Dunbar group holds public meeting tonight to rally support against Vision development policies
For those interested, this is the invitation going around locally:
Last Sunday night, riding hopeful, Geoff Meggs was defeated in his bid to win the Fairview Mt. Pleasant riding as an NDP candidate. It is said that Mr. Meggs, through his Vision Council efforts to change the city, has “taken the community, out of community planning”. The Mt. Pleasant Residents’ Association worked long and hard to ensure Mr. Meggs defeat - people power.
The recent decision to end the Ridge Bowling lanes, was a blow to the Kitsilano Arbutus Residents’ Association, but the development was curtailed to four rather than five stories - people power.
The Vision City Council would grant rights to build 125,000 square feet of housing (6-7 stories) to a developer to build for profit seniors housing in your community.
We need you, and your neighbours, at our Town Hall meeting on Thursday at St. Phillip’s church, 3737 W. 27th at 7 pm sharp. With this council, we have few chances to make an impact and tell them this development is too intense for our community. Time is short, as decisions will be made within months. Come and join us as we plan our opposition to this proposal, and give us YOUR PEOPLE POWER!
What we will cover at the meeting:
- What’s happening
- Why now
- We are not alone, this is a city-wide issue
- Why we have to act quickly
- What you can do to help
- Your questions
Invited speakers include:
Jonathan Baker
Councillor Adrian Carr
Elizabeth Murphy |
|
|
|
Categories: Uncategorized
103 responses so far ↓
1 brilliant // Oct 25, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Vision’s (homeless) chickens coming home to roost. Poor Meggs learned the hard way that being an arrogant jerk catches up with you in the end.
2 Dan Cooper // Oct 25, 2012 at 5:37 pm
“Last Sunday night, riding hopeful, Geoff Meggs was defeated in his bid to win the Fairview Mt. Pleasant riding as an NDP candidate. … The Mt. Pleasant Residents’ Association worked long and hard to ensure Mr. Meggs defeat.”
While it may be difficult to discern from way over in Dunbar, there is actually no “Fairview Mt. Pleasant riding.” Juuuust sayin’.
That aside, George Heyman won the nomination in Vancouver-Fairview (with my vote among the many for him, hoorah!) because people like his positions and his experience, and because he had a dedicated team working on his campaign as well as being a great campaigner himself. There may have been a individual members of RAMP who volunteered in his campaign, again among the many who did, and in that way contribute to his victory (and by implication Geoff Meggs’ loss). RAMP as a group, however, had no meaningful part in or effect on the Vancouver-Fairview nomination decision.
3 Dan Cooper // Oct 25, 2012 at 5:39 pm
That being said, as near as I can tell from way over in Fairview, residents of Dunbar have some legitimate concerns about the plans in question. I wish them success!
4 Ned // Oct 25, 2012 at 5:57 pm
brilliant #1
meggs. the man likes to be loved. appreciated. wanted to be put on a white pedestal. well, ho got it!
He was given an … urinal.
5 spartikus // Oct 25, 2012 at 6:58 pm
The Mt. Pleasant Residents’ Association may or may not have worked to defeat Councillor Meggs for the NDP nomination in Vancouver-Fairview.
But as a tactic to allegedly rid themselves of him it seems kind of silly…that they worked to ensure he stays on in Vancouver.
But god bless the people power of the People’s Republic of Dunbar. Working to freeze things in time since 1902.
6 brilliant // Oct 25, 2012 at 8:57 pm
@spartikus 5-the bitterness of envy spoken from a downtown garret no doubt.
7 waltyss // Oct 25, 2012 at 10:48 pm
@brilliant not. I live in the middle of Dunbar and frankly, Spartikus is right.
As for bitterness, well, you are the expert.
8 Bill McCreery // Oct 25, 2012 at 11:10 pm
Sorry Spartikus, if you’d go to these meetings and talk to the indormed, concerned citizens you’d find they’re not frozen in time, but they want to do such old fashioned things like putting the community back in community planning and respecting neighbourhood plans and zoning bylaws
9 Lewis N. Villegas // Oct 25, 2012 at 11:42 pm
The word is getting out. We can do ‘good’ urbanism at 3 to 5 stories in height and FSR of 2.0.
There may be times—and places outside the downtown—when we wish to raise the FSR, or build a higher building, but these should be the rare exception rather than the rule.
Most all of Council, including Councillor Meggs but not Councillor Carr, showed a lack of understanding of this basic principle of ‘good’ community building at the Rize hearings.
And the Rize situation is the commonplace in our City today, not the exception.
That’s really too bad… Because (1) we don’t need to build 5.5 FSR in the neighbourhoods to get ‘good’ urbanism. But (2) we need a political class that understands this if we are going to hang on to our city.
10 IanS // Oct 26, 2012 at 9:14 am
I agree with the first two paragraphs of Spartikus #5. To the extent that the residents did work to defeat Mr. Meggs’ nomination, I suspect their victory may be pyrrhich in nature.
I was wishing him luck.
11 spartikus // Oct 26, 2012 at 9:50 am
Bill,
I have not been to a Dunbar meeting so, yes, I can’t really comment. But come on – deserved or undeserved (and I have my opinion) – Dunbar does have a reputation. In fact, if memory serves, Suzanne Anton stood up at one such meeting years ago and said so. Ah, here it is:
That did take guts. Whatever happened to that Suzanne Anton?
12 Dan Cooper // Oct 26, 2012 at 11:05 am
I don’t think you can paint all neighbourhood concerns or opposition with the same brush. Building social housing – as opposed to something else like market rate condos of the same height and general design – at a relatively major intersection like 16th and Dunbar is one thing, and bless Suzanne Anton for saying so. On the other hand, from all I have read, residents do not oppose the proposed building at 30th and Dunbar based on what it will be, but based on it being proposed to have a height that exceeds limits in the community plan and is out of character with the other buildings in the area (which is not a major intersection). Again as I understand, the proposed height is due to the developer having paid too much for the property. This is a perfectly reasonable objection by the residents. If the developer paid too much for the property for a building of the height allowed under the existing plan to pencil out financially…well, that is (or should be) the developer’s problem, not the city’s or neighbourhood’s.
13 Higgins // Oct 26, 2012 at 11:10 am
Bill McCreery #8
Spot on!
I think it’s about time to put the Geoff Meggs “Titanic” to rest. Who would want to awaken the monster within, god forbid he might go for another riding, scare the s…t out of those people! Not nice.
14 waltyss // Oct 26, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Was anyone at the Dunbar meeting last night who can report on what happened?
Spartikus, you are right about Dunbar’s well deserved reputation. Suzanne Anton standing up to Dunbar on the social housing at 16th and Dunbar was one of her bravest moments. Too bad that person did not continue.
I would be interested to know whether at the meeting the objections were the usual Dunbar NIMBYism or what Dan Cooper is suggesting: a developer trying to recoup his investment.h
15 Jeff // Oct 26, 2012 at 12:49 pm
I was at the meeting last night, and overall residents were very supportive of seniors housing, and of redevelopment in general. About 250 people of so.
Had the three non-Vision counsellors there, all of whom spoke.
