It's an election year! If you have an interest in the political players and the decisions that shape our community of North Vancouver, and would like to write about them on this little blog please email us at: discussion@northvancouverpolitics.com
Wednesday, April 09, 2014
WANTED: Authors for North Vancouver Politics.com
It's an election year! If you have an interest in the political players and the decisions that shape our community of North Vancouver, and would like to write about them on this little blog please email us at: discussion@northvancouverpolitics.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
John Sharpe @NorthVanBlogger 1m
Calling all CapU students who might have an interest in volunteer authorship on http://northvancouverpolitics.com
Speaking of CapU I hear from a reliable source that Trevor Carolan has said NO to a run for DNV Councillor.
If true I'm disappointed. Actually I was hoping he might make a run at Mayor.
My God - Carolan??!! Get serious.
A one term wonder for good reason.
Anyone want to talk about the public hearing regarding the Bosa -- Lynn Valley Centre proposal? It was staged. The camera on the speakers had all the YES buttons worn by the people in the background.
The YES people were there in full force. The NO people not so much. Perhaps they have paid attention and have just been worn down.
The people who are in favour of this development, I believe are in large part benefitting from it financially and that skews the democracy.
really, you want to start making up conspiracy theories? Could it simply be that more people are in favour of the development than are against it? The mall is deteriorating and in need of updating. To make any upgrades without making more efficient (and more responsible) use of the land would be a disservice to the community and future generations. You can't continue to ignore the damages and expense of sprawl. Densifying the town centre allows the surrounding areas of single family zoned lots to remain such until a time where it no longer is feasible to maintain that status quo.
I think council should do more to more to ensure that public hearings are neutral. I Would have preferred that there were no buttons allowed at all, but the buttons simply said YES and although everyone knew what they meant it did make the hearing somewhat intimidating for those that were No. How could you disallow button display? The YES people 'capitalized' and in my view took advantage of council. Surely council would not have pre-agreed to allow any buttons. Sager and entourage obviously threw some money at it and were more organised. If you ask me it was a tad cheesy.
So you'd stifle speech to let the 'No' side feel more comfortable through the process? Democracy isn't about comfort. It's about fairness. If the 'No' side isn't large enough or organized enough to make themselves know, then whose fault is that?
Stifle speech? No, everyone had up to five minutes to speak or more if needed. As I said, I was talking about neutrality. Buttons were not needed. It's like those wearing them got extra time at the mic. That's not fair. Do you think council would have allowed buttons that said, Say yes the BOSA development?
Buttons are a means of speech. Remove them and you're stifling free speech. Something that many of us frown upon. What was preventing the 'No' side from wearing buttons, or even t-shirts? Even though I disagree with their view on this development, I would never try to prevent them from expressing their opinions by whatever medium they wished to utilize. Not everyone is comfortable standing up in front of a crowd and speaking. Non-verbal (buttons, t-shirts, etc) expression of opinion is just as valid as those that are spoken. If we start to stifle speech we begin a walk down a path that I don't think anybody would care to take. John, would you seriously wish to prevent people from expressing their views in a public forum?
What really bugged me was that the people wearing these YES buttons were positioned in front of the camera so whenever someone spoke, the camera was on all the people behind them wearing the buttons. This is psycho-intimidation 101.
So I guess the 'No' side should have got there first to pick the prime seating.
I have been in intimidating meetings. I was in a meeting once where two dozen maximum security prison guards, who were in the middle of a job action, filed in the room and stood in a menacing fashion (arms crossed, grimacing looks) at all of the little office types around the table... that was intimidating. "Yes" buttons... not intimidating. The setting of the room, where the speaker must face the entire mayor and council is far more intimidating than any buttons being worn by the people behind them.
It is intimidating to the audience watching the meeting on-line or on TV. They may not be in favour of the project, but when they see [from their perspective] the majority are, they can be swayed--most importantly subconsciously.
If anyone is watching the meeting online or TV, their being swayed doesn't matter much, as they aren't at the council meeting to lend their voice to one side or the other. If they felt strongly enough about the project (either for or against), they would be at the hearing to lend their voice or would have sent a note indicating their views prior to the deadline for submittals prior to the public hearing. As an aside, I suspect that anyone whose opinion can be swayed by the sight of buttons wasn't firm in their opinion to begin with. Why is the 'No' contingent so quick to blame everyone but themselves?
