Here is a neat website if you have some time to kill. Its fun to play with the buildings and I like their attempt to quantify the benefits of density in tangible terms.
http://www.shapevancouver.com/
With that said one of my goals is to get better at decompacting these type of things. Obviously, this "survey" is designed as a way to get people to think about more density in the City, which is not in and of itself a bad thing. However, as the main sponsors are Concord Pacific there is obviously some profit motive at work here as well. Density serves their interests as more density means more condos sold and higher profit margins.
This has got me thinking about my earlier post about the concept of space and how the ways in which we live, the architecture we use, and the planning policies in place reflect changes in the means of production.
We are currently going through a major economic shift, and its interesting to see the local effects of this change.
For whatever reason there is a major push throughout the developed world for more public transit, urban density, and other "sustainable" ways of living. A naive view would say that these changes were demanded by regular people and then implemented by governments on their behalf. An opposite view would say we are being brutally manipulated by power forces outside of our control, in order to have a functional economy in a world without oil etc...The truth lies somewhere else as the relationships between these concepts is complicated. In any sense, these changes are perfectly able to function within capitalism and do not represent an alternative in any real sense even though they are often presented as such.
The key is to make these changes work for everyday people rather than just those in positions of power. What kind of city and what type of social relations are required in order to get rid of capitalism?
With that said lets get me one of those air parcels
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Terminator 4 - Fan Fiction (Episode 1)
John Conner, looked down from the back of his helicopter into the sea below. The waves raged around him, a veritable perfect storm. The wind and seas were so fierce John worried that the pilot might loose control and plunge dangerously into the deep dark ocean.
"Your not going down there are you? You'll never make it to that submarine in this storm," screamed the pilot over the sound of the struggling engine of the now 35 year old helicopter. John spat back in his usual vicious tone. Did no one understand the fate of all mankind rested in his callused hands.
With a determined breath, John jumped into the ocean. He could feel the water surging around him. It dampened his every pore. Soaked him to the bone. John could barely swim, but swim he did. John continued down deep into the murky depths of black foreboding waves, he needed to reach that submarine.
At that very moment, John saw a large dark shape out of the corner of his eye. He feverishly hoped it was his destination. The submarine could not be to far now. John's water logged clothes begged him to give up, to forever commit to the dark mistress of the deep. Despite these feelings John resisted continuing ever forward on his quest.
Upon getting closer, John was disappointed when the ominous shape before him turned out to be a whale. In spite of this, John kept swimming, downwards towards the resistance leadership. As he swam the whale matched his every stroke. The whale got closer and closer, and soon its intentions became clear. Opening its enormous mouth, the whale swallowed John without so much as a thought.
Some time later, John awoke in the stomach of the whale. To his surprise it was quite roomy and he was not alone. In addition to the numerous fish, shipwrecks, and twitching Terminator carcasses, an old man sat in the center of the whales stomach. He was gently roasting a small herring over a tiny fire.
"Greeting wayward traveler. It looks as if you too are stuck in this whales mouth. I myself have been in here for sometime. 25 years by my count. Has much changed since I last saw the sun and stars dance above my head."
John explained to the man, the fate of the world. Of Skynet and the Terminators and how fate had ordained him as the lone protector of mankind. John pleaded with the old man for help. He had to get out of this whales stomach, and quickly. The old man found John's story hard to believe but reluctantly agreed to help.
Just then, John remembered a movie he had seen in what seemed like the distant past. A past without Skynet, without Terminators, and without the horrors he now witnessed daily.
Putting John's plan into action the two men worked diligently. They dutifully piled the wood of various discarded shipwrecks into a makeshift fire. The smoke irritated the whale, and its stomach began convulsing. The smoke had the additional effect of completely drying John's clothes and hair. As the smoked filled the whales stomach, John and the old man smiled at each other. The plan was working it looked as if they would be freed from the stomach of the beast. Spat out of whales stomach like so much fateful vomit.
As the smoke continued to billow the whale let out a tremendous.
AAACHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
And with that John zoomed out of the whales stomach. A bubble of air surrounded him preventing the water from reaching his clothes and hair. Miraculously, the whales smoke induced digestive problems piloted John directly into the waiting hatch of the resistances' command military submarine. Confused but excited, John had reached his destination. Looking around for his comrade in fire and unwanted digestion, John could not see the old man. Out of the submarines' hatch window John caught a glimpse of the now deceased old man sinking slowly into the depths.
Briefly thanking his lost comrade, John continued on with his quest. With the fate of mankind resting in his hands there was no time to waste grieving. With a final thought, he stormed into the command center of the submarine. Finally he posed the information he needed to defeat Skynet once and for all. Fate was ready for him, and John was ready for fate
.....
"Your not going down there are you? You'll never make it to that submarine in this storm," screamed the pilot over the sound of the struggling engine of the now 35 year old helicopter. John spat back in his usual vicious tone. Did no one understand the fate of all mankind rested in his callused hands.
With a determined breath, John jumped into the ocean. He could feel the water surging around him. It dampened his every pore. Soaked him to the bone. John could barely swim, but swim he did. John continued down deep into the murky depths of black foreboding waves, he needed to reach that submarine.
At that very moment, John saw a large dark shape out of the corner of his eye. He feverishly hoped it was his destination. The submarine could not be to far now. John's water logged clothes begged him to give up, to forever commit to the dark mistress of the deep. Despite these feelings John resisted continuing ever forward on his quest.
Upon getting closer, John was disappointed when the ominous shape before him turned out to be a whale. In spite of this, John kept swimming, downwards towards the resistance leadership. As he swam the whale matched his every stroke. The whale got closer and closer, and soon its intentions became clear. Opening its enormous mouth, the whale swallowed John without so much as a thought.
Some time later, John awoke in the stomach of the whale. To his surprise it was quite roomy and he was not alone. In addition to the numerous fish, shipwrecks, and twitching Terminator carcasses, an old man sat in the center of the whales stomach. He was gently roasting a small herring over a tiny fire.
"Greeting wayward traveler. It looks as if you too are stuck in this whales mouth. I myself have been in here for sometime. 25 years by my count. Has much changed since I last saw the sun and stars dance above my head."
John explained to the man, the fate of the world. Of Skynet and the Terminators and how fate had ordained him as the lone protector of mankind. John pleaded with the old man for help. He had to get out of this whales stomach, and quickly. The old man found John's story hard to believe but reluctantly agreed to help.
Just then, John remembered a movie he had seen in what seemed like the distant past. A past without Skynet, without Terminators, and without the horrors he now witnessed daily.
Putting John's plan into action the two men worked diligently. They dutifully piled the wood of various discarded shipwrecks into a makeshift fire. The smoke irritated the whale, and its stomach began convulsing. The smoke had the additional effect of completely drying John's clothes and hair. As the smoked filled the whales stomach, John and the old man smiled at each other. The plan was working it looked as if they would be freed from the stomach of the beast. Spat out of whales stomach like so much fateful vomit.
As the smoke continued to billow the whale let out a tremendous.
AAACHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
And with that John zoomed out of the whales stomach. A bubble of air surrounded him preventing the water from reaching his clothes and hair. Miraculously, the whales smoke induced digestive problems piloted John directly into the waiting hatch of the resistances' command military submarine. Confused but excited, John had reached his destination. Looking around for his comrade in fire and unwanted digestion, John could not see the old man. Out of the submarines' hatch window John caught a glimpse of the now deceased old man sinking slowly into the depths.
Briefly thanking his lost comrade, John continued on with his quest. With the fate of mankind resting in his hands there was no time to waste grieving. With a final thought, he stormed into the command center of the submarine. Finally he posed the information he needed to defeat Skynet once and for all. Fate was ready for him, and John was ready for fate
.....
Thursday, November 12, 2009
My (hopefuly) first McSweeney's Submission
Teammates and fellow Super Soldiers
I regret to inform you that upon reviewing Q1 and Q2 financial statements the Super Soldier - Team X project is expected to be over budget by years end. In the interests of financial accountability and the continued success of this program the following efficiencies are to be be implemented immediately:
- use of the Super Sub/Invisible Plane for personal/take home use is suspended until further notice
- Personnel Defence Lasers can only be set above 40 megawatts with the signed justification from your supervisor ( See Josie to pick up your new and improved - Personnel Defence Laser Use Form 101A)
- In the event that an appropriate catastrophic event(A.C.E) occurs outside of regular working hours call-outs are limited to Standby Team A only, with this said underwater catastrophes remain the sole jurisdiction of Seatastic the Wonder Dog.
