|
general
Jun 15, 2005 8:54:20 GMT -5
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 15, 2005 8:54:20 GMT -5
I thought you said you were done here.
Thank you for your participation and your post, which is clearly a vote of confidence in the value and effectiveness of this forum. The fact that you feel free to post such things is a true indication that this is indeed an open, democratic forum.
Naturally, we must all abide by the rules of good conduct, as anything else would simply be rude and of course should not be tolerated anywhere. Those rules include participating in some real discussion, in the spirit of open-mindness and honesty.
I look forward to some meaningful discussion, when you're ready.
|
|
|
general
Jun 15, 2005 10:06:24 GMT -5
Post by William on Jun 15, 2005 10:06:24 GMT -5
Mr. John Zeger, you have no idea how important Kelowna's youth are to this great city of ours. I am glad younger people are voicing their opinions, it's refreshing!
|
|
|
general
Jun 15, 2005 10:16:22 GMT -5
Post by John Zeger on Jun 15, 2005 10:16:22 GMT -5
I would like to hear more from the youth of our city as well but I would like to hear from those that have an open mind rather than an agenda when they visit our forum. We have a serious purpose here of discussing issues important to residents of the city. We can't waste time on people who want only to demean us or to score debating points. In the future please place such comments under "General" on the forum as this thread is "the limits to growth." We are trying to keep things serious here. There is no "party room" on our forum.
|
|
|
general
Jun 15, 2005 10:29:21 GMT -5
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 15, 2005 10:29:21 GMT -5
Thank you for your participation and your post, which is clearly a vote of confidence in the value and effectiveness of this forum. The fact that you feel free to post such things is a true indication that this is indeed an open, democratic forum.
Naturally, we must all abide by the rules of good conduct, as anything else would simply be rude and of course should not be tolerated anywhere. Those rules include participating in some real discussion, in the spirit of open-mindness and honesty.
I look forward to some meaningful discussion, when you're ready.
|
|
|
general
Jun 15, 2005 15:50:13 GMT -5
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 15, 2005 15:50:13 GMT -5
Rick Shea why did you delete my posts that made valid points? I made extremely valid points on growth, culture, and economics. Well, in the first place, I don't have any administrative privileges on this system, so I can't delete any posts. In the second place, "valid" points are substantiated with facts, studies, references, and so on. So I question your claim that you have made any valid points. Thank you for your participation and your post, which is clearly a vote of confidence in the value and effectiveness of this forum. The fact that you feel free to post such things is a true indication that this is indeed an open, democratic forum. Naturally, we must all abide by the rules of good conduct, as anything else would simply be rude and of course should not be tolerated anywhere. Those rules include participating in some real discussion, in the spirit of open-mindness and honesty. I look forward to some meaningful discussion, when you're ready.
|
|
|
general
Jun 15, 2005 19:04:20 GMT -5
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 15, 2005 19:04:20 GMT -5
Gee, I don't see an insult anywhere in there, just statements of fact. So, how was that an insult?
Posting to this forum without posting your complete name, and without bothering to address the issues, is an insult to the people who genuinely care about the important issues, and to all the people of Kelowna.
Thank you for your participation and your post, which is clearly a vote of confidence in the value and effectiveness of this forum. The fact that you feel free to post such things is a true indication that this is indeed an open, democratic forum.
Naturally, we must all abide by the rules of good conduct, as anything else would simply be rude and of course should not be tolerated anywhere. Those rules include participating in some real discussion, in the spirit of open-mindness and honesty.
I look forward to some meaningful discussion, when you're ready.
|
|
|
general
Jun 15, 2005 19:16:47 GMT -5
Post by Cathy Jo on Jun 15, 2005 19:16:47 GMT -5
In order to clear matters up, I'd like to confirm that i am not "Mr. Phillips in disguise." My name is Kate S, and i am a friend of Matt's. I, too, am a 17 year old high school student. I am visiting this forum in order to learn more about the issues of Kelowna's development, but also to state my own views on the subject. I do not, at this point, have a high level of education to back me up, but from discussions with those who do, and through my own views and ideas, I feel I do have things to contribute. Being banned from a public forum on the basis of a refusal to give out personal information is not right. Whether or not you want me posting here, I should be allowed to at least view the discussions. In this way I hope to learn more about this subject, with the opportunity to contribute to it.
|
|
|
general
Jun 15, 2005 20:55:00 GMT -5
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 15, 2005 20:55:00 GMT -5
From what I see in the rules for this forum, I think that that door is wide open.
I encourage people to look at the issues, information, and resources, think about them, then respond with something meaningful.
