What's on your mind North Vancouver? Want to blog about scofflaw mountain bikers, rampant fast-paced development, low voter turnout, over paid CUPE workers, grid lock, louzy politicians, good politicians, dog-walking groups, hikers, equestrians, trail assessments gone bad, good semaritins, community associations, high taxes, bus depots that never were, the 'A' word...it"s what we're all about at nvp.com.
Please feel free to add to the above list. It's great to see everyone's various points of views and ideas on all the issues in our community.
101 comments:
I chose to bring up a couple comments from the Watermain post, that changed into a topic on mountain biking lobby ("all that you need to do is emulate the democratic practices that the NSMBA have demonstrated for you.") Namely -
Barry Rueger said...
It always amuses me when a group that actually gets their act together enough to work with the District, to lobby Council, to build a positive public image, and an international profile, and who actually got one of their number elected to Council, is portrayed as somehow abusing the process.
In simple terms, if you and your neighbours really want to eliminate mountain biking all that **you need to do is emulate the democratic practices that the NSMBA have demonstrated for you.**
Or is that too much work?
-----------------------------
A response -
Barry, your comment on Friday, April 24, 2015 3:28:00 pm is just so full of it.
What you are saying is that if a strong-armed selfish interest group can intimidate, bully and threaten the opposition --- and then get support for all their wrong-doing from our politicians, public land managers, and corporate cohorts and industry interests -- that is called democracy?
You really need to take off those rose-coloured glasses you wear, Barry. This was far from fair and democratic public process that gave the NSMBA their present status quo -- and I am sure that you know it, too.
---------------------------------
So there we have it, readers. We need to emulate the mean-spirited tactics of the NSMBA in order to gain support from our elected members. That is the democratic way.
Don't forget the lobbying pros the NSMBA has onboard. They make themselves out to be "saviours" of the mountains, not the massive destructive people they really are. With impunity!
I stand by my comment. They organized, they built community support, they worked with District staff, and they nominated and elected one of their own.
That is how you change things in a democracy.
And, to this day, I have yet to see one single recreational hiker maintaining any trail, anywhere.
And John, if there's topic ripe for discussion on the North Shore, it's the intense hatred of any change of any sort, by anyone, at any time.
I swear if you stood up and offered to hand out $100 bills to orphans and widows there would at least a dozen Lynn Valley residents writing letters to the North Shore News complaining about it.
When you have no defense, create an offence.
Barry, you live in a la-la world where people don't lie. What the NSMBA is doing to our mountains is in violation of many laws.
It is ignored.
Why?
Two quotes of note that explain a lot about the whole sordid MTB affair, from day one, and those who support the NSMBA:
“Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.”
― Leo Tolstoy
“Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”
― Augustine of Hippo
Let's put this into starker perspective (that may offend some...apologies in advance) in order to get the point across more clearly -
The Nazis were also a very organized group of thugs who built community support, and the autobahn,etc., electing one of their own. Did that make them right?
Don't be fooled. There are a few hiking and other non-mountain biking groups that do actual maintenance and repair to some trails. They just don't brag about it the way the MTBers do. But, rarely what the NSMBA does can be called actual "maintenance" of trails.
The NSMBA continues to dig and cut more and more NEW trails all the time. Why? Because their trails have become so eroded beyond repair. Or they have just become bored with what they already have.
If you truly understood the mountain biking cult, Barry, you would understand how both the riding, the trail and structure building cannot remain separate from each other.
Both the MTB riding and trail building activities are doing a crap-load of damage to our forest and watershed habitats. And these lovely MTBers continue to scoff at the rules, and Environmental Protection laws. But don't let that get in the way of the MTB lies.
@Barry
.... to hand out $100 bills to orphans and widows there would at least a dozen Lynn Valley residents writing letters to the North Shore News complaining about it.
You're right, except that the dozen Lynn Valley resident belong to the NSMBA, and they would be demanding that the $100 be reduced to $40.
What laws are being violated, anon 6:46pm? List them, please.
Mocreal, your hatred of any user of the trails other than yourself is well documented and verging on pathological. If your opinion was held by the majority, you would no doubt be able to gather a group to lobby just as effectively as the mountain bikers have. Your ranting is tiresome to the majority of sane North Vancouver residents. From your rantings on this blog, you'd figure that the hills were filled with berserkers running amok. Well, the truth is, every person I've spoken to have not experienced anything like you describe. In my years of walking my dogs on the trails, I've never had a bad experience with bikers. Your ranting is nothing but that that, ranting. Learn to share the trails.
And John, enough of this crap already! There's been enough bandwidth wasted on Mocreal and her small band of fun sponges! The minute she brought Nazis into the discussion, she lost all credibility. Enough!
Blah, blah, blah, Anon 7:50. You think the mountain bikers haven't brought the "Nazi scenario" into play against the opposition? They lost credibility a long time ago.