- mileage dispersments are limited to conventional modes of transportation only, trips to Moon Base X via the teleportation ray will no longer be eligible for the 52C/mile rebate, rebates via conventional modes of transportation remain subject to managers approval.
In addition to this the Team X will no longer respond to the following events:
- Earthquakes of magnitude 7.8 and less
- Flooding in any area with a population density less than 1200 people per square mile
- Any event/catastrophe occurring in the Southern Hemisphere
As we all know, budget season is fast approaching so I would appreciate any innovative cost cutting ideas you may have for next year. I know things have been a bit crazy around here ever since Wizardo opened up that dimensional vortex to the neither world, but I'm sure that if we all work together we should have a successful and efficient second half of the year
Thank you,
Doctor Magnificent
Vice President - Interdimensional Catastrophes & Cost Control
Super Soldier - Team X
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Space for Space
Lately, I have been thinking about the idea of space and how it is conceptualized. This is partially due to all the David Harvey I have been reading, but also because it intersects with my work life a fair bit.
At work, we have been working on an interesting project that attempts to measure and quantify the amount of money needed to maintain/repair the infrastructure in West Vancouver.
We have covered a lot of interesting stuff. However, one point has stuck out for me. Due to the size of lots in West Vancouver and land use decisions made during its development, there is more infrastructure per person, (water main, sewer main, more ditches/culverts) and the infrastructure is more complicated (more pump stations needed, drainage infrastructure) This requires a larger investment per person to maintain/repair, that in a "typical" city.
Surprisingly building 10,000 square foot homes on the side of a mountain creates some engineering challenges.
This idea seems fairly obvious, but is not easily apparent to most people. The fact that the form we live in and the "space" we utilize has an impact on the world and requires resources to maintain should not require explaining.
An environmentalist would call these things "externalities". However, in this case we are not even dealing with intangibles like pollution, or CO2 emissions, we are dealing with a tangible piece of infrastructure that can be easilty explained and quantified.
Anyway, to get to my point. I think the concept of Space provides an interesting example of where markets breakdown. Most right-wing economists would say that markets are infinite. That there is an unending supply of new products/needs that can be addressed by Capitalism. This is why there is no crisis of overproduction and no overall collapse of the system .
This argument makes sense to me, new products can always be developed, new markets exploited, or new interactions/processes comodified. New ways of doing things will always be created and as long as capitalism exists methoids of extracting surplus from them will also be created.
However, this idea does not apply to conventional space. Space is in finite supply, and a minimum (450ft square feet condo anyone!) is required to maintain/live a fulfilling and productive life. This is why the comodification of space is so horrendous and the ongoing destruction of public space such a bad thing.
In conclusion, treating the space in which we live like an ipod is a bad idea :)
At work, we have been working on an interesting project that attempts to measure and quantify the amount of money needed to maintain/repair the infrastructure in West Vancouver.
We have covered a lot of interesting stuff. However, one point has stuck out for me. Due to the size of lots in West Vancouver and land use decisions made during its development, there is more infrastructure per person, (water main, sewer main, more ditches/culverts) and the infrastructure is more complicated (more pump stations needed, drainage infrastructure) This requires a larger investment per person to maintain/repair, that in a "typical" city.
Surprisingly building 10,000 square foot homes on the side of a mountain creates some engineering challenges.
This idea seems fairly obvious, but is not easily apparent to most people. The fact that the form we live in and the "space" we utilize has an impact on the world and requires resources to maintain should not require explaining.
An environmentalist would call these things "externalities". However, in this case we are not even dealing with intangibles like pollution, or CO2 emissions, we are dealing with a tangible piece of infrastructure that can be easilty explained and quantified.
Anyway, to get to my point. I think the concept of Space provides an interesting example of where markets breakdown. Most right-wing economists would say that markets are infinite. That there is an unending supply of new products/needs that can be addressed by Capitalism. This is why there is no crisis of overproduction and no overall collapse of the system .
