Monday, December 24, 2012

Time to check the naughty and nice list

ALREADY it's Christmas.
With it comes our annual hope of joy, redemption and promise for the future. It's a good tradition, a time for offering and exchanging gifts. Casting an eye over the political landscape, who's been naughty this past year?
In an imperfect world, who's been nice?  Read more. . .


John Sharpe said...

Coun. Roger Bassam, in one of the most shocking vote reversals in living memory, sank that much-needed reduction in favour of reaching for the stars, or was it hanging a moon, with his 32-storey proposal. You decide. Couns.

An extra big sack of coal to Clr. Bassam for this one in the form of never voting for him. Not that I ever did anyway for just such slants. I couldn't believe it!

Anonymous said...

Couns. Bassam doesn't give a RA about the DNV. He wants to escalate in politics and will do so if we don't stop him. And Couns. Don Bell. Too close for comfort.

Anonymous said...

Fearnley got kicked out when he back stabbed the control development faction. Bassam can be taken out easily.

The District needs a Bookham and Clark.

Anonymous said...

Gracious Darrell Mussatto?? It was his lack of leadership that the public hearing turned into a shambles. Then he did nothing to support his Council when they were publicly and privately attacked, instead he went with Keating on the radio. Councillor Keating seems to be in full election mode already. Shameful behaviour all around and Onni has no intention of withdrawing.

Anonymous said...

Neither does Keating in his pro-development stance. How does this bode for the BC NDP?

Anonymous said...

Why bother to complain about our District politicians? Everybody loves them enough to keep re-electing them. What's up with that?

Anonymous said...

Perhaps it's time to check the self-appointed "checker" of the naughty and nice list. Let's go point by point:

1. The swipe at staff. The "will" of the "largely invisible" municipal planners. The second point first. The municipal planners are easy to phone, easy to walk into the Hall and find, and they publicly sit in the council meetings and answer every question put to them by councillors. Those meetings are video'd and can be watched in the comfort of any home. Faceless, powerful bogeymen are sooooo scary. Oddly, fact is that they are hardly "invisible". Their "will" is overblown hyperbole. They can advise anyone if their plans comply with or exceed code and the OCP. The applicant has the democratic right to take their plans to council and appeal to them to allow the variance (hardly being "sheperded.") Then council decides, which is what they are paid to do.

Don't like the democratic system? Move to China. It would go well with sporting the Chairman Mao badge, affected French beret and sophomoric 5 foot scarves.

Moving on.

2. "Overpaid senior staff"? Interesting. Council ratifies the wage and benefit packages of all staff. If Council is elected by the majority of electors and Council ratifies staff salaries (and development projects for that matter) and the majority doesn't like the direction of Council then the majority of electors has every ability to turf those they don't like and put in new ones.

Don't N. Shore staff (senior or not) make pretty well exactly what they make in every other jurisdiction in the Lower Mainland? Well, yes they do but we're just bashing our local folk so let's let that one go.

Wait a sec. Doesn't the current Council(s) look very much like the former Councils? Hmmm... Maybe what voters are "clearly" saying is that they are quite happy with the direction of the Councils...which pretty much speaks to the rest of the staff bashing and anti-development tripe.

3. Then we switch to oil pipelines and coal ports and a call for "fresh coastal thinking". What is that? No alternatives or suggestions just a buzz slogan. Oh well.

4. The usual lefty jab at more prisons. Personally I don't mind housing our criminal population one little bit. We've seen the mess that we've got after the NDP launched the closing of Riverview and the former residents are now streetpeople. I'm not keen to have the unhoused criminal popluation hanging out in my neighbourhood but I'll gladly send them over to Trevor's place.

5. Marijuana? One notes that Amsterdam has had enough of those folks and the Mayor of that fair city has had the affrontery to suggest that "scum town" (his words) be constructed out of shipping containers and the counter-culture types can reside there - far away from the functional residents in his burg.