You haven't a clue about these bikers, do you? Or, you are one of them.
Why did the DNV suppress the independent trails report? Where was the public debate. It is on their website, but you have to look for it. And if you don't know it's there you won't be reading it.
This report points out many problems associated with mountain biking and suggestions are made for amelioration, but the NSMBA certainly doesn't have to follow these suggestions.
Aimed at MTBers breaking the law...from the ever-disingenuous DNV...
"In the meantime, because the District has been experiencing a **significant increase** in the building of unauthorized trails on the mountain..."
"We (DNV) will also develop a public outreach program, to help people better understand the fragility of the ecosystem..."
http://www.dnv.org/upload/pcdocsdocuments/2xzhl01_.pdf
Mountain bikers very heavy "footprint" contributes to:
Damage to tree roots;
Loss of ground vegetation;
Spread of invasive species; and,
Cutting of trees and stumps;
Changes to natural hydrology;
Soil erosion;
Creation of borrow pits;
Human and dog trampling of vegetation (dogs running off leash with MTBers, up and down the trails -- day and at night, too);
Development of unauthorized trails;
Reduced use by wildlife
(Yes, hikers can cause damage, also -- but off-road extreme mountain dirt biking leaves behind a much heavier "footprint" on the natural environment, in spades! [no pun intended.])
The only working solution to all this is to properly contain, manage and enforce this wily MTB sport in our midst. Without it, nothing is going to change in the amount of damage being wreaked by this off-road wreckreational sport.
But, perhaps that is what DNV/Metro wants? A thoroughly damaged environment, so they can build more housing and roads up the slopes...
Nothing else makes sense, as the NSMBA keeps on digging more new "sanctioned" trails, by building on **illegal (er...pardon me, I meant "unsanctioned") parasite lines, while ignoring Streamside Protection laws by building berms right up against ephemeral creeks. I don't need to spell it out anymore to the willfully blind.
(**Mountain bikers don't like the term "illegal". It makes it sound like "Mountain biking is a crime".)
Well, duh, Anon 7:50pm. I am getting pretty fed up listening to people like you praising these callous MTB ecological vandals in the woods who pose as "caring" stewards of the forest to the very naive general public.
Have a good day!
Guess you can retitle this 'concerning nsmba'.. does no-one have anything to say about slot machines for instance? or the slate in the City? or the rudeness of some councillors in the city?
There certainly is a "slate" in the District as well. Most densification votes are 4/3 in favour in both municipalities, with the respective mayors the tie-breaker if one of the slate is absent from the vote. Not much hope of any slow-down too soon.
The ongoing rape of our woods is a huge deal, while our three municipal councils pose on their "Green and Sustainable" platforms.
Replacing damaged natural capital with a poorer man-made version costs mega-bucks. Why damage something nature gives us for free? ie. flood control, etc.
What our Councils propose is density and congestion (whether we drive cars or take transit). This will result in a more degraded environment both inside and outside of our woods.(If I wanted to live in Surrey, I would have moved there)
Canada is a wide open country. We don't need to be packed like sardines in ticky tacky condos.
Young people need to move to smaller towns, where they can afford nice homes for the price of a 500 sq ft condo in Metro, and comfortably raise their families, build businesses, and create thriving places to live.
Staying in Metro is not an option if they want the same things their parents and grandparents have. Heck, if I were to try to buy my home today, I wouldn't be able to afford it, either.
The North Shore is only as good as its two bridges can carry the growing population, including the growing population coming down from the Sea to Sky area.
It will be a fine mess.
slate??? I vote for the persons best qualified to be a councillor, or mayor. From the just past municipal elections it has proven that those running for Mayor, without ANY previous experience on a council, failed to garner enough votes.
Its easy for voters to reflect on incumbents past deeds, the political 'baggage' that they all seem to carry on their shoulders and how they handled it.
A Candidate who hasn't been grilled by the Press, praised or criticized by the public has NO baggage other than what they promise they will do IF elected.
My one wish is that those candidates who lost, and seem to be still in election mode, the more they take pot shots from the sidelines, the more they convince me I was right not to vote for them, .... dare I say slate.
What's wrong with being in "election mode?" We should all watch our councils and write letters, etc. We need to get more people to pay attention to municipal politics. Remember the approx. 20% voter turnout in both the City and the District?
the reality is that not even .1% of the voters are attending councils and/or writing letters to the editors. SIG yes, but they attend once or twice until their issues are resolved.
Make voting mandatory or face a fine like an increase to your property tax ... that can then be shared, passed onto your tenants who also didn't vote.
I recommend a book written by Alison Loat & Michael MacMillan called Tragedy in the Commons...Former Members of Parliament Speak Out About Canada's Failing Democracy.
I hope it is available at our libraries.
Vancouver Canucks lost last night and Calgarians put on an impromptu Celebration of Lights in English Bay. Go Calgary Go.
I was just wunderin..
