UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Encroachments into selected municipal and regional park lands in Canada Chambers, Bruce 1971

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1971_A8 C43.pdf [ 4.45MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0102042.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0102042-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0102042-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0102042-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0102042-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0102042-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0102042-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0102042-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0102042.ris

Full Text

ENCROACHMENTS INTO SELECTED MUNICIPAL AND REGIONAL PARK LANDS IN CANADA by BRUCE CHAMBERS B .A . , U n i v e r s i t y o f V i c t o r i a , 1966 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the S choo l o f COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d A p r i l , 1971 THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Community & Regional Planning The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date May 7, 1971 ABSTRACT As urban areas increase in population, pressures are exerted upon vacant or undeveloped lands for housing, industry, public buildings, high-way rights-of-way, and a host of other uses including parks. At the same time, pressures are placed upon existing parks to accomodate some of the other needs of expanding urban areas. The loss of lands that have been de-veloped for recreation results in either the loss of a necessary activity or the reduction of the quality of the experience enjoyed by park users. Studies in the U.S.A. indicate that alienation of park lands by non-recreative uses is a serious problem. While many urban areas in Canada have experienced significant population increases and the resultant pres-sures on urban land during the last ten years, there has been no examination, on a provincial or national basis, of the effects of such trends on major parks (over 20 acres). Are park lands in this size category being alienated to provide land for non-recreative purposes? This thesis attempts to pro-vide an answer to this and related questions. The findings of this study are based on 141' questionnaire returns from a survey of 234 Canadian municipalities with populations over 10,000. Two of 183 municipalities between 10,000 and 50,000 persons experienced a total of 5 alienations from 1960-1970. Seventeen of 51 municipalities over 50,000 persons experienced a total of 34 alienations during the same period. The land alienated was 13 per cent of the total park area affected; on the aver-age, 15.5 acres of land were alienated per encroachment. Highways and roads, schools, and housing were the main uses alienating park lands. In most cases objections to the alienation by the parks board were overruled by the municipal council on the grounds that the encroaching use was of greater importance or that the land was cheaper. It is concluded that alienation of park lands in Canadian municipali-ties is a significant problem that to date has been unrecognized and un-publicized. Moreover, the study suggests that pressure on park lands w i l l continue to mount in the foreseeable future. With the exception of parks given to a municipality in trust there is l i t t l e to indicate that municipal legislation is oriented to protecting the major parks. In fact, parks that have been dedicated by public referendum are not guaranteed perpetual protection in a l l provinces. Parks, as viewed by some municipal councils, seem to represent a valuable form«of land bank for future development needs. The increasing public awareness of the value of major parks in.-urban areas may change this outlook in the future. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.... 1 The Development of Canadian Municipal Parks 3 Alienations: The U.S. Experience •• 5 Alienations: The Situation in Canada 7 References Cited 10 CHAPTER II PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION CONCERNING THE ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL OF PARK LANDS AT THE MUNICIPAL LEVEL 13 Introduct ion 13 British Columbia ...13 Alberta 15 Saskatchewan • ...16 Manitoba 18 Ontario. 19 Que be c • ....20 New Brunswick «»21 Nova Scotia 22 Prince Edward Island 23 Newfoundland • 23 Summary 23 References Cited 27 CHAPTER III ALIENATION OF MUNICIPAL AND REGIONAL PARK LANDS IN CANADA 30 Results 31 Realized Experienced and Defeated Encroachments 33 a) Municipal Parks ......33 b) Regional Parks...... 39 Anticipated Encroachments AO References Cited ........ ••• .44 CHAPTER IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 45 Conclusions 46 Importance of Findings to Planning 47 Future Research P o s s i b i l i t i e s . . 49 Validity of Results 50 References Cited 52 ADDITIONAL LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT OFyPARKS AND ENCROACHMENTS 53 APPENDIX I QUESTIONNAIRE AND COVERING LETTER 55 APPENDIX II MUNICIPALITIES SURVEYED, PARK LAND ENCROACHMENT QUESTIONNAIRE .62 APPENDIX III ENCROACHMENTS EXPERIENCED 69 APPENDIX IV DEFEATED ENCROACHMENT ATTEMPTS... 76 APPENDIX V MUNICIPALITIES ANTICIPATING FUTURE ENCROACHMENTS 78 LIST OF TABLES I LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF MUNICIPAL COUNCILS TO ACQUIRE AND DISPOSE OF PARK LANDS 25 II ALIENATION OF PARK LAND: GENERAL FINDINGS 32 III OCCURRENCE OF ALIENATIONS, ALL MUNICIPALITIES, BY YEAR 34 IV DEFEATED ALIENATION ATTEMPTS, ALL MUNICIPALITIES, BY YEAR 34 V ATTEMPTS TO PREVENT REPORTED ALIENATIONS 35 VI FACTORS THAT PREVENTED ATTEMPTED ALIENATIONS 35 VII LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBLE FOR ALIENATION 36 VIII LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT MAKING FINAL DECISION 36 IX PURPOSE FOR WHICH LAND ALIENATED 37 X PLANNED PURPOSES OF DEFEATED ALIENATION ATTEMPTS 37 XI FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE FINAL DECISION 39 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Professor Peter Dooling of the Faculty^of Forestry for making me aware of the problem, and for his useful comments made on earlier drafts of this thesis. Professor William Rees of the Planning School was of great help in his unflagging criticism (and encour-agement!) and offered assistance unhesitatingly. My friend, Bernard Bregaint, must be thanked for his prompt translation into French of the questionnaire and covering letter. I would like to thank those park directors who responded to the questionnaire and whose comments opened up new dimensions of the problem. For those who managed to withstand the steady barrage of questionnaires and follow-up letters, nothing more need be said. Last, but definitely not least, I would like to thank my wife Wendy for her financial and moral support during this period. CHAPTER I It is unhappily true that the greatest individual pressures and the greatest recreational pressures are a l l too li k e l y to occur together. Recreational assets near cities and major settlements are of immense value because they permit residents to use them after work, on short holidays, and at weekends. Roderick Haig-Brown (1961) The above quotation succinctly pinpoints the source of many problems associated with urban recreation. After extensive investigations into the problem of location and preferences of outdoor recreational f a c i l i t i e s for urban residents, the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission con-cluded that urban residents prefer to have easily accessible, simple recre-ation pursuits (O.R.R.R.C. Study Report #21, 1962). While the O.R.R.R.C. conclusions refer specifically to the U.S.A., they have equal relevance for urban recreation in Canada. Thus, accepting the O.R.R.R.C. statement for the U.S. situation that the importance of large, accessible parks within the ranget-of day-use by urban dwellers w i l l increase in the future, i t seems like l y that the importance of similar sized parks in reach of Canadian urban dwellers w i l l also increase. In the past tenvyears Canada has experienced tremendous urban growth, resulting in increased competition between different land users in the urban areas. Because they are "undeveloped" and often occupy prime locations in the urban infrastructure, major parks and golf courses are frequently looked upon as areas that can accomodate these pressures. Many urban areas in the U.S.A. have experienced the alienation of park lands through encroachments, and increasingly, local citizens and park o f f i c i a l s are forced to try to impress upon politicians, at the state and local level, the growing im-portance of a park system in the urban, suburban, and regional areas of the metropolitan complexes. In 1960 the National Recreation Association, with the support of the American Institute of Park Executives, Inc., the American Recreation So-ciety, and the National Conference on State Parks undertook a national sur-vey of the encroachment problem at the local and county level. This study (Sinn-Butler, 1961) showed that the alienation of urban park lands tojtnon-park uses was a growing problem in the U.S. In addition, the U.S. National Recreation Association (1957) has reviewed the-subject of encroachments at five year intervals, publishing their findings in the Yearbook for the year in which the study was done. There has been no similar attempt to survey the problem comprehensively in Canada, although certain selected cities have been investigated (City of Edmonton, 1965; Peddie (Calgary), 1968). The objective of this survey is to identify the extent and location of the encroachment problem^in the public parklands of Canadian municipalities by^surveying cities of 10,000 population or greater. If alienations are common in these types of parks, then both the methods of acquisition and legislative means of preservation w i l l have to be altered to meet changing conditions and changing priorities of urban residents. First,however, the nature and severity of the problem must be known in order to institute the required changes to meet the situation. The research was limited to parks over 20 acres for three main reasons: a) Parks of this size are useful as tools in directing urban growth. b) Very often parks of this size, as viewed by some non-park authorities, can lose small portions of land without decreasing the recreational value of the park. c) It was assumed that fewer parks of this size existed and that park o f f i c i a l s answering the questionnaire would not have to spend an i n -ordinate amount of time reviewing the records of encroachment. By researching this topic additional knowledge concerning municipal and re-gional parks w i l l be obtained and may, i t is hoped, augment the rather limited available knowledge regarding this level of park. The following terms have been defined for use in this thesis: a) Regional Park - A large, reserved area of land, usually with scenic characteristics, serving one or more municipalities or an entire metropolitan area and supplementing recreational f a c i l i t i e s in urban areas. b) Major Municipal Park - Those areas over 20 acres in size, within muni-cipal boundaries, that are by dedication or development used for out-door recreational purposes. c) Encroachment - The alienation of park land by a non-park use which prohibits the land from being used for recreational purposes. This does not include physical developments within the park by park depart-ments for purposes of increasing the recreational potential of the area. d) Municipality - Any city, town, village, municipal d i s t r i c t , county, borough, or municipal corporation with a 1966 population greater than 10,000 persons. The Development of Canadian Municipal Parks The development of municipal parks in Canada was initiated largely after Confederation. Federal military reserves, established in Canada dur-ing the American War of Independence and maintained as such u n t i l after Confederation, were released to adjacent cities for park purposes (Mc-Farland, 1970). Moreover, beginning with Ontario in 1883, provincial legis-latures began to pass legislation to provide the means whereby municipal-i t i e s could acquire and develop lands for municipal park purposes. Such legislation dealt with the formation of park boards, amounts of land that could be purchased, and m i l l rates that could be applied for taxation pur-poses to raise the required»monies for park development (McFarland, 1970). Amendments to-city charters, or specific provincial legislation, created a variety of park boards differing in organization and powers. Thus the de-velopment of municipal parks and recreation f a c i l i t i e s appears to have been substantially aided by the foresight of the federal government to re-lease i t s military reserves for park purposes, and by the provincial govern-ments which began to recognize the role of the cities in providing recrea-tion areas and therefore passed suitable legislation. Parks of significant size and importance, which were originally military reserves, include the Halifax Common, the Garrison Reserve in Toronto, MountdRoyal Park in Montreal, Gore Park in Hamilton, and Stanley Park in Vancouver. (The transfer pro-gram continues to the present day and a recent example is the transfer of the Jericho Canadian Forces Establishment to the city of Vancouver, part of i t to be used for park purposes.) Although at the time of dedication of the reserves to park status they were not a l l readily accessible, the continued growth of the respective cities soon spread and transportation routes created easier access for the urban residents. As the cities grew the parks increased in value for their recreational and natural qualities, and they became islands around which urban development continued to spread. With growing populations and increasing leisure time, more and more use was made of existing park f a c i l i t i e s . Concommitant with "urban sprawl" was the disappearance, through urban development, of significant areas of potential park value. In addition, the demand for better transportation systems in urbanized areas posed a threat to park lands which were consid-ered "vacant" by some governmental departments; in some cases, private businesses were of the opinion that commercial or industrial development of the land would place i t into a "higher and better use" economically. Thus parks, although meant to be an integral part of total urban and regional development, have not fared well in competition with other uses. Alienations; The U.S. Experience As noted previously, the