What they (and I) do not support is the current Vision top-down approach to community planning, if you could still call it that.
The bizzare circus that was the Mayor’s task force (3 days in the public, weekday council meeting with changing times, all but one speaker opposed, then passed it anyway, followed by a lament about the lack of community engagement with council, and creation of another politically-motivated task force) was the subject of much discussion.
Residents focused on solutions to the top-down Vision approach including ensuring that all vancouver community organizations support each other in opposing developments that are outside the vision (those one developed by communities and the City together), and to work out ways for all the community groups across the City to link together in a show of force against these disrespectful, anti-community approaches.
Had lots of people put their hands up when asked if they voted for Vision last election, when asked about voting for Vision next time, not a hand to be seen…..
16 MB // Oct 26, 2012 at 12:53 pm
@ Bill McCreery.
Kudos for your advocacy for resident input into local development.
However, this is Dunbar, a fantasy place that has never accepted its fair share of growth / development / social service facilities.
A place with more than its share of wealthy people who have historically wielded a lot of power, so much in fact that most other areas of the city, notably East Vancouver, have had an overabundance of development pressures imposed by the Dunbar-backed politicians over the decades without an adequate level of input.
The current crop of politicos have their issues around development, but remmeber that it was group of Dunbarites and Shaughnessy dwellers that held the reins for decades prior and set the stage.
17 Nordic // Oct 26, 2012 at 2:46 pm
@waltyss
I was at the meeting last night and it was clearly stated that Dunbar is NOT against development or seniors housing. What people are against is the development of a 6 – 8 storey building in a residential area that will encompass a whole city block. If this potential developer application goes through, you can be assured that up and down Dunbar St. both in commercial and residential areas (and any other arterial street in Vancouver), you’ll see nothing but a minimum of 6 storeys.
For those of you who continually say that we in Dunbar are crying NIMBY, please take a read of the Dunbar Vision Plan that clearly discusses the development of various building forms, particularly along arterials. The plan clearly outlines 4 storey buildings in commercial areas and this is what we want Council to stick to and not adhere to yet another money hungry developer who claims they want the community support before building. Pacific Arbour has stated they need at least 6 storeys to make their investment viable.
http://vancouver.ca/docs/planning/dunbar-community-vision-full-report.pdf
18 dave // Oct 26, 2012 at 3:12 pm
@MB
Yes, let’s destroy ALL our neighborhoods. Why should Dunbar expect to remain single-family-residential just because that is what people paid for? If we do it right, we can sully the entire lower-mainland with spot-re-zoning and no-one will want to live in Vancouver (and the affordability problem will be solved).
/flame off (sorry)
19 Bill McCreery // Oct 26, 2012 at 3:14 pm
I did attend the Dunbar Revision Town Hall last night. In addition, I have frequently been in contact with quite a number of Dunbarites in the past 3 years and posted on their terrific Dunbar Residents Association Newsletter (it could be a model for other neighbourhoods – they talk about planning and other civic issues as well as lost dogs, hummingbird feeders, etc.).
Agreed, Dunbar has had a ‘reputation’. However, the older Dunbar crowd is not the same as their mates in Kerrisdale or Shaugnessy, in fact there are quite a number of ‘lefties’ (encouragingly, there were a number of younger people there last night as well). Among other things I’ve learned about Dunbar is that they have said repeatedly that they will accept density, but that they want it as a part of a neighbourhood plan.
Last night one of the suggestions from the audience was to include one or two floors of seniors housing over the new Dunbar Community centre. (When I suggested that as a Park Commissioner in 1974 I was told by staff in no uncertain terms that was impossible) So times change, and so do people, not just here, but across the City.
Informed, concerned citizens consistently say they are prepared to accept more density, BUT they want it as a part of a neighbourhood plan done in cooperation with the neighbourhood.
Suzanne was brave to stand up for the social housing project at 16th and Dunbar. I believe the reason she had to do so was it was not in the community plan. That’s a square peg in a round hole way to plan.
In my neighbourhood planning strategy, once the various neighbourhoods and the City agree on who gets what density, social housing, etc, then the citizen’s planning committee(s) and staff have the responsibility to determine where it goes and its form and character. The onus is on them
That’s the last thing this Vision Vancouver Council would ever do because they don’t trust their own voters.
20 Ms. Jones // Oct 26, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Thanks Bill #16
That’s the thing Bill, City Hall and in Particular Vision Vancouver do not want “informed, concerned citizens” because they are hard to control and shepherd around.
“That’s the last thing this Vision Vancouver Council would ever do because they don’t trust their own voters.”
Ditto.
21 Adam O'Neill // Oct 26, 2012 at 4:27 pm
Bill #16,
I’m curious, what community housing is included in the Dunbar community plan? Are there 16 sites earmarked for large community housing projects (4-12 stories)? Are 5 of them being developed currently? (Mount Pleasant) If not do you think this is fair?
What are your thoughts on community housing projects in Dumbar?
Thanks for your very thoughtful posts, I’m glad to hear that you feel that Dunbar is ready for more density if the community plan if followed and community consultation happens. Seems like a step in the right direction.
22 Terry Martin // Oct 26, 2012 at 5:05 pm
Actually the problem that dunbar has with the cov is the same problem expressed by the chair of the shaugnessy owners assn. , as well the dtes residents assn expressed the same problem , vision vancouver ignores input from local area citizens groups. Dunbar has said clearly that they are in favor of a seniors facility as well as affordable housing in their area but would like to see development fit with the neighbourhood ,not that hard to do , it is when relaxations in height and fsr relaxations are applied for that problems arise, if the city were willing to work with people rather than ignore them , we would have all the development needed as well as neighbourhoods that maintained their character and livability.After all isn’t councils job to serve the public rather than ignore the public.That said , I suppose it is naive to think that Vision would serve anyone besides their biggest campaign funders, the development community
23 Bill McCreery // Oct 26, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Adam,
I’m not familiar with the details of the Dunbar Plan. As far as I know typically community plans are a bit vague about spelling that sort of thing out. They stick to simple things like “residential” use and height and density.
That is one of the important things I am advocating for. Affordable, supportive, social housing is more important today, and because not all neighbouhoods have historically shared the load it is important that these essential components of a civil society be more equitably distributed. Vision Vancouver’s solution is to ram to down your throats. My approach is to have Citywide and neighbourhod discussions about:
• where does Vancouver fit into the region, Canada and the globe?
• how much added population Vancouver can handle without losing quality of life,
• how dense is to dense, how can added density improve quality of life?
• what is a “sustainable” neighbourhood?
• determine location and per person criteria for the distribution of affordable, supportive, social housing, etc.
• how does transportation affect the built-form and quality of life?
• etc.
Once there is buy-in from the neighborhoods on this, among other things, the planners work with the citizens committees using planning tools such as how many people are nececessary have to have bike/walk-in (and lastly, vehicular) accessibility for a 7-11 / doctor / hardware store, etc., to be viable. In this way a neighbourhood centre can be organized more organically rather than resorting to the incredibly simplistic “XXX Corridor Plan”, which does very little to create “community” other than barracking bodies.
