Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Unanimous decision on Lynn Valley Mall development

 At a SPECIAL MEETING OF COUNCIL held last night in Council Chambers  'all were in favour of ' 1.1.    

                              Bylaw 8051: Rezoning Bylaw 1309 (Lynn Valley Mall),                                        
               Bylaw 8052: Phased Development Agreement (Lynn Valley Mall)
               Bylaw 8054: Affordable Housing Agreement (Lynn Valley Mall)
               Bylaw 8055: Housing Agreement (Lynn Valley Mall)

95 comments:

Anonymous said...

I was at the meeting. It was beyond belief the rhetoric spouted by all members of council.

The top of the meeting was Couns. Nixon praising his colleagues for being brave.

Lisa Muri spouted her usual tears and then voted in favour.

Anonymous said...

Councillors predictably speaking in favour of their interests, real estate agent/real estate development, and those that passionately speak in opposition and then vote in favour.

Hmmm.

Just confirms why the pollsters repeatedly report politicians at the bottom of the respected professions.

Anonymous said...

So let me get this straight, the OCP passes unanimously with the proposed Lynn Valley densities front and center, and the entire council is overwhelming elected in the subsequent election, even in Lynn Valley, and somehow they are being disingenuous? Somehow they are out of touch with Lynn Valley?

Anonymous said...

Who says NIMBYs are rational?

Anonymous said...

What is missing from this discussion is that voter turnout in the DNV was only 21 percent in 2011 and 17 percent in 2008. This is the problem.

Anonymous said...

And why on earth does MacKay-Dunn have to mention the fact that he was a cop every time he opens his mouth?

They all speak over and over again about the negatives of a motion and then they unanimously approve it. The OCP is a farce and should have gone to referendum in the 2011 municipal election.

When an elected council votes unanimously in over 95 per cent of motions, there is no reasonable debate.

Anonymous said...

Anon Friday, June 13, 2014 9:11:00 pm said, "When an elected council votes unanimously in over 95 per cent of motions, there is no reasonable debate."

The elected council is following the mandate they were elected for. Were they elected on a platform of "no development"? No. The were re-elected based on past performance which suggests that those people who can be bothered to get up and vote, support the direction council is taking.

Anonymous said...

The unanimous decision was highly predictable. Did we really expect anything else? Almost every councilor acknowledged the community opposition to the development, but SOMEHOW there was no evidence of a vote to represent that opposition. Why do they feel they have to vote in favour of almost every development proposal that comes across the table? Are those on the other side of the fence always wrong and they are always right?
I hope they get their collective butts kicked out of office in November for this lack of community representation, but something tells me they will all be re-elected and a suitable replacement will be 'promoted' to fill Clr. Nixon's shoes. "Brave", my ass!

Some heart can be taken by those in opposition in that they helped to keep the development down to size.

Anonymous said...

I found it very interesting that Mike Little mentioned the 17-storey height of the Kiwanis seniors' tower as leverage for the approval of the lower height buildings.

Many times in the past he and Alan Nixon have said that the approval of a tower in the area is irrelevant as far as future approvals go. Every proposal is taken on a case-by-case basis.

If this is the case, why did he even MENTION the fact that it was there?

Hypocrisy!


Hypocricy.
\

Anonymous said...

Case by case does not mean decision making in a vacuum. You consider everything, every time. Kiwanis' height was one of the factors considered, but BOSA had to ask for the height they did not automatically get it as in a 'precedent'.

Anonymous said...

So why was it mentioned?

Anonymous said...

...because it was one of the factors considered.

Anonymous said...

You can't have it both ways. Oh, I forgot, you're a politician so you can do whatever you want even though you don't follow through with any kind of responsibility for your hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

Check out page A6 from a 2010 NSN regarding towers in Seymour.

http://issuu.com/canwestcommunitypublishing/docs/nsnwed20100623/6

Anonymous said...

Why did MacKay-Dunn refer to the petition signed by 1500 people in Lynn Valley against the proposal and fail to mention the over 4000 people who signed the anti highrise petition? And there were actually 2000 more on-line signatures.

Anonymous said...

Why don't you ask him? You really think anyone here knows the answer to your question?

Anonymous said...

