|
general
Dec 16, 2004 11:28:04 GMT -5
Post by John Zeger on Dec 16, 2004 11:28:04 GMT -5
It is reported that in the Dec. 16, 2004 issue of the Daily Courier that the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce might be taking a pro-developement stance in 2005. Well, that would come as no big shocker since they've always been pro-development. Chamber executive vice-president Kevin Crookes is quoted as saying regarding growth that "the key is to manage growth and determine what direction it will go in." Well, in my opinion, taking a laissez-faire attitude towards growth and letting the market place determine its pace is not managing growth at all. Merely determining where it goes is just a cop out and the Chamber wins no matter what. But the battle lines are being drawn in 2005, an election year, between those who want growth for growths sake and those who value quality of life. I am looking forward to the debate.
|
|
|
general
Jun 10, 2005 11:12:19 GMT -5
Post by John Zeger on Jun 10, 2005 11:12:19 GMT -5
There is a letter to the editor is today's (June 10) Daily Courier "Trouble Follows City as it Grows." The letter by Leslie Mulligan says "It seems that our lovely valley is turning more and more each day into a mini-Vancouver, forever expanding and making our beautiful valley less appealing to the eye. I know that there are some benefts to having more houses and more people, but we're losing the most beautiful and attractive part of our fair city. Not to mention that fact that a growing city means growing problems. ... it seems that we have a fair amount of drug-addicted homeless individuals. And it seems that we didn't start to attract all of these individuals until we started expanding our city. If we .. stop expanding and worring more about the existing problems of the city we'd be able to make Kelowna what it was 10 years ago. I believe that Kelowna ... is already as large as it should be. The beauty of our fair city is being destroyed by building new houses and allowing the city to become larger than it really should be. I don't want the same problems as Vancouver (such as extreme traffic, crime an overpopulation) to come to my hometown and I'm sure that most of the community would agree." Well said, Ms. Mulligan, and Amen.
|
|
|
general
Jun 10, 2005 13:25:49 GMT -5
Post by bo916 on Jun 10, 2005 13:25:49 GMT -5
10 years ago kelowna almost fell apart due to urban sprawl.
you did not live here 10 years ago Mr. Zeger.
Kelowna is not trying to expand, it is trying to bring the city more into a defined area instead of sprawling over mountains which has been happening for more thsn the past 10 years.
The link between high density and crime has been disproven after a look into the situations in super cities such as tokyo and New York showed such incredibly low crime levels
|
|
|
general
Jun 10, 2005 15:04:43 GMT -5
Post by guest on Jun 10, 2005 15:04:43 GMT -5
Please provide evidence, because i dont believe what you are saying. You cant just come here saying this stuff, providing no evidence, and then think that i will listen to what you have to say. I can easily say stuff about anything, but wether its true or not depends on SUPPORTED evidence.
|
|
|
general
Jun 10, 2005 21:48:10 GMT -5
Post by John Zeger on Jun 10, 2005 21:48:10 GMT -5
I wouldn't think that you remember much about Kelowna 10 years ago, Matt, as you were only 7 years old at the time. Thanks for visiting our forum and please return when you have gained some maturity and experience. As the guest rightly observed, you seem to be a case of "bullsh_t over brains."
|
|
|
general
Jun 11, 2005 1:35:51 GMT -5
Post by bo916 on Jun 11, 2005 1:35:51 GMT -5
Maturity?
excuse me Mr. Zeger, but i do not need you attacking my age.
you did not live in this city 10 years ago at all, therefore i have a great deal more to base my judgement on than you do.
evidence?
New York has cleaned up it's crime problem, and has been announced as one of the safest cities in the world.