There is much more to this process, but enough for now.
24 Bill McCreery // Oct 26, 2012 at 6:16 pm
Adam:
“Are there 16 sites earmarked for large community housing projects (4-12 stories)? Are 5 of them being developed currently? (Mount Pleasant) If not do you think this is fair?”
I understand there are 16 or 20 ‘pilot projects’ to be parachuted into various neighbourhoods. One of them may well be the Pacific Arbours on Dunbar based on the Mayor’s comments on NW.
(One of the criteria for these I gather is they’re supposed to be “affordable”. However, the rents at Pacific Arbour start at $5000 / month for A room and board. That may seem affordable to the Mayor with his $140,000+ salary or to Penny Ballem at $300,000+, but I doubt most of us will be lining up to live there.)
No, it’s not fair because this was all done in secret by unaccountable people appointed by Vision Vancouver. There has been no consultation, 3 days to review the report that was rammed through anyway, and on it goes. This kind of arrogance is further confirmation that Vision Vancouver has an agenda they are not prepared to reveal until after the fact, and that this agenda trumps others from making any contributions or participating in the process in any meaningful way.
That is not democracy and it is not the way to build healthy communities.
25 Michelle // Oct 26, 2012 at 6:53 pm
It is very simple Bill. Vision Vancouver agenda is in line with the ICLEI agenda with that of their major sponsor Joel Solomon that of Hollyhock and last that of Agenda 21. Voters of Vancouver got exactly what they deserved. Kudos!
26 brilliant // Oct 27, 2012 at 8:18 am
@Bill McCreery 21-LOL, only Vision and our silver-spoon mayor would consider $5k a month affordable!
27 Chris Keam // Oct 27, 2012 at 5:43 pm
Just how frightened does one have to be, to make a bogeyman of international cooperation (Agenda 21) in attempting to make the world a better place?
Just how brainwashed by nationalism do you have to be to believe that we should let our world be defined by cartographic abstractions such as national borders?
Just how high will we have to build our walls to isolate ourselves from reality?
Just how savage and uncaring do you have to be to condemn individuals to a life of poverty and hardship because they failed to get themselves born in the right place and the right time?
Lord knows I can’t muster up that kind of ill-will to my fellow man. Thankfully I have plenty of company, and the days of destroying the world are coming to a close. Rail against it all you will Michelle et al, because it’s certainly amusing to listen to your panicked sputterings, but know that you paint yourself in a rather unflattering light when you condemn so many to so much misery.
28 IanS // Oct 27, 2012 at 7:20 pm
@Chris Keam #24:
“…and the days of destroying the world are coming to a close”
Well. Certainly, if the proposed seniors facility will bring an end to the destruction of the world , I for one am all for it. Honestly… why are the Dunbar residents in favour of destroying the world?
29 gman // Oct 27, 2012 at 8:25 pm
CK #24
What drivel,why dont you go try and shop you’re sick dream to the Ukraine where Stalin starved,murdered or sent to the gulag,how many millions died Chris was it six million I lost trac.Or we could look at the sixty million dead in China if you like those numbers better.Take a trip to East Berlin I’m sure they would greet you with open arms(NOT).Or maybe North Korea is more to your liking.You really are a confused individual Chris but maybe Elke can shed some light on the subject for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=e8rT76vNmxc
30 F.H.Leghorn // Oct 27, 2012 at 8:44 pm
@CK : OK, nationalism is bad, but it’s not going anywhere. Ask the Prime Minister (if he can take a moment away from funding fascist propaganda, e.g. War of 1812 bs).
If national borders are abstractions why is the 49th parallel patrolled by UAVs?
Not to worry, though. Tweeting on a $500 toy and paying $100/month for a connection will eventually reform human nature. Never mind that the toy is built in Chinese sweat-shops by child labour for slave wages. No poverty or hardship there, thank goodness.
31 Chris Keam // Oct 27, 2012 at 8:54 pm
Yep, the world is an imperfect place. Perhaps things will get better by even more artificial divisions.
Funny how the arguments against a united globe rely most on invoking those people who most wish to perpetuate it.
The silliness of supposing the average Joe who lives on the other side of your silly little borders doesn’t want to live in peace and prosperity only serves to fuel the ambitions of those who will keep you living in fear of your fellow man, and leverage that to keep power.
Borders never made for anything but dead bodies.
Happy Halloween!
32 Chris Keam // Oct 27, 2012 at 9:30 pm
“Funny how the arguments against a united globe rely most on invoking those people who most wish to perpetuate it.”
That didn’t make sense. In my haste to defend the idea that all men are created equal, I was unclear. I meant to say that invoking dictatorships as a defense for nationalism doesn’t wash. Give people a path to democracy and the freedom to leave countries where totalitarianism holds sway and the demagogues would soon have no one to govern.
Invoking the people Berlin or Korea as advocates of borders strikes me as utter nonsense. I would suggest to you gmgw that you might find among their numbers some pretty strong advocates for freedom of movement without requiring the permission of two countries to move about the globe as one pleases. Until that is no longer, the rich man has more rights than the poor, and we make it easy for unscrupulous leaders to cement their grip on power. Time to grow up and get along. We should be leading the way in our privileged world, instead of fostering xenophobia.
33 Chris Keam // Oct 27, 2012 at 9:34 pm
And I also apologize for the lack of gender neutrality in my previous post, lest someone think I’m not a utterly P.C. milquetoast haha.
34 Glissando Remmy // Oct 27, 2012 at 10:54 pm
Thought of The Night
“I am going to tell you a secret. It doesn’t matter how you call it, socialism, communism, environmentalism, it doesn’t matter if you want to create the New Man or the New Woman or the Best Place On Earth… as long as you are up there in command… who cares, right!?”
gmgw #26,
Great clip. You are a very wise guy. Revisit our discussion here:
http://www.francesbula.com/uncategorized/vancouver-city-hall-to-strike-a-new-task-force-to-improve-connections-city-to-resident-and-neighbour-to-neighbour/
(especially my comment #24)
FWIW, for all of you who think, Elke’s warning is a stunt, think again. I know.
Chris #29 ,
“Until that is no longer, the rich man has more rights than the poor, and we make it easy for unscrupulous leaders to cement their grip on power. ”
Why did you have to pick on… Mayor Gregor? Just because he made the rounds, back and forth around the globe a few times this year, for no good reason, and just because he hangs on to his chair like in a cliffhanger, fingertips, nails and all… it doesn’t mean he’s unscrupulous… IMHO, of course…
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
35 gman // Oct 27, 2012 at 10:55 pm
CK#29
” I would suggest to you gmgw that you might find among their numbers some pretty strong advocates for freedom of movement without requiring the permission of two countries to move about the globe as one pleases.”
Well Chris at least they have a border to cross if they make it through the landmines they can get the hell out.In your world there would be nowhere to run.And I guess in your world we would no longer need elections,the boys in Brussels will look out for us,I’m we sure can trust them right Chris.And after you redistribute the wealth then I guess we will all be poor so we should never have to worry about those evil rich people again,but then who will look after the poor when we all are poor? Maybe you could ask the dear leader that one the next time you guys are brainstorming over the betterment of mankind.Might I suggest that doing to much acid while watching star trek is really not a good mix.
