|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 7, 2005 19:46:48 GMT -5
Depending upon the source, the most current predictions are that global population growth will level off within as little as 20 years (by 2025). To be clear, other projections say by 2050 or so, and some say even further down the road.
When global population growth does stop, this will have an enormous impact on our economic thinking, urban planning, and almost every other facet of our current society. We live with an economic system founded upon the assumption of growth, and most people (myself not included) seem to think that it is essential for our wellbeing.
If we assume for the moment that the 20 year prediction is accurate, then why are we not planning now for that event now by adjusting our economic practices and polices, our planning, our health care policies (to accommodate an ever aging population) and so on? Are crisis management and short term thinking the only way we know how to function?
Comments? (links provided on request)
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jun 7, 2005 22:46:07 GMT -5
I agree. We should be changing our policies. This could be quite devastating if we dont learn soon enough how to survive a changing economy. 20 years is not a very long time away. Even if that isnt accurate, population decline will happen. Hopefully we will be ready.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 8, 2005 12:45:44 GMT -5
Even if you don't agree with them philosophically, it is worth thinking about the ideas, studies, and literature produced by the zero population growth group - www.populationconnection.org - and the negative population growth group. - www.npg.orgThe analyses of global energy and resource use, and of water supply around the world, are something that every person with a conscience should read.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 9, 2005 9:49:25 GMT -5
Thanks for your letter at Castanet.net, John. Two things became even clearer at the display last night, and on the discussion fora:
1. Despite the claims of reduced traffic and so on, the prodevelopment faction is still proposing a net increase in population. So, for them to be honest with themselves and with the public, that faction should be proposing a "reduced net increase" in traffic, water use, impact on our sewage disposal facilities, air pollution, and so on. Whether or not is a reduced net increase, or simply an increase, is a question they seem unable or unwilling to address. The critical issue is that they are still proposing an increase, and it will have an impact on the entire city, regardless of whether we are talking about Rutland, the Mission, downtown, or wherever.
2. The prodevelopment zealots will do anything they can to stifle the opposition, including misleading the public, and personal attacks on anyone who voices a dissenting opinion. This is typical of schoolyard bullies, who really don't have anything meaningful to say. Anyone who dares to question their statements, provide evidence to the contrary, and attempts to have any sort of meaningful dialogue is "negative," "should move out of town," and so on. As I said earlier...yappy little dogs who nip at your ankles, then go pee on the carpet. Sad. Sad that, with such important issues, with such significant changes proposed to the very quality of life in Kelowna, with such an impact on the current residents and the people who will come after, that there can be no civilized discussion. That says a lot about their agenda, and about what they are.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 15, 2005 10:11:44 GMT -5
Although I have a large number of these, I'll do this one at a time, just to make the discussion focused.
Caps on city sizes; and stringent restrictions on development, growth, and the movement of people occur all over the world.
Unless that statement can be shown to be false, the statements that "you can't stop development," and "you can't stop growth," and "you can't stop people from moving here" are all patent nonsense.
So far, no one has shown that that statement is false, and I welcome some real discussion about it.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 15, 2005 10:46:02 GMT -5
And here's a second one, which will be all for now so that there's not too much to handle at once.
If we simply densify the downtown core without making changes elsewhere, the result will be a net increase in the number of people in Kelowna. Although the ratio of cars per person may change in densified areas (and that part is open to debate elsewhere), clearly increasing the absolute number of people in Kelowna by just densifying the core will also result in a net increase in the number of cars. Even if those people make fewer trips than the average, the result will still be more cars, more traffic, and more air pollution.
Comments?
|
|
|
Post by Michael P on Jun 15, 2005 23:20:15 GMT -5
Although I have a large number of these, I'll do this one at a time, just to make the discussion focused. Caps on city sizes; and stringent restrictions on development, growth, and the movement of people occur all over the world. Unless that statement can be shown to be false, the statements that "you can't stop development," and "you can't stop growth," and "you can't stop people from moving here" are all patent nonsense. So far, no one has shown that that statement is false, and I welcome some real discussion about it. Rick may we get a recent statement thats stipulates how places all over the world have capped population growth? I'm more inclined to see evidence from Canadian Cities if possible as they are more related to the CRCP' and prodevelopments quests thank you
|
|
|
Post by Michael P on Jun 15, 2005 23:39:18 GMT -5
And here's a second one, which will be all for now so that there's not too much to handle at once. If we simply densify the downtown core without making changes elsewhere, the result will be a net increase in the number of people in Kelowna. .... shortened to save forum space Comments? I both agree and disagree with this statement. If the downtown core is densifed properly yes the number of cars will more than likely increase but if enough shops and the such are present no one will need to use their cars. Densification can cause headaches for sure improvements to roadways need to be made to accomodate the potential for increased traffic flow anyone who has tried to drive down Bernard in the summer already knows this. wider roads overpasses and under passes will help accomplish this. even if we leave Kelowna the way it is it still has problems so why not grow up and embrace growth as a city responsibly.
