another reason to proceed carefully.
Calgary is entering one of the most significant leadership transitions City Hall has seen in years. The City’s Chief Administrative Officer is departing, along with other senior administrative leaders. A new leadership team will soon inherit responsibility for implementing the Calgary Plan, managing its costs, prioritizing infrastructure investments, and being accountable for its results.
In the private sector, major organizations routinely reassess long-term strategies during leadership transitions. New executives are expected to challenge assumptions and determine whether existing plans still reflect current realities. While a city is not a business, it is a large organization responsible for managing billions of dollars in public assets and services. The principle remains the same.
The Calgary Plan was developed under a different political and administrative environment. Since then, Calgary has elected a new mayor, experienced significant public debate over planning policy, and witnessed changing economic conditions. Given the scope of the decisions involved and the leadership changes now underway, one additional consultation phase is not sufficient.
Calgarians deserve the opportunity to review the final version of the plan, understand how feedback influenced revisions, and determine whether it reflects their vision for how Calgary should grow.
If the Calgary Plan is truly the right path forward, additional public scrutiny will only strengthen its credibility. A plan that will guide Calgary for the next thirty years should earn public confidence before it earns final approval.
Read my full opinion column in Western Standard by clicking Here