36 gman // Oct 27, 2012 at 11:08 pm
I seem to be losing my identity already…people are calling me gmgw and the funny thing is I’m an atheist…go figure.
37 Glissando Remmy // Oct 27, 2012 at 11:12 pm
ROTFLMAO!
“And after you redistribute the wealth then I guess we will all be poor so we should never have to worry about those evil rich people again,but then who will look after the poor when we all are poor? Maybe you could ask the dear leader that one the next time you guys are brainstorming over the betterment of mankind.”
gman,
As I was writing my Thought of The Night… you were penning essentially the same thoughts, LOL!
What people don’t understand (or pretend not to for obvious reasons) is the fact that when they talk about the greatness of this or that ‘societies’ they don’t have a clue of what they are talking about.
Socialist or/ and communist ideas, were good ideas at heart, just like the environmentalist ones, who wouldn’t want to save the mankind from itself, or save the planet, right, all good ideas… the problem was with the ‘representation’ with the ‘supreme leadership’… would you trust ‘these people’ with the keys to your future? Me thinks not.
38 Glissando Remmy // Oct 27, 2012 at 11:17 pm
gman #33 … LOL!
A dyslexic guy walks into a… bra!
39 gman // Oct 27, 2012 at 11:31 pm
Glissy ,what is even more funny is that as we are having this little conversation Im sitting with a friend who just told me how when she graduated they were picking who would be allowed to attend further education and as she stood in front of her professor and having the best marks in the class he told her point blank that she would never be accepted because her father was not a party member,maybe funny was the wrong word.
40 MB // Oct 28, 2012 at 1:00 am
@Bill M, thanks for your contribution on neighbourhood consultation. Well said.
41 MB // Oct 28, 2012 at 1:16 am
@ g man
Some of us would sure like to read your attempt to define what kind of world/city/neighbourhood/society you would build. You spend huge amounts of energy tearing down stuff and knocking others.
Are you just another cynical libertarian … one more angry white guy who borrows heavily from Rush et al … or do you actually have something original to say?
42 brilliant // Oct 28, 2012 at 9:12 am
@Chris Keam-are those the sweet strains of Kumbaya I hear? Break out the bong(os).
43 Chris Keam // Oct 28, 2012 at 9:50 am
@Brilliant:
Probably. I was never quite able to shake the Sunday school teaching that we should be good to each other regardless of station or complexion, rather than put big bloody holes in people because my government urged it on account of them living on the wrong side of an imaginary line.
When you’re all done mocking, you fellas might consider building a rational argument for limiting the movements of the average person. I doubt you’re winning any converts among those of us who weren’t born in-country by insulting the intelligence of ‘foreigners’ by suggesting they can’t handle the privileges and rights we are free to enjoy.
44 Chris Keam // Oct 28, 2012 at 9:58 am
Gman:
“In your world there would be nowhere to run.”
I don’t believe we are powerless to change things. You appear to be too afraid of shadows to understand how to make change happen. Too bad. If you look around you it’s not hard to find examples of citizens building a better world through cooperation rather than exclusion.
45 Bill // Oct 28, 2012 at 2:10 pm
@Chris Keam #29
“Give people a path to democracy and the freedom to leave countries where totalitarianism holds sway and the demagogues would soon have no one to govern.”
I think the experience of Afghanistan and Iraq would have buried the idea that it is our democracy that attracts the people of the world and it never has been. People originally emigrated to America because it offered economic freedom, not the ability to vote and it was that individualistic energy that created the wealthiest country on earth. Democracy and the rule of law were necessary ingredients to protect property rights and permit people to retain the wealth they created.
If America is to pull out of the downward spiral they are on they will have to find some way to reinstill the individualism that built America. It will be difficult because the Progressives, who are statists and collectivists, have the advantage as they have controlled education for the past 30 years with the result that the generation about to “take the reins of power” are ill equiped to meet the challenges of the global economy.
46 Roger Kemble // Oct 28, 2012 at 2:49 pm
I thought this conversation was about a Dunbar group looking out for their neighbourhood: that’s how it started but oh how the mind wanders.
“If America is to pull out of the downward spiral they are on they will have to find some way to reinstill (sic) the individualism that built America.”
“. . . individualism . . .” Errrr, ummmm . . .
“Manifest Destiny“, or in not so polite terms, stealing other people’s land, (Mexicans’, Plains Indians’), is what gave the US a head start.
That’s a hard act to repeat since there ain’t no mo’ land to steal, besides we are onto their gig.
Don’t fall for the Hollywood yarn, Bill @ #42, all that happened on the back lot at Universal Studios.
But fear not Dunbar can always steal Musqueam’s . . . Ye ha walla walla walla . . .
What a ridiculous conversation . . .
47 Chris Keam // Oct 28, 2012 at 2:50 pm
Nonsense Bill.
The first American immigrants came for religious reasons, democracy and the rule of law was not extended to the wealth and property rights of the people who already lived there, and your mis-representation of so-called ‘Progressives’ requires one to ignore the reality that a great many of the best and brightest and richest people belong to that arbitrary group you love to single out and mispresent. It’s a played-out vein and even if it weren’t, if the people you side with can’t even muster up enough skills to indoctrinate our children to their way of thinking, or at the very least ensure a balanced debate, they certainly don’t have the necessary abilities to lead convincingly and provide opportunities for success for the the general population.
48 Bill // Oct 28, 2012 at 3:48 pm
@Chris Keam #44
No doubt the earliest immigrants came for religious reasons but later immigrants (totalling some 30 million in the late 1800′s early 1900′s )were coming for economic reasons – and still do.
I never said Progressives did not include rich people nor that people could not get rich by being Progressive. Al Gore is worth $100 million thanks to his championing green causes and even President Obama clocks in at $12 million – not bad for a community organizer who has only worked in government. No, there are plenty of ways to be Progressive and get rich but they invariably involve the redistribution of wealth which is a zero sum game.
49 Chris Keam // Oct 28, 2012 at 4:04 pm
Oh Bill;
The ‘Regressives’ LOL had hundreds of years to inculcate us all, but as soon as we started educating the population their ideology was exposed for what it is, and people stopped buying what you’re selling. Their is no freer market than that of ideas… and increasingly you can’t find buyers. Usually means you have a substandard product.
But I’ll play along. If you truly believe in individualism and the need for each person to fend for themselves, I would be curious to know where you stand on the subject of inheritance. Maybe you’re a little bit OK with collectivist behaviour when it’s kin that reaps the reward? One thing I’ve noticed about Regressive thinking is how often they’re willing to make an exception in their principles when it suits their self-interest.
50 Richard // Oct 28, 2012 at 6:49 pm
And the prizes for the comments that has gone most off topic ever go to…
51 Norman // Oct 28, 2012 at 8:09 pm
Now this is good news. If we need to do this in every neighbourhood, so be it. One way or another, this council needs to be taught to listen.
52 Brian // Oct 29, 2012 at 9:10 am
I once met a planner who formerly worked on the Vancouver planning staff. When I asked him what the greatest obstacle to sustainability in Vancouver is, his immediate reply was the Dunbar Residents Association.