6. Ah the Liberals, of course we had to get there sooner or later. We have a Conservative majority balanced by a sizeable NDP opposition. The Liberals really don't matter except in the minds of those living in parallel universe - but they live in hope that if they talk about them enough others might think that they are relevant.

7. Finally, the film industry. We're losing that very lucrative business in BC just because we need to restructure our tax competitiveness with other provinces. Don't need a different government to fix it, just need any government to address it.

All in all, meh.

Seasons greetings.

Anonymous said...

3 highrises not a 'village'

By Holly Cole, North Shore News December 26, 2012

Dear Editor:

So the District of North Vancouver mayor and council have approved the Seylynn Village development. We're now stuck with this ghastly, unimaginative homage to densification. The charm and character of the North Shore has been traded for three gargantuan monoliths of concrete and windows - the tallest being a relentless 32 storeys. Around 2,000 people will live in 5.7 acres.

This development is no more a "village" than a cat is a cow.

Holly Cole, North Vancouver

Anonymous said...

Anon Wednesday, December 26, 2012 1:17:00 PM,

It's great to see a well thought out and rational post on this blog. Sadly, John doesn't seem too interested in moderating the discussion here and the place has devolved into nothing more than a small group of individuals who appear incapable of thoughtful debate.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:17 doesn't seem like an exceptional post. A person is disappointed and critical of an approved development. Fair enough but not extraordinary. Want to debate that point or just be judgemental?

Anonymous said...

There were two posts at 1:17PM and I was giving kudos to the first one (the one that was being critical of the piece of fluff passing for journalism that John Sharpe thought was worthy of cutting and pasting into this blog. I was not referring to the questionable opinion of Holly Cole, which was also submitted at 1:17PM. If only there was debate on this blog! All we see is the same few complaining about the evils of capitalism and rampant corruption at the municipal level. Sadly, the owner of this blog isn't really doing anything to facilitate the quality of discussion here.

Anonymous said...

One must always remember that only 21% of the eligible voters in the DNV voted. If one assumes that the 79% are all in favour of current council, then one must assume that there is no apathy amongst voters. The DNV council has ignored public hearings over and over and gone in the direction of development, not the sentiment of the speakers who took time out of their busy lives to speak at these hearings. Council and staff are dependent on the apathy of the taxpayers/voters and they do everything they can to promote it, i.e. scheduling special meetings of council within a week, and when other meetings and community events have been scheduled for months.

Anonymous said...

To anon at 10.09// why don't you offer to moderate - if you don't have a solution aren't you part of the problem?

Anonymous said...

Will this Boxing Day scenario become the norm, as density building continues on the North Shore to the point where nobody can move anywhere?

Burnaby Boxing Day shoppers call 911 to get out of traffic

Read more:

Sure we may laugh at this, but it won't be very funny in a few years when Seylynn and Capilano traffic junctions become a permanent traffic jam because of greedy density planning.

Anonymous said...

I think we've just witnessed the biggest leap in logic of the entire year by Anon 3:13PM. This has nothing to do with density and everything to do with the stupidity of consumers who think that the world revolves around their needs. It is a perfect example of how self absorbed people have become. Sorry, but you can't blame all of society's ills on density.

John Sharpe said...

"Sadly, John doesn't seem too interested in moderating...."

What's to moderate? You might not agree with the criticism's or otherwise, but others do and it sounds like your "moderation" would be "censorship".

A post goes up, it's about local issues, and it's up for discussion. Sorry the post topic doesn't suit you. You are welcome to make main posts any time. We always need diversity here.

Anonymous said...

To 10:09, thanks for the kudos re Carolan's inane article.

To 10:40, not sure that your first assumption logically results in the second. However, I do assume that if an elector is sufficiently disgruntled with any councillor(s) then they will go vote for someone else and therefore I assume that if an elector chooses not to exercise their right to vote they may be satisfied with the status quo or, at least, are not sufficiently disgruntled to get off their butt and take action consistent with their opinion. No I don't agree that apathy is anything more than trying to legitimize a lame-o excuse. Sounds like something one would expect from a fifteen year old. Don't vote, don't whine.

