Is ‘dissolution’ the solution

Town Talk on Dissolution

Since the release of the Municipal Inspection Report there is much talk going on around town including several comments on this blog about the possibility our community could be dissolved by way of ‘dissolution’ i.e. swallowed up by our neighbours in Pincher Creek or by the M.D. of Ranchland, or by a combination of both.

Some think with our track record of dissension among ourselves and dismal track record in properly managing our affairs that this would be the best thing for us in the long run. Some think regardless what we do that this is inevitable that there is a plan in the works that involves us being incorporated into a park, for example. Most believe this election will be our last…. if we don’t get our house in order.

I recall a while back, (but I can’t remember where and when?), the mayor speaking about us being no more (this was before the talk on annexation of a part of Ranchland). At the time, I was taken aback and thought he might be referring to us becoming part of an expanded provincial park (i.e. incorporated into it) rather than as some have been predicting, the ‘gateway’ to a park, much as what Canmore is. Is this then why the mayor and council have been pushing for annexing a significant part of Ranchland? A counter offensive so to speak? If successful, we are now to big to fail? It’s not really just about acquiring a lucrative tax base from proposed mine operations? btw/ just for the record, if I am successful in achieving the mayor’s chair and since this council has already initiated the process of annexation, and subject to an internal review of the pros and cons of this initiative by my council after which if the results of that review are truly favourable and beneficial to our municipality, I will continue with the process and endeavour to achieve these ends.

Now back to ‘dissolution’. I think we need a strong mayor and council to stand up for this community, otherwise we are phucked. I believe as some have suggested here if we are swallowed up by one or both of our neighbours we will inevitably with time die a slow death with services and facilities (few as we have) slowly cut, having no real voice anymore in how we are governed or managed. We will become a voice in the wilderness no one hears or cares about. So therefore we have to fight to save ourselves.

In this regard, when going to war you send in your most seasoned troops, battle-hardened veterans, not raw green recruits having no battle experience or old generals whose time has passed because their troops no longer have trust or faith in him. No, what is needed here is an experienced gladiator who knows how to fight, and won’t give up no matter what, until the battles and war are won.

At this time, it would be an act of foolishness and folly to treat this threat of ‘dissolution’ as anything but a serious and imminent danger to us all. Those who spend their life’s on their knees begging and groveling for grants from different levels of government for their so-called non-profit societies having already proven their ineffectiveness and ineptitude in dealing with Edmonton as a grassroots organization, nor those with little backbone in getting down and dirty in a fight because as merchants they always want to be perceived as a smiling friendly face you can trust as they pick your pocket at the check-out counter, won’t cut it either.

These kinds of people (suits) won’t and can’t do the fighting that is needed here in really standing up for our community. For that you need someone with courage who not only knows the enemy but the terrain as well, and is knowledgeable in the art of war and prepared and willing to do battle. This isn’t a war for nice guys but for guys who are anything but nice when provoked and attacked. People who when bitten don’t cower and slip away like a frightened dog, but who instead bite back. Viciously if need be, using everything in their arsenal, if necessary and warranted.

This is all I have to say on this matter of ‘dissolution’. If others have ideas or suggestions, fire away.

Vote experience, vote Prince!


One man with courage makes a majority.

from John Prince
This entry was posted in CNP Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Is ‘dissolution’ the solution

  1. Anonymous says:

    There is all this talk of a recreational facility but do you think that there is any hope in hell of us getting one unless be come part of the Ranchlands?