Sinn-Butler (1961) study was the f i r s t nation-wide survey of the problem of park land alienation at the urban and re-gional level in the U.S. In this survey&of 300 local and county authorities, of which 130 responded, i t was found that during the period 1950-1960 the number and rate of encroachments wasJincreasing. The following points sum-marize the main findings of the survey: a) A total of 2,687 areas was lost at 259 of the 267 areas at which encroachments were reported. b) Of 51 encroachments termed "serious," 18 involved highways, 7 involved schools, and the remainder a variety of unspecified uses. c) More than one-half of the serious encroachments reported in the 10 year period occurred in the last three years. d) Large parks were affected by alienations more frequently than smaller park areas. While theirs was the-most comprehensive study, Sinn and Butler were not the f i r s t to become aware of the^problem in the U.S.A. Donaldson (1957) noted that Portland, Oregon, as a result of a 20-year plan for federally-aided highways, would have 21 of i t s parks affected by highways. Norton (1955), Butler (1957), Balk (1960) cite examples of highways alienating park lands in such cities as San Diego, Detroit, Los Angeles, Buffalo, and Cincinnati. In addition many articles dealing with encroachments have been generated by c i v i c , and park and recreation groups. These latter gener-ally illustrate the problem by citing examples of past and/or existing encroachments, and indicate the means whereby interested groups can avoid future encroachments. In a similar vein, Siegel (1960) dealt with the acquisition and preservation of park lands by such means as eminent domain, condemnation, and scenic easements, while Krasnowiecki and Paul (1961) in-vestigated the preparation of development plans, additional park l e g i s l a -tion, and publicity to:\help preserve park lands. The former is of great import in presenting the methods open to achieve the goals desired, while the latter is more explicit by presenting an example of draft legislation that would achieve the goals desired i f approved byklegislators. In most cases studied the alienations were considered detrimental to the successful future functioning of the park. However, Butler (1957) did cite an example of an encroachment whereby the monies received for the alienated park land were used to acquire another better located park for the residents. Of course, examples of recreational benefits received through alienations are the exception. The Regional Plan Association (1960), although not dealing s p e c i f i -cally with encroachments, stated that: (t)he journey-to-play w i l l compete more and more with the journey-to-work for new highways. Transportation planning must take this shift in emphasis prominently into account. Thejjguiding principle (in highway accessito Parks) must be that highways go to parks but not through them. An encroachment on a park should never be permitted merely as a device for saving money. Parks are not created as a land reserve to f a c i l i t a t e the obtaining of "bargains'* in public projects. As suggested by these statements and many of the examples cited above, most studies reveal alienations involving government departments, especially highway departments. On the other hand, Connell (1961) illuminated the problem of encroachments into public park f a c i l i t i e s by private recreational groups. Examples of this type are private yacht or sailing clubs obtaining a lease for park land from which their activity is based for the sole use of their members. Private clubs oriented to other a c t i v i t i e s , such as horse-back riding, are also cited as examples of this type of alienation. The National Recreation Association has done an historical analysis of park acreage and population on American cities according to population size. The findings indicate a decreasing per capita park acreage in many cities--the implication is that the cities may not have acquired park land at a rate proportional to their population growth. Unfortunately, no attempt was made to assess the importance of encroachment in this trend and i t is possible that both these factors are applicable. Alienation: The Situation in Canada As stated earlier, there have been few studies pertaining directly to park encroachments in Canada although many authors stress the increasing importance of urban and regional park lands. Robert Collins (1968) inves-tigated the Canadian park situation generally and concluded that "(T)he im-pending c r i s i s is not in total space but effective space one- to three-hours' drive from major urban centers." Similarly, the Niagara Regional Development Association (no date) illustrates the need for regional park for day-recreation purposes and also suggests administrative changes that are required to adapt the outmoded Ontario county governmental system into a form that is capable of dealing with the expected increased demand in rec-reational space. Comments by Eric Hardy and Frank J. McGilly in this pub-lication conclude that the "thorniest problem in the parks f i e l d l i e s in the realm of regional parks." In British Columbia, the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board (1966) concerned i t s e l f with the need for establishing a regional parks board and for the methods for financing i t . The B.C. branch of the Community Plan-ning Association of Canada (1968) prepared a brief for presentation to the Treasury Board proposing changes in the National Housing Act that would allow municipalities to u t i l i z e N.H.A. funds to acquire park lands. Evidently, while there 1is an increasing concern in Canada for the es-tablishment of major municipal and regional parks to satisfy the recrea-tional needs of the inhabitants of urban areas, there is l i t t l e visible con-cern for problems associated with maintaining major municipal or regional parks once they have been established. On the contrary, emphasis is placed on the financing and acquisition of parks, as well as the concern about the rapid disappearance, as a result of urban growth and sprawl, of sites of sufficient size and natural scenic qualities to be developed for this type of park. Peddie (1968), in one of the two studies of the problem in Canada, in -vestigated the effect of the alienation of park land in the city of Calgary. The extent of the problem in Calgary was shown to be significant, especially to major parks, but until this time i t had been virtually unpublicized. The other study, done by the city of Edmonton Parks Department, l i s t s the alienations that have occurred to parks of a l l sizes in Edmonton from 1945-1965. However,no attempt was made to determine the effect of such alienations on the total park system. In any event these studies suggest that alienation of urban park lands w i l l be a serious problem in Canada. One reason for the failure to recognize the problem in Canada may be the paucity of research that has been directed s p e c i f i c a l l y to this topic. Park research at the municipal level is oriented, toward methods of finan-cing parks, community recreation program development, and carrying capacity of different types of grass. No attempt is made by individual park de-partments to publicize alienations that occur on parks and open space within their j u r i s d i c t i o n . REFERENCES CITED BALK, A. 1960. Progress and Parks. National Civic Review. Vol. 49. BUTLER, GEORGE D. 1957. The Land Grab for Building Purposes. Recrea-tion. Vol. 50. 1963. Supply and Demand. Recreation. Vol. 56. COLLINS, ROBERT. 1968. The Vanishing Point. Imperial Oil Review. Vol. 56. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF CANADA. 1968. Brief to-the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Regarding Legislation to Reserve Urban Open Space, (mimeographed) CONNELL, E. A. 1961. The Threat of "Private" Encroachments. Parks and Recreation. Vol. 44. DONALDSON, D. 1957. The Loss of Local Park Land to Highway Planning. Recreation. Vol. 50. HAIG-BROWN, RODERICK. 1961. The Living Land. Toronto: The MacMillan Company of Canada Limited. KRASNOWIECKI, JAN Z. and PAUL, JAMES C. N. 1961. The Preservation of Open Space in Metropolitan Areas. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Vol. 110. LOWER MAINLAND REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD. 1966. A Regional Parks Plan for the Lower Mainland Region. New Westminster: Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board. McFARLAND, ELSIE M. 1970. The Development of Public Recreation in Canada. Toronto: Canadian Parks/Reereation Association. NATIONAL RECREATION ASSOCIATION. 1957. Park Acreage to Population, 1390-1955. Recreation. Vol. 50. NIAGARA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, n.d. Crisis in the Country-side. NORTON, C. McKIM. 1955. The Disappearing Countryside in Metropolitan Areas. American Planning and Civic Association. Vol. OUTDOOR RECREATION RESOURCES REVIEW COMMISSION. 1962. The Future of Out-door Recreation in Metropolitan Regions of the U.S. Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printdng Office. PEDDIE, RICHARD. 1968. Urban Parks and Planning in Calgary (Alta.). University of Calgary: Unpublished M.A. Thesis. SIEGEL, SIRLEY ADELSON. The Law of Open Space. New York: Regional Plan Association. SHIVERS, JAY. Beware: The Spoilers are on the March. Recreation. Vol. 58. SINN, DONALD F., and BUTLER, GEORGE D. 1961. The Loss of Park and Recre-ation Land. Wheeling, West Virginia: American Institute of Park Executives, Inc. CHAPTER II PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION CONCERNING THE ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL OF PARK LANDS AT THE MUNICIPAL LEVEL Introduction This chapter w i l l concentrate province by province on legislation per-taining to parks at the municipal level, and detail the powers of municipal councils and/or park boards to acquire and dispose of park lands. The best and most up-to-date compendium of information pertinent to the "upper end" of the park administration gradient is The Administration of Outdoor Recre-ation in Canada (Canadian Council of Resource Minister, 1968). This publi-cation outlines what legislation exists at the federal and provincial level that pertains to recreation. It does not, however, deal with the differences among provinces respecting legislation at the municipal level. For this reason, a capsulized presentation of the pertinent provincial legislation is deemed to be of value in this study. British Columbia Part XVII, Sections 621-627, of The Municipal Act (1968) permits munici-pal councils to acquire, purchase, or accept any property within thea-munici-pality for recreative uses. Joint agreements with other municipalities to maintain parks beyond municipal boundaries are also permitted. Section 625 states that when land has been accepted in trust for use as a park, the council is responsible for the maintenance of the area in park use. The Province, through the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, may grant to as>munici-pality an area to be set aside for park purposes; however, i t is implied that such land can be removed from the municipality by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Section 468 (1) and (2) is the most crucial section of the Act. Sec-tion 468 (1) states that the council of a municipality may be by-law dedi-cate for public purposes any real property owned by the municipality i f assent is given by the resident electors. But Section 468 (2) states: Notwithstanding subsection (1), the assent of the electors is not required for the dedication, by any means whatso-ever, of real property for highways.... This can be interpreted to mean that when a road is proposed to encroach upon a park, approval from the electros is not required. In addition,Section 467 (2) states that any by-law reserving land for a particular public purpose may be removed by an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the council. Potentially, these two sections give l i t t l e permanent protection to any land reserved for park use at the municipal level. Part XXIV, Division 2 (Regional D i s t r i c t s ) , of The Municipal Act (1968) was introduced in 1965 as a means of administering certain functions on a supra-municipal scale. I n i t i a l l y , Regional Districts were established to provide hospitals for the d i s t r i c t ; subsequent changes to the Letters Pa-tent, upon approval, could include such other functions as water supply, sewage disposal, refuse disposal, transit, regional planning, parks, and others. At the present time only the legislation previously cited regarding disposal of park lands is in force. Under the existing legislation the re-gional d i s t r i c t can accept only land that has been donated for park purposes; i t can not actively purchase lands considered necessary for future park, use (Hiebert, 1970). Of the 28 regional d i s t r i c t s in the province, four have undertaken the limited park function for the entire d i s t r i c t and three have undertaken i t for only part of the d i s t r i c t (Department of Municipal Affairs, 1968). The Regional Parks Act (1965) is similar in content to the Regional District legislation in The Municipal Act cited previously; however, since i t is concerned with only the park function i t is more specific. The legis-lation deals primarily with the method available to a Regional Parks Dis-t r i c t to raise i t s operating and purchasing revenues and the.minimum amount (60 per cent) of i t s budget that can be used for park property acquisitions. To date there i s only one separate parks d i s t r i c t in B.C.