To 10:54, re a moderator. This blog has an ebb and flow. Sometimes lots of spirited debate with a variety of contributors, other times just a few showing interest. All this occurs without the need for much moderation except to rein in those types that cross the line of good taste (or slander) from time to time.

To 3:13, re density. As a 50 year resident my observations are as follows:

-yes, there is a marked increase in N. Shore traffic volume;
-Whistler was hardly heard of when I was in high school - now a major destination with traffic pouring over the bridges and highways;
-Squamish, Lion's Bay and the Sunshine Coast have become commuter suburbs for Vancouver car commuters;
-I would hike our silent forests without seeing a soul - now they're full of mountain bikers from all around;
-snowboarders and skiiers (in the winter), hikers, dog walkers and tourists drive to Grouse, Seymour and Cypress from all over the Lower Mainland;
-hundreds of daily visitors end up at Cap Canyon and on top of Grouse Mountain;
-Lynn Canyon, Cates Park, Deep Cove, the fish hatchery, Cleveland Dam and our riverside trail systems are the playground of the Lower Mainland;
-the population of D.N.V. and W. Van have not increased much in 15 years (City has).

North Shore residential density contributes marginally to our traffic increase but the other factors are far more relevant.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:19
You shot yourself in the foot.
Brilliant comment!

Anonymous said...

Remember the traffic jams that came with an accident or two on one or both bridges on the North Shore, a few years ago? Traffic came to a complete standstill. When it takes one half hour in the morning to just reach the highway from Lynn Valley Rd. and Mtn Hwy there is already a problem. More people crammed in sardine cans in the sky will add to the problems. More people equals more cars, and Translink will still remain the dysfunctional entity that it is on our North Shore. What, us worry?

Anonymous said...

My wish for the Blog for 2013...

As a faithful reader/participant of this blog I can sympathize with some of the moderating concerns that have been expressed. If you want this blog to be more relevant you need to get ahead of the curve.

This blog used to be regularly read by the local newsies as a source for stories, now the blog topics are cut and pasted from the newspapers and are therefore automatically behind the times. It still generates discussion, but it would be more of a 'must read' for local politicos if it had regular weekly posts.

You could write about:
*School District debt
*Lions Gate Waste water treatement plant location
*Provincial Gov't assessing fees for wilderness rescues
*Burrard Band service agreement
*Coast Guard service cuts
*fact checking any one of Carolan's stories

Anonymous said...

"When it takes one half hour in the morning to just reach the highway from Lynn Valley Rd. and Mtn Hwy there is already a problem."

Time it! I drive all the time. 12 minutes max.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:18, the very minimal densification traffic implication in NV Dist is peanuts compared to the road traffic from the ferries, Lions Bay/Squamish/Whistler and our N. Shore recreational destinations for non-N. Shore residents.

Anon 1:36, you have some good thoughts for topics. Re the "pay for rescue" topic. There was a shockingly uniformed letter to the editor in yesterday's Province. The writer thought that the gov't should keep it's hands off the pay for rescue debate as "North Shore Rescue does it for free". This person should know that all 3 N. Shore municipalities annually contribute to fund NSR as well as the Provincial Emergency Programme not to mention numerous private donations. Point being the gov't already funds NSR and the gov't has every right to enact whatever they think is appropriate.

John Sharpe said...

Out of the last 5 post topics only one was copied and pasted from the media.

I admit that many post are copy/pasted at this juncture of the blog, but the ensuing discussion for the community is valuable nonetheless.

Good post suggestions Anon 1:36.

John Sharpe said...

RE: Pay for Rescue; Making the recuee pay for their recuers; I think this might discourage some 'out-of-bounders' from seeking rescue. One life lost from a silly mistake is not worth the chance.