Tokyo which i have spent some time in is also one of the world's largest cities, and it has basically 0-crime.
where is my evidence?
look up the mountains, if you can't see the houses there for yourself than that's your problem not mine
|
|
|
general
Jun 11, 2005 9:59:58 GMT -5
Post by John Zeger on Jun 11, 2005 9:59:58 GMT -5
Matt, why don't you do some real research instead of just picking out a couple of cities that support your point of view and citing them. If you think there is no relationship between urban density and crime, get a list of the ten cities in North American with the highest crime rates and you will find that they are all high density cities. You find significantly lower rates of crime in suburbs and rural areas. It it obvious to everyone, except maybe to you, that there is a correlation between density and crime. While you're waiting to grow up why don't you chew on this study from Cambridge, Mass. www.cambridgema.gov/~CPD/reports/2001/Annual/adobe/factors.pdf I'm tired of the bullsh_t, Matt. Do some real research before opening your yap or you will be banned from this site. "Yappy little dogs that nip at your heels and then go and pee on the rug." And you still haven't answered Rick Shea's questions on the other thread. Why not? We're all waiting.
|
|
|
general
Jun 11, 2005 11:59:26 GMT -5
Post by bo916 on Jun 11, 2005 11:59:26 GMT -5
i have been answering questions.
i do not see what is wrong with using new york and tokyo as examples, as in many cases the facts you have been giving us contain only one reference, only one case of whatever it is you are trying to prove.
i am tired of you telling me to grow up Mr Zeger, because you know what? I will grow up, and when i am, i will have to deal with the mess you have left in my city and i will have to clean it up. You will not be here 30 years from now, i will, it is people of my generation who are the future of Kelowna.
You were not here in the past, you won't be here in the future, so don't try to ruin the future of those who will. This is why i am involved John.
One day i will grow up, and that day, you will no longer exist
|
|
|
general
Jun 11, 2005 12:16:53 GMT -5
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 11, 2005 12:16:53 GMT -5
Well, Matt, you say that you have been answering questions, but you still haven't answered these ones, so here they are again as a reminder:
What exactly are the ultimate limits on growth in this city? Why should we push things to the point where we run up against those limits and not leave some sort of buffer? Why should ordinary citizens pay the long term price for lining the pockets of developers? If development does have to stop at some point in the future, why not stop it now while we still have some green space, a chance at decent air quality, and so on?
Those are some of the real questions, and addressing them will definitely have an effect on your own future, so let's hear your responses. Or do you really not care about your own future?
And I notice that you have so far ignored my posts about crime rates in Japan and Tokyo, and in Portland. Care to really discuss the issues?
|
|
|
general
Jun 11, 2005 14:07:17 GMT -5
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 11, 2005 14:07:17 GMT -5
I notice the implicit and explicit statements, in many of Matt's posts, that Mr. Zeger has no right to comment on local issues.
I note that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that everyone has the fundamental " freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression."
So, Matt, what legal basis do you have for attempting to deny Mr. Zeger this basic right? Keep in mind that the argument that "he's pissing me off and always showing me how I'm wrong" will not stand up in any Canadian court.
So, what is it then? If you have no basis for your apparent assertions, then I recommend that you discontinue them because they are not contributing anything at all to the discussion, other than making you look bad. And, before you start typing madly without thinking, that's not a denial of your own right.
Yes, the Charter does allow freedom of expression, even for the obnoxious pissants of this world (and that's not necessarily directed at you, Matt, nor could it ever be said of John). You might want to think carefully about Thoreau's admonishment about the vanity of sitting "down to write when you have not stood up to live."
And, before you go attacking me for the same thing, keep in mind that I have been ASKING people to participate in a real discussion, giving guidance on what a real discussion is, and encouraging people to really support their arguments. (Gad, I have to stop giving these lessons for free!)
|
|
|
general
Jun 12, 2005 3:02:35 GMT -5
Post by andrew on Jun 12, 2005 3:02:35 GMT -5
Matt, there are many people in CRCP who have lived in Kelowna most of their lives, and people who have decades more to live also. John has done an amazing job organizing us together, so don't try to discredit CRCP by using the same argument we have heard over and over again, because it just doesn't work.
|
|
|
general
Jun 12, 2005 15:00:54 GMT -5
Post by guest on Jun 12, 2005 15:00:54 GMT -5
Yes it does work because it is a valid point. The CRCP is a joke and the more people who support it the more Kelowna will be hindered. Its either highrises or urban sprawl up your beautiful mountains. Which would you rather have?
|
|
|
general
Jun 12, 2005 16:04:18 GMT -5
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 12, 2005 16:04:18 GMT -5
Which would we rather have?