--The Vancouver-Fraser Park D i s t r i c t ; the other d i s t r i c t s maintain this function within the Regional Districts legislation of The Municipal Act. The city of Vancouver has its own Charter (1953) which is similar to The Municipal Act. Division XXXIII, Section 485-497A, concerns park lands, but the legislation makes no mention of the powers of the park board to acquire lands for parks or for disposing of any lands. City council, however, is empowered to dispose of real property which, in the opinion of the coun-c i l , is not required for any purpose of the city. If the property to be disposed is assessed at a value exceeding $200,000, and is to be sold to someone other than a Crown agency of the government of Canada or British Columbia, then a by-law, passed by the electors of the-.city must be obtained. Alberta The powers of a city council to dispose of park lands were made very explicit in Alberta's former City Act (1955) which stated: 318(2) A city council has no power (a) to dispose of i t s estate in any landed property acquired for a public park, public recreation grounds or exhibition grounds, (d) to dispose of or devote to any other purpose, lands that have been dedicated to the city by g i f t for a specific purpose.... without the assent of a majority of the electors voting on a by-law authorizing the disposal. Section 298 (1) of The Town and Village Act (1955), although worded d i f -ferently, states substantially the same as the above. The Municipal Dis-t r i c t Act (1955) and The County Act (1955) made nosmention of the powers that their specific councils have in disposing of land, but state that pow-ers contained within other legislation is applicable to these councils. In 1968, The City Act, The Town and Village Act, The Municipal Dis t r i c t Act were replaced by The Municipal Government Act. The only apparent d i f -ference is that town, villages, and municipal d i s t r i c t s , must now abide by legislation that previously applied only to c i t i e s . Section 128 of The Municipal Government Act (1968) is the same as Section 318 of The City Act (1955) quoted above, but i t also includes open space and park land reserves that have been acquired by a municipal corporation through the Subdivision Regulations of The Town and Rural Planning Act (1966). Prior to 1968 there were no restrictions on councils to s e l l such lands acquired i f the sale of such were considered necessary. Since 1968 the sale of such lands requires the approval of the residents through a referendum. Saskatchewan The City Act (1965) empowers a council to pass by-laws to acquire and dispose of lands for public parks, within and outside the city. In order to dispose of lands purchased for a public park the council is required, by Section 231 (1) (44), to advertise for two successive weeks in a newspaper circulating in the city that i t intends to s e l l the land. If a petition opposing such action is received within ten days from 100 persons, or two per cent (whichever is greater) of the "burgesses," in the city, then a referendum is required. Approval or rejection of the referendum requires a two-thirds majority of those voting. Another form of encroachment that may occur under the legislation is that, with the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, land dedicated for a public park may be leased to an organization associated with athletics or exhibitions (Section 231 (1) (47)). The Town Act (1965) does not require the council, when intending to dispose of park lands, to advertise its intentions in a newspaper for two successive weeks. The Village Act (1965) requires a by-law, assented to by two-thirds of the residents voting, before land acquired for a public park may be sold (Section 248 (1) (17)). The Rural Municipality Act (1965) em-powers a council to dispose of or devote to some other municipal use, any property purchased for a specific purpose, i f the council decides that such lands are no longer required for the original purpose (Section 203 (1) (21)). The Local Improvement Districts Act (1965) permits the Minister, usually by tender or public auction, to dispose of any Crown lands (Section 87 (1)). There is no mention in the legislation for these latter two Acts of the duties of the respective councils to acquire lands for parks or play-gounds. The Regional Parks Act (1965) provides legislation at the regional level for supra-municipal parks. Given assent in 1960, the Act provides for the creation of inter-municipal agreements to provide for park needs fa l l i n g between the municipal and provincial levels. Disposal of any land acquired by a regional park authority requires the consent of the Minister and the municipalities represented on the regional park authority (Section 16). The Community Planning Act (1965) empowers the subdividing authority to ensure that land,when subdivided for residential purposes, has included within i t an area of public reserve (Section 75 (d)). Section 140 states that such public reserve land: shall be under the control of the minister, and such lands may be sold, leased or otherwise disposed of or placed under the control of any municipality under regulations to be prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. For a more detailed description of the f u l l range of options open to the Minister, the interested reader is referred to Saskatchewan Order in Council #26/69, January 14, 1969. Manitoba Although a l l cities in Manitoba have their individual charters, The Municipal Act (1940) has the a l l encompassing legislation to which, unless otherwise specified in the individual charters, a l l cities and towns ad-here. A Parks Board may be created which has authority to acquire and dispose of lands for parks. Section 842 (2) controls the amount of land that a city^or town may purchase for park purposes--cities with over 25,000 persons are allowed to acquire 600 acres per 25,000 inhabitants, and muni-cipalit i e s without this population are restricted to a total of 400 acres. Land in excess of the above amounts may be obtained by a city or other municipality only be devise or g i f t . Section 843 (1) empowers the Park Board, i f i t has more than the necessary amount of land for parks and with the approval of council, to s e l l or otherwise dispose of the lands in the manner that seems most advantageous. By an amendment to the City of Winnipeg Charter (1966), the disposal of park lands requires the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the members of council. The Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg has legislative powers no different from the City of Winnipeg, and must abide by The Municipal Act as i t affects parks. The one minor exception is that the Metropolitan Corporation can assume responsibility for parks over 15 acres in the member municipalities (Section 175). Ontario The Municipal Act (1960) is very explicit concerning the powers that a Board of Park Management can exercise in acquiring land for park purposes (Section 377 (63-65)), but i t is The Public Parks Act (1960) which sets limits on the amount of land that may be acquired and the methods open to disposing of such lands. Cities with a population in excess of 100,000 persons may not acquire more than a total of 2,000 acres; smaller cities and counties 1,000 acres; and towns, villages, and townships 500 acres. Land obtained by devise or g i f t is not affected by this regulation (Section 13 (2)). Section 13 (4) and (5) empower the Board of Park Management to let any land not immediately required for park purposes, and to s e l l that land i t deems most suitable for sale. Part XV of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act (1960) em-powers the Metropolitan Corporation to acquire lands for park purposes in the Metropolitan area or in any adjoining municipality in the County of Ontario, the County of Peel, or the County of York (Section 23 (1)). There is no specific mention in the legislation of the powers invested in the Metropolitan Council in regard to the disposal of these lands, nor is there any mention of the maximum acreage that may be acquired. Two other regionally oriented park commissions exist in Ontario. The St. Lawrence Parks Commission (1960) may s e l l or dispose of i t s land sub-ject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council (Section 6). The Niagara Parks Commission (1960) has the same control placed on i t when disposing of lands. The National Capital Act (1958) created the National Capital Commission and one responsibility of the Commission is to con-struct, maintain, and operate parks (Section 10 (2) (c)). Section 10 (2) (b) empowers the Commission to s e l l , lease, or otherwise dispose of lands within i t s The Ontario Planning Act (1960) states that when a subdivision occurs the Minister of Municipal Affairs may request that a certain percentage of the land,not to exceed 5 per cent, must be conveyed to the municipality and set aside for public purposes other than highways (Section 28 (5) (a)). There is not,however, any mention of restrictions imposed upon the munici-pality in terms of disposing of lands acquired under such legislation. Quebec Many cities in Quebec have their own specific charter but the le g i s l a -tion dealing with the provision and disposal of park lands is drawn directly from The Cities and Town Act (1964). Section 429 (a)(b)(c) empowers the council to pass by-laws acquiring public squares and parks. The only men-tion in the entire Act of the council's power to dispose of lands under its control appears in Section 26 (2) which states that the council may: Acquire for the objects within its authority moveable and immoveable property by purchase, donation or otherwise, and dispose of the same by onerous t i t l e when no longer required. It is assumed that this statement applies to park lands as well as other municipally controlled lands. In 1969 three Acts were given assent (The Quebec Urban Community Act, The Montreal Urban Community Act, and The Outaouais Regional Community Act) which w i l l allow for the formation of a type of t e r r i t o r i a l government comprising the inhabitants and ratepayers of a number of contiguous munici-p a l i t i e s . The wording of the legislation is substantially the same in a l l three Acts respecting the acquisition and disposal of park lands. The legislation is oriented to the provision of regional parks and competence in this f i e l d must be granted through a majority vote of the Council. Once this has been granted, the Council can acquire parks and recreational f a c i l -i t i e s of a regional nature. Although the legislation does not specifically refer to parks Section 92 (e) of The Quebec Urban Community Act empowers the Community Council to: s e l l , exchange, encumber, lease or alienate any moveable or immoveable property by observing, where necessary, the formalities prescribed by this act. New Brunswick The Towns Act (1952) empowers the council to make by-laws to purchase parks (Section 77), and to lease, in a manner deemed "most advantageous to the interests of the inhabitants of the town," any real estate owned or vested in the town (Section 82 (1)). The Villages Act (1952) makes no reference to the powers of the council to acquire, or s e l l , public lands. Nor is there any specific reference to parks in the Act. The Counties Act (1952) is almost a copy of The Town Act when dealing with the powers of the council to acquire and dispose of publicly owned lands ( i . e . , of Sections 109 and 142 of The Counties Act, and Sections 77 and 82 of The Towns Act). The Community Planning Act (1960-1961) requires that when a subdivision of land occurs ten per cent of theSland, exclusive of streets, must be dedicated to public use (Section 29 (1)). Section 29 (2) allows the coun-c i l , with the approval of the planning commission, to s e l l the lands acquired in this manner. The City of Fredericton Act (1951) empowers the council to acquire "landed property within the city for a public park, forest area, garden or walk..." and that such areas may be disposed of when no longer required or when the council decides that i t is advisable to dispose of same (Sec-tion 225 (35)). Section 225 (37) allows the council to lease dedicated park land to organized athletic groups. A private Act (1966) assented to November 24, 1966, makes i t mandatory for the city, upon acceptance of lands dedicated for park use, to maintain the dedication in perpetuity. Nova Scotia The Municipal Act (1967) states that the council has the power to make, amend, and repeal by-laws "regulating the operation, management and use of any playground..." (Section 191 (8)). Section 134 (2) permits a munici-pality, with the consent of the Minister, to s e l l or mortgage any real or personal property when i t is "no longer required for any such use or pur-pose." However, Section 134 (6) states that the above Section does not "extend to or affect (c) the t i t l e to any property vested in the supervi-sors of public grounds..." The Towns Act (1967) is very similar to the previously quoted Munici-pal Act. Section 145 states that the council has f u l l control over parks and public grounds, and i t is assumed that this would involve not only the acquisition of these lands but also their disposal. Under the legislation of The Village Service Act (1967), village com-missioners may s e l l or convey any real or personal property when no longer required, with the consent of the Minister (Section 59). The Town Planning Act (1967) makes provision for the reservation of park land, not exceeding five per cent, when a subdivision occurs. No mention is made concerning the disposal of lands acquired by this method. Prince Edward Island The act of primary concern is The Town Act (1951) which states that the council may make by-laws for the purchasing of public squares and parks, and for the preservation of these areas (Section 78 (57)). There is no mention of the powers of the council in regard to the disposal of such lands. L i t t l e mention of parks is made in The Town Planning Act (1967) except that the siting of playgrounds and recreational areas can be included in an O f f i c i a l Plan (Section 2 ( 2 ) ( i i i ) ) . There is no mention in the legislation of the need to provide public land when a subdivision occurs. Newfoundland The Local Government Act (1952), which applies to a l l towns, rural dis-t r i c t s , and local government areas, states in Section 44 (3)(i) that: Subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, every Council may acquire by g i f t , grant or purchase any land within the boundaries under its jurisdiction for parks or recreational purposes. No mention is made of the powers to dispose of lands acquired for such use but i t is assumed that approval to do such would have to come from the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. The City of St. John's Act (1952) empowers the council to acquire lands for park purposes. No mention is made of the powers to dispose of park lands except that Bowring Park, a park dedicated to the City, must be kept in per-petuity (Section 68). Summary From a survey of the legislation, i t is evident that a great many legislative Acts, to some degree, affect the acquisition and disposal of park lands at the municipal level. The common thread is that municipal councils and/or park boards are empowered to acquire land for park pur-poses, and they have the authority to dispose of such lands with or without public approval or knowledge. Secondly, they can acquire land by devise or g i f t . Table I illustrates the powers of municipal