Anonymous said...

The rescue argument for pay/non-pay has really strong points on both sides of the issue.
The day that one of the volunteer rescuers is badly injured or killed while trying to save an out-of-bounds recreationalist I think that the issues will fully come forward.

The question is whose life safety interests are paramount - the rescuers or the out-of-bounders? Clearly the rescuers. The secondary issue is would the threat of recovering rescue costs dissuade sufficient scofflaws to enhance the safety of rescuers through diminished incidents?

Not sure that there is a "right" answer but as the local and provincial gov't fund rescue efforts their input is really important on this matter yet we hear only silence. How come?

Anonymous said...

Shelley Fralic: Should we be rescuing the out-of-bounders? Of course we should

"Surely it is our collective job to save the silly from themselves, to bring them back alive — if they are lucky — because the imperative of a civil society is to not just look after the poor and the infirm, but also the idiotic."

Read more:

Anonymous said...

In the "heady" days of the blog, late 2005 'til late 2007, many people posted once a week. John Sharpe, Ernie Crist, Wendy Qureshi, Monica Craver, Lyle Craver, George Pringle, and many more.

It worked well for awhile and then the idiots came onboard and started and continued to personally malign the posters.

Maybe there is no software out there to automatically delete idiots, however it is the same as the idiots who go out of bounds on our mountains. They are selfish, just like many politicians are selfish and put people's lives at risk.

John Sharpe said...

One thing you can count on by virture of local population increasing, there's going to be many more 'out of bounders'. It's one thing if a person really needs rescue when it's no fault of their own. If it can be deemed the recuee was thrill seeking or ignored warnings there should be very stiff consequences.

Anonymous said...

So, now density is responsible for people ignoring ski hill boundaries? Wow.

Sorry John, but that doesn't fly. Thrill seekers have been ignoring the boundary warnings for as long as ski hills have put them into place. It was true in the 60's & 70's and it is true today. Don't blame density, blame the people who ignore the posted boundaries.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:06

Nobody is blaming densification on out of bounds snowboarding. Methinks perhaps you have some financial gain involving the densification of our municipality.

Anonymous said...

No, Anon 9:26 AM, you're right. Nobody is "blaming densification on out of bounds snowboarding". However, if you'll re-read John's post, he is obliquely suggesting the reverse! Methinks you need to improve your reading comprehension!

Anonymous said...

Nobody criticizes my comprehension of the English language.

You are incorrect!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Anon 11:11 fondly recalls the "heady" days of the blog when a group of regular contributors posted their name, picture and opinions but were driven off by "idiots" who "personally maligned" the posters.

What a view of the world.

Ernie doesn't post anymore as he died in 2008. Wendy still posts, sometimes with her banner and sometimes as Anon. Monica still posts from time to time as does John just above. George and Sue beat each other up so thoroughly that it seems that each tired of the game but they might still resurface.

As far as "maligning" goes I recall that most of them gave as good as they got and were no more or less idiotic than the rest.

Also, some of them had the strange idea that their posts were more credible than those of the Anons. Problem was, they were no more credible than anyone else and sometimes posters pointed out their errors (perhaps more embarassing for those that posed as "experts" but all fair ball).

For example, Ernie posted that the Americans were in Afghanistan in order to take over their oil production. Problem was, Afghanistan produces no oil.

Lyle told us that the firemen cash out their substantial sick banks in cash when they retire. Checking in with the FD we found out that statement is in error and firemen entirely forfeit their sick bank when they retire. Ooops.

Sue took a hit for some of her comments concerning immigrants and George got some smacks from Sue that got pretty close to the line.

Monica disses the mountain bikers and they roast her and that twain shall never meet but the diverse points of view are welcome and make for good debate.

Wendy... well...what can one say that hasn't already been said?

Everyone of these posters had the opportunity to post as Anon but they elected to comment under their picture and name. They chose public notority on a debate forum.