This argument makes sense to me, new products can always be developed, new markets exploited, or new interactions/processes comodified. New ways of doing things will always be created and as long as capitalism exists methoids of extracting surplus from them will also be created.
However, this idea does not apply to conventional space. Space is in finite supply, and a minimum (450ft square feet condo anyone!) is required to maintain/live a fulfilling and productive life. This is why the comodification of space is so horrendous and the ongoing destruction of public space such a bad thing.
In conclusion, treating the space in which we live like an ipod is a bad idea :)
Thursday, June 25, 2009
A Credit Utility
Introduction:
Here is a long blog that I have been working on for a while. It is remarkably poorly researched and mostly involves my random thoughts about a new way to organize the distribution of credit within society...I have looked for books/articles on this subject. But other than one book(from 1982 and out of print) and a article/public access interview with Leo Panich I have had little luck. I hope to read that book one day but until then enjoy these ramblings.
How Banks Work Now! (Sorta)
Thanks to Planet Money, I now have a basic understanding of how banks work, or at least how they work in their simplest form. Basically, they operate of the principle of leverage. Banks take money in from customers, pay them interest on their money, and in turn lend it out to others at a higher interest rate. Profit is made in the difference between these two interest rates.
In the words of Liz Lemon - its that thing that rich people do to turn money into more money.
At its most base form this is how banks work. Obviously it is much more complicated than this, with extremely complicated financial models to allocate risk, determine proper interest rates, as well as a number of other financial products that attempt to mitigate this risk, or maximize the total leverage/profit made by the banks.
An alternative approach.
A "credit utility" would treat credit as a public good. The utility would distribute credit in the same way that a Water Utility distributes water. In the same way, that water is deemed as too fundamental to be placed in private hands (at least some in some places), so to would the distribution of credit be treated as to important to be done for profit/private gain.
A "Credit Utility" would allocate credit, on a cost of service model. Costs to run the utility would be recovered through interest on the money lent. Models could easily be developed that apportioned the interest rates in different ways to create incentives for certain behaviors. (Paying loans back quickly, encourage smaller loads, means tested interest rates, etc). This looks great to me, no crazy financial instruments, no profiteering, just banks providing a service(credit) that is necessary in a capitalist system.
However, there are two large problems that need to be addressed for this to really work:
- How are decisions about lending reached (who gets the money)?
- How much money is lent in a given time frame?
Currently these questions are answered by market forces. With the argument being that profit motive, determines how best to allocate credit. This clearly has not worked.
The current crisis represent a fundamental failure of the market to allocate wealth properly. If a trillion dollars can get lent to people to purchase fictional pieces of paper that are in reality worth nothing, I would argue that the system is not particularly efficient. Arguing for the efficiency of markets that can erase ten years of wealth creation in a single day is ludicrous.
Establishing a "Credit Utility" would enable public control of the banking sector. Credit/Wealth could be distributed in a way that was for the benefit of people rather than for profit and "market forces". These decisions would be made in the political arena rather than behind closed doors, and in the public interest, rather than for the maximization or profit.
The mechanics of these decisions would be difficult to set up. However, would they be any more difficult than the thousands (millions?) of accountants, banking executives, wall street types currently required to run the current system. Would this be more efficient than the market allocating credit. I would argue that the bar on efficiency by the market has been set pretty low...so probably. If efficiency was lost the gains made by having public control of credit would far out way the costs of lost efficiency.
Hopefully, you will notice that I have been using the term public control and not government control. Simply transferring the allocation of credit in society from banks to government as it currently stands, while likely an improvement, would not mean true public control of credit. True public control, would require a fundamental re-ordering of society. :)
Conclusions
This idea is exciting to me because it is tangible, and no so far out from the current operations of society to seem unrealistic but at the same time leads to discussion about the fundamental problems with the banking sector, profit motive and private control of credit. If credit is necessary for the functioning of society as it is, it should be under public control.
Anyway, I plan to keep thinking about this idea...I like to think it provides a good spring board to other more exciting questions, most notably, if the efficiency point is moot (which I believe it is) Why should credit be distributed for profit/private good rather than in the public interest?
