|
general
Jun 12, 2005 20:28:37 GMT -5
Post by bo916 on Jun 12, 2005 20:28:37 GMT -5
i find it amusing how you did not reply to our guest's post.
anyways, based on your latest post, it seems like you wish for Kelowna to move into the middle of the ocean, abandon many of the great features it has such as medicare, low unemployment rate, much higher life expectancy. oh, and guess what, The growth rate in the cook islands is 1.04% as apposed to Canada's .9%. so much for a lower growth rate fast approaching 0.
Kelowna's life expectancy is 84 for woman, and 78.5 for men, as opposed to the cook islands' 74.0 for women, and 68.0 for men.
unemployment is also quite different, as a recent article in this news paper said that kelowna's unemployment rate is around 5-6%. in the cook islands, the unemployment rate is 13%.
maybe you could go around getting people to sign a petition, if you can get 70,000 signatures from people in kelowna, then you can go and present it to Mr. Gray and get him to turn kelowna even more backwater than it is, and to follow the cook islands example.
|
|
|
general
Jun 12, 2005 21:03:15 GMT -5
Post by John Zeger on Jun 12, 2005 21:03:15 GMT -5
Cathy Jo, please let me respond to some of your statements.
1. [writing about Kelowna] "The population will grow whether we choose to accomodate for it or not. However, without appropriate accomodation, i.e. highrises and high density areas, the downtown area would become a ghetto for the drug addicts." I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, Cathy Jo. Are you saying that most of the people who are moving to Kelowna are drug addicts and hang out downtown because they have no accomodation or are you saying that putting a lot of people downtown will rid Kelowna of its drug problem? If you are saying the former I need to inform you that most of the people moving to Kelowna are not drug addicts but retirees. Retirees will not likely be homeless people hanging around downtown. If we do not provide accomodation for them, they will likely move to another desirable retirement location such as Vernon or Penticton. If you are saying the latter you are incorrect here as well as increasing residential densities downtown will not solve Kelowna's crime problem but will merely displace it to other neighbourhoods. Who says? None other than RCMP Superintendent Bill McKinnon and that's exactly the experience that Kelowna is presently having as police crackdown on transients in the downtown. Homeless transients are moving to other neighbourhoods such as Abbott Street and the North End. Don't believe me? Ask the residents there.
2. "I'm sure you are aware of the impossibility of putting any sort of population 'cap' on Kelowna." I'm aware of no such thing but I think you are unaware of the numerous municipalites in the U.S. that have done exactly that. Did you know that 39 municipalities in California alone not to mention other states have official population ceilings according to a study published in 2002. Cathy Jo, the population of Kelowna can't just keep on growing endlessly. First of all we don't have an unlimited water supply. Even if we did have the water, population growth would stop when everyone's quality of life becomes so bad due to increasing traffic congestion, air pollution, loss of community identity, etc. that the number of people leaving the city equals the number moving here. That is already starting to happen too as I've talked to many people who say they want out. So wouldn't it be smarter to be pro-active in limiting our population size or would you rather see us run out of water and Kelowna become an unlivable place first?
3. "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've already addressed the relationship between drug-related crime and residential densities downtown. The cause of Kelowna's crime problems is due not to a lack of population and density but rather because the city has grown too large. Criminal transients are coming to Kelowna because it is bigger and wealthier and has become an inviting target. Businesses and retail establishments do not repel crime but rather act as magnets. Sociologists call them "attractors." You cite Tokyo as an example of a high density city with a low crime rate. You are correct here but it has a low crime rate due to some very extraordinary reasons having to do with the city's highly educated population and for cultural reasons. It is the exception not the rule. Who says? None other than the U.S. FBI who should know a thing or two about crime. In their report "Crime in the United States, 2002" they list some of factors known to affect the volume of crime. First on their list is "Population density and degree of urbanization." So do you want to bet on Kelowna becoming the exception rather than the rule? Do you generally bet on longshots?
