growth control supporters are hypocritical

[CRCP]

Members' posts to follow.

[Rick Shea]

People who support growth controls receive all sorts of labels, normally intended to stop discussion. These include "radicals," "NIMBYs," "extremists," and a host of other epithets.

The one that bothers me the most is the accusation that recent migrants have no right to call for growth controls, and are simply "gate-closers."

First of all, this label does nothing to address the real issues, and is merely another manifestation of the old "ad hominem" fallacy.

Second, fresh perspectives on local issues can be a remedy for entrenched positions and ideas.

Finally, and most importantly perhaps, people who resort to this fallacy clearly have no idea of what growth controls and a population cap imply. With the normal aging of the population, with work transfers, with economic shifts, and with a host of other factors, people will still be able to move into a particular location provided that the maximum is not exceeded. Banff is one place where this is already in place, and the local economy seems to be doing just fine. Sure, it's in a national park. But I keep hearing loud claims that people want to come to Kelowna for many of the same reasons people go to Banff. And Kelowna certainly has a more diversified economy than Banff, so what are we afraid of?

So, people who move to a particular area and see a need for growth controls and a population cap have every right to voice their opinions, without the personal attacks and attempts to sidetrack the discussion with what is technically called the "Abusive Ad Hominem" fallacy.

[John Zeger]

Indeed. After moving here a few years ago, I became vocal about the way that things were being done in the city and came under such personal attack. People were accusing me of wanting to be the last person here before closing the gate behind me. I never moved to Kelowna with such an intention as I came here like most retirees just wanting to relax and enjoy my leisure. In fact I was hesitant to get involved at all. But after listening to one local after another complain about how the quality of life had sharply declined in recent years and how many (including people in their 20's) were ready to head for the exits because they were fed up with how the city was being run, I decided to write a few letters to the editor on the subject.

[Rick Shea]

Sent to the Kelowna Courier today:

Dear Sir:

Mohan Sidhu’s letter in your December 13th edition (Free market dictates how cities grow) is such a tour de force of poor thinking and lack of awareness of the modern world that it’s difficult to know where to start.

Take, for example, Sidhu’s apparent equation of criticism of growth with Marxism. Marxist doctrine in general has nothing to do with stopping growth. Typically, those who try to call others Marxist (and a variety of other names) are only looking for the shock value, and not any sort of truth anyway.

As an additional example, Sidhu seems to be under the mistaken impression that we have a free market system. What we in fact have in Canada and now globally is a corporatist state, where the rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to get poorer, as reported by the United Nations and other “Marxist” groups on a regular basis.

We also have an economy without a conscience, as we spend our time downloading ringtones, playing video games, and in other equally valuable social activities, on devices made in sweatshop conditions in other countries. Fortunately for us, we have exported our own pollution to them as well so that they can send us cheap manufactured goods. The ordinary people of those countries have no choice but to accept the pollution, poor working conditions, and working poverty as they have no other alternative at this point -- hardly a free market system at work.

Sidhu seems to believe that the current economy is sustainable, and that urbanization and population growth can continue. Density is the mantra of those who support this fanciful notion, given that agricultural land is becoming scarce.

Along with that, I have to suppose that Sidhu does not believe the “Peak Oil” predictions that we have to move our food production closer to home, and that this planet can only support about 2 billion people on a truly sustainable basis. I have to assume that Sidhu does not believe that the current record rate of species extinctions due to human activity is an issue.

I suppose as well that I have to believe that Sidhu does not understand that the global economy and the mythical “free market” are only a subset of the natural world, and that the way Nature has dealt with the arrogance and waste of past civilizations applies equally well to us now, given the increasing evidence all around us.

One of the few places where Sidhu is correct is in the assertion that “controlling growth is not an option.” No, it is not optional.

In fact it is essential for our very survival as a society, and perhaps even as a species.

Sincerely,

Rick Shea