Mayor Walton reminded everyone at the beginning of the public hearing that there was to be no applause whether for or against. He also made mention that according to the speaker sign up sheet it was clear they were leaning one way and so it was extra important that the no applause rule be enforced. He went on to say that people can be easily intimidated at these meetings, especially first time speakers and that everyones voice should be heard and is important. I'm with the Mayor and his sincerity on this and I'll bet you dollars to donuts he and councillors didn't like the YES buttons. This was a meeting about our community and the direction it is going and the people need to be heard. Public speaking is also one of the most difficult things a person can attempt so the environment needs to be as neutral as possible.
John, discouraging applause and other disruptions are part of the rule of order for public hearings and have nothing to do with stifling speech. Your suggesting that buttons not be allowed has nothing to do with rule of order and everything to do with limiting speech. That you are even obliquely suggesting that this is okay leaves me to seriously question your motives. Having spoken in front of committees and council, I know full well how difficult it is. For some it's impossible. So, if their wearing a button showing their support, or disapproval, can help them convey their wishes to council, so be it.
Since when does John not know this? You must be the brother or sister of Doug Curran or Dan Ellis. Autocrats.
Anon 5:49pm what are you talking about?
I walked over to Canyon Springs [shovels in the ground] on Mountain Highway and 27th St today. A Polygon Development. I went into the sales office and asked about getting a brochure as the website wasn't up to snuff. I was told I had to sign in with my email address and phone number before she would talk to me. I said I wasn't comfortable releasing personal information and she turned around and walked away. I left with no information.
I also think that the last commenter 5:49 missed the boat. They just think they are autocrats. Worse.
When you go to a store, do you demand a product without providing something in return? If you were interested in buying, you'd give your information. If you're just there to kick tires, why should the sales office waste their time and resources on you? They're under no obligation to serve you.
Like to think I encourage, not stifle free speech. When have you seen me stifle speech here on this blog unless it's defamatory or disrespectful? Buttons, T-shirts are expressions and examples of free speech so to suggest otherwise would be wrong. I guess I'd just hoped for an environment of neutrality in a public hearing.
Those who have the resources, the will, and the organization to get their word out triumph over those who don't. That's democracy. Doesn't necessarily make them right, just makes them victorious.
Then why were you suggesting buttons not be permitted if you agree that they are a form of free speech?
John, what would make you think that there is anything neutral about a public hearing?! Neither council nor gallery are neutral so how could you seriously hope for a neutral environment?!
I have no problem with buttons or t-shirts. I also don't buy the argument that the developers have any kind of leg up because they are more organized or well funded. The anti-highrise crowd has had no trouble campaigning for their viewpoint, they shouldn't begrudge supporters of the project the same leeway.
I do not support people carrying signs in the council chambers. They should be free to have signs out in the parking lot, but not inside.
It is incredibly cynical but accurate I am told by more than a few developers throughout the planet that the people who participate in these public hearings have a financial gain to be achieved somehow if the development is approved.
There is way more motivation to show up at meeting if it directly affects your pocketbook.
That cuts both ways, sometimes the neighbors are concerned a project will negatively affect their value... Are the councils supposed to ignore the supporters because they stand to gain financially, shouldn't they also ignore the people who stand to lose financially?
Anon 1:37
Interesting the way you use the word "ignore." Twice.
Obviously it is tongue in cheek, but 1:07 certainly appeared to be suggesting that people with a financial motive should be disregarded in some fashion.
First comment after reading all of the posts.
Folks that take the time to comment here or attend council meetings have an interest in matters at hand. Whether the motivation is philosophical, a matter of principle, preference or finance isn't really the point.
Like minded persons who have organized themselves into a group, wearing similar clothing, badges, pins etc. such as trade union members frequently address councils en masse. It is a common occurrence and within accepted presentation.
What the person looks like or wears is really trivial.
The 2 most important points are that that each person is permitted to express themself without interruption and that their opinion is received equally, fairly and given full consideration.
Everything else is window dressing.
Post a Comment