Wednesday, May 09, 2012

Gobsmacked by CNV Clr. Linda Buchanan

It's hard to comprehend that a councillor - however new at the job - would actually say she wants her municipality to do a "very good job of getting out the people that we want to see" at the townhall meeting approved by council Monday.
Read more....

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, Councillor Keating (the Coach) was absent, so she was obviously delegated as substitute. His well-used "vocal minority" speech was getting tired, so she just jazzed it up a touch. Good for the News!

Anonymous said...

Many people are fighting against densification and they are the people who show up at meetings. The pro-development people know that their presence is not required.

The right to attend and speak at municipal meetings was not always in place and it is being eroded. About 6 years ago Coun. Lisa Muri berated a speaker at a DNV regular meeting of council.

These people should be encouraged to attend and speak at meetings, not demeaned and detracted.

Anonymous said...

Guess you could chaulk it up to a rookie mistake but Linda likes to tell everyone about all that School Bd experience. So by her own admission she`s no rookie.

Then there`s all that developer & union money on her campaign diclosure.

Seems the Mayor in waiting has dug herself a hole only 6 months into the term.

Anonymous said...

Why do you think she's the mayor in waiting?

I think Don Bell and Roger Bassam have a plan to take over the two NVs.

George Pringle said...

See the video clip here.

http://northvancouncilwatch.blogspot.ca/2012/05/vision-north-van.html

Anonymous said...

Take a look-see what CNV/DNV/Metro/BC is really up to:(copy and paste the links)

"Welcome to Sustainable City-
Agenda 21" (February 16, 2012)
http://tinyurl.com/c7uamun
---------------------------
"CNV Social Plan – Community Life" (9 September, 1998)
http://www.cnv.org/c//DATA/3/164/3-1%20COMMUNITY%20LIFE.PDF

4.) Incorporate social aspects into the "Agenda 21" process which defines an inter-departmental framework of City policies and actions regarding sustainability
--------------------------------
"Who’s Right about Agenda 21?"
(May 12, 2012)
http://tinyurl.com/cbdg5xd

Anonymous said...

What's the matter George, are you afraid of having more people show up at these meetings to express their views, rather than the same small group vocalizing their opinions? I doubt very much much that a small group of council watchers represent the opinions or desires of the overall population. I'm no fan of Musatto's slate, but I the point is, I think, a valid one. Let's get more people involved, not the same players over and over.

Anonymous said...

The person posting at 7.04 obviously wasn't at the so-called "town hall" meeting Apr 30th. The speakers were 90% not "same players". The spin continues.

Toni Bolton said...

Wow, thanks George. I just watched Councillor Buchanan's remarks. They sounded insulting reading about them, but much worse actually watching and listening. Gobsmacked indeed.

Anonymous said...

Just watched them too.

Buchanan is right. So why aren't the pro-densification people out there at the public meetings? and regular meetings as speakers?

Is it that they have nothing to fight against? They know the densification will continue and their only problem is that the "effective minority" is growing stronger.

Anonymous said...

Or is it that the 80% of the population that doesn't vote is unaware of what is happening? Or do they not vote because they like what they see? I think it is the former.

Joseph Bowes came out with a few letters regarding densification in the DNV. He spoke and wrote that he was "blissfully unaware of municipal politics."

Until his neighbourhood was challenged.

Anonymous said...

Clearly, Buchanan attended the Dogbert School of Communication Seminar:(copy and paste)
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b384/CelticPantha/dilbert1.gif

George Pringle said...

Ah, 7.04 she said people with the same point of view not the same people. This was said during the debate on Omni and Safeway site which the Vision North Van councillors will pull out all the stops for.

Anonymous said...

This is reflecting poorly on Coun. Keating. It's not going to bode well when he runs for MLA and loses. And then the CNV is stuck with his bad karma. If he wins it will cost the taxpayers money for a byelection. No-win.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12.41 the big decision for many people .. having to decide between keeping him or making him leave - which is better for the City? What influence will he have as an MLA? Not as much as now.

John Sharpe said...