As a student, I worked in the Dunbar area and the scuttlebutt I heard from customers was nothing but opposition. Opposition to social housing, opposition to a painted bike lane on Dunbar (that improved my safety), opposition to buses down 16th that would mean university students in their own neighborhood (and their own basement suites) wouldn’t have to get passed up by three buses before being picked up for school.
Its not that I think towers are the best way to build density, but I feel like Dunbar has opposed so many patently necessary projects that I don’t personally give them credence anymore. You see it a lot; groups that claim to be welcoming to density, but not in any form that is proposed to them. Its the “I’m not opposed to density, I’m just opposed to *that* density.”
53 Brian // Oct 29, 2012 at 9:10 am
whew, didn’t realize how much I had pent up there.
/rant
54 gman // Oct 29, 2012 at 9:21 am
MB#38
” You spend huge amounts of energy tearing down stuff and knocking others.”
Really MB,Im critical of CKs commie rants and you accuse me of Knocking others while in the same breath call me a cynical libertarian,well Im not sure why you think a belief in liberty is cynical? Then you go on and pull the race card calling me an angry white guy,Im not sure if that makes you a racist or if Im supposed to feel guilty because of my race? Then you try to connect me to some right wing talkradio host,but you never address my comment…huh?
Keep up the good work comrad.LOL
55 gman // Oct 29, 2012 at 9:34 am
Chris Keam@
You know CK instead of writing volumes of flowery posts trying to spin your beliefs into a positive light you could save yourself a lot of time by putting up this simple link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xcla6Wj1gE&feature=g-vrec
56 Bill // Oct 29, 2012 at 10:00 am
@Chris Keam #46
“I would be curious to know where you stand on the subject of inheritance.”
Be careful Chris. Start slagging inheritances and you can kiss those invitations to Cortes Island good-bye.
57 MB // Oct 29, 2012 at 10:48 am
@ CK + Bill
Way off topic but an interesting and intelligent debate about core values without resorting to mudslinging.
Thanks for that.
58 MB // Oct 29, 2012 at 11:04 am
@ Brian 39
Good comments.
I agree that the DRA needs to look at the reality that their position as the lofty out of reach figurines on the top of the cake is bound to change with the pressure of 38,000 people arriving in the Metro every year (about 10% of that into the city itself).
If a picture says a thousand words, then this one
http://spacingvancouver.ca/2008/03/06/775/
illustrates how Dunbar has had their cake for decades. It’s time to accept a fairer share.
All Erick Villagomez did was apply a 3-D graphic to the density that existing in the 2006 census.
I have to say, though, that even with the second-lowest density in the city, Dunbar, at 4.5-9.0 dwelling units per acre, is pretty good compared to suburban areas and most Western Canadian cities outside of the inner city.
But then these cities do not have anywhere near the land use challenges Vancouver has and recent precedences in increased density over the last generation.
If anything, the deeply embedded discomfiture with new development in Dunbar should be used as a tool to refine neighbourhood consultation. Could this be where civic workshops are refined and used more widely?
59 gman // Oct 29, 2012 at 11:06 am
@MB + CK
” Tear down that wall.”
60 MB // Oct 29, 2012 at 11:19 am
@ gman
You seem to have an unhealthy investment in kneejerk anger.
And an unswerving devotion to the rhetoric from the screaming heads of tabloid radio/TV/Web, most of whom happen to be well-remunerated white males.
The problem is, gman, that none of this is original. We’ve heard it all before. Decades ago. Commie this, commie that … everything left of a pile of steaming, bloody regurgitated red meat. The right wing anger machine is now institionalized. It’s become big business and created an economy of its own. But it is hardly a source of authentic original thought.
Now stop deflecting and answer the question, what kind of world/city/neighbourhood/society you would build, eh?
This is after all a post about a neighbourhood.
61 gman // Oct 29, 2012 at 1:02 pm
MB #57
Fair question MB.But first I didn’t bring it up and second you keep trying to link me to some right wing party,I look at that as a false paradigm and don’t consider myself as left or right.
As far as the city is concerned I would want to see a ward system where people would vote for who they think would best represent the wants and needs of their own neighborhood no matter what party they are in and if they failed to do so they would be out on their ass when the next election comes along.Instead we have elections where a tweet is sent out the day of the election and special interest groups show up and simply check off the list they’ve been instructed to vote for.Thats how we ended up with the present regime we are stuck with,they have no personal responsibility to any neighborhood only to their party agenda.
As for zoning I would rather see planners do the planning and present their plans to developers rather than bringing developers into the room so they can write their own ticket,that to me is a huge conflict of interest. You dont have to worry about developers they will work within the parameters they are given and will still make money.
I think cities have always grown organically out their arterial streets with basic height restrictions and these can be reviewed case by case and residents would have a say and their opinions should be respected.Unlike now where they sit in backrooms with developers and cut up the pie.This latest fiasco where they with the stroke of a pen have basically doubled the height and in turn the price of these properties.By the way it would be nice if some interested journalist could look into whether or not during these backroom meetings if there was an increase in sales of these said properties ,that might be very interesting.
As far as the world is concerned I think history where over the last century over 250 million people have been starved or slaughtered by their own socialist,communist or fascist governments is enough to understand my position.
62 gman // Oct 29, 2012 at 1:14 pm
MB
I forgot to say that we live in the free world and our borders are open for travel and business,I dont think history has shown anyone trying to sneak into socialist countries on the contrary those countries have to build walls to keep their own people in.
63 teririch // Oct 29, 2012 at 2:09 pm
Seems Dunbar isn’t the only neighborhood facing challenges courtesy of Vision Vancouver:
Condos vs. Cottonwood Garden: How City Hall’s viaduct removal plan would make it harder to eat in the Downtown Eastside
http://themainlander.com/
64 MB // Oct 29, 2012 at 3:07 pm
@ gman,
My, aren’t you the pink bunny? (Sorry, couldn’t resist that one).
Thank you for your ideas. You may be surprised that I actually agree with some of them, such as on planners and developers.
Wards do give neighbourhoods more power, but they may have their own problems too, such as campaign donations targeting individual councillors to maintain or enact less-than-perfect policies.
This is common when developers of subdivisions donate to politicians in peripheral wards, for example, in cities with abundant and cheap agricultural land that is easily converted to sprawling subdivisions that end up not paying the full cost of the public services that are extended a longer ways to support fewer people.
That’s not an issue in Vancouver per se, but other entrenched and unsustainable land use issues could get locked in through self-interest, such as preserving the standard lot in Dunbar when every other neighbourhood save Shaughnessy subdivide their lots to meet demand over time.
In this light, perhaps a mixed ward + at-large system would balance local self interest with the common good. At least in theory.
If you’re referring with your “doubled height” comment to arterials, I don’t think that’s accurate. Most arterials in commercial areas were already zoned for four storeys. Going to six isn’t a huge leap. With its very tall ceilings, the six or seven storeys of central Paris is equivalent to about 10 of ours, and other than their boulevards, the streets are narrower. It ain’t exactly a shabby place, Paris.