Well, that shows that the mind trap of dualism leads to bankruptcy of ideas. Personally, I'd rather have neither, and I know exactly how to accomplish it, as I've already said many times.
Got anything to contribute to the discussion, or are you just as negative and trivial as the many of the others who make similar posts? Care to provide evidence to show me the error of my ways (yeah, like you could)?
|
|
|
general
Jun 12, 2005 17:09:55 GMT -5
Post by Cathy Jo on Jun 12, 2005 17:09:55 GMT -5
I believe Mr. Phillip's point about John's three year residence in Kelowna arose from John's own arguement that Mr. Phillips may not remember Kelowna's past well enough due to his age. Therefore it was not an attack on John, but rather a defensive of his own position. Kelowna is expanding in population. It will expand whether or not small minded people stick their feet in it or not. The population will grow whether we choose to accomodate for it or not. However, without appropriate accomodation, ie. highrises and high density areas, the down town area would become a ghetto for the drug addicts, and Kelowna would simply continue to expand outwards. I'm sure you are aware of the impossibility of putting any sort of population "cap" on Kelowna. Therefore, the inevitable problem of the benefits of living here which continue to bring people to Kelowna need to be dealt with by preserving these positive features with the capacity for a larger population. It is clear that the proposed plans for development are not, at this point, unattractive. It is the increase in population WITHOUT these changes that will, and is already, causing many municipal problems, such as drug problems in areas with few residences and open businesses. I also hope you do have the capacity to see that there are indeed examples of large, high density areas with very low crime levels. Tokyo is considered one of the safest cities in the world, where I for one would feel comfortable walking around alone at night, which is much more than i can say about Kelowna in its present state. I believe this development will happen, and it is thanks to people like Mr. Phillips that Kelowna will move into the future, rather than sitting idly in the past. Kelowna only turned 100 years old on my birthday this year. It obviosly has a much larger future than it has past, and i don't belive you will be able to stall its progression in this closed-minded fasion.
|
|
|
general
Jun 12, 2005 19:38:41 GMT -5
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 12, 2005 19:38:41 GMT -5
I have had the incredible privilege of being able to travel to several countries over the past few years, specifically Cuba, Peru, and the Cook Islands. That travel has shown me that there are some very beautiful places in this world, and some very ugly places as well. It has also reinforced the idea that we are incredibly privileged here, and that there are literally billions of others on this planet who will never have that privilege, as they are too concerned with where the next bit of food or water are coming from.
In particular though, I was quite intrigued with the Cook Islands. In many ways, they provide a model for what a sustainable economy with very little growth can look like. The Cook Islanders reject the fast-paced culture of North America. They refuse to accept any currency other than the New Zealand dollar and their own local currency. Although there are elements of American culture present, they have not even come close to overwhelming the local culture, as has clearly happened elsewhere. They carefully control and restrict foreign ownership of businesses and property. They carefully control the types and locations of buildings, including tourist accommodation. Although they don't allow highrises, they are fortunate in that the cyclones would quickly rid them of any attempts to build them anyway. Population growth is slow and is approaching zero right now.
In many ways, their economy is similar to Kelowna's. They rely heavily on tourism, agriculture, and fishing. Although we don't have their advantage of being right on the ocean, Kelowna certainly has more agricultural land available. And we have the wintertime advantage of having the ski hills to contribute to our economy. There's not much snow in the Cooks.
One could quibble that the politics are different, and with myriad other details, but the message from the Cooks is clear. First, you can stop development; growth is not inevitable. Second, even though many people would like to move there, they simply can't. Like many other parts of the world, the movement of people is restricted in order to preserve what they have.
The most telling thing for me was the response of the taxi driver who took us from the airport to the place we were staying. When Linda asked him what sort of tip was typical in the Cooks, his reply was "We don't normally do that here. We're happy with what we already have."
|
|