There is nothing worse than Councilors who will talk the tough talk, but walk the wimp walk in the final tally. Who, or what is twisting their arms? You can't trust them. How do they keep getting re-elected is the $60,000 question?

Anonymous said...

They keep getting elected because they are better candidates than the others.

Anonymous said...

No.. they keep getting elected because they have many $$ behind their campaigns and are pro-development to the extreme. We must continue our fight.

Anonymous said...

Anon Friday, June 20, 2014 1:40:00 pm,

Wait, you don't think they're winning because the majority of voters support their policies or are happy with the direction they are taking the community? Have you ever considered that your views are in the minority?

Anonymous said...

No. I have never. We must get people to pay attention to municipal politics, and when they do they will realize the impact they can have on their community's evolution.

Anonymous said...

You might consider it.
If you're anti-development, how does your community evolve? Preserving wasteful land use and sprawl isn't evolving.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you should check your definition of evolution.

Anonymous said...

My definition of evolution includes a more responsible and sustainable use of our land base. Maintaining the existing stock of low density building forms while allowing greater density at town centres and transit corridors is a step toward more sustainable land use. As is the inclusion of density increases in single family locations via coach houses, secondary suites and duplexes. Allowing further sprawl up the mountainside is not included in my definition of evolution and would be considered a ridiculous step backward. I shared some aspects of my definition, now how about you include yours, Anon Monday, June 23, 2014 12:06:00 pm?

JOhn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I don't think anyone wants to see development go further up the mountainside. In fact I don't think it's even been discussed. Just because we might not densify town centres doesn't mean this would occur. That sounds like fear mongering to me. Some development or re-development needs to occur - the old Zellers site just can't sit here forever and someone has to be wiling to throw some money at it and make some money in doing so. I think what the real concern here is the livabilty of the town centres. In Lynn Valley there are perhaps too many development cropping up too fast. The BOSA project is one thing, but now there's Draycott, United Church onMt. Hwy., Cedar Village reconstruction, Polygon at 27th. and Mtn, Hwy. and what of the Safeway site? My God , it's going to be nuts living in the centre area!

Anonymous said...

Sure, it'll be nuts for a while, during construction. Temporary inconvenience for long term benefit. More people will be living in the neighbourhood who won't need to drive to the town centre to access shopping. Instead, you'll see a lively, walkable shopping/living/working area.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:37

Do you promise?

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:47, what are your doubts?

Anonymous said...

Working area? Where are the new office buildings in Lynn Valley?

Anonymous said...

People only work in offices?

Anonymous said...

No, they also work in pizza joints, Safeways, Save-0n-Foods, etc., at minimum wage or not much higher.

These people do not live in Lynn Valley. They just work here.

Anonymous said...

I thought Safeway and Save-on were union gigs. I suspect their employees can afford Lynn Valley. Oh, or is this about not wanting more affordable housing types in your community? Are you wanting to keep lower income earners out of your neighbourhood?

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:38

This is the stupidest thing I have ever read on this blog.

Interesting note that Nat Bosa & Co has just purchased the Empress Hotel in Victoria.

Anonymous said...

9:01 am, why is it stupid? Enlighten us with your vast knowledge. Or is all you're able to do is criticize and complain? Step up to the plate and offer real, workable solutions to what you see the problems being.

Anonymous said...

I am not Anon 9:01.
Not the stupidest thing I've heard, but maybe somewhat ignorant. Very few workers at Save On and Safeway are earning decent union 'gig' income anymore. All new hires are at minimum wage, few if any benefits and the majority of the workers are new hires. So the other anon is correct - they can't afford to live in North Vancouver. Even the union 'gigs' can't afford to live here anymore. I believe that most of the new jobs created in Lynn Valley from BOSA Project will also be minimum wage workers who will lie elsewhere.

Enlighten us as to how it will be dfferent!

Anonymous said...

Too many assumptions being made here. We've no idea what the salaries being earned are. But is that to stop us from offering alternatives to single-family detached dwellings? Not everyone can afford a SFDD, but an apartment or condo makes home ownership within reach of more people who do want to live on the North Shore. It's also fairy to assume that some of those units being developed will be bought by investors and offered up as rental stock. What's so horrible about that?