But if residents near arterials are uncomfortable with the new height, then maybe the city can get the developers to step back the upper two floors.
Because you brought up the history of the last century, please be careful to include the crimes against humanity perpetrated by all political leanings, not just by those on the left. These would include Hitler’s Nazi occupations, Japan’s occupation of the western Pacific, Franco’s Spain, the German war machine of WWI, the overthrow of Iran’s Mossadegh, The US in Vietnam, and the more recent war in Iraq, and various right-wing military coups over the decades, such as in Argentina and Chile and parts of Africa. These resulted in the deaths of well over 100 million people.
So let’s keep the “commie” rhetoric in a box, shall we?
65 Chris Keam // Oct 29, 2012 at 5:25 pm
@Bill 54
Couple points of clarification and then back to the actual topic.
I’m not slagging inheritances. Curious to know how you view them, in light of your apparent support for individual accomplishment rather than collective efforts. As I suggested there may be a disconnect between ideology and what’s put in practice for many who tout the need for individuals to prove their own worth.
Haven’t been to Cortes since a Grade 7 school camp back in the plaid and polyester 70s. Probably wouldn’t dig the Hollyhock scene if I went today, would be unlikely to accept an invitation for a freebie, definitely not going to pay my own way.
66 Chris Keam // Oct 29, 2012 at 5:27 pm
@Gman:
“instead of writing volumes of flowery posts”
Surely you’ve figured out by now that I love the sound of my own typing?
67 Ned // Oct 29, 2012 at 6:51 pm
gman @58
“Thats how we ended up with the present regime we are stuck with,they have no personal responsibility to any neighborhood only to their party agenda.”
Second that!
MB @61
“So let’s keep the “commie” rhetoric in a box, shall we?”
But how? They are already here… in environmentalist spirit. Vancouver’s “Vision”… the homeliest by 2015, the greenest by 2020, the friendliest by 2030, the most agricultural by 2050… shall I go on?
68 Chris Keam // Oct 29, 2012 at 7:09 pm
“CKs commie rants”
Only in Fabula-land could someone suggest less State control of an individual’s right to freedom of movement and find themselves labeled a commie.
69 gman // Oct 29, 2012 at 8:12 pm
MB # 61
Sorry MB I cant do that,I don’t consider it rhetoric, to me its descriptive.Anytime I see someone try to sell socialism again as a system that works as if it only failed because it just wasn’t done right the first time I will comment. Especially when Im sitting with people who suffered through it at the very moment the post was put up.
As far as your reference to the anglo-american imperialist two party system I would say that is a failing of the people themselves and their own apathy. In order to explore this we would have to look back to Cecil Rhodes and the round tables,Chattem House and the CFR,which unfortunately most people are unaware of.Or perhaps a re-read of Carol Quigley,who by the way was on board with what he wrote about in his 1966 book Tragedy and Hope.
Im sorry to say I no longer think America is a Republic but instead with the passing of the Patriot Act and President Zeros NDAA,the TSA and the ongoing drone murders I would have to say they are now a fascist state. There is absolutely no difference between Zero and Mittens that I can see and that is a real tragedy.
70 waltyss // Oct 29, 2012 at 10:58 pm
@Ned #67. No, Ned, don’t go on, just go. The suggestions made by you and others of the nutty libertarian ideology that have infested this site that environmentalism, even recycling is the second coming of communist is so idiotic, so delusional that it amazes me that Chris Keam bothers.
On another thread teririch was suggesting that it was a mistake that they shut down Riverview. Reading your posts and those of gman, I’m starting to agree with her.
71 gman // Oct 29, 2012 at 11:28 pm
Waltyss your complete and utter ignorance of history and how the world works is breath taking.But you go ahead and keep living in your echo chamber and ignore reality,its no skin off my ass.If you dont like what people say then dont read it and stop trying to play hall monitor , take a pill…..sheesh….I may be sarcastic but your just rude.
72 MB // Oct 30, 2012 at 10:50 am
Oka-a-a-y.
Time to exit the room, maybe find a quiet cafe in Dunbar.
73 teririch // Oct 30, 2012 at 1:12 pm
Posted today by the Courier:
Dunbar activists have Vision in their sights
Group forms to fight development in Vancouver neighbourhood
Read more: http://www.vancourier.com/activists+march+Christy+Clark+office+protest+pipelines/7441477/story.html#ixzz2AobJ0fwW
http://www.vancourier.com/news/Dunbar+activists+have+Vision+their+sights/7465593/story.html
74 waltyss // Oct 30, 2012 at 10:29 pm
True to form, Dunbarites oppose any densification, wanting to pull up the drawbridge. They shamefully fought against the development for mentally challenged people at 16th and Dunbar. You know, teri, the kind that get mentally ill people off the street so they don’t scare the cruise ship tourists you are concerned about.
I thought that today’s panel discussion on Bill Good which involved a discussion of my fellow Dunbarites protesting. I loved Good’s reaction of incredulity when told that they were opposed to 6 storey buildings. Yes, that’s my Dunbar.
Interestingly when they were opposing social housing at 16th and Dunbar, they said no, give them seniors housing. Well, I guess since they got the social housing, no more seniors housing.
In any event, while Vision should hear them out, they will wisely at least wait until there are actually drawings.
And I doubt Vision is quaking in their boots. Dunbar is notoriously NPA so it’s not like Dunbar has lots of leverage.
75 Jumbo // Oct 31, 2012 at 9:55 am
The community vision that Dunbar clings to was fully formed in 19999 if memory serves me correctly. In the meantime, it’s true, that no civic government really did much in the neighbourhood to support the vision except leave Dunbar alone, which seems to have suited the residents just fine. However, change and densification of Vancouver needs to happen and in the intervening years, we have seen the development of Westbrook village, which has increased the number of residents and consequently brought in new businesses, the kind who won’t be setting up at Dunbar and 30th because there isn’t enough density to support it. Frankly, Dunbar is not a hot business district. There are empty storefronts and an odd mix of businesses, some of which are clearly 2 years away from retirement or foreclosure.
Dunbar residents need to realize that we can’t go back in time by maintaining this dream of tree lined boulevards and single family homes. That model will only allow the Dunbar business district to falter as other neighbourhoods continue to develop and provide the services that residents want and need.
76 Brian // Oct 31, 2012 at 11:01 am
@MB 58
I think its true that as urbanism goes, the Dunbar area could do way worse. It seems to me, however, that the only interests that are represented from Dunbar and the DRA are the (necessarily wealthy) homeowners. Part of the reason why the density is reasonable is because of rental suites, which take a bite out of those hefty mortgages. However, the DRA has opposed densification, laneway houses, and buses that could be positive for renters, which actually make up a large proportion of Dunbar residents. The reason why this portion of residents is underrepresented is because a lot of them are students, who may live in the neighborhood for a year or two and then move.
Another issue of representation that listening solely to resident associations presents (and this isn’t exclusive to Dunbar) is that it doesn’t always match the needs of prospective residents or the city as a whole. The fact that Dunbar has relatively low density, bad transit service, and expensive housing is a product of bylaws that make it so. Maintaining this status quo certainly benefits homeowners, but is to the detriment of residents of the city (who are supposed to be represented by city hall) who would benefit from more areas with higher density, good transit service, and cheaper housing.