If we are 'expecting' another million souls to migrate to the lower mainland by 2040, as our mayor and the transit referendum propaganda blares, where is the referendum on the future of health care for the million? Are we inventing tax schemes and plans to train the doctors, build hospitals in preparation for that million? Right now we have a transit system that INCLUDES cars which people are actually willing to pay for and maintain and insure without coercion. Will we spend all our lucre on forcing carss off the road so that we will be happily riding buses to the USA for a doctor's appointment?
It appears that the "regional growth strategy" supersedes all levels of elected government.
What exactly is this regional growth strategy? I know some cities signed on to a certain level of density, but that's not enough information.
Apparently "we" (being those that are here now) need to take on extra taxes so that we can get ready and make it comfortable for the next million folks that are going to show up and reduce their impact on ourselves.
What's wrong with this picture?
How about a new kind of tax? If you aren't from here, i.e. you or your parents haven't lived in the region for the last 20 years or more then you have a special tax added to your rental or home property tax. User pay. That is you are helping pay for the extra infrastructure that needs to be in place for your arrival.
In other countries they charge triple non-resident property taxes. Lets take a page from their book and not place the burden on the current residents and start sharing it with the expected residents. Who knows - maybe it will have an impact and not so many will show up and we won't have the crushing density that we all abhor and, by extension, we won't need as much infrastructure and so the taxes won't be so high.
And what of those who are moving from within the country/province? You can restrict the movement of the citizenry.
They're not restricted. Come if you want. Just kick into the infrastructure because we can't afford you and don't feel like paying through the nose to prepare the way.
How do you propose to do that? Head tax?
I like the brilliant idea the city hatched that eliminated all the bus pullouts. The logic is that the buses were having difficulty entering back into traffic when the pullouts were in place. Eliminating the pullout simply added to the gridlock. You can through all the money in the world at translink and it will still be the same highly dysfunctional system where your tax dollars will be consumed by an overpaid administration.
throw
We already have head tax. Its called personal income tax. Taxes are collected on behalf of the province in the federal income tax. The province remits to the cities.
The federal income tax wants to know if you are a Canadian, if you live on Nishka lands, what your foreign property and investment holdings are, your marital status etc. Doesn't take much imagination to ask a few more questions and remit the $$ to the effected cities and help defray the cost to the rest of us.
Tax newcomers to defray the cost of the irresponsible sprawl of the people already here? Why should the newcomers pay for your mistakes?
"Irresponsible sprawl'. Oh here we go.
How would you describe it?
How about the RCMP which we two municipalities pay mega $$$ for without reasonable accountability?
On CBC radio this AM there was a man whose 4-year old son took off his wet clothes and ran around in his yard naked and the RCMP showed up the next day? Can't have a naked 4-year-old out on a nice day in Canada??
What the hell is this?
Yes, tax newcomers to pay for the transit and addition required infrastructure etc. As the radio ad for the Yes campaign tells us, "we need to vote yes for higher taxes because 1,000,000 more people will be here within 10 years.
Uh, no.
Let the newcomers pay their way. User pay. |(See bridge tolls and road tax)
How do bridge and road tolls determine who is a newcomer? Why start having newcomers pay now? Why not make it retroactive to the point when you were a newcomer? Besides taxes (that every home owner pays), what have you contributed above and beyond what any new comer would pay? Apart from already living here, what makes you so special?
By the way, any newcomer who moves here and buys a new house or condo, is already contributing significantly to local infrastructure. It's built into the price of their new home. In case you weren't aware, each new development (regardless of the size) is levied fees to contribute to new infrastructure for that project. These are commonly referred to as DCC's (development cost charges). These go towards paying for new roads and other services so that local government and residents aren't left on the hook for these costs. The developer pays these charges and passes them on to the purchaser. So, beyond your local property tax bill, what have you contributed to the cost of infrastructure?
My, my, my..where to start...
Firstly lets dismiss the feigned misunderstanding of bridge tolls and road taxes. They are examples of user pay. Nothing more, nothing less but a concept that I suspect you may not favour.
The extension of that concept is that (new) users pay for (new) infrastructure that must be provided for their use as their (new) presence overwhelms our current resources.
The ad hominem argument. Well personal attack vents the bile and calms the furies but doesn't impress.
My prior point was that there was a time in this fair region not so long ago when there was a reasonable balance between our infrastructure and amenities. Due to extremely heavy influx to the region we have lost that balance and are we under advisement that government (due to their own policies) foresees no relief on this front.
Ergo infrastructure must be created for our new residents or it has to be created after they show up. Pick any point in time, just as we do with imposing a bridge toll, and establish a new tax to furnish new infrastructure and amenities for the arriving folks. Don't want to pay don't come.