Anonymous said...

What's so horrible about that is the building of these market condos has caused the problems, it is not a solution.

Before the condos were built in Lynn Valley, starting in the mid 90s, there were open schools, there was rental stock, and there certainly wasn't the traffic problem we have now.

How has building market condos helped?

Anonymous said...

Condos are the reason there are fewer schools? I still see rentals available all over the North Shore District. Just who exactly is generating the traffic? Do a little tour and count the numbers of cars in the driveways of single family homes. Chances are, both parents and every child over 16 has a car. Why? because the community is sprawled and a car is necessary to get around. Now count the number of cars owned by people in condos and apartments. Especially those who are close to town centres where transit is more readily available, as are shopping and work spaces. Let's be careful who we're pointing our fingers at, as if we look closely, we may find those fingers pointing towards ourselves. Or as Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Anonymous said...

In the mid 1990's a house in Lynn Valley went for $300,000, now they go for triple that. That is the good problem it have. It means that our economy is strong, and our community is desirable.

L Leeman said...

Actually, Anonymous 12:56:00 am..

It means that interest rates are at historical lows so 2 people working and bringing a decent nest egg can support a biiiig mortgage and rather than live in the 'vibrant, walkable, unsprawled' neighbourhoods of Coquitlam or Metrotown, they are willing to pay to live in a more human environment and have some privacy in their evil single family home.

Anonymous said...

The inherent desirability of North Vancouver has more to do with the topography and proximity to the city vs. the size of the lots and density. I'm not saying you should densify, but if Lynn Valley or Cap and Marine were built out with towers, it would still fetch top regional dollars.

Anonymous said...

At whose expense? The people who live here now. I sincerely hope the voter turnout will be high and people will fight for their livability.

Anonymous said...

Livability is subjective. If the cost of living becomes unaffordable (high property taxes, infrastructure repair & maintenance, etc.) how livable will the community be? I suspect that the only ones who will find it livable are the ones with very deep pockets. Does that include seniors or young families? Or will the community only be suitable to those with high paying, professional jobs? What will happen if you lift the draw bridge now that you've got yours?

Anonymous said...

Bill and Dorothy Bell's website is down (www.electbell.com)

Did they give up already?

Anonymous said...

I've never been able to figure out why some politicians and other folks can't stand the idea of an affluent district.

Notwithstanding local pols using public dollars to try to hold back the natural pressure of the free market we see that the market always triumphs.

Anyone remember King Canute?

There are affluent areas all over the planet. Instead of trying to artificially engineer the market our pols should adapt and represent the majority of those that choose to live here.

Anonymous said...

If the politicians put a stop to development, isn't that interfering with the free market? And who's to say the politicians aren't representing the majority? Or are you suggesting that the pro-affluent segment of the population are anything but a vocal minority? How'd the current politicians get elected?

Anonymous said...

They got elected by a meagre 21% of the voters in the DNV in 2011.

Anonymous said...

So what? Don't you think that that 21% is a representative sampling of the entire population? If not, why not? Would the results have been substantially different had 100% of eligible voters turned out?

Anonymous said...

Yes, every time the politicians put a stop to development in a desirable area (ie the North Shore) then the pricing pressure on the surrounding area becomes greater and residential prices rise due to the limited supply of available housing in those same desirable area.

Conversely, when they allow higher density development then the population increase creates pressure on local infrastructure and the traffic, parking lots, shopping areas, park/library and other amenity user populations become greater thereby cheesing off earlier residents who liked it like it used to be.

Point being politicians trying to engineer the open market by creating publicly subsidized "affordable" housing for the general population can't work. It can work for selected populations like seniors and disabled in a strongly controlled and artificially isolated market.

Therefore either residential pricing will continue to rise as long as the N. Shore is seen as a premium area by world property buyers and/or the quality of life on the Shore will degrade as densification increases.

Politicians cannot halt the global pricing for N. Shore real estate by trying to legislate pockets of affordable housing to the general public as it is too little too late and will be swallowed up by the overall market.

The logical conclusion is to acknowledge that we live in a premium area of highly priced real estate. Our properties will become less and less affordable (especially to long time residents who may not be as well-heeled as our new neighbours) as property taxes increase to service the demands of the affluent residents.