|
|
|
Post by Michael P on Jun 15, 2005 23:57:37 GMT -5
Depending upon the source, the most current predictions are that global population growth will level off within as little as 20 years (by 2025). To be clear, other projections say by 2050 or so, and some say even further down the road. When global population growth does stop, this will have an enormous impact on our economic thinking, urban planning, and almost every other facet of our current society. We live with an economic system founded upon the assumption of growth, and most people (myself not included) seem to think that it is essential for our wellbeing. If we assume for the moment that the 20 year prediction is accurate, then why are we not planning now for that event now by adjusting our economic practices and polices, our planning, our health care policies (to accommodate an ever aging population) and so on? Are crisis management and short term thinking the only way we know how to function? Comments? (links provided on request) Rick not trying to be a jerk but havent you asked multiple times for True statements and facts to back up claims??? Predictions are not fact they are predictions of what may happen. assuming this will happen is ignorant of the real facts. World population growth may or may not come at some point but thats the World not Kelowna who is to say if world growth halts that some cities wont have a tremendouse increase in population each year and others a tremndous decline that all balance out. Becasue Kelowna is a beautiful City to live and work people move here and continue to move here. the homeless move here from Vancouver and the north because of our milder climate Growth in such a place of ours is inevitable as long as we make it inviting to outsiders. stoping development will not stop the homeless from moving here and without development Tourists will soon find Kelowna boring as they have done and seen all that they can thus killing our tourism industry. Development cleans up bad or "ugly" areas and promotes new sites and things to do for visitors. now and in the future. I recall reading a paper at OUC north campus a few years ago that said Kelowna's agriculture and water supply and available land mass can comforatbly accomodate 250,000-300,000 people if its laid out right there will still be plenty of land for parks and views. oh yeah the paper was written by an OUC professor being that it was a few years ago I would not be able to name him/her for you.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 16, 2005 6:20:42 GMT -5
Actually, you don't have to go far from home. I'll point right away to Boulder, Colorado, which has already been mentioned several times in this forum, and leave you to look that up if your haven't already seen that here. A bit closer to home, check out Banff, which has a permanent population cap of 10000 www.biosphereinstitute.org/Documents/Eco-Facts%20Business%20Business-Planning.pdfYes, Banff is in a National Park, but yes it can be done in Canada. Finally, I note that there are several initiatives to permanently cap the population for the entire state of California, but nothing successful to date. Further from home, well, I've provided some examples, so your turn.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 16, 2005 6:25:33 GMT -5
I both agree and disagree with this statement. If the downtown core is densifed properly yes the number of cars will more than likely increase but if enough shops and the such are present no one will need to use their cars. Densification can cause headaches for sure improvements to roadways need to be made to accomodate the potential for increased traffic flow anyone who has tried to drive down Bernard in the summer already knows this. wider roads overpasses and under passes will help accomplish this. even if we leave Kelowna the way it is it still has problems so why not grow up and embrace growth as a city responsibly. So I assume that these people will never have visitors, not require delivery and service people, and never use a car to, say, go golfing or fishing? Adding more people means more cars means more traffic, even if they can walk to some places. In response to the last part, Kelowna has already grown up enough. It would only be responsible to preserve the good parts of what we already have for the enjoyment of the citizens we already have, and fix the myriad of problems that rapid development has already brought us. Please see all my other posts for more on that.
|
|
|
Post by michaelp on Jun 16, 2005 15:02:51 GMT -5
In regards to The Banff cap that is understandable as the Japanese own 90% of it anyways.
the US is over crowded as it is so I can see some "soft" caps I consider soft caps to be "we'll try to hold back" hard caps is like China allowing no more than 1 child per family and you pay heavy taxes if you do have more than 1 child.
But since this is a free country that our forefathers fought hard to obtain, even if we do as you say limit or completely stop development how do you stop people from moving here?
Canada is the best country in the world, BC the best province and Kelowna the best part of BC
You might do take study from one city saying growth causes crime is not a fact that it will happen here policing level determine that. or growth ruins the environment urban sprawl sure does but thats what park land is for we have that HUGE park we all nearly lost in 2003 called Okanagan Mountain Park there is no growth there and never will be.
I know supporters of the CRCP are perfectly content with the way Kelowna is now but I for one am excited for what Kelowna has become and am looking forward to all the exciting changes. New buildings to take our minds off the eye sores. upgrade the crap out of down town it is so old and run down and not very attractive. and keep the agriculture as is. as well as the tourism industry.
even if we did cap people would still come here.
admin since i registered please remove the ban off my ip two four dot seven one dot six five dot one six six (number not used to protect me from hacker scripts) so I may stop cloning my MAC address to view your site and post
|
|
|
Post by michaelp on Jun 16, 2005 19:57:40 GMT -5
Can any member of the CRCP say Victoria BC isn't beautiful??
it is absolutely gorgeous there and they have over 200,000 people (and large buildings)
its not about how big a city gets its about how it is developed.
and house prices are less than Kelowna hmmm wonder why?
|
|
|
Post by michaelp on Jun 16, 2005 20:21:58 GMT -5
Has the CRCP heard of and if so support the idea for the new Bridge Aproach that was submitted to the City the Raised highway one? i cant remember the URL but was something like www.woodwardfriexpressway.comit stated that 2 lanes traveling east and two lane west raised above Hwy 97 at gordon to the new bridge it would have on/off ramps to major roads along the way also for emergency vehicles and a speed limit of 70-80 Km/hour since its above the main highway there is no light to slow things down and bridge traffic would flow much nicer. I have seen the artists concept and it is interestingly nice. it is the best idea i have heard for the Bridge approach thus far 5 lanes is not enough to solve traffic problem the approaches have to be fixed too !
|
|
|
Post by CRCP on Jun 16, 2005 21:55:15 GMT -5
Michael P. -- What does your last post have to do with this thread "the limits to growth -- population growth"?
|
|