councils and/or park boards to acquire and dispose of park lands. Not one province, however, specifies in i t s legislation,the need to protect park lands that have been acquired from encroachment by other uses. The significant point is that since park departments are created by municipal councils, through provincial legislation giving them this authority, the park department is subordinate to the council. Therefore the council can overrule the park department i f disagreements arise concerning the need to dispose of developed park lands or even open space. B r i t i s h Columbia,in fact, gives authority to municipal councils to re-move by-laws reserving land for public purposes, which definitely limits the amount of protection that even dedicated park lands can have in this province. The only protected lands are those given in trust to be maintained for park purposes only. Alberta city councils, with the approval of those residents voting on the referendum, can s e l l dedicated park lands or land acquired for park purposes. The Saskatchewan legislation appears to be more strongly protective than other provincial legislation by requiring the council to advertise i t s intentions to s e l l park land. However, by requiring two per cent of the residents, within 10 days of the notice, to petition for a referendum, would require, in the case of Regina, signatures of more than 2,600 residents. Unless the publicity concerning the aliena-tion were extensive, there is a chance that to organize and obtain the required signatures within the time limits may not be possible, and thus the decision would be made by the council and not be the residents. Manitoba TABLE I LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF MUNICIPAL COUNCILS TO ACQUIRE AND DISPOSE OF PARK LANDS Power to Accept Land British Columbia Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba Ontario Quebec New Brunswick Nova Scotia Prince Edward Island Newfoundland X X X X X X X Power to Purchase Land X X X X X X X X X Maximum Acreage For Parks No No No Yes Yes No No No No No Power to Sell Dedicated Park Land  Yes,if approved by referendum Yes, i f approved by referendum Yes, may require referendum i f requested Not stated No Yes Yes No Power to Sell Developed Park Land  Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Power to Sell Trust Parks  No, except i f purpose is for necessary highways No No Yes No Not stated No No Not Stated In Acts Not Stated In Acts allows for the disposal of park land with no restraints such as a refer-endum to encumber the process. The legislation does state,however, that sufficient land must be kept for park purposes. The legislation does allow the acquisition of more than two and one-half times the National Recreation and Park Association city standard of 10 acres per 1,000 persons. Ontario and Quebec are not restricted in terms of park land disposal. However, Peterborough reported that three of i t s five parks over 20 acres were Trust Parks and another park was shared between the city and the pro-vince (Robinson, 1971). It may be that other cities in Ontario have a large number of Trust Parks comprising the park system which would deter alienations from occurring. The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto maintains and develops lands owned by the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, and a Technical Committee on Parks and Recreation has been established on which are represented the Metropolitan Commission-ares of Parks, Roads, Works, and Planning, and the Director of Operations of the Conservation Authority (Thompson, 1971). Such an administrative structure is made aware of potential conflicts at the early stages, and alternative solutions can be developed. These two examples may account for the reduction in the possibility of alienations occurring. The Maritime Legislation allows for the disposal of park lands when they are no longer required, with three exceptions. The City of Freder-icton must maintain in perpetuity lands donated for parks. In St. John's, Bowring Park must be maintained for park purposes. In Nova Scotia, land held in the t i t l e of the parks supervisors can not be sold. The d i f f i c u l t y for park supervisors to obtain t i t l e to the lands is not known. It may be generally said that municipal park lands, in terms of pro-tective legislation, are in a rather tenuous position in Canada. REFERENCES CITED ALBERTA. REGULATIONS. 1966. Subdivision and Transfer Regulations. Chapter 29. Edmonton: Queen's Printer. . REVISED STATUTES. 1955. The City Act. Chapter 42. Vol. 1. Edmonton: Queen's Printer. . REVISED STATUTES. 1955. The County Act. Chapter 64. Vol. 1 Edmonton: Queen's Printer. . REVISED STATUTES. 1955. The Municipal Dis t r i c t Act. Chapter 215. Vol. 3. Edmonton: .Queen's Printer. . REVISED STATUTES. 1955. The Town and Village Act. Chapter 339. Vol. 4. Edmonton: Queen's Printer. . STATUTES. 1968. The Municipal Government Act. Chapter 68. Edmonton: Queen's Printer. BRITISH COLUMBIA. STATUTES. 1968. The Municipal Act. Chapter 28. Vic-toria: Queen's Printer. . STATUTES. 1955. The Vancouver Charter. Chapter 55. Victoria: Queen's Printer. . Department of Municipal Affa i r s . Statistics Relating to Regional and Municipal Governments in British Columbia. Victoria: Queen's Printer. HIEBERT, J. E. Jan. 28, 1971. Secretary-Treasurer, Regional District of Comox-Strathcona. Personal Letter. MANITOBA. REVISED STATUTES. 1940. The Municipal Act. Chapter 141. Winni-peg: Queen's Printer. . REVISED STATUTES. 1960. The Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg Act. Chapter 40. Winnipeg: Queen's Printer. . STATUTES. An Act to Amend the Winnipeg Charter. Chapter 91. Winnipeg: Queen's Printer. NEW BRUNSWICK. REVISED STATUTES. 1952. The Counties Act. Chapter 44. Vol. 1. Fredericton: Queen's Printer. . REVISED STATUTES. 1952. The Towns Act. Chapter 234. Vol. 3. Fredericton: Queen's Printer. . REVISED STATUTES. 1952. The Villages Act. Chapter 242. Vol. 3. Fredericton: Queen's Printer. NEW BRUNSWICK. STATUTES, 1951. An Act to Consolidate and Amend Certain Acts Relating to the City of Fredericton. Chapter 69. Frederic-ton: Queen's Printer. . STATUTES. 1960-1961. The Community Planning Act. Chapter 6. Fredericton: Queen's Printer. . STATUTES. 1966. An Act Respecting Certain Parks and Streets in the City of Fredericton. Chapter 161, Fredericton: Queen's Printer. NEWFOUNDLAND. REVISED STATUTES. 1952. The City of St. John's Act. Chapter 87. Vol. 1. St. John's: Queen's Printer. . REVISED STATUTES. 1952. The Local Government Act. Chapter 66. Vol. 1. St. Johnfej Queen's Printer. NOVA SCOTIA. REVISED STATUTES. 1967. The Municipal Act. Chapter 192. Vol. 2. Halifax: Queen's Printer. . REVISED STATUTES. 1967. The Town Planning Act. Chapter 308. Vol. 3. Halifax: Queen's Printer. . REVISED STATUTES. 1967. The Towns Act. Chapter 309. Vol. 3. Halifax: Queen's Printer. . REVISED STATUTES. 1967. The Village Service Act. Chapter 329. Vol. 3. Halifax: Queen's Printer. ONTARIO. REVISED STATUTES. 1960. The Municipal Act., Chapter 249. Vol. 3. Toronto: Queen's Printer. . REVISED STATUTES. 1960. The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act. Chapter 26. Vol. 3. Toronto: Queen's Printer. . REVISED STATUTES. 1960. The Niagara Parks Act. Chapter 262. Vol. 3. Toronto: Queen's Printer. . REVISED STATUTES. I960. The Ontario-St. Lawrence Development Commission Act. Chapter 279. Vol. 3. Toronto: Queen's Printer. . REVISED STATUTES. 1960. The Planning Act. Chapter 296. Vol. 3. Toronto: Queen's Printer. . REVISED STATUTES. I960. The Public Parks Act. Chapter 329. Vol. 4. Toronto: Queen's Printer. PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. REVISED STATUTES. 1951. The Town Act. Chapter 162. Vol. 2. Chariottetown: Queen's Printer. . REVISED STATUTES. 1951. The Town Planning Act. Chapter 163. Vol. 2. Charlottetown: Queen's Printer. QUEBEC. REVISED STATUTES. 1964. The Cities and Town Act. Chapter 193. Vol. 3. Quebec: Queen's Printer. . STATUTES. 1969. The Montreal Urban Community Act. Chapter 84. Quebec: Queen's Printer. . STATUTES. 1969. The Outaouais Regional Community Act. Chapter 85. Quebec: Queen's Printer. . STATUTES. 1969. The Quebec Urban Community Act. Chapter 83. Quebec: Queen's Printer. ROBINSON, K. W. Feb. 3, 1971. Director of Recreation, Peterborough, Ontario. Personal Letter. SASKATCHEWAN. REVISED STATUTES. 1965. The City Act. Chapter 147. Vol. 2. Regina: Queen's Printer. . REVISED STATUTES. 1965. The Local Improvement Districts Act. Chapter 151. Vol. 3. Regina: Queen's Printer. . REVISED STATUTES. 1965. The Community Planning Act. Chapter 17.2. Vol. 4. Regina: Queen's Printer. . REVISED STATUTES. 1965. The Regional Parks Act. Chapter 402. Vol. 5, Regina: Queen's Printer. . REVISED STATUTES. 1965. The Town Act. Chapter 148. Vol. 2. Regina: Queen's Printer. . REVISED STATUTES. 1965. The Village Act. Chapter 149. Vol. 2. Regina: Queen's Printer. . STATUTES. 1970. The Urban Municipality Act, 1970. Chapter 78. Regina: Queen's Printer. THOMPSON, T. W. Feb. 5, 1971. Metropolitan Parks Commissioner. Personal Letter. CHAPTER III ALIENATION OF MUNICIPAL AND REGIONAL PARK LANDS IN CANADA The information required to analyse the problem of alienation was ob-tained through an original questionnaire and covering letter (Appendix la and l b ) . The questionnaire was distributed to a l l municipalities in Canada having a population greater than 10,000 persons in the 1966 Census of Can-ada. It was assumed that for the most part smaller municipalities are not well developed in terms of dedicated and/or developed park lands and that competition for "urban" lands in these municipalities would not be as great as in larger centers. Questionnaires were not distributed to "counties" in eastern Canada because legislatively their administrative functions are more limited than those of townships or boroughs. In general, mailing addresses were obtained from the Canadian Almanac and Directory (1970, 1971). When specific addresses in the Almanac were not found, the form "The Director, Parks and Recreation Department, City (Muni-cipal) Hall" was used. Questionnaires were mailed between January 23 and February 8, 1971, and contained stamped return addressed envelopes. French language versions of the questionnaire were submitted to Quebec municipal-i t i e s . Follow-up letters were sent out on February 11 and March 6, and a f i n a l distribution of questionnaires was made on March 25 to those park directors that had "resisted" previous mailings. The general design was based upon points revealed by the Sinn-Butler (1961) study. Sections of the questionnaire requested information on en-croachments experienced during the period 1960-1970 (Questions 4 to 10), on defeated encroachments attempts (Questions 11, 12, and 13), and on anticipated future encroachment attempts (Questions 14 and 15). The complete question-naire in French and English is included in Appendix l a . Results Two hundred and thirty-four municipalities were surveyed, of which 141 j (•59 per cent) responded. A general summary of the results are shown in Table I I . A large number (43) of municipalities replied that there were no parks over 20 acres within the municipality, or that no encroachments (71) had been experienced during the period 1960-1970. Nineteen municipalities reported a total of 39 alienations. It is evident from the number of municipalities experiencing encroachments that no national emergency exists. However, the data are representative of only one segment of the municipal park system, and i t can be assumed that the problem is of greater proportions. Appendix II contains the detailed results of the questionnaire returns. Returns from regional park authorities revealed that the problem was less significant at this l e v e l . There are so few park authorities of this nature (12) and they are of such recent origin that the lands under their control have not been developed as parks for sufficient length of time and therefore have not been subjected to alienation pressures. Moreover, parks under the jurisdiction of regional authorities are, for the most part, located in non-urban areas. Because only six encroachments were reported from this level of park administration, the detailed results of the questionnaires returned from them w i l l be found in Appendix II only. Points raised by the respondents w i l l be incorporated into the text where relevant. TABLE II ALIENATION OF PARK LAND: GENERAL FINDINGS Population of Municipality  10,000- 25,000- 50,000- 100,000- 200,000- 300,000- 400,000-25,000 50,000 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 ano>.over Total Number of Municipalities Surveyed 139 44 29 9 5 3 5 234 Number of Municipalities Responding to Questionnaire 75 28 19 141 Number of Municipalities Reporting Alienations 19 Number of Alienations Reported 13 10 39 Number of Acres of Park Land Alienated 0 36 382 53 45 57 20 588 Number of Acres of Park Land Alienated Per Encroachment 0 7.2 29.3 10.6 22.5 5.7 5.0 Realized Encroachments and Defeated Attempts a) Municipal Parks Table II shows the general numerical results of the questionnaire survey on park land alienations in Canadian municipalities according to population size. None of the respondent communities in the 10,000-25,000 population bracket have experienced encroachments and only 2 of 28 respondent municipali-ties in the 25,000-50,000 class reported a problem. Alienation of urban park lands is more serious in municipalities of»more than 50,000 persons. For example, 8 of the 19 municipalities of 50,000-100,000 persons reported a total of 13 alienations. Taking the data as a whole, 9 of the 19 respondent municipalities of more than 100,000 persons reported 21 encroachments, com-pared to only 18 alienations in 10 of the 122 respondent communities of 10,000-100,000 persons. Furthermore, municipalities of greater than 100,000 persons experienced more alienations per municipality reporting than municipalities of less than 100,000 persons. As a result of interpretation problems with data from Hamilton, the questionnaire was returned for c l a r i f i c a t i o n . It is the only municipality in the 200,000-300,000 category which reported having experienced alienations. Only the two alienations that could be interpreted with assurance were i n -cluded in Table II; to date no response has been received for the additional information that could not be interpreted from the questionnaire. The "annual" number of alienations (Table III) has fluctuated from year to year. However, splitting the two alienations reported in 1965 between the pre-1965 and post-1965 period, i t is evident that the number of reported alienations