Here is a long blog that I have been working on for a while. It is remarkably poorly researched and mostly involves my random thoughts about a new way to organize the distribution of credit within society...I have looked for books/articles on this subject. But other than one book(from 1982 and out of print) and a article/public access interview with Leo Panich I have had little luck. I hope to read that book one day but until then enjoy these ramblings.
How Banks Work Now! (Sorta)
Thanks to Planet Money, I now have a basic understanding of how banks work, or at least how they work in their simplest form. Basically, they operate of the principle of leverage. Banks take money in from customers, pay them interest on their money, and in turn lend it out to others at a higher interest rate. Profit is made in the difference between these two interest rates.
In the words of Liz Lemon - its that thing that rich people do to turn money into more money.
At its most base form this is how banks work. Obviously it is much more complicated than this, with extremely complicated financial models to allocate risk, determine proper interest rates, as well as a number of other financial products that attempt to mitigate this risk, or maximize the total leverage/profit made by the banks.
An alternative approach.
A "credit utility" would treat credit as a public good. The utility would distribute credit in the same way that a Water Utility distributes water. In the same way, that water is deemed as too fundamental to be placed in private hands (at least some in some places), so to would the distribution of credit be treated as to important to be done for profit/private gain.
A "Credit Utility" would allocate credit, on a cost of service model. Costs to run the utility would be recovered through interest on the money lent. Models could easily be developed that apportioned the interest rates in different ways to create incentives for certain behaviors. (Paying loans back quickly, encourage smaller loads, means tested interest rates, etc). This looks great to me, no crazy financial instruments, no profiteering, just banks providing a service(credit) that is necessary in a capitalist system.
However, there are two large problems that need to be addressed for this to really work:
- How are decisions about lending reached (who gets the money)?
- How much money is lent in a given time frame?
Currently these questions are answered by market forces. With the argument being that profit motive, determines how best to allocate credit. This clearly has not worked.
The current crisis represent a fundamental failure of the market to allocate wealth properly. If a trillion dollars can get lent to people to purchase fictional pieces of paper that are in reality worth nothing, I would argue that the system is not particularly efficient. Arguing for the efficiency of markets that can erase ten years of wealth creation in a single day is ludicrous.
Establishing a "Credit Utility" would enable public control of the banking sector. Credit/Wealth could be distributed in a way that was for the benefit of people rather than for profit and "market forces". These decisions would be made in the political arena rather than behind closed doors, and in the public interest, rather than for the maximization or profit.
The mechanics of these decisions would be difficult to set up. However, would they be any more difficult than the thousands (millions?) of accountants, banking executives, wall street types currently required to run the current system. Would this be more efficient than the market allocating credit. I would argue that the bar on efficiency by the market has been set pretty low...so probably. If efficiency was lost the gains made by having public control of credit would far out way the costs of lost efficiency.
Hopefully, you will notice that I have been using the term public control and not government control. Simply transferring the allocation of credit in society from banks to government as it currently stands, while likely an improvement, would not mean true public control of credit. True public control, would require a fundamental re-ordering of society. :)
Conclusions
This idea is exciting to me because it is tangible, and no so far out from the current operations of society to seem unrealistic but at the same time leads to discussion about the fundamental problems with the banking sector, profit motive and private control of credit. If credit is necessary for the functioning of society as it is, it should be under public control.
Anyway, I plan to keep thinking about this idea...I like to think it provides a good spring board to other more exciting questions, most notably, if the efficiency point is moot (which I believe it is) Why should credit be distributed for profit/private good rather than in the public interest?
Monday, June 22, 2009
Neat Article on Housing Policy Choices
Here is a really neat analysis of housing/development in policy in B.C.
Create Housing Policies...
In particular, I enjoyed the discussion about how developer contributions act as a subsidy to rich established homeowners at the expense of first time buyers and renters.
(For those of you who don’t know what developer contribution (DCCs) are. A DCC is donation extracted by a municipality as a condition of new development; these funds are usually used for infrastructure upgrades, sustainability initiatives, or parks and other amenities.)
This seems like a good idea to me, however as the article explains it has the potential to work at cross purposes.