  2. Anonymous says:

    I myself do not mind the idea of dissolution. It would do away with the dreaded old boys club.
    It would be just like Beaver Mines being separate from Cowley and Lundbreck. But still under one umbrella. They seem to be doing fine. Just sick of everything that has been going on here, forever. You do not know who to believe anymore. So many untruths.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Dissolution is highly unlikely to happen. Does anyone think that the MDs that surround us would want to take us? They would fight hard against taking us. There is a big advantage for us taking part of Ranchlands but there is no advantage for Ranchlands taking us. Imagine the first election when the people of the CNP would have control over who gets elected.
    The same holds true if you split up the towns and half goes to Pincher and half to Ranchlands.
    Maybe it would be best if Ranchlands took us over and after the first election we revert back to the CNP, lol.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Nowhere in the Farmer report do they talk about dissolution and I do not think anybody at Municipal Affairs is thinking along those lines. It states that a “viability review” be done but they do not define what that means. I actually interpret it positively – a recognition that the Crowsnest Pass is unique in the province. It has the size of a large urban centre (27 km long)with all the the problems that come with an entity that’s size but a very small population and tax base to sustain it. As such, it is not viable financially as is. So either you have to find a larger tax base through something like annexation or the province will have to come up with a different funding model to sustain it. Dissolution makes no sense. By definition dissolution would mean each town would be responsible for their own services (water, sewer, snow removal, etc.) when in the report they actually call for further consolidation of services to make them more efficient. If dissolution was the goal, why would they contradict themselves?
    Lastly, do you really think that either Ranchlands or Pincher Creek would agree to be taken over by the Pass. Based upon population alone the Pass would dominate and control either of these areas. The residents of the Pass would have all the power. Not going to happen unless this is what the province actually wants.

  5. Anonymous says:

    I don’t agree that dissolution is highly unlikely to happen. Why do you think that? I think it is highly likely but I think it would all become part of Pincher.

    All our schools and buses are already looked after out of Claresholm already. Sometimes you might not have a choice – I think Govt of AB could probably just step in. They are probably pretty sick of us whiners.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Were you not at the meeting when this report was presented? John Prince spoke out on this on out behalf quite passionately using the term ‘dissolution’ with the speaker. The two words are interchangeable, meaning the same thing.

  7. Anonymous says:

    “John Prince spoke out on this on out behalf quite passionately”

    Yes he did, I was there. All the others running for council sat on their hands with their tongues in the pocket and said nothing. I’ll take Prince over Blair any day. He’ll be getting my vote.

  8. Anonymous says:

    All I have to say is that when prodded and provoked a dog will bite. You say that you are the type to not cower like a frightened dog but you will fight back…well I hate to say this, but dogs that do not cower and fight back usually get put down.

  9. Anonymous says:


    Right on.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Everyone always spouts about how great of place Crowsnest is, if only…etc, etc, etc. Well, if it such a great place (and it is) why wouldn’t MD of Pincher jump at the opportunity to add a region they could develop as a tourism destination. With proper investment and leadership (things they have) they could turn this place right around. And here’s the great part…MD of Pincher is divided into 5 districts, each with a representative on council. We become the 6th and the ever finicky electorate of CNP can’t monopolize and destroy the whole operation.

    This leaves the five towns (maybe join Bellevue/Hillcrest and Frank/Blairmore to make three) to each have their own government and probably requires that they work together. Nothing like raising the stakes to facilitate a little cooperation.

  11. Anonymous says:


    If we are only 1 district, how can we each have our own government? That doesn’t make sense to me. Can you explain?

  12. Anonymous says:


    Yeah, but John’s not a dog, he’s a stallion!

  13. Anonymous says:


    Just like Pincher Creek has its own mayor and own town council, we’d have our own too. In term of the Municipal District government, we’d have one representative from the region.

    Crowsnest is a specialized municipality, of which there are five in Alberta. Most places, especially rural ones, don’t operate like we currently do.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Anon 9:55 The tax difference between the MD of Pincher and the CNP is pretty great. Just this fact will be enough for the MD to pass on this deal. Also you may want to consider that if the majority of the people decide they do not like the way things are set up with districts that a referendum may be called to settle the matter. The CNP would have the numbers to change anything.
    I may be wrong but I really think this is a non issue.
    As for the CNP it is a great place to live, we however do get quite worked up about the politics.

Leave a Reply