has increased by one-third during the latter period. The number of defeated alienation attempts, by year (Table IV), appears to have increased since 1966. Had the defeated alienation attempts actually occurred, an addi-tional 40 per cent more alienations would have occurred from 1966-1970 than from 1960-1964. TABLE III OCCURRENCE OF ALIENATIONS, ALL MUNICIPALITIES, BY YEAR Year 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 Number of Alienations Experienced 2 2 5 2 3 2 4 6 3 4 5 The year was unspecified for three encroachments reported. TABLE IV DEFEATED ALIENATION ATTEMPTS, ALL MUNICIPALITIES, BY YEAR Year 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 Number of Defeated Attempts 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 3 3 The year was unspecified for three defeated alienation attempts. These two tables clearly indicate that while major municipal parks-shave ex-perienced more encroachments from 1966-1970 than from 1960-1964, alienation of park lands to competing uses is meeting increasing resistance. Tables V and VI document resistance to park land alienation. Table V shows that park boards objected to the proposed alienations in 14 (40 per cent) of 32 reported successful 1 attempts but that their objections were unsuccessful in preventing the alienations from occurring. Indeed, objection by park boards were successful in only 5 of 19 cases where such objections were raised (Table V and VI). Organized public protest, on the other hand, was mounted against 9 encroachment attempts and credited with preventing Type of Objection by Organized Public Attempt None Park Board Protest Other Number of Times Used , 14 14 4 0_ The cities of Calgary, Edmonton, and Hamilton did not provide data for this table. TABLE VI FACTORS THAT PREVENTED ATTEMPTED ALIENATIONS Action by By-Law Park Board Public Other Quality Factor Control Refusal Protest Departments of Area Unspecified Number of Times Used 5 5 5 3 2 1 five of these cases. Thus, public protest, as a means of preventing aliena-tions, when used in conjunction with other means, is a viable force in pre-venting alienations and may be expected to be used more frequently in the future. It may be inferred from this that (vote-conscious) municipal coun-c i l s recognize public protest to a greater degree than they recognize pro-tests from the parks board. The apparent importance of legislative con-straints (By-law control) as a factor preventing alienations may indicate that this is one of the best means available to ensure that park lands are protected. Table VII shows that local government agencies are, by a wide margin, most frequently responsible for alienation of park lands. As further evi-dence of the low position of parks and park departments in the local govern-ment administration, one case (Halifax) reported that park authorities were not even aware that land, was to be alienated un t i l bulldozers arrived at the park and began to clear the highway right-of-way. In some cases re-ported, an encroachment may have occurred as the result of two agencies at different levels. TABLE VII LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBLE FOR ALIENATION Level. o£ Government Local Provincial Crown Federal Corporation Other & Unknown Number of Times Re-sponsible 26 7 1 4 5 TABLE VIII LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT MAKING FINAL DECISION Level of Government Local Provincial Federal Unknown Number of Times Re-sponsible 28 0 0 11 Table VIII indicates that the f i n a l decision was made at the local level in at least 28 of 39 occasions. The municipal council made the f i n a l decision on 24 of the 28 occasions and the park board made the f i n a l decision on 4 occasions. Table IX shows that land requirements for highway and road expansion resulted in the greatest number of alienations. TABLE IX PURPOSE FOR WHICH LAND ALIENATED Highways Purpose And Roads Schools U t i l i t i e s Industries Commercial Other Number of Times Re-ported 13 9 5 2 0 9 TABLE X PLANNED PURPOSES OF DEFEATED ALIENATION ATTEMPTS Purpose- Highways And Roads Schools U t i l i t i e s Industries Commercial Other Number of Times Reported 1 5 0 0 2 7 The data reveal that the Canadian situation is similar in kind to the American situation as described in the Sinn-Butler (1961) study which found that highways and roads were the major cause for alienation of land in large parks. Furthermore, the Canadian data reveal that 10 of 13 such alienations occurred in municipalities of more than 100,000 persons. From this i t may be concluded that as city size increases and congestion be-comes a problem, greater pressures are placed upon major park lands to accomodate highway improvements. For municipalities under 100,000 persons, schools (and one university) were the most prevalent alienating use (6 out of 9 cases reported). Joint development of lands for schools and parks is a common occurrence, but not always welcome by park administrators. A variety of uses such as Fire Hall, Insect Laboratory, Hospital Addi-tion, Residential, and so on were also involved. No particular use dominated the "Other" category of uses that alienated park lands. It is f e l t that the particular zoning by-law of each municipality would, to some degree, determine what uses would be developed within the parks. Unfortunately, the questionnaire did not request information about each municipality's zoning. Examination of the planned purposes of the defeated alienation attempts (Table X) reveals that 3 of the 5 attempts that involved schools occurred in one city (Dartmouth, N.S.). It may be assumed from this fact that in this city the school board encounters stronger opposition from the general public and parks board against locating schools in parks than occurs in other municipalities. Only one municipality (Surrey, B.C.) reported defeating an encroachment attempt by a highway or road. Upon confronting opposition to the proposal from the parks board of that municipality, the local engineering department developed an acceptable alternative that did not affect park lands. Within the "Other" category of Table X, 6 of 7 defeated attempts were for housing (public and private) and the other attempt was for an exhibition ground. This clearly indicates that parks attract residential proposals, but that such proposals are more easily defeated by the parks department of the municipal council than are other proposals. In terms of the factors that contributed to the f i n a l decision, the three most frequently reported factors were that the land was cheaper, that there were a lack of alternatives, and that the alienating use was of greater importance (Table XI). These three factors are of significance when the role of the parks department vis-a-vis other municipal departments is considered in terms of f u l f i l l i n g i t s function. In some cases a combination of factors was given as contributing to the f i n a l decision. The Di s t r i c t of Coquitlam (B.C.) indicated that, in conjunction with the land being cheaper, the lack of an approved development plan for the park was a factor that led to the alienation of some of the lands. Table X suggests that park lands are viewed by municipal councillors as valuable public land banks. If the land is held in the t i t l e of the municipality, and developed but not dedicated for park purposes, there is no legal constraint restraining the council from developing the land for other purposes. TABLE XI FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE FINAL DECISION Land Lack of Alienating Use Lack of Factor Cheaper Alternatives More Important Public Opposition Number of Times Reported 9 10 11 3 b) Regional Parks Eight regional d i s t r i c t s in B.C., having either a partial or f u l l parks function, as well as the Vancouver-Fraser Regional Parks Di s t r i c t were sur-veyed. In addition, representatives of the Saskatchewan Regional Parks Di s t r i c t , the St. Lawrence Parks Commission, the Niagara Parks Commission, and the National Capital Commission were surveyed. Responses were received from 6 of the 8 regional d i s t r i c t s in B.C., as well as from the Vancouver-Fraser Regional Parks D i s t r i c t . With the exception of the Capital of British Columbia Regional District a l l other regional d i s t r i c t s reported that their function was limited only to accepting park lands given to the d i s t r i c t . No program of park land acquisition could be undertaken. The Capital of British Columbia Regional District reported the loss of 4 acres from a 955 acre park for highway use; this was the extent of the losses for the B.C. region d i s t r i c t s . The Vancouver-Fraser Regional Parks D i s t r i c t , which at the present time is actively involved with acquiring land, reported no losses of land. No replies were received from representatives of the Saskatchewan Re-gional Parks D i s t r i c t s . The St. Lawrence Parks Commission reported that the questionnaire did not apply to them, and no response was received from the Niagara Parks Commission. The National Capital Commission, although not giving the acreage of the alienations, indicated that 5 alienations had occurred within the two major elements of the capital region open space system (the Greenbelt and Gatineau Park). The alienations were for a highway right-of-way, hydro, gas, and telephone rights-of-way, and for a church. Final approval for these sales, leases, or easements was given by the Advisory Land Committee of the National Capital Commission, the Treasury Board and by Order-in-Council. In a l l cases the uses were considered to be of either national interest or for greater public good, and in concurrence with general N.C.C. development goals. Anticipated Encroachments Half of the municipalities that reported anticipating future aliena-tion attempts (Appendix V) are municipalities that have already experienced or defeated encroachments (7 out of 14). One municipality (Bathurst, N.B.), with a 1966 population of 15,526 persons, indicated that a future attempt for low cost housing was possible. This is the only case in which a muni-cipality of this size category, 10,000-25,000 population,has been affected. Predominantly, the governmental level from which the future attempt is anticipated is either local government (5 out of 20) or provincial govern-ment (8 out of 20). In a l l 13 cases the attempt is for additional highways and road requirements. Other future attempts w i l l come from housing (2), u t i l i t i e s (3), schools (1), and the Federal Department of Transport (1). The anticipation of alienations by commercial interests was mentioned only once. Not a l l municipalities mentioned the number of parks or acreage that future encroachments involved, but Calgary and Ottawa both anticipate that four parks w i l l be affected. Seven of the attempts are for expanded high-way needs and one is for an expanded sewage treatment f a c i l i t y . Calgary an-ticipates the loss of 52 acres. The National Capital Commission w i l l lose almost a l l of a 23 acre park for freeway development. Peddie (1968) re-ported that Hamilton expected to lose approximately 230 acres of park land to impending highway construction; the size of the parks to be affected was not stated and the data received from Hamilton gave no indication as to the extent of the losses expected. They did, however, support the point that losses to highways in the future were anticipated as well as losses to On-tario Hydro and the local school boards. One city (Victoria, B.C.) reported an anticipated attempt on one of i t s major parks located outside the c i t y . Other sources (The Victoria Daily Times, 1971) report that at least four future attempts w i l l be made on the city's major park (Beacon H i l l ) which is located inside the city's boundaries. Closer examination of other municipalities may reveal other unreported, but known, forthcoming attempts. Nineteen municipalities in seven provinces—Ontario (8), B.C. (3), Quebec (2), Alberta (2), Nova Scotia (2), Saskatchewan ( l ) , New Brunswick (i)--reported experiencing alienations. It is not known i f the s encroachments reported in this study occurred on dedicated park lands or on public lands developed for park purposes. The difference between these two types of parks is significant. In the former case, any proposed reduc-tion in park land would require, in most cases, the sanction of the electors of the municipality through a referendum. In the latter case, i t would re-quire a vote of council only. Not one case was reported where a referendum was used to gain approval to alienate park lands for other purposes. Tenta-tively, i t may be concluded that alienations occurred on functional, devel-oped, but non-park-by-law-dedicated, public lands. One point of significance is that only 2 of the 39 alienations reported occurred on golf courses. Calgary lost 10 acres for highway development and Kitchener lost 2 acres for a sewer right-of-way. This would indicate that golf courses, themselves major occupiers of "undeveloped" land, are better able to withstand alienation attempts than are major parks. This could pos-sibly be explained through the fact that private golf courses are taxable and membership in same may be of inf l u e n t i a l community members who are able to exert considerable pressure on politicians to find alternatives to the proposed alienation. In terms of the legal powers available to them to dispose of park lands, i t would appear that the municipal councils in the seven provinces—Ontario, B.C., Quebec, Alberta, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, and New Brunswick--that were affected by alienations, did, in fact, use these powers. The key to the whole issue, as outlined in Chapter II, appears to be whether or not a park was actually dedicated or whether i t was just developed for recreation purposes. A l l the legislation reviewed allows municipal councils to develop municipally owned land in the manner they see f i t , even though i t may be developed for another purpose at the time theywish to change the use. The major limitation to further analysis is the lack of information regarding the type of park that was affected by the alienations that have been re-ported . REFERENCES CITED CANADA. 1966. Dominion Bureau of Stat i s t i c s . Census. Ottawa: Queens' Printer. PEDDIE, RICHARD. 1968. Urban Parks and Planning in Calgary. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. University of Calgary. SINN,DONALD F. and BUTLER, GEORGE D. 1961. The Loss of Park and Recreation Land. Wheeling, West Virginia: American Institute of Park Executives, Inc. VICTORIA DAILY TIMES. Feb. 18, 1971. Keep Off Grass! WALTERS, SUSAN. 