77 teririch // Oct 31, 2012 at 2:18 pm
And this comment:
…..’And I doubt Vision is quaking in their boots. Dunbar is notoriously NPA so it’s not like Dunbar has lots of leverage.’…..
Hits the nail on the head. ‘Government’ is suppose to work for all the people; not just the pockets that ‘voted’ for them.
78 waltyss // Oct 31, 2012 at 2:39 pm
@teririch: Is there a difference between “the pockets that voted for them” and “the pockets that ‘voted’ for them?
As for the thrust of your post, you were the one who wrote or quoted “Dunbar activists have Vision in their sights.” I was not suggesting that Vision doesn’t do its best to act in the best interests fo the city as a whole; only that since Dunbar does not vote for Vision in any event, the supposed organization in Dunbar to target Vision in unlikely to have much overall effect since Dunbar doesn’t vote them anyway.
So, pray tell, what nail did I hit?
79 waltyss // Oct 31, 2012 at 2:57 pm
@teririch: I might add that Dunbar finally got some social housing only when the City Council gave them a hearing but did not “listen’ to them in the sense of doing what they wanted. And thank God they didn’t.
I thought Brian at #75 captured the issues extremely well.
80 Roger Kemble // Nov 1, 2012 at 3:09 am
“The first American immigrants came for religious reasons . . .” Not true!
Since we are way, way off topic, Chris @ #47, the Pilgrim Fathers, or whatever you want to call them, the first North American settlers were, indeed, religious fanatics but so were every one in Europe at the time: le auto-da-fé was the major entertainment of the day back then.
Actually they had made such a bloody nuisance of themselves, trying to push their weird interpretation of the Bible in everyone’s face, traipsing Europe, they boarded the Mayflower as a last resort: Europe was glad to be rid of them! Religion NOT!
And here’s another quasi religion that’s going to get everyone pissed off before its thru . . .
Climategate: The Mother of All Deceptions . . .
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php
Recalcitrant Dunbar residents can’t hold a candle to that lot . . .
81 waltyss // Nov 1, 2012 at 9:00 am
@Roger Kemble. Way, way, way off topic. I have many quibbles with my neighbours in Dunbar but, thankfully, climate change denial is not one of them.
There may be a few flat earthers around still but I haven’t checked recently.
82 gman // Nov 1, 2012 at 10:25 am
Waltyss,
You’re confused Waltyss,back when the church controlled science they promoted their own false consensus that the world was flat.It was people like Galileo who denied it and realized that in fact the world was round that faced imprisonment and we all know how that turned out.So in fact Waltyss people like you who have fallen for this so called consensus are the real flat earthers. But dont worry Waltyss it will all be over soon,just like Lysenkoism under Stalin and the Piltdown Man.
http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/
83 waltyss // Nov 1, 2012 at 10:30 am
@gman. My gosh, a flatearther. Pleased to meet you. Do you live in Dunbar? I always suspected there might be a few of you around.
84 gman // Nov 1, 2012 at 10:42 am
Waltyss because you obviously are not familiar with Lysenko and didn’t bother to read the link i will paste a relevant paragraph to simplify it for you.
” Lysenko’s heavy-handed political influence also adversely affected generations of Soviet scientists. The achievements of Czarist Russia in science rivaled those of Europe and America. Before the death of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, leaders in the early Soviet State sought to maintain a tradition of scientific achievement. In the wake of Lenin’s death, the rise of Stalin increasingly mingled political ideology and science. For example, Lysenko’s idea that all organisms were not genetically constrained (i.e., given the proper conditions, they have the capacity to be or do anything) had alluring parallels with the social philosophies of Karl Marx that promoted the idea that man was largely a product of his own will. Enamored with the “political correctness” of Lysenko’s ideas, Stalin attacked modern geneticists and genetics as bourgeois and in opposition to the ideals of the Russian revolution (counter-revolutionary). While the outside scientific world used modern genetics to better understand biological processes, Stalin’s Soviet scientists suppressed rational scientific inquiry. In a very real sense, under Stalin, science in the Soviet Union was forced to serve the needs political ideology and propaganda.”
85 waltyss // Nov 1, 2012 at 10:54 am
@gman. I know who Lysenko was, thank you.
You, sir, are a classic example of the danger of the internet for the gullible as well as proving the old adage that “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”.
Reading your posts over the last little while it is clear that there are few crackpot conspiracy theories that you don’t subscribe to.
Now I am someone who believes very strongly in freedom of speech and thought. You should be able to say or believe anything you want to. That freedom ends or should be at least modified when it hits someone else’s nose.
However, I am equally free to mock your beliefs. That is part and parcel of freedom of speech.
However, I won’t. You are probably some old guy who spends much too much time on the internet. However, you are basically harmless. If you or someone of your ilk were city manager, then I would be worried. Thankfully, that is not the case.
86 gman // Nov 1, 2012 at 11:12 am
And your science comes from Al Gore and Mikey Moore.You try to attack the internet as a source for information,Im curious Waltyss where do you do your research.
87 waltyss // Nov 1, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Well, gman, while I don’t get my science from Gore and Moore, even if I did they would be more reputable than the mystery climate change deniers and crackpot conspiracy theorists of the internet or the Rush Limbaughs of the world.
Believe what you want but I will end my participation by quoting Will Shakespeare at the beginning of Romeo and Juliet:
SAMPSON
Nay, as they dare. I will bite my thumb at them;
which is a disgrace to them, if they bear it.
Enter ABRAHAM and BALTHASAR
ABRAHAM
Do you bite your thumb at us, sir?
SAMPSON
I do bite my thumb, sir.
ABRAHAM
Do you bite your thumb at us, sir?
SAMPSON
[Aside to GREGORY] Is the law of our side, if I say
ay?
GREGORY
No.
SAMPSON
No, sir, I do not bite my thumb at you, sir, but I
bite my thumb, sir. ”
Well, gman, I bite my thumb. Over and out.
88 Higgins // Nov 1, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Waltyss #87… Bravo!
That was so… Glissando Remmy of you!
Finally, a post from that I liked!
I do not bite my thumb at you either, sir, but I bite my thumb, Sir!
gman #84
The history of “Lysenko” on this blog is a very hard sell. Hard to understand, and hard to digest for the majority, so you have to use a different approach. IMO.
89 gman // Nov 1, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Higgins’
I guess you’re probably right,it seems all that happened was Waltyss has turned to self mutilation and I dont want that on me.:)
90 teririch // Nov 1, 2012 at 3:57 pm
@waltyss #78
I did not quote or write anything.
I provided a link to an article that ran in the Courier along with the heading of the article.
And I am very aware of the social housing at Dunbar & 16th/17th. I’ve followed its proress very closely from its conception.
91 Chris Keam // Nov 1, 2012 at 9:17 pm
“back when the church controlled science they promoted their own false consensus that the world was flat.It was people like Galileo who denied it and realized that in fact the world was round that faced imprisonment and we all know how that turned out.”
