Letter to Member of Parliament

 Dear Member of Parliament,

Following a long deliberation and due the changing landscape of international politics, the decision was made to investigate the protection of interior spaces with architectural potential within vertical architecture ranging from low-rising to the very high available in the City of Calgary.  Of no minor consequence, the consideration of zoning as an effective measure against illegal trespassing of any duration into such architecture will safeguard the spaces of economic potential for the present and the future with regard to Canadian and Albertan heritage.  Should fortune be with this country of Canada, we should find that the matter is not with urgency and that no amount of discretion were required.  We should also find that we are with friends whose regard for this city is well indeed.  Any delicate matter of importance requires consensus from the public at various levels.  The outcome in objective consists of legislative measures that could support our officers of the law, whose enforcement of laws and bylaws should be supported by judiciary personnel with the force of law that stands behind efforts as appropriate.

This letter is a rare request for consultation with the national government and the request for advising concerning additional legal options in the interim period while the investigation for the call for legislative measure and subsequent measures to be allowed to take place.  It is at once a call to reconsider what novel immigration regulations and practices could be possible and which ones to reinforce.  

No enterprise had ever been advanced without a measure of risk.  In Canada, the regard for the great potential of the future matched with the intent to maintain heritage, values, and social order in the present, is unprecedented on this continent in recent history.  Alberta oft prides herself as conservative, valuing and emphasizing deliberation and worth of action over voices outside near and far.  The necessity to be set in flight beyond the weight of labels continues to be a persistent motivation, appearing almost a collective will that at once unites us.  

Yet, no venture to add such as very high vertical architecture to a city was advanced without due consideration of many aspects.  Canada is a unique country in that its regard for creating a great potential and its capacity to protect it are fundamental principles upon which building prior to the arrival of the present need is possible. The perspective upon which the premise is drawn holds that the demographic is deliberate and intellectual, that the populace is strong, that the view beheld is of the horizon in which is known the future is of a very long duration ahead.  Much as an old growth forest had endured a long time and should be expected to endure in all normal circumstances a long time yet, the urban heritage of Calgary and the discipline in citizens’ varied actions have always been the bases upon which building into the future were held as not only possible, but optimistically probable.

Concerning the call for legislative measures, of course, due process is required to arrive at any effective legislation.  The process must be kept in records for reference towards continued development as well as future selective elaboration and possibly even implementation.  To commence the process, a premise is laid out and the corresponding problem.  The problem is identified as the risks from speculation that leads to the raising of an illegal real estate market, which is counterposed to the intent of protecting future architecture for appropriate use at present and in future generations.  This is not without precedent elsewhere.  That this risk has been escalated due to migratory patterns internationally not only intensifies the urgency but leads to the question of whether immigration policies guarding the national boundaries and illegal migratory patterns of new arrivals were sufficient.  That the problem lies upon a complex premise built from a longstanding regard and way of life only foregrounds the non-complementariness with those who may engage in such invasive speculation.  From existing urban conditions can be extrapolated possible urban futures; also, from careful readings, urban objectives set within the urban fabric can also be observed.  The urgency of the matter is raised upon the dynamic circumstances internationally and regards the stability of the demographics and the deliberate growth of the citizenry count.  Public choice and consensus must also be drawn, this being an item of no small importance.

To note, legislative measures are not the sole avenue towards which an equilibrium of almost the same state yet with further protection in place could come into sight.  What solution is possible includes not only legislation but also popular support and architectural measures.  That correspondences must be found between each of these spheres as well as with the judiciary and enforcement offices, urban and economic development bureaus or offices, various professional offices, etc. must be brought into the fold.

The point of contention by this letter: the primary item being proposed for deliberation by your esteemed offices is the one concerning the review of immigration policies, specifically, the enforcement concerning the freedom of movement and permanence of stay by newly landed residents and tourists, with an eye to their admission into the country while they harbor ulterior motives.  As open and free as a country is depends on the strength and solidarity of its citizens: in times such as these, no investment of time is too big to stress the gravity of society.  In light of our common heritage and values, we must promote our long fought views and consensus for the respect for future potential in the happiness of our children, and to note again as we have, for order and Nature herself.

With optimism, I propose that further deliberations on legislation and architecture be continued today into the time-frame of Tomorrow.

Your citizen,

Ann Lee