We will continue to see our long time neighbours move away to more affordable (and/or maybe less crowded) locations to be replaced by the new North/West Vancouverites that can afford to live here.

All the hot air in the world won't change this and neither can elected representatives.

Welcome to the future.

Anonymous said...

This seems to be a very sensible statement, quality of life is degraded in the City of North Van. One minor disagreement - with the glut of condos on the market, prices have decreased. Case in point - there will shortly be another 700 condos within a block or two of the 700 block Marine.

Anonymous said...

The goal should be to have a variety of housing options available at market guided prices.

Variety is good because it allows people to move through the spectrum of housing without having to leave the community. Their ability to afford those options is not specifically a concern of the local government, but it is popular to talk about affordability anyway. People want politicians to be thinking of the cost of living but they don't want the politicians to actually subsidize that segment with tax dollars.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:03. Please reread my first line. We don't disagree.

After density was increased you point out that prices went down. When redevelopment is disallowed then surrounding prices go up.

We agree

Anon 8:55

Anonymous said...

So let me get this straight...

Inventory of condos goes up, entry level housing prices go down, how is that a bad thing? Isn't that what the public have been asking for?

Anonymous said...

Supply and demand. The greater the supply of residential housing then the more stable to lower pricing will be.

The scarcer housing is in a desirable area the more pricing will tend to increase.

L Leeman said...

OH yes... 'desireable area'. How desireable will it be when the new residents of the nearly 500 new units AND THEIR CARS are queing at Ironworker's memorial behind the thousands of new residents moving into the Seylynn eyesores.

OH yes.. I forgot. Mountain highway is vibrant and walkable, all the way to work.

Anonymous said...

Right on L.Leeman....good points!

Anonymous said...

Lee Leeman, who spent his life commuting off the North Shore to work each day (his words in earlier threads, not mine), now stating that this is unacceptable behaviour for newcomers to HIS community. What an hypocrite. And then has the audacity to be critical of anyone suggesting development that emphasizes pedestrianism and more efficient transportation. No point in trying to improve things because Leeman is stuck on the ideal of mid-century suburbs.

Anonymous said...

As stated, "...thereby cheesing off earlier residents who liked it like it used to be." Anon 8:55g

The devil and the deep blue sea.

Higher density, decreasing quality of life, moderated housing costs.

Cap density, skyrocketing house prices and higher associated property tax.

Anonymous said...

I do have to challenge the assertion that higher density equals lower quality of life.

People pay for quality of life, and our high costs of housing reflect that we have a very high quality of life, but the West Side of Vancouver has significantly higher densities and yet its cost of housing is even higher.

The reality is higher density has potential negatives and positives. The negatives can be managed with better infrastructure and the positives can be frittered away poor planning of the public spaces and commercial zones.

LLeeman said...

Anon 8:22.....you said...I was
"now stating that this is unacceptable behaviour for newcomers to HIS community".

Nice job putting words in my mouth Anon. I suppose SOMETHING has to justify your inane name calling and shrill zealot's devotion to making over the remaining 'mid century suburbs' (you know, the ones having trees and all) with glass canyons and hey.. if you need to invent a quote or two to do it.. looks like you will.

On the other hand, if a transit village is your devotional ideal, as I suspect it is, there are already PLENTY of them out there or havent you noticed what's been built in the CITY of VANCOUVER and also CITY of NORTH VANCOUVER,

There is no need to be building them everywhere and no need to call names at people who do not want to be near them or have them rammed down their throats via an OCP that never went to referendum.

I do hope, however, I can drive by you while you are commuting to your job over the bridge this winter. On foot. In the rain. It'll be vibrant, I promise.







Anonymous said...

Leeman you slay me. 'Glass Canyons'? Now who's being shrill? Why so devoted to your automobile? Why not consider alternatives? You are so blind to other possibilities that you can't see the forest for the trees. Nobody is proposing turning North Vancouver into another City of Vancouver or even City of North Vancouver. People are talking about putting density in locations that make sense so that your beloved single family neighbourhoods can be preserved. Give me a dozen high rises in the village centres and transportation corridors over the creep of duplexes and 2 or 3-storey walkups throughout the community. DNV is no longer far removed from the other communities and has no real choice but to absorb those who wish to move here. Why do you hold such disdain for the idea of taking transit to work? Or is that sort of thing below you?