4. "It is thanks to people like Mr. Phillips that Kelowna will move into the future." It is thanks to people who think like Mr. Phillips such as those that presently sit on City Council that Kelowna is becoming a city with increasing traffic congestion, crime, air pollution, loss of community identity, loss of small town friendliness, loss of natural beauty, declining quality of life, and a city with hardly any affordable housing where the gap between haves and have-nots is progressively worsening.
|
|
|
general
Jun 12, 2005 21:36:21 GMT -5
Post by John Zeger on Jun 12, 2005 21:36:21 GMT -5
Matt, as you have been asked twice to answer Rick Shea's questions regarding what the ultimate limits on growth in Kelowna are but have refused to do so, you are being banned from this forum. You are an exceptionally aggressive little upstart that likes to play offensive but can't play defense. Could that be because your position in basically untenable?
|
|
|
general
Jun 12, 2005 22:10:44 GMT -5
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 12, 2005 22:10:44 GMT -5
"i find it amusing how you did not reply to our guest's post."
I'm not sure whay you mean by "our." Are you a member of this group? And actually, what I posted was not a "reply" anyway. It was just another thought in this thread. If you'd like, I can reply, but I don't think that you'd like it.
"anyways, based on your latest post, it seems like you wish for Kelowna to move into the middle of the ocean, abandon many of the great features it has such as medicare, low unemployment rate, much higher life expectancy. oh, and guess what, The growth rate in the cook islands is 1.04% as apposed to Canada's .9%. so much for a lower growth rate fast approaching 0."
Yes, and Kelowna is supposed to grow from the current 103000 or so to 150000 within 20 years (Walter Gray would have us at 400000 or more), so that's an exponential growth rate of 1.9 percent annually locally (and much higher if Gray had his way). If you would like to know how that's calculated (using standard exponential growth functions), I can give a free lesson. This is one case where I really don't want to be above the national average.
"Kelowna's life expectancy is 84 for woman, and 78.5 for men, as opposed to the cook islands' 74.0 for women, and 68.0 for men."
Based upon the smiles per capita, and what Kelowna will become if those who want to destroy it have their way, I'd rather have the 68 years in the Cook Islands, thanks.
"unemployment is also quite different, as a recent article in this news paper said that kelowna's unemployment rate is around 5-6%. in the cook islands, the unemployment rate is 13%"
...and the incidence of street people is zero, and the incidence of people who really care about other people is apparently 100%, but that's only an informal poll.
"maybe you could go around getting people to sign a petition, if you can get 70,000 signatures from people in kelowna, then you can go and present it to Mr. Gray and get him to turn kelowna even more backwater than it is, and to follow the cook islands example."
Boy, calling Kelowna a backwater is a real insult to those people who have worked so hard on improving our cultural centre, the symphony, and so on. Shame on you.
|
|
|
general
Jun 12, 2005 22:32:24 GMT -5
Post by CRCP on Jun 12, 2005 22:32:24 GMT -5
I would like to inform the readers of this forum that the last post of Matt Phillips (who's identification with Matt having been banned from our forum now appears only as 'guest') and that of "Cathy Jo" had the same computer origin. Perhaps that will explain Matt's puzzling use of the phrase "our guest's post." I will let you draw your own conclusions as to the integrity of Matt Phillips, "Cathy Jo" and her comments, and the entire crew at MoveKelownaForward of which Matt is a member. This is consistent with the behaviour of other members of that group who have appeared on our forum using false identities. Having become familiar with the character and tactics of these people, I would be surprised if this doesn't happen again.
|
|
|
general
Jun 12, 2005 23:07:07 GMT -5
Post by John on Jun 12, 2005 23:07:07 GMT -5
"This is consistent with the behaviour of other members of that group who have appeared on our forum using false identities."
Ya, and you don't "encourage" that on our forum do you LOL! It is funny that leading up to the Rutland highrise meeting all of a sudden we had NUMEROUS "guests" coming from your site. Ponder that. But that is ok, we don't mind and we don't delete post like you do.