If an adult makes such a choice it's a bit much to be characterized as victim of "idiots" when everyone doesn't line up and agree with your (sometimes mistaken) view of the world.

Can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.

I enjoy the cadre of Anon posters on this blog with the odd input from somebody who likes to show us their picture (unnecessary but if they really want to then it's a free country), don't think that most are "idiots" and find them as heady as ever.

Anonymous said...

Good post, Anon 5:29 PM. My take on the anon vs. named posters, is that the named posters have egos that need feeding (and likely have agendas), while the anons do not. Truth be told, the anons usually post more interesting and better informed comments.

John Sharpe said...

So, now density is responsible for people ignoring ski hill boundaries?
Wow. A tad over analysed.
I'm simply suggesting with more people comes more chance of such instances like many of societies ills.

Anonymous said...

Yes, density is contributing to more rescues on the North Shore. It's not North Van density, it is general Metro density.

North Shore Rescue has been very busy over the last few years, with around 90 rescues a year. Since many of their Rescues are injuries on the extremely busy Grouse Grind, the number of hikers is a contributing factor.

John Sharpe said...

OK regarding " no interst in moderating", I've taken the liberty of removing a comment from an Anonymous who said...
'Someone', go take your meds...
Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:06:00 PM
This part of the comment is disrespetful as well as other parts of it. It has no place on any public forum.

Anonymous said...

For most of the year when there is no snow I see the Fire Dept. responding to injuries on the Grind - not NSR. Maybe the volunteers go there if it is above the snowline?

I agree with your main point that the search and rescues that NSR does in the backcountry are for people from the Metro area and even farther away and have very little to do with the marginal increase in density on the N. Shore.

Anonymous said...

So John, when are you going to exercise the same level of 'censorship' (your words, not mine) when the typical anti-devlopment anon posters call others names for holding a different view? Are you only going to moderate when it is your friends who are being called out? At least do us all the respect of being consistent and 'moderate' all disrespectful content, rather than 'censor' those you disagree with and leave the attacks by people who share your anti-development stance. Keep the playing field level, please. This place is supposed to be about discussion and debate, not name-calling and insults.

John Sharpe said...

All opinions are welcome on any topic. This is what keeps this little blog rolling. It was a specific targeted disrespectful comment regardless whether the person mentioned blogs here or not. If there are other names mentioned that are direspected then I feel it is appropriate to remove the comment.

Anonymous said...

Subject: In an imperfect world, why bother with reason over self-righteousness? / Trevor Carolan in the NS News, Dec. 24

To the Editor,

In an imperfect world, why bother with reason over self-righteousness?

Trevor Carolan's editorial (Dec. 24) again equates the understandable but context-bereft desire of some North Vancouver residents to be indemnified against the consequences of their own desires with virtue, and in doing so happily confers on them a pacifier in the form of a chocolate Santa.

In his description of the tail wagging the dog, Carolan misplaces the metaphor, placing the desires and views of car-traveling commuters from Deep Cove ahead of the overwhelming numbers of Seylynn residents who divested themselves of decaying single-family homes in a stagnant corner of the District.

Why is it that the offended view sensibilities of wealthy Deep Cove commuters should be thought more worthy than the well-voiced living needs of the young people heard at the Seylynn public hearings, or that of long term area residents who heartily embraced the opportunities for their community that redevelopment represents for those who actually live there? Whose tail is wagging whose dog?

Carolan’s concerns for view aesthetics as echoed in pious cries for an unchanging North Shore, should be balanced against a few realities:

(a) the single-family residences do not now pay their own cost of servicing through their property taxes,

(b) the opposition to viable housing options other than single-family homes amounts to a form of economic apartheid against anyone who can’t afford a $1 million home,

(c) the traffic volumes cited by those against development are made up mostly of those like themselves, determined to drive, at all times, and ensure that viable transit is never achievable.

