|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 17, 2005 10:24:58 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. ... If non-local ownership is an issue for you, then I suggest that you look at who owns Big White, Silver Star, the Grand Hotel, and most other big business in Kelowna. But that's for another thread. Yes, thinking about all those people moving here is so depressing that I think I'll move to Banff so that I can snowboard all winter and pound out my frustrations. Oh, wait.....I can't move to Banff, but I can visit. And that's the point. Placing a cap on the permanent population doesn't actually "put a wall" around a city, but it does stop people from moving there, except when they are not causing the population to go beyond the cap. Through the normal ebb and flow of people, there is room for some to move in, provided that some leave (and, given Kelowna's retired population, I think that you see one way that that is going to happen). So, when people tell me that I can't stop growth, my reply is "Given the authority, I could, and I know exactly how." When people tell me that I can't stop people from moving to Kelowna....see above. That doesn't stop people from WANTING to move to Kelowna, but that great philosopher Mick Jagger had a very valid comment on that. And, by the way, I'm not perfectly content with the way Kelowna is now. Even Mr. Phillips has agreed that Kelowna has significant problems, and I concur. Kelowna has some very serious problems, and most of us are privileged enough that we don't ordinarily have to deal with them. We've already pointed to those problems elsewhere, and included information regarding the link between population growth and those problems. Thank you for discussing this. Given that population caps do exist, even in Canada, I think it's clear that the statements that "you can't stop people from moving here" should be changed to "I don't wish to stop people from moving here," where the "I" is the person making that statement. I think that that would be much more honest.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 17, 2005 10:42:30 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? Certainly parts of Victoria are quite beautiful. They of course have the advantage of having their airshed constantly cleaned by the ocean winds. But I'm puzzled about your statement about prices. According to the Royal Lepage survey (see link below), the average price of all housing, with the exception of luxury condo apartments, was higher in Victoria in the fourth quarter of 2004. Perhaps you have more recent data, and I welcome it. But, for example, here are the data for a detached bungalow: Kelowna: 240000 Victoria: 298000 Vancouver West (for comparison): 675000 As of that quarter, Victoria's prices were about 24% higher than Kelowna's. As for Vancouver West, well, my children won't be buying there. www.royallepage.ca/schp/pdf/Q4%20Survey%202004_Eng.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 17, 2005 12:55:34 GMT -5
By the way, about Victoria, you might want to read this: www.sierralegal.org/m_archive/pr04_09_08.htmlVictoria has a big advantage, in that it has been dumping it's raw sewage into the ocean without having it recycled into the drinking water. That is not an advantage shared by the city of Kelowna.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 17, 2005 14:02:41 GMT -5
...and finally (for now) I did manage to find more recent stats on housing costs at www.royallepage.ca/schp/pdf/Q1_Survey_2005_Eng.pdfExactly the same thing occurs here as in Q4 2004, in that Victoria is more expensive in every category except luxury condo apartments. Here are the data for a detached bungalow: Kelowna: 240000 (yes, no change) Victoria: 325000 Vancouver West (for comparison): 725000 So I'm curious to know where michaelp gets the idea that Kelowna is more expensive than Victoria. Personally, I'm not in the market for a luxury condo apartment. Can you please clarify that, as it would probably be useful for both of us? Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by michaelp on Jun 17, 2005 16:13:25 GMT -5
thats good you found web based stats The stats I got my info from was the news about 1 month ago. Census 2006 although next year will be more accurate than either of our sources. even your own link from Royal Legapage on Page 60 says Kelowna's average for the 1st qtr of 2005 is $280,000 yes Victoria is more by I was going by what the News had stated from their source. I stand corrected on that stat. this source says that Vancouver as a whole is expected to have an average house price to top $400,000 by the end of the year. Kelowna is expected to have an increase by +10% by year end to $257,000 www.remax-oa.com/roafiles/marketreports/forecast2005_pr.pdfdon't you find it funny that two competing real estate companies are giving off different statistics?? I think we can both agree that affordable housing issues need to be addressed in Kelowna but stoping all development would only worsen the issue as it would create a monopoly of sorts allowing home owners to sell at what ever price they want new housing and as per my link above is needed and the way to bring the average down is condos as they have always been cheaper to purchase that a house with a yard. space is at a premium in Kelowna and thus why the costs go dramatically. Large scale condos can help bring the average cost per home down. but that brings up another point if the average house prices goes down it then attracts buyers from outside of Kelowna this is bad according to the CRCP so would it be fair to say that the CRCP would like house prices higher to ward off would be foreign buyers?