But, alas you will probably delete this like you always do.
|
|
|
general
Jun 12, 2005 23:08:03 GMT -5
Post by Cathy Jo on Jun 12, 2005 23:08:03 GMT -5
I would like to inform you that i am quite a different person to Mr. Phillips, and he is not trying to state his own views threw a second user. My statement regarding the necessity of high rises to lessen the drug problem was regarding the fact that leaving the downtown area with no further development would leave it entirely to the problem to increase freely. These people would obviously not wish to remain in an active, residential, business area, which it has the capacity to become. Perhaps if we were all a little open minded, we could find somewhere for these people to get rehabilitation, rather than leaving them to take over downtown OR move elsewhere in the city. Do you know how deep Okanagan Lake is? I'm pretty sure we could accommodate quite a large number of people with the contents of it if we were to put the money forward to treat and transport it. Kelowna has not properly updated its water system since it was the small town you are trying to bring back. However, with some modernization and improvements, it certainly could become a populous city with plenty to go around. There are ways to deal with the drug problem, as suggested above. There are not ways to deal with the people moving to Kelowna. They are more than free to do so. Crime may accompany it, but ignoring the fact can only make matters worse. Capping the population would allow the retirees you mentioned to turn Kelowna into a giant Retirement Center with no young people coming in to work and produce. An entirely consuming town would fail to function. "Loss of community identity." Why not? Let's have a city identity, and leave the small communities to be just that. Kelowna is not a small orchard town any more, although there are those who believe it is. It has grown up, but is unfortunately a little big for its boots, which refuse to grow with it. I'm sure the Cook Islands is a wonderful place to live, but it is not the same as Kelowna. I also think Mr. Phillips has been anything but immature in his comments on this board. The fact that he's taking such an active interest in this debate shows a great deal of maturity in my view. He also failed to resort to name calling in his posts, which is much more than can be said for Mr. Zeger. If you ban everyone who has something to say against your argument, whatever will you all talk about?
|
|
|
general
Jun 12, 2005 23:18:32 GMT -5
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 12, 2005 23:18:32 GMT -5
"If you ban everyone who has something to say against your argument, whatever will you all talk about?"
I'm still waiting for someone who really has something to say. Come on, let's get down to some real discussion. We've provided links, information, policies, answers, and all we ever get in return is "you guys suck!"
Yeah, that's telling us.
For a start, how about giving us one good reason why Kelowna has to grow, provide a clear rationale about how it will benefit all the people of Kelowna, and tell us what the real limits to growth are.
|
|
|
general
Jun 13, 2005 0:03:56 GMT -5
Post by Cathy Jo on Jun 13, 2005 0:03:56 GMT -5
Kelowna IS growing. We can't debate whether it SHOULD or not, rather how we will accomodate for this growth. You can't simply tell people to stop coming. Noone suggested to me that I was adding too much to a small plate when I moved here. It has to grow because it is. People want to move here, and they are. It will benefit the people of Kelowna in the way of exciting change and development, new ideas and services, muliticulturalism and energy. Limits? What for? Let them come.
|
|
|
general
Jun 13, 2005 1:09:39 GMT -5
Post by John Skrotzki on Jun 13, 2005 1:09:39 GMT -5
Mr. Zeger posts "I will let you draw your own conclusions as to the integrity of Matt Phillips, "Cathy Jo" and her comments, and the entire crew at MoveKelownaForward of which Matt is a member. This is consistent with the behaviour of other members of that group who have appeared on our forum using false identities..."
Mr. Zeger - I would like you to apologize to Matt for falsely accusing him of impersonating another person? It would certainly go a long with towards your credibility. Also, you banning Matt for having opposing views is not very nice. Might I remind you that his defensive shift is in direct result to you to questioning his ability for discussion due to his age - young people should have a voice also.