Coupled with the above, the costs of replacing the DNV’s eroded and decaying infrastructure will increasingly fall on those like themselves, demanding top-drawer services but at a bottom price. They call to mind the confident but naïve man who strides into the Porsche dealership, demanding, “I only have $10,000 but I want the red one!”

On so many fronts; cost, services, sustainability, many DNV residents have become mindless of the true cost and consequences of their choices, immersed in the desire for a lifestyle they would like to become accustomed to. They have been, in effect, living off a credit card and as the time comes to pay it off they will begin to look around to see who else might be available to help with the bill.

This will be difficult to find in a suburban environment increasing filled only with seniors balefully asking each other if they can’t spare a bit more change.

sincerely, Doug Curran

Anonymous said...

Now that is an excellent post! The coming generations will be paying through the nose for the lifestyles of the boomers.

Anonymous said...

According to Doug Curran everyone is wrong "no matter, no how" who is even slightly against high rise density devlopment in North Vancouver. There is no shortage of market housing in North Van., but acording to Mr. Curran we need more of it. More market housing ensures the cost of buying here will go up. What we need is more truely affordable housing here. More high rise density ensures more traffic jamming, air pollution,density, crime, and genearally less livabilty, but you don't hear him speaking of those down sides. He thinks that higher densities allow him to afford to live here indefinitely. He would be wrong.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:27 PM said:

"More market housing ensures the cost of buying here will go up. What we need is more truely affordable housing here. More high rise density ensures more traffic jamming, air pollution,density, crime, and genearally less livabilty..."

Please tell us what expertise you have that allows you to make these assertions. Care to share with us any studies that support your statements?

Anonymous said...

What is "truly affordable housing?" When I see that then I see subsidized housing.

Unless it is subsidized for seniors or the physical/mentally disabled forget about it. We don't need taxpayer dollars meddling in the free real estate market. King Canute tried to hold back the tide - didn't work then and won't work now.

Anonymous said...

"Care to share with us any studies that support your statements?"

Care to show any studies that this is not the case?

Simple observation and common sense tell us this is true.

When you consider what will happen to Lynn Valley, Seylynn or any other areas we kow what has and what will happen is as I have mentioned in my 5:27 comment.

Anonymous said...

The rules of debate are that if you raise assertions that are questioned, it is your responsibility to provide evidence to support your claims. You can't demand that the person questioning you assertions prove your points for you. Observation and common sense do no such thing to tell us that your assertions are true, as the events have not happened yet. You are speculating and I am asking that you give us an explanation of why you feel your assertions are correct. Supporting studies and documentation, or references to them, would help.

Sorry, but personal opinion doesn't fly when you make such statements.

Anonymous said...

Anon: 11:34

This is a blog. Chill.

Anonymous said...

I did not write that everyone is wrong "no matter no how". I simply repeatfacts that have been laid out in financial reports by the DNV's CFO:the single-family homes do not repay their servicing cost through their property taxes, at the same time they demand more and more services. The OCP contemplates using a small portion of the DNV land mass to create more housing options that will be needed to satisfy young and old. Those rejecting any form of moderate change in the DNV are creating a fiscal bomb that will burn themselves. Short-sighted thinking that will leave all of the DNV as an expensive backwater. You want it, you bought. Let me know in another twenty years how it works out for you. Doug C.

Anonymous said...

Never mind how it works out for them, but how will it work out for their children and grand children? Oh, that's right, they won't be able to afford to live here!

Anonymous said...

A slight correction, Anon 10:19: Their kids can't afford to live here even now! The situation was eloquently summarized for me by a local politician in this way: "The DNV ethic is I love my kids, but i love me more."

I actually envy those who are able to blithely frame a world view that is permanently constrained within the historic, economic and cultural anomaly that created the DNV. It appears to be a place pristine & full born with gas stations, friendly grocers and newspaperboys who didn't march across well tended lawns. The truth is that it wasn't born that way and it will not remain that way, indeed it can not - at least without paying an increasingly high cost - much of it paid in terms of one's own family and connection, as you point out in your remarks.
Here is a thought that always stops the status quo up short: "If we want everything to stay the same, then some things will have to change."