Thank you for the DCC tutorial. I am probably more familiar with them than most. You are quite right in that they go into the pot for local government (but do bean-all for provincial and federal services that will be required). You will also find that the distribution of DCC funds tend to offset existing costs on a one-time basis and the ongoing operating costs of that same infrastructure falls back upon the usual suspects - the general tax base. DCCs are a drop in the bucket when it comes to new capital projects (like the Translink referendum tells us) and then we permanently eat the ongoing operating costs for all that new stuff.
Lets not mention that unbridled "density" diminishes the quality of life over time for all.
Finally, back to the ad hominem.
How have we "contributed above and beyond what any new comer would pay?" you ask.
I was clearly speaking for all of the population already here before you went into the personal attack mode.
"Special" you ask? Not really.
Paid our fair share. I think so. Like many other families we arrived before there was a Canada or US and have loyally contributed economically and in government and business, and literally cleared the land, homesteaded, built the roads, schools and towns. That is, we helped build the infrastructure required for our communities and the passed it down to the generations. No one prepared the way so that we could show up and be comfortable. We fought in every conflict since 1621 defending firstly British North America, then Canada, losing 2 family members in memory of some still living. I spent a lifetime career serving the community. So I'm feeling like we've thrown into the pot.
So now that we've gotten to know each other better how about you?
You've been in north van since 1621?
Good lord, 9:02 could you possibly be more full of yourself?
Each question asked and answered.
That's your best reply? Another personal attack? Oh well, we must work with what we have.
Everyone pays their fair share, regardless of when they move into a community. Anon 9:02pm, I'm not really sure what your family history has to do with any of this discussion. If you think that it gives you more status over other citizens then that's your prerogative. I suspect that it isn't something that is really going to impress anyone, particularly where paying property taxes or contributing to the financial well-being of the community is concerned. Newcomers contribute as well. Possibly even more than you. Sprawl has been the greatest enemy, where infrastructure is concerned. It's wasteful and expensive. Newcomers aren't responsible for that. That falls squarely on the land speculators of the past. Denser development reduces the need for the extensive infrastructure and offers more housing options for those who are here that want to downsize or for those who are entering the market for the first time.
Anon. 8:22
"...and offers more housing options for those who are here that want to downsize....."
That is a load of crap! The relatively low prices of the condos entice people to move here. People who may be buying into the "non urban" environment. It is a con.
I used to believe the benefit of density theory too. I think that is does work when we have a generational progression of our seniors downsizing into managed growth smaller housing freeing up their larger homes for their children. As most families have more than one child additional housing has to be created for those young adults. This creates a predictable density growth curve.
Due to the unbridled influx of new residents the growth curve is so skewed that the manageable refurbishment of existing infrastructure and creation of new infrastructure is approaching critical mass (one tiny example: Translink referendum).
The excessive crowding on streets, in parks, shopping malls, parking lots, sidewalks, length of line-ups and diminishing level and quality of public sector services to an over-burdened infrastructure is a new reality. Taking the N. Shore as a living example we see "sprawl" i.e. N. Van District population has not grown appreciably in 25 years but sprawls from Deep Cove to Capilano River. Core density i.e. tiny N. Van City's highrises and low rise multifamily dwellings and accompanying population explosion has adversely impacted the quality of life on the N. Shore, possibly irreparably.
I disagree with your premise that everyone pays their fair share regardless of when they move into a community.
When you move into a community you enjoy the benefits of the infrastructure that was purchased and put in place by those that preceded you. OK. An acceptable reality. That is based upon managed incremental growth. If so many folks move in such that new infrastructure must be put in place to just to accomodate the additional population then that is explosive growth. A different reality. The existing population doesn't require the additional infrastructure for themselves as it is already in balance for that population.
I don't believe that it is up to the existing population to "pre-fund" the additional infrastructure for the anticipated additional new population (i.e. Translink in the immediate future, all other public services to come). Firstly I'm not at all sure the additional 1,000,000 population is necessary and secondly surely they should be contributing to the capital cost of additional infrastructure created for their benefit. Yes, they will contribute equally to operating costs as you point out - but not the capital costs which we are voting to pre-fund prior to their arrival. This is my point. I get that we disagree and I respect your opinion, we just have differing points of view.
Finally, the personal stuff. I will try a third time. I consistently made the point inclusive of all current existing population. It was Anon 12:14 who chose to personalize the discussion. I replied using the examples of prior infrastructure creation by my family and myself inclusive of "many other families" who similarly were responsible for existing infrastructure creation. If one can't see that inclusion and must to reduce it to the messenger then that is their prerogative and also doesn't impress anybody as it is an obvious red-herring.
I wouldn't worry too much. Given the trendy sense of entitlement and nanny state boosters it is a dead certainty that actually paying one's way (in this case for capital infrastructure) is dead in the water. We can look forward to ballooning taxes and diminishing quality of service and life as the gift of ongoing unchecked density runs amok.
Brilliant anon. 10:56
Perfect example is Surrey. Case rested.