L Leeman said...

Again with putting words in mymouth. Clear to me you are attached to the technique.

Things I never said, that you said I did...include:

Why so devoted to your automobile? Why not consider alternatives?

Never said I was devoted to automobile or wont consider alternatives.
What I DID say, which you missed TWICE now.. is that there will be literally THOUSANDS of new redients in our neighbourhod, needing to use the bridge, who indeed, WILL be DERVOTED and I dont mean to BIKES or pedestrianism. WORK is just too far away for most and in fact is not usually in downtown Vancouver.
Oh.. and it RAINS here.

You also said:
Why do you hold such disdain for the idea of taking transit to work? Or is that sort of thing below you?

My commute WAS to New Westminster and WAS completely impractical by transit despite a relatively nearby Skytrain station.
I said 'relatively' since I would have had to walk at least an hour each way to connect to and from that Skytrain. Connecting buses would NOT get me to work on time or home in a reasonable time. So I did what the thousands of new residents WILL DO... and it aint walk, Your Vibrant, Walkable Arrogance.

You said:
Nobody is proposing turning North Vancouver into another City of Vancouver or even City of North Vancouver.
Yet you ALSO said:
>Give me a dozen high rises in the village centres and transportation corridors> ....which is what the City of Vancouver and North Vancouver is in fact doing. So called sutainable development looks the same eerywhere. DENSITY DENSity DENSIty. A developers wet dream. So YES that is exactly what is being propeosed AND rammed through despite your rolling eyes.
And yes, I HAVE been to LOLO( oh how Vibrant and cute) and seen the Glass Canyons. Maybe you ought to as well before talking about shrill.
Now it's my turn to put words in your mouth.

" I am a shill for the development industry, either a real estate agent or one whose business benefits directly from unwanted hirises and density in Lynn Valley"

or

" I am an ecozealot, a true believer who just KNOWS that we can save the planet by living in hirises and do truly believe that when people truly see the light, they will WANT to bike in the rain to Surrey... and if they dont, We will make them....for Gaia."

Not my bag Bud.
Not any of it.

Anonymous said...

leeman, thanks for slapping that little twerp. you can tell it does not work or drive for a living.
if you want high rises go live downtown. leave our community alone.

lets agree to remove the counsel in november.

L Leeman said...

@Anonymous 10:07

Removing the council would be fine if you could be assured that the new representatives wouldnt be run by the Sustainable Development crowd.

I dont believe that is possible right now, but the mistake in resisting this desecration of our little Lynn Valley former Village ( it is a Town Centre now dont you know) is that the Sustainable Development agenda has been sneaked in via stealth and enshrined in the OCP... but WITHOUT ANY PUBLIC APPROVAL of the so called vision. We need to demand that this November electoral ballot also include a REFERENDUM on ACCEPTING or REJECTING the current OCP vision with respect to growth, the Network of Centres concept and any oey points in the OCP.

We dont want low rises vs hi rises... we want DEMOCRACY. I pay the Planners.. you pay the planners...I pay Walton.. you pay Miri...who pretends to say NO and votes to accept ...and all the others. WE WANT A REFERENDUM on the OCP and we want to know where EVERY candidate stands on its contents.. as PART of this election.

OCP Referendum should be part of the voting process for this election. The people have NEVER had their say and the council and especially the planners, have no mandate until we give it to them or are too lazy to resist.





Anonymous said...

The current council were given their mandate by the electorate at the last election. That was the referendum. Every project needing rezoning has a public input process. So you're being a little melodramatic. The next council, too, will be given their mandate by the electorate based upon their platforms. We don't always get what we want, but that's the nature of Democracy. It's the best we've got. Just because it doesn't suit your tastes doesn't mean it goes against what the majority want.

L Leeman said...

There absolutely was not a referendum on the OCP at the last election.
ANd tell me WHICH candidates' platforms addressed the densification of our neighbourhoods per the OCP? Which addressed the headlong rush to build hirises? Which layed out the plans to jam up the bridge access points with thousands of new residents cars and 30 story plus hirises.