Anonymous said...

Yes, the notion of nostalgia played big with the 'no change' crowd. A good example is well illustrated with the tea party during the last US election. Unfortunately, as Algonquin Round Table member Franklin P. Adams once said of nostalgia, “Nothing is more responsible for the good old days than a bad memory.”

Anonymous said...

D.C. You are not the leader of anything. You are an arrogant SOB who thinks you have solutions for our community. Your thoughts are not progressive.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:28PM, what have you contributed? I seee you do nothing but come here and snipe at people you don't agree with. Rather than behave like a little school girl, why not contribute to the discussion? What are your ideas? How is the community to move forward in the future and manage the costs of services with the existing population? Do we raise taxes to pay for replacing an aging infrastructure, reduce services or ignore the problem and hope for the best? Name-calling is just lazy. Exercise your brain and be a positive contributor. If you can't do that, what's the point?

Anonymous said...

Anon 10;28 PM, Your comment infer that others not living directly in your community do not have a legitimate voice in "our/your" community.
Insofar as large publicly-funded projects such as the $44 mil Lynn Valley Library are collectively funded by DNV taxpayers as a whole, and not through DCCs or CACs, I think that it is entirely appropriate that people from outside your immediate community express their thoughts - especially so if the concerns are framed within recognized needs and fiscal prudence.
We will soon hear more of Delbrook wanting more recreation (for themselves) but wanting all of DNV to cover the costs - and no increased density anywhere, thank you very much. The money isn't there from the taxpayer and municipal bonds are merely another form of deferred taxes. Perhaps the coming generation won't mind paying for it later.

Anonymous said...

"The rules of debate are that if you raise assertions that are questioned, it is your responsibility to provide evidence to support your claims".

I agree with Anon 2:08 This is a blog. Chill.

This blog is made up of comments that are mostly opinions to which people are entitled.

My reasons for my opinion were stated in the comment, but you seem to have glossed over them.

I'm not against careful, community driven development as opposed to developer driven planning. If the community wants to 'pack'em in' then that's their prerogative, but something tells that's often not what they want, but the elected officials have their own agendas which are often not a true reflection of the majority.

Remember to chill.

Anonymous said...

So, it's true, just because you say it is? Sorry, not buying it. If you are going to present your opinions as facts then people have every right to ask you to back them up.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:58 PM, It is difficult to have community-driven planning if there is little acquired knowledge base within the community or the good will to move towards viable solutions. For example; it simply costs too much to build single-family homes for most people to purchase (the average DNV single family home requires a household income of $171,000/yr.) Who has this kind of money? You can build wood-frame houses but not at a size that people can afford and recoup the investment.
It is not sufficient to continually declare what one wants, without being rooted in the economic reality of actually building. If a developer is successful it is because they have carefully cut the cloth to fit. Community-driven development can succeed where you have people rooted in the desire for realistic, attainable results.
This is being done in Lower Capilano and the community is obtaining over $15 mil in CACs from one development alone. This money for badly needed community amenities that will not be showing up on the annual tax bills of Lynn Valley or Seymour taxpayers for the next 25 years. There are more than a few people who should be thanking us for this alone.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:58 PM,
RE:"This blog is made up of comments that are mostly opinions to which people are entitled." Unfortunately the idea that everyone is entitled to an opinion is true, but in actuality many/most opinions amount to nothing more than the celebration of ignorance. If it is not informed and based in a degree of logic and the recognition of the complexity of all situations then it is simply a worthless opinion.
One adage goes; "Opinions are like assholes - everybody's got one!"
My personal favourite comes from David Crosby, the colourful former Newfoundland MP; "No wonder this country is in such a mess. Everyone who could run the place properly is either driving a cab or cutting hair."