Gregor Robertson reciting Calgary Mayor's poem & wearing a Flames jersey.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=w2Tn5mZ5F8U
As a point of conversation, a million more by 2040? At what year were we a million less than now? Anyone happen to know?
Also what is the total population of our fair region presently?
And what do we imagine this coming 'million' people are going to for a living?
Laudner money?
I mean I'd really like to know.
To John Sharpe: that would be the Regional Growth Strategy, agreed to by all 21 munis etc. Based in 2006 numbers - pop 2.4M target 2041 3.4M.
Details here: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/Pages/default.aspx
For instance, City of North Van has already exceeded 2041 targets with what's currently planned or underway. We have details should there be any doubters.
@NorthVanVoices, and anyone else that is interested, "City of North Van has already exceeded 2041 targets"????? Do you mean 2014 has been exceeded already? What's it going to be like in 26 Years (2041)?
@NorthVanVoicesWe have details should there be any doubters.
We don't doubt your numbers but could you give us your source for the "details" on CNV because the other link is only for Metro Vancouver?
North Shore News: What to expect when a 7.3 quake hits DISTRICT North Vancouver Jane Seyd / North Shore News April 29, 2015
It looks like CNV is invincible, earthquake proof even as DNV crumbles.
To 1:12,
Regional Growth targets for dwelling units and population:
Population Projections
2021 2031 2041
Target 56,000 62,000 68,000
Projected Increase in Number of Dwellings (Est. units 2011 -24,206)
Target 25,600 28,00 31,000
Our submission at the March 2015 OCP Public Hearing is here:
https://nvcityvoices.wordpress.com/2015/03/04/ocp-public-hearing-citizens-deserve-better/
do all the anons have numbers?
will there be a starbucks?
are bullying bikers cyclepaths?
does anyone think there will be less people?
how can we defeat harper?
Wendy's letter in yesterday's Province:
Growth is wrecking Surrey
It’s hard for me to believe that the pro-development crowd don’t get what they have done to our society. What has happened to Surrey is a direct result of over-densification. The rampant densification without infrastructure in place has resulted in mayhem. Where are the real schools? Where are the stoplights? Where is the transit access?
Surrey is an excellent example of over-densification gone bad.
It slays me that former Surrey mayor Dianne Watts is lauded as an excellent leader and is now running for MP for the Tories.
Wendy Qureshi, North Vancouver
Yes, because Wendy Qureshi is an expert who knows what she's talking about.
How any person capable of rational, independent thought can give her uninformed rants any consideration is beyond me.
I'm not so familiar with Wendy Qureshi's 'rants' as you put it.
BuT if her post is an example of what you might be referring to, then I'd suggest you take a walk down to "LoLO"(gag me!), take a cross street, you know, one with all the vibrant, walkable, mixed use towers on it and turn to look at our beautiful 'signature' mountains. If that doesnt do the trick, then turn 180 and absorb the 'vibrant' view south to the water. After you do that, then read her 'rant' again. It should be pretty much self evident at that point, especially if you take a car.
If you got out of your car, you might see something a little different. Maybe even enjoyable. Take your bike or walk; after all, this city is only 5km square. "LoLo", as you call it, is a pretty active place with plenty to keep you busy and entertained.
Actually 11.95 sqkm/ which is 4.6 sq miles
The difference between North Vancouver and Surrey is that its not hemmed in by the natural geography of our mountains, the sea, with only two routes to the south shore.
What Surrey needs is to be drawn and quartered with Israeli West Bank barriers, and then, and only then, four divisions of RCMP.
From Friday's North Shore News:
Dear Editor:
The government wants to know in a plebiscite how I want to pay for transit infrastructure to support a million new residents.
Take a step back and first have a plebiscite asking if I want a million new residents. Or is that not something existing residents have a say in?
Mark Cunnington
North Vancouver
- See more at: http://www.nsnews.com/opinion/letters/letter-plebiscite-has-it-wrong-1.1871781#sthash.WZZCRaBH.dpuf
How exactly to you propose stopping people from moving into the region? It's not like Canada has any laws that prevent freedom of movement within its borders. You might want to think of the consequences if we did. You can't just pull up the draw bridge to a community because you don't like the idea of sharing with more people. You want less population? Move to the Prairies. There was a lots of room there when I last visited.
Anon 8:21
You and people like you are the problem.
Damaged forests, wetlands and watersheds are not worth a damn, and will have to be replaced by very expensive and inferior man-made devices. "Thanks" to our resident off-roaders on two wheels.
Guess who pays?
“Recreation is no longer about an individual going out into the public land and enjoying themselves. It’s not about relaxation. It’s about weekend warriorism and group parties and conquering nature and corporations selling something. And these groups that support this new form of recreation realize that access is the key to their business.”
~Scott Silver
"It(is)about the packaging and promotion and marketing and exploitation of beauty and solitude and all the aspects of wild and open country that we once valued, in the name of Greed."