1970, 1971. Canadian Almanac and Directory. Toronto: The Copp Clark Publishing Co. CHAPTER IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This thesis has investigated the magnitude and number of encroachments occurring on major municipal and regional parks in Canada. In addition, the uses that alienated the park lands have been identified, as well as the reasons for the alienation and the level of government which made the f i n a l decision. Results from this study were compared to the results obtained from a similar study of the problem as i t affected U.S. municipalities from 1950-1960. The Sinn-Butler (1961) study of 300 local and county park authorities in the U.S., of which 130 responded, revealed that 120 acres experienced 259 alienations. Total park acreage alienated was 2,687 acres out of an un-known total park acreage. Approximately 10 acres was alienated per encroach-ment. Major parks were affected by alienations more often than small parks; i t is not known how large the "major" parks in the U.S. study were. Results from the survey of 23;4 Canadian municipalities, of which 140 responded, revealed that 19 municipalities had 30 areas that experienced 39 alienations. The total acreage alienated was approximately 600 acres of a total park acreage exceeding 4,430 acres. Approximately 15 acres was alienated per encroachment. The survey of Canadian municipalities indicates that the magnitude of acreage of park land lost per alienation is 50-per cent greater than the acreage lost per alienation in the U.S. study. Furthermore, the Canadian survey revealed that, of the responding municipalities of 10,000-25,000 per-sons, no alienations have been experienced. Thus, the results of the Canadian survey show that of the 66 responses received from the 95 municipalities over 25,000 persons, 19 (23 per cent of those responding, or 20 per cent of the total number of municipalities) reported having experienced alienations. Further refinement shows that of the 38 responses received from the 51 muni-cipalities over 50,000 persons, 17 (44 per cent of those responding, or 33 per cent of the total number of municipalities) reported having experienced alienations. Based upon these results i t is safe to assume that alienations of major municipal park lands in Canadian municipalities exists as a serious, but largely unrecognized and unpublicized, problem. The overall problem is probably much greater and affects more municipalities than are reported here i f parks of a l l sizes at the municipal level were investigated. Conclusions Encroachments on major municipal parks in Canada by competing urban land uses has been identified as a problem, especially in particular c i t i e s . Between 1960 and 1970, 20 per cent of the municipalities over 25,000 per-sons and 33 per cent of those over 50,000 persons reported experiencing en-croachments. Indeed, these figures are low i f only those municipalities responding to the questionnaire survey are considered. It is concluded that major municipal park lands are most often affected when the population of the municipality exceeds 50,000 persons. In addition, municipalities ex-ceeding this population reported that expanding highway and road needs with-in the municipality were responsible for the greatest number of alienations. It is possible that at the 50,000 population threshold t r a f f i c congestion becomes an increasingly significant problem. The least expensive areas and the most expedient method to provide land for additional t r a f f i c needs appears to be provided by the large parks. Thus municipal councils seem to view large parks as valuable public land banks that are able to accommodate the problems created by urban congestion. That parks, and indeed park departments, are not viewed by municipal councils as being equally important as other municipal functions, is evi-denced by the findings that objections to the alienation, by park authori-ties, were overruled by municipal councils almost 75 per cent of the time. However, the apparent increasing awareness of the general public of the value of large parks, and their opposition to alienation attempts is a factor that municipal councils recognize and consider more important than objections from park departments. When applied, usually in conjunction with other methods, public protest was reported as being considerably more effective in preventing alienation attempts than park board objections. Continued public opposition to future alienation attempts may result in i n -creasing the apparent existing low status of park lands and park depart-ments in the local government administrative structure. The f i n a l conclusion is that municipal park lands in Canadian munici-palities are not strongly protected by legislation. It is assumed that the alienations reported in this study occurred on non-legislatively dedicated park lands. The fact that public lands may be developed as parks for urban residents, and yet not protected by legislation from experiencing aliena-tions, creates a false sense of security on the part of the residents who regard the act of development as a sign of dedication. In actual fact this is not so, and the cases reported in this study confirm this point. Importance of Findings to Planning For park planners and/or administrators the findings of this study are obvious. The major urban users responsible for park land alienations have been identified, and those responsible for the development and maintenance of urban parks must impress upon other local government departments the need for coordination of the disparate public developments. In addition, park administrators should attempt to ensure that lands developed for parks are in fact dedicated for that purpose by public referendum. Through this procedure alienation attempts w i l l necessarily be brought to the atten-tion of the public for approval and the parks board can u t i l i z e public pro-test as a means of protecting the park lands. Finally, park administrators should stress the need for a "park and recreation" category, exclusive of other public institutional uses, in the municipal zoning by-law. Future urban growth in Canada is projected to concentrate in 30 exis-ting urban areas (Report of the Task Force on Housing and Urban Development, 1969). Leisure time is expected to increase in the future and therefore, combined with the expected increasing urban populations, increasing pres-sures on a l l land uses w i l l be experienced and i t is expected that park lands w i l l not be excluded from those pressures. Continued loss of park lands, with increasing development of urban lands, w i l l reduce the quality of the recreation experience for residents in urban areas. Therefore, urban planners must recognize park lands as a necessary, valuable, and legitimate component of the total range of urban land uses. By recognizing parks in this light i t w i l l require a comprehensive view of future physical public developments to ensure that the planning and location of these developments does not unnecessarily jeopardize the future recreation potential of exis-ting parks. The encroachment problem exists in Canada, and reports by park direc-tors indicates that highways and roads, .and schools appear to be continuing threats to municipal park lands in the future. As Goodman and Freund (1968) stated: Open space functions have rested at the bottom of the l i s t of land use elements, with the funds and the lands relegated from the remainders of other a c t i v i t i e s . Open space should not necessarily receive one sort of priority or another, but rather should be planned and programmed in conjunction with other functions and purposes. If planning is meant to provide a better existence through the rational allocation of land uses, then more than l i p service w i l l have to be paid to the above statement. Future Research Possibilities The results of this study suggest several new directions in which addi-tional research on the topic might be focussed. The f i r s t , and most obvi-ous, approach would be to resurvey the municipalities requesting the same information, but concerned with parks of less than 20 acres in size. Such research would be complementary to the research done in this study. Addi-tional knowledge regarding the magnitude of, and the municipalities affected by, encroachments would be obtained. Because of the great number of parks of this size at the municipal level such a study might best be undertaken on a more limited scale than this study. It was for this reason mainly that such parks were excluded from the purview of this study. But i t would be worthwhile to investigate the impression of some park administrators who re-ported that i t was parks of this size that were most prone to encroachments. A second approach would be to accept the findings of this study and to investigate the zoning by-laws of the different municipalities as well as the different administrative structures in which park boards are involved. Special by-laws passed by the municipality which increased the i n v i o l a b i l -ity of a park would be included in such a study. The difference in legis-lative protection between trust parks, dedicated park land, designated park land, and open space functioning as a park would be a useful area of re-search. The annual budget of the parks department:in relation to other departments, and an organizational chart of the civi c administrative struc-ture showing park departmental connections with other departments would be a useful variable to include in any study of park boards powers vis-a-vis other departments. The per cent of the area within a municipality that has been developed for urban uses w i l l probably have direct bearing on the num-ber of encroachments that would be experienced, and this variable could be of some significance when investigating the impact of encroachments on a l l parks at the municipal level. Validity of Results There is some eivdence that the data presented underestimate the ex-tent of the problem. The results of a study of encroachments in the city of Calgary by Peddie (1968) u t i l i z i n g park board f i l e s , minutes from city council meetings, and news media reports, present a strong case that the actual extent of the problem, as presented is greatly underestimated. His study cited 10 encroachments occurring to parks over 20 acres in Calgary from 1960-1968, and yet the questionnaire as received from the Calgary Parks and Recreation Department indicated none. It is conceivable that other park administrators who responded to the questionnaire did likewise. Further-more, the data for the city of Edmonton are only for the period 1960-1965. A lack of staff time was cited as the reason for not being able to update the data. The non-response to response rate was highest in Quebec and On-tario. It is in these two provinces that the greatest number and concen-tration of population in Canada is located, and where one would expect the greatest pressures on urban lands. The results of the survey do not indi-cate that such is the case. It is unfortunate that the non-response to response ratio in these areas was so low, as i t is most lik e l y that non-respending municipalities are among those that w i l l receive the greatest population growth in the future. Additional pressures on the existing park system could result in a lowering of park acreage standards for the residents of these areas i f means are not provided to reduce the encroachments occurring on parks. REFERENCES CITED CANADA. TASK FORCE ON HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. 1969. Report. Ottawa: Queen's Printer. GOODMAN, WILLIAM I., and FREUND, ERIC C. (Eds.) 1968. Principals and Practice of Urban Planning. Washington, D.C.: International City Managers' Association. PEDDIE, RICHARD. 1968. Urban Parks and Planning in Calgary (Alta.). Unpublished M.A. Thesis. University of Calgary. SINN, DONALD F., and BUTLER, GEORGE D. 1961. The Loss of Park and Recre-ational Land. Wheeling, West Virginia: American Institute of Park Executives, Inc. ADDITIONAL LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT OF PARKS AND ENCROACHMENTS ABELL, TRACY H. 1941. The Preservation of Your County Parks. Parks and Recreation. Vol. 34. ACCOKEEK FOUNDATION, INC. 1967. A Study Analysis of the Problems of Pre-serving Recreational and Open Space Lands. Washington, D.C: Accokeek Foundation, Inc. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PARK EXECUTIVES, INC. 1960. The Crisis in Open Land. Wheeling, West Virginia: American Institute of Park Executives, Inc. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLANNING OFFICIALS. 1957. Newsletter. Regional Parks F a i l to Keep up with Growth. Vol. 23. ANDREWS, E. 0., and LIPMAN, W. F. 1960. Open Space for Recreation; Guide-lines for its Acquisition and Preservation. State Government. Vol. 33. CANADA. DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT. 1967. An I n i t i a l Bibliography on Outdoor Recreational Studies in Canada with Selected United States References. Ottawa: Department of For-estry and Rural Development. CANADA. DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION. 1970. An I n i t i a l Bibliography on Outdoor Recreational Studies in Canada with Selected United States References. Ottawa: Department of Re-gional Economic Expansion. CLAWSON, MARION. 1961. Highways and Parks. Recreation. Vol. 54. 1962. Implications of Recreational Needs for Highway Improvements, Highway Research Board Bulletin #311. COTTON, DONALD A. 1964. Land Use: Open Space: Its Value and Conserva-tion in the Urban Environment. Southern California Law Review. Vol. 37. CROSS, GILBERT. 1962. Costly Crush to Get Outdoors. Fortune. Vol. 66. CR0XT0N, J. C. 1967. Crusading to Save a Valued Park. National Gar-dener. Vol. 38. FENDERSON, C. 1967. Connecticut Conservationists Lose Fight to Save Park. Conservation News. GLIKSON, A. 1956. Recreational Land Use. In: Man's Role in Changing the Face of the Earth. Thomas, W. (ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. HIGGS, K. G. 1965. Outdoor Recreation Needs of Metropolitan Areas. For-estry Chronicle. Vol. 41. LAGASSE, ALFRED B. 1958. City Planners - A Park's Worst Enemy: Park Property Encroachments. Parks and Recreation. Vol. 41. LONGWORTH, D. S. 1953. Use of a Mail Questionnaire. American Sociolo-gical Review. Vol. 18. MAC RAVEY, RICHARD D., and DOELL, CHARLES E. 1964. Urbanization: What Does This Mean to Parks and Recreation. Parks and Recreation. Vol. 47. NEWSWEEK. 1966. Race for Recreation Space. Vol. 67. RICHARS, J. H. 1967. Cross Aspects of Planning and Outdoor Recreation with Particular Reference to Saskatchewan. Canadian Geo-grapher. Vol. 2. TANNER, ODGEN. 