|
Post by John Zeger on Oct 29, 2004 11:02:43 GMT -5
I attended a town hall meeting the other night where Supt. MacKinnon of the Kelowna RCMP detachment was a guest. I asked him if he thought that increasing residential densities downtown in projects such as Lawson Landing would result in a meaningful decrease in Kelowna's crime rate. He responded that, no, it would only cause a displacement of crime to other areas of the city. If anyone should know, he should.
|
|
|
Post by writewoman on Feb 26, 2005 10:54:59 GMT -5
The "increase density to reduce crime" rationalization should make the folks of every big city in the world feel lots safer on their streets at night!
Where's the proof? If true, we'd all be wanting to move to a ghetto. The reality of increased density is quite the reverse.
Development proponents have good reason to believe we are stupid because we are too docile to challenge absurd rationalizations like this one.
|
|
|
Post by bo916 on May 11, 2005 11:08:41 GMT -5
has anyone been to Tokyo?
it is one of the biggest cities in the world, yet there is absolutely no crime.
do not compare high density to high crime rate, because there are so many other factors.
aside from the homeless problem in the downtown core, there is just as much drug users in Rutland. this is not a localized thing.
the Lawson Landing project would bring a larger residential population into the downtown core.
this would be deterring to the homeless and kerry park druggies, and they would leave the area.
this would make downtown a lot safer and more comfortable.
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on May 12, 2005 7:28:04 GMT -5
I don't know what the situation is in Tokyo (and you probably don't either) but do know what it is in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc. etc. etc. and there is a clear positive relationship between crime and urban density. In regards to your comment that projects like Lawson Landing will drive crime out of the downtown, if it does it will just end up elsewhere in the city but won't reduce the overall crime rate. Is your solution to the downtown crime problem to just move the culprits to the North End or to Abbott Street? I'm sure glad you aren't sitting on city council!
|
|
|
Post by bo916 on May 12, 2005 10:58:35 GMT -5
Before i start writing, i apologize for my writing method, it's a bad habit.
i have lived in Tokyo. That is how i was able to use it as base for my argument.
the cities that you are refering to already had a large criminal population as they grew.
the majority of the crime in los angeles spawned from the mistreatment of african americans.
New York was practically founded by Irish criminals
Crime looks for appealing areas for in which to exist.
not all areas of kelowna are really that appealing, only 2 major areas, Downtown, and Rutland.
if we make those areas unapealing to these criminals, then crime will either cease, or the criminals will move out.
crime is crime, no matter where it is, if there is a chance to stop the crime, then why not take it?
|
|
|
Post by writewoman on May 12, 2005 13:31:21 GMT -5
Yup, "crime is crime." Some cultures treat it with kid gloves; others with iron fists. The Orient is historically intolerant. Therein lies the difference, I suspect.
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on May 17, 2005 9:19:59 GMT -5
Further to my previous post please see the front page article in the Daily Courier of May 17, "Downtown Push Spreads Transients and Crime" about how the police crackdown downtown isn't eliminating the problem but simply displacing it to other neighbourhoods. The same will happen as a result of increasing downtown densities. The only way to solve this problem is the Four Pillars approach and not through simplistic answers like putting up a few highrises there to chase the culprits away.
|
|
|
Post by bo916 on May 17, 2005 13:55:05 GMT -5
The Highrises are not designed to get rid of crime, they are designed to provide housing, and boost tourism (which is the number 1 industry in our city)
as well as enhancing the downtown area
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on May 18, 2005 9:13:02 GMT -5
You are correct that highrises are not designed to reduce crime but the movekelownaforward bunch has used the argument that increasing densities downtown will have that effect. And yes, highrises will provide housing, but housing for whom? Probably more retirees and certainly not families with children. You said in a previous post that you think Kelowna already has enough retirees. Highrises will result in a decline in tourism as 99% of tourists I talked to said they come here to get away from high densities in their own cities. Lastly, they will not enhance the downtown but detract from its village-style character, which is incidentally what tourists do come here to enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by bo916 on May 18, 2005 9:28:20 GMT -5
why do you think that it would only increase retiree population?
i would argue that since it is right by the waterfront, near to what will be a great family enjoyable area, i believe that it will increase family population.
these aren't big blazing evil looking towers, they are beautifully crafted peices of art and technology. people i have talked to (mostly between the ages of 16-25) which are going to be the generation that will be enjoying the rewards of this development said that it might be the thing that will keep them in Kelowna.
i barely heard any negative feedback in the matter.
i was told by these people that they wish to be able to use the downtown parks again, and be able to take their children.
then there were tourists.
one group told me that they would enjoy having these buildings, they said that it can be hard enough to find a room to stay in in Kelowna most times.
another group i questioned, this one was from australia, told me that they only really stay around the simpson walk and lagoon area in the summer. they told me that it is the most friendly area to bring their children, while the other areas aren't as desirable.
a third group i questioned, this one was from the states, they told me that they only go to Gyro beach these days, they told me that they've been moving south throught the city over the past couple of years due to the crime in the area.
those where the three main responses, i only got one negative response.
it was a Lady from eastern Canada, and she said that would prefere to have highrises away from the beach area, but if the public area around it was going to be expanded then she wouldn't mind.
oh, one other thing, nobody i asked ever mentioned anything about villages. the reason they loves Kelowna was because of the lake, the weather, Big White and the Parks (such as the greenway, not Kerry Park)
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on May 19, 2005 9:46:32 GMT -5
Families with children want housing where there is private outdoor space for the children to play such as yards. That is why the single family house is the preferred accommodation of this group. I think you would find very few families that would be interested in living in highrises downtown.
On the other issue of the appeal of Lawson Lawson to tourists, we took a survery last September of 50 tourists in the Kerry Park area and showed them a picture of the Lawson Landing project and asked them if they would be more or less likely to return to Kelowna if this project were completed. Nearly 80% of respondents said they would be less likely to return.
|
|
|
Post by prodevlp on Jun 5, 2005 19:58:06 GMT -5
Mr. Zeger you have stated two myths of growth right in this very thread.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 5, 2005 20:38:18 GMT -5
I hope that prodevlp will have something positive to say here, or at least contribute something to the discussion, unlike many of his or her ilk. Many of them remind me of the yappy little dogs who nip at your ankles then go pee on the carpet. I sincerely hope that prodevelp is better than that.
Perhaps prodevlp could expand a little bit on the previous posting, because one of the objectives of this forum seems to be to state the myths of growth, and if that is what John is doing, them I'm all for it.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 5, 2005 20:46:13 GMT -5
Further to my last posting (and by the way, "them" should be "then" of course), I'd like to point out something that any first year philosophy student is aware of: what is called the 'ad hominen' fallacy in logic.
Those who resort to these sorts of arguments think that, by discrediting the person, they discredit his or her arguments. That, unfortunately, seems to be the norm in North American politics, so that people somehow come to think that it is how you win arguments, and how you make your own opinion seem valid.
True discourse and discussion is, of course, much more work than that, and I hope that we will see that level of discourse right here. Personally, I always welcome valid studies, facts, and statistics; accompanied by a clear statement of the assumptions each person brings to a discussion (Socratic, eh?).
|
|
|
Post by prodevlp on Jun 6, 2005 19:17:35 GMT -5
I'll tell you what I meant by that comment once Mr. Zeger speaks up, thank you.
|
|