That's what this is about.
|
|
|
general
Jun 15, 2005 22:47:39 GMT -5
Post by Cathy Jo on Jun 15, 2005 22:47:39 GMT -5
Excellent. I'm curious to know, then, why I was banned from this forum, when that was, and is, my only intention. Of course, opinions may vary as to what IS meaningful, since certain views don't seem to be welcome.
|
|
|
general
Jun 15, 2005 23:02:12 GMT -5
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 15, 2005 23:02:12 GMT -5
Excellent. I'm curious to know, then, why I was banned from this forum, when that was, and is, my only intention. Of course, opinions may vary as to what IS meaningful, since certain views don't seem to be welcome. Actually, all views are welcome, provided that they can be supported by studies, links, facts, and so on. Just stating an opinion is not part of a real argument (and I'm using that word in the positive sense, not the negative one). I note that you are still able to view these posts, and that's good. I didn't have anything to do with banning you, so I suggest that you ask John. You might want to review the rules of this forum first, though.
|
|
|
general
Jun 16, 2005 1:09:11 GMT -5
Post by Cathy Jo on Jun 16, 2005 1:09:11 GMT -5
I'm actually using a different computer, since I'm still banned from this site on mine. Anyway, I have a question for you. You stated before that we, "Just have to stop them from coming." I'm unclear as to how this could be done. Besides putting a big "No vacancy" sign outside the city limits, how is it that one actually "Caps" a city's population? If this was accomplished, wouldn't people, unable to live in the city, chose an area on the outskirts, thus taking up more agricultural land, and creating more pollution in their journeys to and from town? Also, if building in the down town area is not an option, what will the drug and crime there not continue to increase?
|
|
|
general
Jun 16, 2005 1:52:27 GMT -5
Post by andrew on Jun 16, 2005 1:52:27 GMT -5
In my opinion, to setup a population cap, you would just have to stop densification and the building of new suburbs. If city council rejected all new developments that INCREASED density, and honoured the ALR by not cutting into open feilds and orchards around Kelowna, that would essentially create a cap. Yes I am aware that there are open lands in Kelowna not part of the ALR, that land should be still used as agriculture, if it is viable. Another option would be to create a park. I think some people get confused when they hear the term population cap. People can still move in and out of Kelowna. What would be happening is that population would stay at a somewhat stable level. I'm not opposed to constructing new buildings in place of dilapidated ones, but I am opposed to densification in Kelowna.
I won't answer your second question because that is a question that should be answered with research and maybe studies, and I do not have any.
But ideally, the Regional district(which governs the outskirts of Kelowna) would adapt policies in agreement to that of Kelowna, by not densifying and respecting agriculture.
Hopefully this post is taken as a discussion, which I am trying to make it as.
|
|
|
general
Jun 16, 2005 12:10:48 GMT -5
Post by John Zeger on Jun 16, 2005 12:10:48 GMT -5
Cathy Jo, you were banned from this forum which stated that participants must provide some information about themselves to which you did not comply until now. You were also told that people would only be allowed a maximum of 3 posts as guests after which they are required to register for the forum. But mostly because you allowed Matt Phillips who was a banned member of our forum to use your computer to access our forum.
I've been reading all sorts of comments that it its everyone's right to post here under the Canadian Charter of Rights, etc., etc., etc. The fact of the matter is that participation is a privilege extended by CRCP to others in accordance with the rules established by CRCP. There are many forums on the web that require immediate registration and that do not even allow one guest entry. If you wish to continue to participate in our forum, please register and follow the rules of conduct.
|
|
|
general
Jun 16, 2005 19:08:14 GMT -5
Post by cathy on Jun 16, 2005 19:08:14 GMT -5
Mr. Zeger, I can confirm Matt has never posted in this forum from my computer. I posted once from his before he was banned. I do find your continuous tracking of computer location through IP address to be quite a violation of privacy, however. The rules you stated concerning personal information and registration were said to be in effect as of June 19, 2005. Therefore I did not break any of your rules, and had no reason to be banned. I would very much appreciate having access returned from my computer.
|
|
|
general
Jun 18, 2005 12:24:06 GMT -5
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 18, 2005 12:24:06 GMT -5
...If this was accomplished, wouldn't people, unable to live in the city, chose an area on the outskirts, thus taking up more agricultural land, and creating more pollution in their journeys to and from town? ... The other parts of your post have been responded to by others, but I have to make a comment here. When I brought up Banff in another thread, I'm really surprised that no one bothered to do the research and mention what has happened in Canmore. Canmore is growing rapidly, and many people are using it as a base for outdoor activities, especially in Banff National Park. In fact, some argue that, because Banff has a permanent population cap, growth in Canmore has accelerated. I note that the tourism brochures and realtor websites tout Canmore as a "quaint" little town, but that there are already concerns expressed elsewhere about the impact of growth and development. The point is that growth restrictions ARE a regional issue (let alone a global one), and that, as one community implements them (a la California), others have to respond as well, or face the loss of quality of life that rapid growth in their own community will bring. We have a unique opportunity in the Okanagan Valley to implement a region-wide program, given our geographical isolation from the large population centres (although, yes, I know people who commute to Vancouver almost daily, but they are the exception). That of course immediately becomes a political issue, requiring cooperation from various levels of government. The citizens of Canmore are already responding to the problem by looking at the entire Bow Valley area and the impact of growth. But here's one way that they have responded locally: "Once a small coal mining town, Canmore now boasts a population of 11,500 friendly people, with an eventual maximum build out of approximately 25,000 residence." ( www.canmorerealestate.com/ )
|
|