1959. Parks are for Pleasure. Architectural Forum. Vol. 110. TANKEL, S. B. 1963. The Importance of Open Space in the Urban Pattern. In: Cities and Space. Wingo, Lowdon (ed.). Baltimore: Resources for the Future. WHITTEMORE, HARLOW 0. 1956. Problems of Getting, Preserving Space for Recreation in Municipalities. Michigan Municipal Review. WHYTE, WILLIAM H. 1959. A Plan to Save Vanishing U.S. Countryside. L i f e . Vol. 47. APPENDIX la AND lb PARK LAND ENCROACHMENT QUESTIONNAIRE AND COVERING LETTER T H E UN IVERS ITY O F BRITISH C O L U M B I A VANCOUVER 8, CANADA 56 S C H O O L O F C O M M U N I T Y & R E G I O N A L P L A N N I N G January 21, 1971-Dear S i r : In the past ten years Canada has experienced tremendous growth of i t s urban population. This growth has r e s u l t e d i n increased competition between d i f f e r e n t users within the urban areas. Very often major parks and g o l f courses are viewed as areas that can accomodate these pressures due to t h e i r undeveloped character and often t h e i r prime l o c a t i o n i n the urban area. However, the extent of en-croachments occurring to major municipal parks (over 20 acres) and g o l f courses i s not known. Since the importance of a c c e s s i b l e , large parks i n urban and sub-urban areas w i l l increase i n the f u t u r e , an inventory of encroachments i s being prepared. The purpose i s to determine the success r a t e of maintaining major parks (over 20 acres) and g o l f courses, and to determine, on an i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s , the reasons behind the occurrence of each encroachment. The enclosed questionnaire i s being sent to c i t y , town, municipal, metro-p o l i t a n , and r e g i o n a l park d i r e c t o r s i n the four western provinces. The data c o l l e c t e d i s to be used i n the preparation of an M.A. t h e s i s at the School of Community and Regional Planning. The research i s being supported by a grant from the National and H i s t o r i c Parks Branch of the Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development. The questionnaire has been designed i n a manner convenient f o r t r a c i n g the history.and reasons f o r each encroachment. Each column w i l l represent one en-croachment f o r the year s p e c i f i e d . For those answers not r e q u i r i n g s p e c i f i c acreage or names of s p e c i f i c departments or agencies please mark an 'X' i n the appropriate square f o r each major se c t i o n . Space has been provided at the end of the questionnaire f o r a d d i t i o n a l comments. I t i s of great importance that data be r e l a t e d only to those cases dealing with parks over 20 acres and g o l f courses for the time period 1960-1970. The study i s s i m i l a r to one done i n 196l by the American I n s t i t u t e of Park Executives, Inc., which surveyed the problem i n the U.S.A. on a n a t i o n a l s c a l e . From t h i s study i t was found that the majority of encroachments occurred as a r e s u l t of the Interstate Highway program because parkland was cheaper and not "developed". But other examples were recorded. In Toledo, Ohio, f o r example, the C i t y Council overruled objections by the Parks Board and sold 70 acres of an 18 hole g o l f course to a rubber manufacturing f i r m i n an attempt to expand the C i t y ' s tax base and provide more jobs. Your f u l l cooperation i s requested i n answering t h i s questionnaire and to f a c i l i t a t e r e t u r n i n g i t a stamped return addressed envelope has "been provided. In order to allow time to analyse the r e s u l t s i t would be appreciated that the questionnaire be returned by February 15, 1971. Thank you f o r your cooperation i n t h i s matter. Yours t r u l y , Bruce Chambers, (B.A.), Graduate Student, School of Community & Regional Planning. T H E UN IVERS ITY O F BRITISH C O L U M B I A . VANCOUVER 8, CANADA 58 S C H O O L O F C O M M U N I T Y & R E G I O N A L P L A N N I N G Le 4 Fevrier 1971 Monsieur, Au cours des dix dernieres annees, l a population urbaine du Canada s'est accrue d'une facon remorguable. C ette croissance a provoque une concurrence grandissante qui s'exerce entre les divers usagers des terrains sis au sein des aires urbaines. Tres frequemment, les pares d'importance majeure et les terrains de golf, a cause de leur etat vierge, et souvent de leur emplacement pri v i l e g i e dans l a region urbaine, font les frais de cette concurrence. L'etendue des empietements exercee sur les prin-cipaux pares municipaux (au-dessus de 20 acres) et les-terrains de golf reste toutejois inconnue. Comme 1'importance des pares, grands et access-ibles, dans les regions urbaines et sub-urbalnes va s'accroitre a* 1' avenir, une etude de ces empietements est de rigueur. Le but est de determines quelles ont ete jusqu'a present les possibilites de pouvoir garder intact les principaux pares (au-dessus de 20 acres) et terrains de golf, et dans le cas echeant, de decouvrir quelles sont les raisons determinantes de chaque empietement. La questionnaire ci - j o i n t va etre envoye a tout les directeurs de pares du Canada administres par une v i l l e ("city" et "town" en anglais), municipalite, metropole, aussi qu'aux directeurs de pares region^aux et provinciaux. Les resultats obtenus sevont ensuite u t i l i s e s pour une these de maitrise a l a School of Community and Regional Planning. Cette etude a ete sanctionnee' par une bourse provenant de l a Direction des pares nationaux et lieux historiques du Ministere des Affaires Indiennes et du Nord Canadien. Ce questionnaire a ete' concu d'une facon permettant de celever 1' historie et les motifs de chaque empietement. Chaque colonne represente un empietement selon 1'annee indiquee. Dans le cas des questions ne necessitant pas un sperficie exacte ou de noms bien definis de departe-ments ou d'organismes, placez un "X" s ' i l vous pla i t dans l a case adequate pour chaque principale. Un endroit vous a ete' reserve a l a f i n du ques-tionnaire pour vos commentaires complementaires. II est d'extreme impor-tance que les renseiguements fournis ne s'appliquent qu'aux terrains de golf, et qu'aux pares ayant une superficie d'au-dela de 20 acres, et pour l a deccennie 1960-1970. Cette etude est semblable a celle entreprise en 1961 par 1'American Institute of Park Executives, Inc. Cette compagnie envisagea le probleme aux Etats-Unis a lechelle nationale. II fut alors mis a jour que l a majorite des empietements etaient un produit direct du project Inter-state Highway, et ceci en raison que les terrains etaient moins chers et non 'developpes.1 A Toledo, par exemple, en Ohio, le conseil muni-cipal passa outre les objections du Bureau des Pares et vendit 70 acres d' un terrain de golf a une manufacture de caoutchoue afin d'augmenter les revenus fiscaux de l a v i l l e et de pourvoir davantage d' emplois. Je vous serais reconnaissant, Monsieur, de bien vouloir m'accorder votre co-operation. Afin de f a c i l i t e r un tant soit peu votre tache, une enveloppe timtoree a mon adresse vous est fournie. Veuillez aussi ren-voyer ce questionnaire s ' i l vous p l a i t le 28 Fevrier 1971 au plus tard afin qu'il me soit possible d'analyser les resultats a temps. Croyez, Monsieur, a mes plus vifs remerciements, Bruce Chambers (B.A.) Graduate Student, School of Community and Regional Planning. o vD EH CO >H CO w I H CO CO O O a o C3 CM •p H & O o ?! O cd <U •H fl • EH a L T \ O H • H +3 o 03 -P 1 ) C71 •p a> ° U H O 03 <H fl O 4) -H CQ +3 0} Cfl O 1 ) H ^ Pw. 11. UNSUCCESSFUL ENCROACHMENT YEAR (.please specify) ATTEMPTS: .  Number of areas involving (a) maj or parks: (b) golf courses: Acreage involved: PURPOSE OF UNSUCCESSFUL ENCROACHMENT ATTEMPT: Highway or roads: School: U t i l i t i e s ( specify): I n d u s t r i a l : Commercial: Other (specify): FACTORS THAT PREVENTED ENCROACHMENTS DESCRIBED ABOVE: Organized public protest: Park Board r e f u s a l : L e g i s l a t i v e or By-Law Control: Approved master plan of area: Action by other departments: Environmental quality of the area: Other (s p e c i f y ) : ANTICIPATED ENCROACHMENT ATTEMPTS: Ik. ANGENCIES FROM WHICH AN ATTEMPT IS ANTICIPATED: Please specify: 15. PURPOSE OF ANTICIPATED ENCROACHMENTS: Please specify: 16. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (use addit i o n a l sheets i f necessary): U. HISTORY OF ENCROACHMENTS 1960-19TO: YEAR (please specify) Number of encroachments involving (a) maj or parks: _(b) golf courses: Acreage before encroachment: Acreage taken i n encroachment: Estimated value of (a) encroached land: (b) t o t a l park land: (c) encroached improvements: (d) t o t a l park improvements: AGENCY ENCROACHING: Please indicate s p e c i f i c depart-ment i f l o c a l , p r o v i n c i a l , or federal government, or s p e c i f i c crown corporation or private company. PURPOSE FOR WHICH LAND WAS TAKEN: Highway or roads: Schools: U t i l i t i e s ( specify): I n d u s t r i a l : Commerc i a l : Other (specify): 7. HOW WAS ENCROACHMENT ACCOMPLISHED: Expropriation: Consent of City Authorities: Parks Board Approval: City Council Decision: Negotiated sale: Land swap: Referendum: Other (specify): AGENCY GIVING FINAL APPROVAL: If government please specify whether l o c a l , p r o v i n c i a l , or federal and also specify the department giving f i n a l approval: Other (specify): ATTEMPTS TO PREVENT ENCROACHMENT: None: Objection by Parks Board: Organized Public Protest (specify group): Other (specify): 10. FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO FINAL DECISION: Land Cheaper: Lack of alternatives: Encroaching use considered of greater importance: Lack of public opposition: Area unsuitable for park use: Lack of development plan: Other (specify): o w M co H N W <! H co < M W PH — CO o W h J o Pi — & H CO a w w E3 co n 3 co M M p < £9 o S3 P co c_> o pi • • M w <! CO H P PM u co cr Pi w P < P P. p-i cr a CO o w 3 P PH W Q W P-i H M U W O csi 0) TJ CO 3 co CO d) T3 I 3 n CU 4-> LT1 C-H iH ca • !-H/-cfl •H O CO cu 3 O g o u >\cu 0 rH 3 •H C — CO CO u cu o l-i -H •H -U C3 CO a cu S 3 O a* •H •U CO CO cu CU rH 3 cr N cu CU CO O CO •H N rH cu p. •H 6 rH CU PH H 11. TENTATIVES MANQUEES D'EMPIETEMENT: Nombre d 'endroi ts concernant (a) des pares (au dessus de 20 acres ) : (b) des ter ra ins de g o l f : S u p e r f i c i e en quest ion: 12. BUT DE CES TENTATIVES MANQUEES D'EMPIETEMENT: Grand-route ou routes : Ecole : Services publics ( s p e c i f i e z ) : I n d u s t r i e l : Commercial: Autres : ( s p e c i f i e z ) : 13. FACTEURS AYANT EMPECHE LES EMPIETEMENTS DECRITS CI-DESSUS: Demonstration publique organised: Refus du Bureau des Pares: L e g i s l a t i o n ou ordonnance: P l a n i f i c a t i o n l o c a l e approuvee: Act ion exercee par d'autres departements: Qual i te de 1'environment l o c a l : Autres ( s p e c i f i e z ) : TENTATIVES E'EMPIETEMENT ANTICIPEES: 14. ORGANISMES DONT UNE TENTATIVE EST ANTICIPEE: S p e c i f i e z , s i l vous p l a i t : • ANNEE ( S p e c i f i e z , s ' i l vous p l a i t ) 15. BUTS DE CES EMPIETEMENTS ANTICIPES: S p e c i f i e z , s i l vous p l a i t : 16. COMMENTAIRES COMPLEMENTAIRES: ANNEE (Specifiez, s ' i l vous p l a i t 1960-1970: Nombre d'empietements concernant (a) des pares (au-dessus de 20 acres): (b) des terrains de golf: Superficie pre'ee'dant 1'empietement: Superficie de 1'empietement: Valeur estime'e (a) du t e r r a i n empiete (b) du t e r r a i n t o t a l formant l e pare: (c) des ameliorations du t e r r a i n empiete': (d) des ameliorations t o t a l du pare: 5. O R G A N I S M E D E M A N D A N T L ' E M P I E T E M E N T : Indiquez s i l vous p l a i t l e departement exact, s ' i l s'agit d'un gouvernment l o c a l , p r o v i n c i a l , federal, o u ^ s ' i l s'agit d'une corporation de l ' E t a t ou ' d'une compagnie privee. 6. B U T D E L ' E M P I E T E M E N T : Grand-route ou routes: Ecoles: Services publiques ( s p e c i f i e z ) : I n d u s t r i e l : Commercial: Autres ( s p e c i f i e z ) : 7. C O M M E N T L ' E M P I E T E M E N T S ' E S T - I L P R O D U I T ? , Expropriations: Consentement des authorites municipales: Approbation du Bureau des Pares: Decision de conseil municipal: Vente en bonne et due forme: Echange de t e r r a i n : Referendum: Autres (spe'eif i e z ) : 8. O R G A N I S M E A Y A N T D O N N E L ' A C C O R D D E F I N I T I F : Indiquez s i besoin s ' i l s'agit d'un gouvernement l o c a l , p r o v i n c i a l ou federal a i n s i que l e departement ayant donne 1'accord d e f i n i t i f : Autres ( s p e c i f i e z ) : 9. A C T I O N ^ D E P L O Y E E E N V U E D ' E M P E C H E R L ' E M P I E T E M E N T Aucune: Objection emanant du Bureau du Pares: Demonstration publique organisee (Specifiez quel groupe): Autres ( s p e c i f i e z ) : 10. F A C T E U R S A Y A N T C O N T R I B U E ' A L A D E C I S I O N F I N A L E : Terrain meilleur marche: Manque d 1 alternatives: Usage de 1'empietement juge de plus grande importance: Manque d'opposition de l a part du public: Aire inadequate a 1'usage en tant que pare: Manque de p l a n i f i c a t i o n : Autres ( s p e c i f i e z ) : APPENDIX II MUNICIPALITIES SURVEYED--PARK LAND ENCROACHMENT QUESTIONNAIRE Population # of Parks Encroachment Municipality 1966 1961 Over 20 Acres Yes Nc British Columbia Di s t r i c t of Chilliwack 20,070 18,246 X Dawson Creek 12,392 10,946 2 X Delta 20,664 14,597 0 X Esquimalt 12,841 12,048 1 X Kamloops 10,759 10,076 4 X Kelowna 17,006 13,188 2 X Dis t r i c t of Langley 15,767 14,585 0 X Distr i c t of Maple Ridge 19,287 16,748 Dis t r i c t of Matsqui 16,161 14,293 3 X Nahaimo 15,188 14,135 Dis t r i c t of North Cowichan 10,384 9,166 0 X Oak Bay 18,123 16,935 0 X Penticton 15,330 13,859 5 X Port Alberni 13,755 11,560 Port Coquitlam 11,121 8,111 1 X Distr i c t of Powel River 12,578 10,748 0 X Prince George 24,471 13,877 Prince Rupert 14,677 11,987 0 X Tr a i l 11,600 11,580 0 X Vernon 11,423 10,250 1 X Di s t r i c t of Coquitlam 40,916 29,053 10 X New Westminster 38,013 33,654 3 X City of North Vancouver 26,851 23,656 0 X Distr i c t of North Vancouver 48,124 38,971 X West Vancouver 31,987 25,454 4 X Richmond 50,460 43,323 5 X Saanich 58,845 48,876 5 X Surrey 81,826 70,838 11 X Victoria 57,453 54,941 4 X Burnaby 112,036 100,157 Vancouver 410,375 384,522 12 X Alberta M.D. of Bonnyville #87 10,979 10,209 0 X Grande Prairie 11,417 8,352 1 X County of Ledue #25 10,294 10,647 County of Red Deer #23 12,943 13,477 County of Strathcoma #20 16,185 12,075 M.D. of Sturgeon #90 15,926 17,837 Lethbridge 37,186 35,454 2 X Medicine