NOt a one.

Just because you dont WANT to have to ask for that mandate doesnt mean you just get to invent one.
That isnt democracy. On questions that greatly affect the character and development direction of our District, 'public input' as practiced by the planners and contractors in the district is necessary but not sufficient. There must also be a clear YES or NO question asked freely and directly on a ballot. We need that in November.

I suppose if the council started to block off all major transportation routes to cars and only allowed bikes, buses and food carts you would say "the election was the referendum on allowing privte cars on our roads".

And anyway. What are you afraid of?
Are you afraid that when posed with a clear question the voters will think about what is going on and respond with a loud NO? Well if that happened, then you would have been wrong and the current situation would not have been a democracy. If it didnt happen like that, then you would be correct.

The results from a referendum on the OCP would be an extremely valuable guide for the next council and planners. Density yes or no?
Hirise development in your neighbourhood.. YES or NO?

Imagine the hours and expense that could be saved just having the results of that vote in hand for the next 4 years.

Anonymous said...

The election in November will serve as the referendum you seek. If enough people don't want density, they'll show up at the polls and vote accordingly and vote out every councillor who votes in favour of development.

John Sharpe said...

And we all know that is unlikely. Just because people aren't crazy about the way things are going doesn't mean they will show and vote for or against. There's not the citizen engagement necessary for that. It's always the same 'you and me's' voting and that's not true representation.

It also doesn't make the election a referendum. A referendum would be an advertised, promoted question on the ballot that might draw people out to vote yes or no. If enough people paid attention to their local politics, you might get some 'changes'.

John Sharpe said...

I also think people tend to take our 'great system' for granted AND they also feel dissociated with the political field SO that their vote or involvement will make no difference anyway so why bother? The politicians will do want they want to do anyway and.....by god! they are probably right!

Anonymous said...

L Leeman, all I hear from you is noise. Step up, put your name forward on the ballot, and run against the current council.

Run on a zero growth platform and see where you get with all the seniors who want seniors housing.

Run on a zero growth platform and see where you get with all the young families who can't find affordable accomodations and are living in makeshift basement suites instead of proper accomodatations.

Run on a zero growth platform and see who supports degrading services to keep costs in line rather than densifying to replace aging infrastructure.

Run on a zero growth platform and tell the community which empty schools you would like to close first.

Run on a zero growth platform and watch your costs from Translink go up based on exploding land values and the service decline because there is no ridership.

Run on a zero growth platform and watch all of your good staff leave because they can, leaving you with the tired and mediocre to run all of your services.

You are a very impressive troll, but I wonder will you just get back in your hole when it comes to an election and action is required?

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:21

You have everything exactly backwards. It is this densification that is causing all these problems.

You are the troll!!

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:17 pm, you are incredibly naive and uninformed. You have drunk the Kool-Aid. Stop listening to other uninformed people and agitators like Leeman and start thinking for yourself. Read and educate yourself on the topics of sustainability and perhaps you'll see the light. Suburbia is a dead end and unsustainable.

L Leeman said...

anon 2:10 ... you wrote
"Read and educate yourself on the topics of sustainability and perhaps you'll see the light. Suburbia is a dead end and unsustainable. "

Umm.. WHO did you say had "drunk the Kool-Aid' ??

It's prety clear to me.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Leeman, you display a complete lack of understanding of anything having to do with sustainability and urban design. Nothing you say resonates with anyone who is educated in the subject. You're a dinosaur who is angry because you can't get your way. Unfortunately you've found a bunch of sheep who buy into your nonsense! Like anon 8:21:00 am said, put your money where your mouth is and run lion a zero growth platform and see how far you get!

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:06

Who exactly is educated on the subject? The urban planners who make their money PLANNING. If there is no political will for densification they will be out of work.

I guarantee you make $$$ on the densification of our communities otherwise you wouldn't waste your time running off at your biased mouth.

Anonymous said...

Wrong on both counts anon 9:30pm. Maybe you should also run for council and see how far you get on a zero growth policy. Put you money where your mouth is.

Anonymous said...

She already did... and she lost twice badly. 2005 she lost by 1,300 votes and in 2011 she lost by even more 2,600 votes. Maybe she will run again and double her losses again.