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 17, 2005 18:07:49 GMT -5
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. It's a long one, but one that I think about a lot -- the article on population growth posted at www.thereitis.org/displayarticle322.htmlI encourage everyone to read and think about what is said there, as it certainly undermines the hype that some people promote as fact. If you ever do find that name, please let me know, and I'll dig around and see if I can find it too. Even with the numbers you give, you seem to support the idea that there are some limits to growth. Is that what I'm hearing? As well, I see that you seem to be promoting the idea of re-development, which is a separate issue from growth. If that is the case, then you and I at least partially agree on that one. I think that careful redevelopment can add an enormous amount to the quality of life for residents and non-residents alike. Oh, and about 1,000,000 Canadians vacation in Cuba each year, and the number continues to grow. Why? R & R is not boring. In fact, I'd like to be on the beach at Veradero right now...or perhaps back in that rum factory.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 17, 2005 18:17:55 GMT -5
...don't you find it funny that two competing real estate companies are giving off different statistics??... I'll address the rest of your post later, but this one is important too. I am not at all surprised, given that there are often variations in data collection techniques, interpretation, and even in the items being compared. It's absolutely essential to maintain a healthy skepticism about statistics, studies, and the like -- even the ones I have cited and will cite -- as that is part of critical thinking. Blindly accepting what other people say doesn't do any of us good as individuals. We need to think about things until we're sure that we understand them to the best of our abilities, within the contextual limitations, and always keeping in mind Hamlet's advice to Horatio: "There are more things in heaven and earth...Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." (Shakespeare, in "Hamlet")
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 17, 2005 19:40:19 GMT -5
sorry, data correction, that's about half a 1,000,000 Canadian visits to Cuba yearly.
(http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/latinamerica/cubarelations-en.asp )
That's what I get for trying to work from memory. Now on to population growth issues in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 17, 2005 20:43:09 GMT -5
I hope this works. I'm trying to add in some formatting for the quotes. I apologize in advance if it's a mess. I stand corrected on that stat. That's a very mature reaction, and thank you. this source says that Vancouver as a whole is expected to have an average house price to top $400,000 by the end of the year. Kelowna is expected to have an increase by +10% by year end to $257,000 www.remax-oa.com/roafiles/marketreports/forecast2005_pr.pdfdon't you find it funny that two competing real estate companies are giving off different statistics?? Dueling realtors. That's as good as going to an NHL game and watching millionaires beat each other up on the ice. I think we can both agree that affordable housing issues need to be addressed in Kelowna but stoping all development would only worsen the issue as it would create a monopoly of sorts allowing home owners to sell at what ever price they want That issue has already been addressed by John. I recommend that you check the main CRCP website, and have a look at the "The Myths of Growth" and the "The Myths of Smart Growth" sections. I'm not asking you to agree with everything there, just think about the possibility that there is more than one answer. new housing and as per my link above is needed and the way to bring the average down is condos as they have always been cheaper to purchase that a house with a yard. space is at a premium in Kelowna and thus why the costs go dramatically. Large scale condos can help bring the average cost per home down. but that brings up another point if the average house prices goes down it then attracts buyers from outside of Kelowna this is bad according to the CRCP so would it be fair to say that the CRCP would like house prices higher to ward off would be foreign buyers? Actually, according to another post I made today, it's those foreign buyers who may be driving up the prices. So, an alternative is that keeping them away may actually stop that rapid inflation of housing prices. Personally, I have two children who are or will be looking for an affordable house to start in soon. I'd rather not see higher prices just for them alone, let alone everyone else in this city. For me, one of the bottom lines is that it is simply growth that is the issue, whether it's smart growth, sprawl, or what-have-you. I see that as a local problem, and a global problem. I think I've posted lots of things to think about regarding the micro and macro scales. Although I'm not the old senile thing that someone accused me of being, I've been around long enough, had enough education, had my eyes open, and so on that I've developed a certain perspective. That is not a criticism of you or of other perspectives -- just an explanation of where I'm coming from. I care very deeply for the environment (I wish that more people were more in touch with it), have seen the effects of air pollution on my asthmatic daughter, have watched Kelowna become more and more crowded over the years, more and more congested, and with less and less personal freedom (I can explore that in another thread, if you wish). I believe to the point of conviction (and yes, that's a belief) that global population growth is coming to an end within this century. I also believe that there are already too many people on this planet (extinction of other species, degradation of the environment, and all the other issues), and that being blindly pro-growth is dangerous for the future of all of us. I apologize. That's a long dissertation on my personal feelings, but these are some of the issues I am deeply concerned about. I am not alone in that concern, and I am encouraged to see these issues genuinely debated.