Hat 25,574 24,484 5 X Red Deer 26,171 19,612 5 X Calgary 330,575 249,641 21 X Edmonton 376,925 281,027 31 X Population # of Parks Encroachments 1966 1960 over 20 acres Yes No Saskatchewan North Battleford 12,262 11,230 3 X Swift Current 14,485 12,186 1 X Yorkton 12,645 9,995 1 X Moose Jaw 33,417 33,206 3 X Prince Albert 26,269 24,168 0 X Regina 131,127 112,141 17 X Saskatoon 115,892 95,526 13 X Manitoba Fort Garry 21,177 17,528 1 X North Kildonan 11,955 8,888 Portage l a Prairie 13,012 12,388 1 X Transcona 19,761 14,248 Brandon 29,981 28,166 0 X East Kildonan 28,796 27,305 0 X St. Boniface 43,214 37,600 St. James 35,685 33,977 St. V i t a l 29,528 rural municipality incorporated as city in 1962. Winnipeg 257,005 265,429 4 X Metro Winnipeg 502,098 469,993 X Ontario Ancaster Township 14,960 13,338 Barrie 24,016 21,169 1 X Broekville 19,266 17,744 1 X Chinguacousy Township 16,281 7,571 6 X Cobourg 11,524 10,646 0 X Darlington Township 10,163 9,601 0 X Dundas 10,501 12,912 0 X Eastview 24,269 24,555 Essa Township 14,455 13,753 2 X Forest H i l l 23,135 20,489' Georgetown 11,832 10,298 2 X Gloucester Township 23,222 18,301 Gwillimbury East 12,452 10,357 Kapukasing 12,617 6,870 Kenora 11,295 10,904 1 X Borough of King 14,226 12,845 1 X Kingston Township 12,985 10,442 Lindsay 12,090 11,399 Long Beach 12,980 11,039 Markham Township 17,386 13,426 2 X Mimico 19,431 18,212 New Toronto 13,234 13,384 North Bay 23.635 23,781 0 X O r i l l i a Township 11,052 10,054 Owen Sound 17,768 17,421 2 X Pembroke 16,262 16,791 Pickering Township 27,851 17,201 Pittsburgh Township 10,201 9,024 Population # of Parks Encroachments Municipality 1966 1961 Over 20 Acres Yes No Port Colbourne 17,986 14,886 Preston 13,380 11,577 1 X Richmond H i l l 19,773 16,446 0 X St. Thomas 22,983 22,469 Saltfleet Township 17,984 16,424 3 X Sidney Township 11,825 11,397 0 X Stratford 23,068 20,467 4 X Teck Township 15,784 17,422 0 X Trenton 13,746 13,183 Vaughan Township 19,022 16,701 Wallaceburg 10,696 7,881 0 X Whitby 17,273 14,685 0 X Woodstock 24,027 20,486 Belleville 32,785 30,655 2 X Bramston 36,264 18,467 Chatham 32,424 29,826 2 X Cornwall 45,766 43,639 Gait 33,491 27,830 4 X Nepean Township 43,919 19,753 0 X Timmins 29,303 29,270 1 X Waterloo 29,889 21,366 We Hand 39,960 36,079 Brantford 59,854 55,201 Burlington 65,941 47,008 7 X Guelph 51,377 39,838 Borough of East York 74,200 72,409 1 X Kingston 59,004 53,526 Kitchener 93,255 74,485 10 X Niagara Falls 56,891 22,351 Peterborough 56,177 47,185 5 X Oakville 52,793 10,366 X Oshawa 78,082 62,415 3 X Saint Catherine 97,101 84,472 X Sarnia 54,552 50,976 X Sault Ste. Marie 74,594 43,088 6 X Sudbury 84,888 80,120 London 194,416 169,569 50 X Borough of York 134,674 129,645 5 X Thunder Bay 110,000 12 X Windsor 192,544 114,367 Borough of Etobiocke 219,542 156,035 7 X Hamilton 298,121 273,991 40 X Ottawa 290,741 268,206 8 X Borough of Scarborough 278,377 217,286 15 X Borough of North York 399,534 269,959 Toronto 664,584 672,407 19 X Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto i o X Municpality  Quebec Alma 22,195 Anjou 22,477 Arvida 15,342 Asbestos 10,534 Baie-Comeau 12,236 Beaconsfield 15,702 Beauport 11,742 Beloeil 10,152 Boucherville 15,338 Brossard 11,884 Chambly 10,798 Charlesbourg 22,926 Chateaugay 12,460 Chateaugay - Centre 14,096 Chateaugay N. 12,814 Cote-St. Luc 20,546 Cowansville 10.692 Dollard des Ormeaux 12,297 Dorval 20,905 Gatineau 17,727 Giffard 12,585 Grand'Mere 16,407 Greenfield Park 12,288 Hauterive 11,366 li e s de Sorel 19,021 Joliette 19,188 Kenogami 11,534 Lachute 10,215 Lafleche 13,433 La Tuque 13,554 Lauzon 12,877 Levis 15,627 Magog 13,797 Matane 11,109 Montmagny 12,241 Mont Royal 21,845 Norand 11,521 Pointe Gatineau 11,053 Repentigny 14,976 Rimouski 20,330 Riviere-du-Loup 11,637 Rouyn 18,581 St. Bruno-de-Montarville 10,712 St. Hubert 17,215 St. Hyacinthe 23,781 St. Hubert 17,215 St. Therise 15,628 Sept-Iles 18,950 Shawinigan S. 12,250 Si l l e r y 14,737 Encroachments Yes No 13,309 Not sufficiently equipped to answer questionnaire 9,511 14,460 11,083 7,956 10,064 1 X 9,192 6,283 Annexed in 1963 3 X 3,778 0 X Two dist r i c t s amalgamated 14,308 0 X 7,570 0 X 7,591 11,229 13,266 0 X 7,050 1,248 6 X 18,592 13,022 1 X 10,129 15,806 7,807 5,980 17,147 1 X 18,088 1 X 11,816 1 X 7,560 2 X 10,984 0 X 13,023 1 X 11,533 15,112 0 X 13,139 8 X 9,190 6,850 21,182 11,477 8,854 9,139 0 X 17,739 10,835 0 X 18,716 6,760 1 X 14,380 22,354 14,380 11,771 0 X 14,196 0 X 12,683 14,109 0 X Population # of Parks 1966 1961 over 20 Acres ... Population . . # of Parks Encroachments Municipality 1966 1961 over 20 Acres Yes No Thetford Mines 12, 250 12, 683 Tracy 10, 918 21, 618 0 X Val-d'Or 12, 147 10, 983 0 X V i c t o r i a v i l l e 21, 320 18, 720 1 X Westmount 24, 107 25, 012 0 X Cap-de-la-Madele ine 29, 433 26, 925 2 X Chicoutimi 32, 526 31, 657 Drummondvi1le 29, 216 27, 909 Granby 34, 349 31, 463 0 X Jonquiere 29, 663 28, 588 1 X Lachine 43, 155 38, 630 La Salle 48, 322 30, 904 Longeuil 25, 593 24, 131 0 X Pierrefonds 27, 924 12, 171 0 X Outremont 30, 881 30, 753 Point-aux-Trembles 29, 888 21, 926 Poimte-Claire 26, 784 22, 709 Ste-Foy 48, 298 29, 716 0 X Ste-Jean 27, 784 26, 988 1 X St-Jerome 26, 511 24, 546 0 X Shawinigan 30, 777 32, 169 Valleyfield 29, 111 27, 297 Hull 60, 176 56, 929 Jacques-Cartier 52, 527 40, 807 Montreal N. 67, 806 48, 433 St-Laurent 59, 479 49, 805 0 X Sherbrooke 75, 690 66, 554 Trois Rivieres 57, 540 53, 477 Verdun 76, 832 78, 317 3 X Quebec 166, 984 171, 979 1 X V i l l e de Laval 196, 088 Laval County amalgamated to form V i l l e de Laval in 1965 Montreal 1,222, 255 1,191, 062 21 X New Brunswick Bathurst 15, 256 5, 494 4 X Campbellton 10, 175 9, 873 X Edmunston 12, 517 12, 791 Fredericton 22, 460 19, 683 1 X Lancaster 15, 836 13, 848 Oromocto 14, 112 12, 170 0 X Moneton 45, 847 43, 840 1 X Saint John 51, 567 55, 153 5 X Nova Scotia Amherst 10, 551 10, 788 0 X Glace Bay 23, 516 24, 186 New Glasgow 10, 484 9, 782 0 X Truro 13, 007 12, 421 1 X Population „# of Parks Encroachments Municipality 1966 1961 over 20 Acres Yes No Sydney 32,767 , 33,617 2 x Dartmouth 58,745 46,966 3 x Halifax 86,792 92,511 3 x Prince Edward Island Charlottetown 18,427 18,318 Summerside 10,042 8,611 Newfoundland Cornerbrook 27,116 25,185 0 x St. John's 79,884 63,633 1 x APPENDIX III ENCROACHMENTS EXPERIENCED Details of data of municipalities reporting encroachments. D i s t r i c t of o Coquitlam Original Acreage Method of Final Attempts to Acreage Alienated Year Purpose Alienating Approval Prevent 490.7 10 .8 Council 1960 School Overrule Council Objection 1960 Fire Hall Same Same Same Cheaper Same No plan 13 1963 Hydro Same r/w Same Same Hydro more important 10 1963 Local Same Works Yard Same Same Cheaper As of April 5, 1971, this park has been dedicated by public referendumicto be maintained as a park. Saanich • 44.4 10.3 1969 School Council Council Strong decision Park Board protest School more important Victoria 1210 103 1962 Hydro Council Council Park Board r/w overrule & public protest Cheaper No alter-native R/w more important For the loss of this land 254 acres of natural park were received as well as cash for 100 acres. Capital of B.C. Regional Di s t r i c t 955 N/a Highway Council Prov. Council None Highway more im-portant Municipality Calgary Original Acreage Method of Final Attempts to Reason for Edmonton Acreage 23 Alienated Year Purpose Alienating Approval Prevent 84.5 825.5 N/a N/a N/a 14.4 24.5 1963 Inter-change 1967 Plane-tarium N/j Armory 1962 Trans Canada N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a Highway Highway N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a Decision N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a More encroachments have occurred to major parks, but due to lack of corroboration by Parks Department the others can not be listed. The data contained herein was obtained from Peddie (1968) cited previously. 130.5 2.5 1962 Highway N/a N/a N/a N/a 39.. 4 . 4.0 1962 Highway N/a N/a N/a N/a 34.3 9.3 1962 Imperial Oil Co. N/a N/a N/a N/a 60.8 1.0 1961 Bohemian Maid Brew' ing Co, N/a N/a N/a N/a 74.9 4.8 1964 School N/a N/a N/a N/a This data covers only the period 1960-1965. Because of limitations of staff time the questionnaire and information for 1965-1970 could not be obtained. Original Acreage Method of Final Acreage Alienated Year Purpose Alienating Approval Attempts to Prevent Saskatoon 41.2 10.5 1966 Hospital Council addition overrule Council Park Board protest Lack of alternatives 2.0 1966 Inter-change Same Same Same Same Belleville The interchange improved the adjacent undeveloped river bank. 50.8 2.5 1969 Highway Council overrule Council None N/a Sault St. Marie 56.0 23.0 1967 Insect Lab. Council overrule. Sale. Council Park Board protest Lab. more important Borough of York 20.0 20.0 1961 Highway Council decision Council None Cheaper. Lack of public pro-test. High-way more important. 35.1 11.0 1969 Highway Council overrule Council Park Board & public protest Cheaper. Lack of alternatives Highway more important. Hamilton 695.0 5.0 1967 Hydro r/w Sale. Council overrule Council Park Board & public Cheaper. Lack of alternatives The line site was shifted to the easterly side of the park instead of through the middle. CO Hamilton Municipality of Metropolis tan Toronto Toronto Burlington Quebec City Montreal Original Acreage Method of Final Attempts to Reason for Acreage Alienated Year Purpose Alienation, Approval Prevent Decision 40.0 1968 Highway Sale. Council overrule Council Park Board & public protest Cheaper. Lack of alternatives. At least four additional encroachments occurred and possibly 10. Questionnaire sent back for corroboration but no return has been received. N/a N/a 1967 Science Park Board Council center approval. Council approval. None 79.5 9.7 1962 Highway Land swap. Park Board Park Board None Compatible use. Lack of alternatives. approval. The land gained in the swap was considered to be of greater value. 69.8 45.8 6.8 3.0 2.0 N/a School 1969 YMCA Land swap. Council Park Board Council approval 1970 Library Park Board approval Same None None Same N/a Lack of alternatives. Lack of alternatives. Both were in the same centrally located park and were not serious in nature as the usual encroachment would apply. 20.0 N/c 10.0 4.0 1965 School Council approval 1967 Metro Council Station Council Council None N/a School more important N/a Original Municipality Acreage Saint John 42.2 229.0 Dartmouth 30.0 Halifax N/a Kitchener N/a N/a Saanich 44.4 Regional Districts Capital of British Columbia Regional Di s t r i c t 955 Acreage Lost Year Purpose 3.2 1966 School 202.0 1968 Univer-sity 7.0 1968 Highway 8.0 1962 School 6.0 1964 School N/a 1970 School 12.0 1967 Highway 2.0 1967 Sewer & Water 10.3 1969 School 4.0 1966 Highway Method of Alienation Council decision Council decision Final Approval Council Council Attempts to Prevent None None School more important University more impor-tant Council decision Council decision Same Council decision Council Council Same Council None Park Board protest Same None Highway more important School more important Same Lack of alternatives Council decision Council decision Council decision Council Council Council None None Strong Park Board Pro-test Lack of alternatives Lack of alternatives, This was a golf course School more important Council decision Council None Lack of alternatives Original Acreage Municipality Acreage Alienated Columbia Shuswap Regional District Comox - Strathcoma Regional Dis t r i c t East Kootenay Regional D i s t r i c t Fraser Clean Regional Dis t r i c t Mount Waddington Regional Dis t r i c t Fraser-Fort Goerge Regional Dis t r i c t Central Kootenay #1 Regional Dis t r i c t Saskatchewan Saskatchewan Regional Parks Authority Ontario St. Lawrence Parks Commission Niagara Parks Commission Method of Final Attempts-to Reason for Year Purpose Alienation Approval Prevent Decision Restricted to accepting lands donated for park purposes. No response. No response. Questionnaire not applicable No response National Capital Commission Reported alienations by highways, hydro, gas and telephone easements and churches. No acreage or year when alienation occurred was given APPENDIX IV DEFEATED ENCROACHMENT ATTEMPTS Municipality Year Purpose of Unsuccessful Attempt Factors that Prevented Encroachment Dartmouth 1968 1969 1970 School School School Organized public protest. Action by other departments. Parks Board refusal. Organized public protest. Fredericton n.d. Public hous ing Organized public protest. Action by other departments. Surrey n.d. Highway No further action taken. Sault St. Marie 1969 Housing Park Board refusal. Environmental quality of the Thunder Bay 1960-1969 Hous ing Park Board refusal. Saskatoon n.d. Exhibition grounds Park Board refusal. Action by other departments. Environmental quality of the Hamilton 1970 School Organized public protest. Park Board refusal. Calgary 1960 1964 1964 1967 1970 Housing Shopping center School Housing Housing By-law control. By-law control. By-law control. By-law control. Organized public protest. By-law control. APPENDIX V MUNICIPALITIES ANTICIPATING FUTURE ENCROACHMENTS Cap-de-la-Madeleine Bathurst Dartmouth Victoria Regina Thunder Bay Borough of York Ottawa National Capital Commission Hamilton Agency from Which Attempt is Anticipated  Provincial Government Provincial Government Local school board Private Provincial Highways Department City highway department Department of Transport Ontario Department of Highways Private Local and Provin-c i a l Highway Departments Local and Pro-vincial Highway Departments Sewer Authority Provincial Highways Department Local Highway Department Local School Board Ontario Hydro Ontario Gas Purpose of Anticipated Encroachment  Inter-urban rapid transit line. Low cost housing. Schools. Commercial development. Highway widening. Major arterial roadway. 160 acre golf course requisitioned for commercial use adjoining a i r -port. Balance for housing. Highway expansion. Housing developments. Highway and roads. Rapid transit. Arterials and freeways. Expansion of sewage treatment plant. Freeway. Highways and roads. High schools. Power lines. Gas lines. Municipality Calgary Toronto Halifax St. John's Metro Winnipeg Agency from Which Attempt is Anticipated  Engineering and Planning Departments Ontario Hydro Public Housing Commission Newfoundland Highway Department Metro Highways Department Purpose of Anticipated Encroachment  Highway and roads. Hydro transformer substation. Public housing. Arterial roadway. Freeway. Will affect several golf courses but not looked upon as being serious. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0102042/manifest

Comment

Related Items