~Jim Stiles
The same can be said about the Greed of the developers who are building us crap that will fall apart within a couple decades! Don't be fooled.
“If you throw a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will hop right out. But if you put that frog in a pot of tepid water and slowly warm it, the frog doesn't figure out what going on until it's too late. Boiled frog. It's just a matter of working by slow degrees.” ~Stephanie Meyer
You have to be willfully blind if you cannot see through the hypocrisy of Metro Vancouver and the municipal minions who follow Metro's edicts for "Smart Growth and Sustainability".
It is not about "saving the planet Earth" but about the whittling away of democracy an about control. Wake up people. You really think they care about our concerns?
Anon 9:56am, rather than the infantile insults, perhaps you could present some solutions to the problems that you perceive as facing the community. Sniping doesn't really do much but identify you as a lazy thinker. Please share with us how you would prevent people from coming to our community (or any desirable community for that matter). If you have all the answers, share them with us.
Anon, 10:42am, the developers will only provide a product that the public is willing to buy. It's really as simple as that. If you want to see better, start lobbying government to require better. Start informing the buying public to demand better. Did you know that a house that is built to meet the code is the worse construction that a builder is legally allowed to get away with? That doesn't do much for ones confidence in the product being sold, does it? You'll find a handful of designers and builders who are trying to do better by attempting to educate the buying public to spend a little more money on their new home for a better, more sustainable product. There are building standards out there that can facilitate a home that is healthier, longer lasting and requires far less energy to operate than the stuff being built now. An example of this is the Passive House standard. Unfortunately it costs a little bit more to build and it's difficult to get the average consumer to spend more than they have to. Never mind that the actual cost to operate such a home is less than a standard code-bunt home. Sadly, most people only look at initial cost and not the cost to operate. Slowly, though, we'll see more people demand that new homes be built this way. Local governments are starting to see the advantage and are implementing codes to reflect this. It takes time. If it's what you'd like to see, let your local government know that you want a better product than what's presently being built and sold. Because I do agree, that most of what's being built is garbage that will soon be for the landfill. We can do better.
@7:58 a.m.
An election promise from CNV Mayoralty candidate Kerry Morris:
For a Livable City http://kerrymorris.ca/
.... why are we so committed to turning North Vancouver into a smaller version of Hong Kong, or Beijing? Why don't we strive to keep this place the way it is
Hmmmph. Since we seem to have exhausted all other Topics of Great Importance, maybe it's time to ask:
What's with all of this sunshine? And why doesn't government do something about it?
All that it does is give our kids skin cancer and increase the risk of massive forest fires!
Plus, if you watch the hills, there are always a lot more mountain bikers when it's sunny!
The sense of entitlement of people who abuse our forests is frightening. Barry, if we continue at this rate, it won't be too many years down the road when our forests will be ruined, as clear-cutting has done to them over the last century. Mountain biking is a slower version of clear-cutting.
Exactly the same, except for the actual clear-cutting...
Ok here's a question:
Which of the local mountains is covered in first growth forest?
I think this is some macabre plan by some God to make sure we look after our planet. We must protect our planet, i.e. the human race.
Don't you mean old-growth?
http://vancouversbigtrees.com/ including the North Shore
Bogus link.
If 'old growth' means ' never been logged'... then that's what I meant.
I guess 'first growth' would probably refer to the first trees seeded from California forests that took over the newly bared landscape after the 2 km thick ice sheet covering the lower mainland all melted.
That would only be about 6000 years ago, but I doubt if any trees are 6000 years old up there today.
'Ancient forests' aren't really so ancient after all.
Amyway, rephrasing the question..
Which of the local mountains have not been logged?
Which of the local mountains have not been logged?
or not been clear cut, first with FIRE, secondly with AVALANCHES
1930
1940 - 1948
Why is it that because something may have been destroyed by man in the past (then has had some time to revive because one generation had the foresight to protect it), man insists that it be destroyed again, via very invasive off-road mountain biking activities?
It is most hypocritical. These very same mountain bikers who write "odes" to the bike, while driving their huge SUVs and 4x4s to the mountain slopes to ride, demonize the pre-1980s homes built up here (and some of these MTBers live in the demonized neighbourhoods.) Mind boggling!
The fact is that MTBers are paving way for future housing development further up the slopes. District is being mum on that fact. Tell THAT to your children and grandchildren, with pride.
Anon 12:43. The regional growth that exceeds our existing infrastructure is propelled by 3 streams of newcomers.
They are:
1. Canadian citizens from other parts of the country;
2. Immigrants seeking Canadian citizenship;
3. Foreign investors who live elsewhere and may live here from time to time.
The Constitution enshrines a freedom to travel and work for Canadians. In my opinion they have every legal right to move anywhere they like in the country.
The other 2 classes of newcomers can be controlled by legislation and taxation.