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Jun 17, 2005 21:23:53 GMT -5
Michael P wrote: "I think we can both agree that affordable housing issues need to be addressed in Kelowna but stoping all development would only worsen the issue as it would create a monopoly of sorts allowing home owners to sell at what ever price they want."
Where did you get the idea that CRCP wants to stop all development? We are only advocating that the present rapid rate of population growth be slowed at this time.
|
|
|
Post by michaelp on Jun 18, 2005 19:21:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelp on Jun 18, 2005 19:30:15 GMT -5
"Where did you get the idea that CRCP wants to stop all development? We are only advocating that the present rapid rate of population growth be slowed at this time." Mr. Zeger past statments have stated to cap the population by yourself and others. as long as you say slow down growth then i have not much else to say I can see some validity to slower growth as long as there are no caps in population as I feel that violates our rights as citizens of this great country. If you like I would like the thoughts of the CRCP to check out the link i just posted for the raised highway concept propsed to help alleviate traffic problam along Hwy 97 towards the new bridge in case you lost it here it is and you can put the link in the right place if you like www.woodworthfriexpressway.com
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 18, 2005 19:59:28 GMT -5
as long as you say slow down growth then i have not much else to say I can see some validity to slower growth as long as there are no caps in population as I feel that violates our rights as citizens of this great country. The members of CRCP have stated that we wish to slow the current unsustainable rate of growth immediately, and undertake a thorough community consultation process regarding the idea of a cap on growth. I am guessing, from your last statement, that you then see the population cap in Banff as a violation of our rights. My personal opinion is that one of the greatest failings of Canadian society is to establish a "Charter of Responsibilities" to accompany the Charter of Rights. Given the many people in this country (and, evidently, other countries) who appreciate our National Parks, the responsibility of preserving them outweighs the right to move there. Please note that the Charter of Rights does state that mobility can be restricted for many, many reasons by listing only a few exclusions. laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/#circulation
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Jun 18, 2005 21:14:47 GMT -5
In addition to there being a Charter of Rights for individuals, there should also be a Charter of Rights for communities, or do you, Michael, feel that communities have no rights such as the right to guarantee the quality of life of their residents or their sense of community and environmental sustainability? Or is that all overriden by the right of non-residents to move here?
But I'm glad we are on the same page on the desirability of slowing the rate of population growth. As I have said on previous occasions, a population cap for Kelowna is a decision for residents to make most desirably through a referendum. But if all that residents want to do is to slow the rate of growth, I can live with that.
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Jul 11, 2005 12:06:00 GMT -5
There is a letter to the editor in the July 11, 2005 issue of the Daily Courier from Juliana McLean of Trader's Cove entitled "Kelowna Became Too Big for Many." Julianna writes "A lot of us 'cheapskate homeowners on the Westside' have actually come from pioneer Kelowna stock and just found that Kelowna wa getting too big to handle so we moved to a quieter place."
I've heard many stories like this since I moved to Kelowna of people leaving or wanting to leave because Kelowna either is growing too fast or has grown too large. We are losing some of the best people of this city because of uncontrolled population growth. Yet some insist that the quality of life of Kelowna has not declined and we need even more growth to solve our present problems. Tell that to all those that have left or are thinking about leaving and see what kind of response you get.
|
|