Anonymous said...

You people who are in favour of densification have to ask yourselves a couple of questions:

1. Are you making money out of this densification?
2. Do you have a reasonable mind if you want to promote traffic congestion, pollution, increased crime, and nowhere for our kids to play?

If so, follow the densify at all costs route and see what happens to our community. And in your idiocy blame the closure of schools on the "lack of" densification. Good one!

L Leeman said...

@Anonymous 4:06

I hardly know where to start with your twisted logic, name calling, denigration, and general disrespctful tone in here, but to say all this demonstrates devotion to GREED or a ZEALOT'S AGENDA is probably close to the mark if we throw in a generous dollop of ARROGANCE, what with calling people ignorant and unable to 'see the light' as YOU do.

I take small comfort in the fact that you have not only attempted these and other techniques on me but on others who post here.
Still, to what end? I dont really know for sure, but the trail seems to lead back to YOUR being all in a hissy fit because things I might be saying, if taken up, threaten your POTENTIAL INCOME or your devotion to a 'sustainability' agenda implanted by some process of indoctrination that has brought you to a 'see the light' true believer status.
Now, in my experience, really skilled greedy people are not usually so blatantly abusive and can carry an argument beyond a yell, knowing it is best to avoid anything that shines a spot on their motivations. That leads me to conclude you fall into the zealot's camp, but there is plenty of room for greed there too.

Quite honestly, you ought to clean up your act in here if you want me to respond any further. Maybe you DO have something to say that your handlers havent implanted. Maybe I, or others, could respond to your points about seniors, transit,infrastructure costs, young families and land values. Maybe they might even agree with you. But as it stands, you are just too damn rude to be in a conversation with.




Anonymous said...

Hello pot, meet kettle...

Leeman's just as guilty of the arrogance, name calling and poor behaviour. Maybe if he/she cleans up her tone and treats the people he/she disagrees with with a little kindness, others will return the favour.

Anonymous said...

Wrong! Leeman, whoever he/she is is not guilty of bad behaviour. There is reasonable debate here except for a few who I believe are "plants" to try to make the believers in slow prudent densification question their judgment.

The building of many, many market condominiums throughout Metro Vancouver is failing at all levels. A recent study suggested that 30% of condos in Vancouver are owned offshore and are empty. I don't believe it is much different on the North Shore.

Anonymous said...

Sources for these studies, anon 8:24?

Anonymous said...

Just Google the studies.

Anonymous said...

Check out today's Province Newspaper website - Estreet. Opinion. And today's hard copy re: Anon 8:24 comments.

And then google the studies.

Bram Well said...

It is really a nice and useful piece of information. I am glad that you shared this helpful information with us. Please stay us up to date like this. Thank you for sharing.http://www.businessinthornton.net |

Callie Darla said...

Always thinking to do the same thing again and again , i am very thankful that i found this one..http://www.londonusedcars.net |

Edu Denley said...

From your blog it seems that you are en expert of writing article. Your contents are amazing and facts are true. I agree to all of your points that you have mentioned.http://www.chinahomelifedubai.net |

Elvin Farrin said...

This is very interesting news website running 24 hours a day to keep their viewer updated all the time. http://www.3dscanningtechnology.net |

Aiken Barlow said...

I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article. I am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well.. http://www.health-encyclopedia.net |

byash said...

Thanks so much with this fantastic new web site. I’m very fired up to show it to anyone. It makes me so satisfied your vast understanding and wisdom have a new channel for trying into the world.nb-computer.org |

Ashton Belton said...

You’ve got some interesting points in this article. I would have never considered any of these if I didn’t come across this. Thanks!.votebackhome.org |

Bowie Callan said...

I just wanted to let you know that what you do really affects peoples lives and that people - like me - truly appreciate it.asianbusinessnetwork.org |

Cecilia Dean said...

I am really glad to be here.I hope to see more great articles here in the future too so keep it up and good luck to all of you!airtraveltips.org |

Presely Preston said...

Thanks you for another great article. Where else could anyone get that kind of information in such a perfect way of writing? I have a presentation next week, and I am on the look for such information.siouxempireweddings.org |