|
|
|
general
Jun 13, 2005 9:33:58 GMT -5
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 13, 2005 9:33:58 GMT -5
Kelowna IS growing. We can't debate whether it SHOULD or not, rather how we will accomodate for this growth. You can't simply tell people to stop coming. Noone suggested to me that I was adding too much to a small plate when I moved here. It has to grow because it is. People want to move here, and they are. It will benefit the people of Kelowna in the way of exciting change and development, new ideas and services, muliticulturalism and energy. Limits? What for? Let them come. Cathy Jo, the question of growth is something we MUST debate. Given the growing number of letters to editors decrying the current rapid rate of growth, questions about air quality, traffic congestion, disposal of sewage effluent in our lake, water supply, and so on, it is apparent that many citizens of Kelowna feel this way. And we don't have to tell people to stop coming, we just stop them from coming. There are many things in life that many people want to have, but don't get. There are many restrictions on the mobility of people around the world, and even in our own country. So, saying that we should get something just because we want it is a naively childish statement. And no, I did not call YOU childish. So, here are three questions that will show whether or not you are really concerned about these issues, or simply wish to trash and stifle any opposition: 1. What are the ultimate limits to growth in Kelowna, and how close to those limits can we get? 2. Are there examples from anywhere else in the world where a population has deliberately chosen to restrict growth? Please provide at least one example from North America. 3. Are there examples from anywhere else in the world where a population has established an absolute limit to growth? Why did they do that? If you're not prepared to answer these questions honestly, then it will be clear that you are just like all the others who demonstrate a quasi-religious zealousy for growth -- we'll call it the Fundamentalist Religion Of Growth, or FROG's (I think one of that group already said that John should croak, so it seems appropriate).
|
|
|
general
Jun 13, 2005 10:06:47 GMT -5
Post by John Zeger on Jun 13, 2005 10:06:47 GMT -5
Matt was banned from this forum not because he has a contrary viewpoint to ours but because of his style -- his personal attacks on me and others and his refusal to answer questions posed of him while he continues to grill others. The internet is a powerful and useful tool in the hands of most people but in the case of Matt it has created a monster. Here is some 17 year old upstart who hasn't even finished high school challenging two men who have university degrees both having taught at that level and both with significant coursework in sociology to their credit. But Matt because he can do a 5 minute Google search on any topic thinks that makes him the equivalent of a PhD. What asinine and totally unfounded arrogance! He digs up a few disparate facts on a topic and comes across like he knows it all. As for Cathy Jo if you really aren't Matt in disguise please tell us your relationship to Matt as you were both clearly using the same computer. While you're at it please tell us if you have any friends or relatives who are developers or have major business interests in Kelowna. Matt has admitted that his stepfather owns two hotels here and has a relative who works for Walter Gray. Do you also have any relationship with the Mayor or any members of city council? And lastly please tell me your age and education. Are you also 17 years old and a high school student? We may all be equals in the eyes of God but I won't tolerate the attitude that because someone has access to Google that they should be accorded the same respect when it comes to speaking on urban policy. I will deal with your other remarks such as your naive assumption that we can just drain Okanagan Lake for our water supply when you have answered these questions.
|
|
|
general
Jun 13, 2005 14:22:25 GMT -5
Post by John Skrotzki on Jun 13, 2005 14:22:25 GMT -5
I love it when you post John and Rick. You have the audacity to call I love it when you post - John and Rick. You have the audacity to state “What asinine and totally unfounded arrogance” about Matt a 17 year old student. It is statements like that that are your downfall from a credibility point of view. If you think Matt is arrogant then maybe you should closely examine your own posts. One of the biggest things people hate about certain learned people is the arrogance they portray towards the average citizen of which they represent the majority of the population.
|
|
|
general
Jun 13, 2005 14:23:39 GMT -5
Post by John Skrotzki on Jun 13, 2005 14:23:39 GMT -5
Posting error above - here is the correct statement:
I love it when you post - John and Rick. You have the audacity to state “What asinine and totally unfounded arrogance” about Matt a 17 year old student. It is statements like that that are your downfall from a credibility point of view. If you think Matt is arrogant then maybe you should closely examine your own posts. One of the biggest things people hate about certain learned people is the arrogance they portray towards the average citizen of which they represent the majority of the population.
|
|
|
general
Jun 13, 2005 14:30:37 GMT -5
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 13, 2005 14:30:37 GMT -5
Oh yes, now we're guilty of having educated ourselves about the issues. Mr. Skrotzki, you might want to be more careful, and get to know me a bit more before you start making those kinds of statements, as I'm a lot more complex than you apparently think I am -- and I've already demonstrated that very clearly.
It's really odd how the caring and concern the members of this group have expressed for the wellbeing of the people of Kelowna, and the desire for real discussion, are twisted around to become negativism, arrogance, and the like.
Do you have anything positive to contribute, John? And by that, I don't mean that you have to support our arguments, but rather that you support your own. That may actually lead to some true discussion.
|
|