The immigrants seeking citizenship must identify their ultimate residential location. Easier access is given to those stating Quebec as their destination. This is known by those seeking access and many claim Quebec but then settle here in order to gain entry. Tightening up on entry requirements by only allowing residence in specified areas for a defined time frame would greatly help our situation. Obviously, follow up to ensure that the rules are being followed is crucial.
The foreign investor/occasional resident class could be alleviated to some extent by tripling the property tax as is done in Florida for non-American and American non-resident real estate investors. If triple doesn't do it then use a different factor that stems the flow.
Just a few suggestions for a starting place to help deal with our out of control growth.
Can anyone provide info. re: posting links within the comment section such as how anonymous did on 'Monday, May 04, 2015 7:17:00 a.m.'?
I would like to be able to provide 'clickable' links here, bu don't know how to.
76 comments. Wow haven't seen that many on this blog since the cows came home.
Source of How To is here:
https://support.google.com/blogger/answer/42069?hl=en
It's difficult to just show you here because the example would execute and look just like 1930. However we'll give it a go.
Put a greater and lesser symbol at the end, to enclose it.
< >
a href="http://news.google.com/">Google News</a
Just go to the link at the top
How To II http://www.w3schools.com/Html/html_links.asp
Imagine a few of these amenities being added to the North Shore forests by the NSMBA which has reportedly hired Pete Nelson, Tree House Man
So the NSMBA are going to turn our forests into a frickin' Ewok Village after all?
A big whack of the forest land adjacent to the North Shore is watershed and wont be used for anything else. We have 3 local ski operations going, and hiking trails.
I think ti could be worked out as to how much of BC's 1 million square kilometres, mostly forested could be dedicated to a few bike runs.
It should worked out then capped.
Making hotlinks:
Let's say you want to tell people about some cool website you found, let's call it, www.somecoolwebsite.com. Here's an example of what you might type in:
Hey all. Check out this! It's a really cool website I found.
In this example, the word "this" would be the link to www.somecoolwebsite.com. That is, it would show up as a blue underlined word on your blog. The key things to note are:
1. The "a href" stuff must be enclosed in these kind of brackets <>. That lets the computer know you're entering HTML and not just typing stuff to be displayed.
Ok the newcomers debate has gone from weird to ridiculous.
When they said new comers, they should have just left it at new units.
Where someone came from is irrelevant, the fact that I may or may not have to wait in more traffic to move around my community is quite relevant.
So quit trolling for racists.
Anon 1:04. I think that if you actually read the posts you will find that "where somebody comes from" has not been linked to any race whatsoever.
The point is that foreign investors and/or foreign immigration applicants are arriving in numbers greater than the existing regional infrastructure can support.
Whether those individuals are from Europe, the UK, Russia or anywhere else is irrelevant.
So if you are in the camp that wants to pay soaring taxes to ensure that infrastructure is in place for the new arrivals then good on you.
I'm not and I don't differentiate between any race at all.
So quit trolling for an absurd accusation.
Newcomers pay taxes just like you or I. Where do those taxes go/ Towards infrastructure (among other things). So to say that they aren't contributing to the infrastructure that we ALL use is just spin. Much of our existing infrastructure is aging and in need of upgrading and repair, regardless of who moves here. We will all be sharing the cost of maintaining that whether you like it or not. Personally, I'd prefer to see that infrastructure concentrated into a smaller, more efficient and cost-effective area. If you love the sprawl of the District, that's your right but don't whine when it comes time to pay the bills that come with maintaining that particularly wasteful density. Don't blame the newcomers, blame past decisions.
Anon 8:28. Either you are not reading or you don't understanding the earlier posts on this subject.
We are being asked to prepay for capital infrastructure costs PRIOR TO the arrival of the new residents so that the infrastructure will be in place upon their arrival (Translink referendum as a starter, extra schools, hospitals, ambulance stations, policing stations, garbage trucks et al yet to come ).
Repeat: Capital infrastructure spending to service the projected arriving populace. Reference: Translink radio ad that tells us the reason that we need to approve an immediate tax increase is to create new infrastructure for the anticipated 1,000,000 new residents arriving in the next 30 years.
The new residents are not paying for the capital infrastructure that is being paid for prior to their arrival as they aren't here to pay the taxes that you reference.
Much of our infrastructure is recently built and much of the infrastructure projected is for expansion - not refurbishment or replacement. Reason? It has to be expanded to handle the rapidly expanding population growth.
Yes, new arrivals will begin to share the costs once they arrive. That would appear to be self-evident to even the dimmest of us.
Bully for you if you prefer high density - move to a horribly crowded city and have a ball. Just don't bring it here because many of us don't want that quality of life.
I'm not whining at all about paying for low density. I like it.
I think that it is absolutely ridiculous that the politicians are proposing that we pay now for the future high density that we are inviting to our region.