I'm appalled by Clr. Buchanan's statement. Reminds me of the DNV OCP process 'in reverse' where Council was happy with feed back from only 4,000 from a pool of 57,000 registered District voters. They only heard from the group 'that they wanted to hear from'. Why are the DNV's small group of repeat citizens good enough but, Buchanan's 'small group' is not? Because she's not hearing from the people she wants to hear from. Pretty obvious when you accept election funding from the very group that is pushing for this development. You can't force people out to town halls, work shops, and public hearings. Those who show are largely those who care about the community and those who don't show are largely the ones who don't care.

The Polygon High rise across Seymour Parkway from Parkgate is another case in point; 1000 signatures on a petition against vs. a much smaller petition in favour yet it went through anyway.

Anonymous said...

Yes, and it was passed unanimously by DNV Council. I wonder if the people living there now are from Seymour, or are they fly-ins from other areas paying market money for what they receive?

Anonymous said...

Petitions are usually of marginal value. They force a person to compromise their, most likely, complex opinion on a matter to an overly simplistic Yay or Nae. Many of the signatures opposed to any towers on the Parkway were from people living in the adjacent tower. When they were asked in person about the tower, many said they weren't opposed to towers as a building form (They live in them!), but they were oppposed to how the tower was situated too far East on the property, and would likely block their afternoon sun. Instead of the council receiving their real concerns about the project, the petition represented them quite differently.

When people come out you can hear their views and clarify some points back and forth. Petitions are 'dumb', in the sense that they dumb down the articulate responses of people to something quite different.

John Sharpe said...

I was directly involved in that petition you appear to be so knowledgeable about and it was not mainly the people in the adjacent building. The streets I petitioned were several blocks away and the petition had strong support there. Their concerns were the height and that it was setting precedent!

I do remember one senior citizen in the adjacent building who spoke at one of the hearings who was concerned his tomatoes he had grown for years on his balcony, would no longer survive form reduced sun light caused by the high-rise Tower. I had great empathy on his concerns.

Water under the bridge as it were. Council did what they wanted to any way.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Council did what the community wanted them to do. And then the community re-elected the entire Council.

Say what you want about the level of engagement in the DNV but people vote when they are angry. Whistler had a 54% voter turnout in the last election and every incumbant was voted out. The voters were mad and the politicians were swept away.

Anonymous said...

I come to expect corrupt, incompetent, wasteful, ignorant, unaccountable and dysfunctional government and therefore I have become immune to being gobsmacked

Anonymous said...

UN's ICLEI: Local Governments for Sustainability (DNV, CNV, etc.) initiatives
is directing policies that cause:
- stack ’em and pack ’em housing
- traffic congestion
- inaccessible open space
- managed control over our lives
- mismanagement of water supplies
- prohibition on natural resource management
leading to increased fire hazards and private
property restrictions

Anonymous said...

Enough of the idiotic conspiracy theories for God's sake. Nothing you've typed have any basis in reality and is so far out of touch with the very basics of urbanism it's laughable. Start your education with a little Jane Jacobs and progress from there (if you have the mental capacity).

Anonymous said...

There's a letter in today's NSN in defense of Buchanan. So mother and apple pie and soooo staged!

Anonymous said...

I was wondering where all the "other people" she wants to hear from were! So there's one. (or maybe not)

Anonymous said...

A definition of urbanism:

Definition: Urbanism is the word used by archaeologists to describe the process that drives people to live in cities. Cities are defined by their size (generally greater than 5,000 people), and the existence of a series of complexity traits, including such things as a central administration or government, and the segregation of people by class and/or occupation.

We assume, but don't really have a way of knowing, that people congregated together for protection, or to facilitate public projects like irrigation systems or the construction of large buildings. Living in clumps has problems that must be resolved for cities to continue, including the transport of food produced elsewhere into the city limits, and rubbish and sanitation transported outside.

Anonymous said...

So turns out the letter praising Linda B was not what it seemed at first glance! NS News today confirms previous suspicions.

Anonymous said...

Bravo to the NSN!