Yeah, so Alice B. Tsunami schooled me on this Galileo issue once, so I’ll pass along the favour, albeit in slightly less abusive fashion.
People have known the earth was round since the first ship appeared over a horizon, long before Galileo ever cast an eye upon the stars.
Copernicus first put forth the idea of a heliocentric solar system. I don’t recall Galileo’s work addressing the question of a flat earth, but would have to go back and check.
“The Discoverers” by Daniel J. Boorstin is an excellent book that covers that era, when the Church and tradition were sadly, brakes on the engine of knowledge.
Spherically yours,
CK
92 Chris Keam // Nov 1, 2012 at 9:19 pm
The earth is of course, not round, but a globe.
We regret the error
93 Chris Keam // Nov 1, 2012 at 9:31 pm
@Roger Kemble #80
Your post is a bit unclear, or perhaps my original statement is being misinterpreted. That the “Founding Father’s” came to America due to religious reasons seems to be both our contentions.
I will however wish you fair winds and chart a separate course when navigating the perilous channels and byways of the Great Climate Change Distraction From Other Pressing Issues Which Would Fix It If Real and Not Really Bring Any Major Problems If It Weren’t.
regards,
CK
94 gman // Nov 1, 2012 at 10:28 pm
CK#91
Thanks Chris, I stand corrected.
95 gman // Nov 1, 2012 at 11:03 pm
CK
The point I am trying to make is through out history people in power have used false science to control their citizens and CAGW is just another one of these ploys.Its hundreds of billions of dollars and what is most egregious is forcing billions of people to live in the dark with no hope of a better life simply because we wont allow them cheap energy to develop.And at the same time we rape their countries of their resources.
96 Chris Keam // Nov 1, 2012 at 11:20 pm
I find I only have time to fruitlessly argue about bike lanes and the meaning of life.
One is a huge issue of tremendous importance, and the other gets answered on the day your loved ones pull the plug and read the will.
cheers,
CK
97 Chris Keam // Nov 1, 2012 at 11:37 pm
“what is most egregious is forcing billions of people to live in the dark with no hope of a better life simply because we wont allow them cheap energy to develop”
I would point out however that most climate change activists are comfortable with developed nations bearing the brunt of GHG emissions reductions, so that developing nations can utilize fossil fuels to bring them up to something resembling parity in terms of per capita emissions, and the international accords trying to deal with this issue AFAIK also provide this wiggle room, but sadly Canada/U.S.A et al aren’t willing to take their mouth off the straw long enough to anybody to have a sip of the delicious oil, and block the progress of those agreements.
98 Chris Keam // Nov 1, 2012 at 11:38 pm
It’s getting late.
“For anyone else to have a sip….”
99 Roger Kemble // Nov 2, 2012 at 3:30 am
To get back to the purpose of this conversation.
The Dunbar areas started out, in the ’50′s, as an area of sprawling, modest, stucco bungalows: I remember it well.
It was working class that then morphed into a dormitory of UBC faculty and student basement suites.
My family lived on 39th close to the shopping centre, in the early 70′s, whilst their mother was in grad school.
To a certain extent the Arbutus Ridge area is similar.
As the trees grew it became less sprawl-like and took on an air not unlike a pretentious Shaughnessy.
Now the neighbourhood seems to have given full meaning to the term NIMBY.
Actually, although faculty is well paid, (unreasonably so IMO), the area is not what it appears: a redoubt of the rich.
No doubt there are well-paid owners, and this may be hard to factualize, but the majority of the residents are recipients of a gratuitous land lift of their property values through no effort, or fault, of their own.
How may house rich but bank account poor, scraping together the monthly Hydro bill, live in Dunbar I do not know, but I conjecture there are many.
Which brings me to my point.
Whatever clout this neighbourhood may exercise in the distribution of civic amenity and social responsibility it had better start taking on its share.
The neighbourhood is well kept. It has a thriving village centre at Dunbar and 41st.
If the neighbours are serious about accepting their fair share of civic growth and change I suggest they put their neighbourhood council to work to formulate a community plan: the 41st and Dunbar commercial centre is a good place to start by accepting its social responsibilities.
100 waltyss // Nov 2, 2012 at 11:05 am
@ Roger Kemble.
Dunbar really has three “centres”: 41st and Dunbar which is really on the edge of Dunbar. The heart of Dunbar is the area between 26th Avenue and the Community Centre at 31st to 33rd. There is another “centre” at the north end of Dunbar at 16th which seems to have a problem getting up and going. It has a Tim Horton’s, a Home hardware and a liquor store but also a closed Starbucks and closed convenience store.
Also I think that your description of the residents is a bit out of date. Dunbar today is largely professionals and successful business people. There are university profs but they are now largely an older demographic since younger ones cannot afford to purchase in Dunbar. Dunbar is more Audi today than Volvo which it was when we first moved there in 1988.
And there are some elderly working class people who purchased their houses a long time ago and are in some cases house rich but cash poor. They however are very much a shrinking group. And finally, there are empty houses owned by off shore people. While these are visible and annoying, I doubt they form any significant percentage of Dunbar. Dunbar is probably more Caucasion than Kerrisdale but again who knows.
While I love my neighbourhood, it does have an unfortunate but well deserved reputation for NIMBYISM. Why this is so is hard to tell. Certainly that Dunbar Residents Association is active and well organized helps. However, why they take the positions they do is harder to explain.
Why they have been successful is easier to explain. The NPA who was in power for a long time were their party; they catered to them. One can see some of the that in the posts on this thread of Bill McCreery, a past and undoubtedly future NPA candidate. A notable exception to that was when Suzanne Anton as an NPA councillor courageously told them that they were getting some social housing (16th and Dunbar) like it or not. The organized community at that point was wanting a seniors housing, no riff raff.
If I understand where they are coming from now, since they got some “riff raff”, now they don’t want the seniors either. The irony of course is that that type of housing would allow many of the older residents to sell their homes and live in the seniors housing without leaving their neighbourhood. The further irony is that it is an 86 year old leading the NIMBY charge.
101 Mira // Nov 2, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Yeah is nice, lots of trees. But sorry, Dunbar (especially the street, places to go, ammenities, community centers, library)… kind of sucks!
So, NIMBY or Not… much ado about nothing.
“No doubt there are well-paid owners, and this may be hard to factualize, but the majority of the residents are recipients of a gratuitous land lift of their property values through no effort, or fault, of their own.”
Well said, Roger!
Dunbar people… this is who you are, arrogant, selfish, superficial good old yuppies!
Grow up!
102 waltyss // Nov 2, 2012 at 1:40 pm
@Mira: Tell me, Mira, do you talk to your “friends” or neighbours the way you do on this blog. Name calling, name calling all fo the time.
Well, I am glad of one thing, she clearly doesn’t live in Dunbar and for that, I for one, am grateful. My sympathies to those who have to share air with her.
103 gman // Nov 4, 2012 at 12:40 am
CK 97
That is absolute bunk.You don’t want to lift them up you want to bring us down,at least try and be honest with yourself Chris.
Leave a Comment