Actually, I think the money being requested is to make a transit system that is effective for the people who are here now. Transonic has a lot of catching up to do to serve the existing population.
New Topic:
Plumber Apprentice first rule: Shit flows downhill; Friday is payday. List off where the Pit Toilets are for Fromme, Seymour, and Cypress. Starbuck, Chevron Gas station or just anywhere in the bushes.
" but don't whine when it comes time to pay the bills that come with maintaining that particularly wasteful density"
I'm not quite clear on this concept Anonymous. Are you saying that we need to densify everywhere and knock down all the 'wasteful sprawl', replacing it with multifamily 'efficency'?
Or are you saying we jnust need to keep adding high rises, and that will make the 'wasteful sprawl' affordable?
Are you saying there are NO NEW COSTS associated with increasing population? No reoadwork to be done? no sewage processing, no electrical capacity, no heating systems, no transportation to be expanded?
When all the dense glass towers being built today are finally full to the brim with the new MILLION, will your replacement simply be recycling the same arguments for more of the same? Your arguments for the NEED to house and absorb the MILLION can be applied at any population leverl woth no upper bound.
If so, then I think you've committed to an unsustainable model of infinite growth. YOu must, by logic, believe that the lower mainland can house any number of people with no upper bound. I mean why a MILLION? Why not 24 Million as can be found in SHANGHAI?
Why not indeed.
How do you prevent people from moving here? And by here I mean the lower mainland. People make it sound as though they're all coming to the north shore.
Anon 12:17. Read Anon 12:08 to find your answer.
No, that's just xenophobic speculation about who the newcomers are and presents no realistic solution to the perceived threat of the newcomers. There have always been newcomers. Why is it suddenly a problem?
Really? I see no speculation about "who" the newcomers are in that post. Apparently they are just Canadians and non-Canadian.
Xenophobia. "an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange"
Don't see any fear or hatred either so I wouldn't be quite so quick to dismiss through a buzzword allegation.
I do see a lack of interest in increasing regional density and a distaste for increased taxation to accommodate the higher populations.
The solutions presented are exactly what has been done in other jurisdictions to reduce population growth so apparently they are real solutions.
http://www.francesbula.com/uncategorized/australia-has-limits-and-reporting-requirements-for-foreign-ownership-of-homes-we-asked-is-it-working/
Read the article. Reminds me of listening to Vancouver Councillor Meggs telling us that they need to "investigate" what is driving house prices wild.
Duh.
From the article, "He was also pretty categorical in saying that there is no evidence that foreign investment, at the levels they are currently, is enough to affect housing prices for a whole region."
Gee. The government tells us that we need the additional funding in anticipation of the upcoming 1,000,000 new residents (for you Anon 8:19).
And we can't figure out what is driving the home prices nuts here and apparently some in Australia can't figure it out either.
Well then. Best to just sit on our hands, do nothing, and pony up the endlessly increasing tax burden.
Nothing happening here folks, just move along.
Translink needs the funding to bring services up to a level that will properly accommodate the current population. Forget about the newcomers. Thats an additional concern, and at this point, a red herring. Service, as it stands, is inadequate and needs improvement and will be paid for. Right now, we're being given the opportunity to voice how we pay for it. Ah well, seems to me that all the no voters don't even use the service and blindly follow that 'car is king at all costs' mantra.
Not sure how you know this as the very people who are asking for the extra taxation are advertising that it is required to service the additional population - not the population at current levels.
Maybe someone should give them a buzz and tell the Mayors and Translink that they are incorrect in their information to the public
If you used transit, you would know that it doesn't serve the current population well. If you've been paying attention at all for the past several years you would know that improvements are needed just to meet the needs for current population levels. Service levels need to catch up to existing needs. Then, maybe, Translink will be able to start planning for future populations.
Paying attention?
Speaking of paying one of the things that has come to my attention is that a considerable number of folks that use transit and would like upgrades choose not to pay for their rides. Their preference is that they ride for free and others pay for improvements.
I would like to see improvements start at both ends. All riders pay for use, the duplication of management boards is eliminated and the remaining management team demonstrates that they are effective.
Then we can discuss pumping more into infrastructure.
Ha! I found this quote from NSMB.com from a non-local mountain biker:
"Just curious why most of the established trails on Fromme and Seymour are just left for dead and allowed to get clapped out and die?...Is it a lack of funding to trail maintenence , lack of interest in re fixing old trails or??"
All those $$$$ being doled out to the NSMBA, and nothing but clapped out and dying trails to show for it? I don't know whether to laugh or cry. There are more rumblings coming from other non-locals who think that the North Shore MTB trails stink. All those $$$$ being washed downstream. To achieve this kinds of accolade? Crazy stuff!
What can one expect when DNV gives pearls to swine? It looks like Mayor Walton's MTB dream is becoming a nightmare. The Fromme Mtn Trails Assessment 2015 Report spells it all out "between the lines"
Post a Comment