In short; if developers pay for amenities and other services property taxes remain low as these services do not need to be funded from general revenue. Low property taxes are of greatest benefit to established homeowners and people with larger more expensive homes. Additionally, these costs while paid for initially by the developer are ultimately reflected in the base price of new homes. This pushes up property values, a further benefit to established property owners and ironically the developer – who makes more profit the more expensive the home is.
This is a great example of trickle up economics at work.
Ultimately, despite the good intentions of policies like developer contributions the most powerful interests will benefit the most. In this situation, a policy intended to force developers to fund municipal services/amenities serves to subsidise rich homeowners and push up property values (And developer profits).
Create Housing Policies...
In particular, I enjoyed the discussion about how developer contributions act as a subsidy to rich established homeowners at the expense of first time buyers and renters.
(For those of you who don’t know what developer contribution (DCCs) are. A DCC is donation extracted by a municipality as a condition of new development; these funds are usually used for infrastructure upgrades, sustainability initiatives, or parks and other amenities.)
This seems like a good idea to me, however as the article explains it has the potential to work at cross purposes.
In short; if developers pay for amenities and other services property taxes remain low as these services do not need to be funded from general revenue. Low property taxes are of greatest benefit to established homeowners and people with larger more expensive homes. Additionally, these costs while paid for initially by the developer are ultimately reflected in the base price of new homes. This pushes up property values, a further benefit to established property owners and ironically the developer – who makes more profit the more expensive the home is.
This is a great example of trickle up economics at work.
Ultimately, despite the good intentions of policies like developer contributions the most powerful interests will benefit the most. In this situation, a policy intended to force developers to fund municipal services/amenities serves to subsidise rich homeowners and push up property values (And developer profits).
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Coleman Stove
While mostly a love fest of our current Housing Minister and Langleyite Rich Coleman the subtext to this article is interesting. This is especially true given the near daily announcements of new social housing units being purchased by the province and the City of Vancouver.
To me the article is implying that the model for social housing used by the province is shifting away from the standard model of mixed low income/social housing spread throughout the City, and towards larger housing projects specifically geared towards "hard to house" individuals.
This seems worrisome to me. The concentration of social housing in this way is ghettoization. It forces all the “undesirables” to live in certain areas while protecting everyone else (and property values) from unpleasantness
This seems the opposite of the solution to me. Neighborhoods should represent the makeup of society more broadly with social housing spread evenly throughout the City. Social Housing should not be dictated by market forces or specifically designed to protect property values and the sensitivities of rich people.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Fartisan Politics
Two of my favorite things combine for humorous results, also it only took a week for my attempt at a serious blog to descend into childish jokes.
I am working on a serious post as well, its below this one as I started on it first
Beggar thy Neighborhood
Recent events in the City of Surrey have got me thinking about a my recent trip to the U.S. While there a friend and I got into an exciting chat with an elderly gentleman. We discussed politic's generally, including the views of novelist Jack London and "Obomamania". I belive the word socialism even came up a few times, which is always a little frightning while in the United States.
One of this mans more interesting incites was that one of the best methods to get a true read on government policy is to follow the tax law. This is something I have heard before and makes a great deal of sense to me. Practically speaking taxation is one of the most powerful policy instruments government has. More importantly it is one of the few that they seem more than willing to use in recent times.
Which leads me to the City of Surrey and Mayor Watts' recent annoucment about the creation of "Economic Development Zones" With the creation of these special zones, Surrey will be offering special conditions to developers including tax exemptions and reductions in amenity requirements to develop in specific areas.
This is obviously bad. The extraction of amenities from developers is one of the more positive things that municipal government does. While far from adequate these contributions ensure that developers at least pay some of the costs for ensuring a livable city (parks, community centers, new infrastructure etc..)
Nothing really new or exciting here just politics on the part of Ms. Watts/aid to developers that don't need it. However its interesting to look at this in a larger context. Does having a number of smaller municipalities as opposed to one larger body, as in Toronto/Montreal, lead to a "race to the bottom" in terms of competition for development.
With the power of the development industry/profit motive its hard enough imagine any positive results from development with out institutional incentives on the part of local governments also contributing to the problem.
Monday, March 9, 2009
City Housing Advocate - Advocates for Houseing
Here is something funny to read, from NPA bloggers City Caucus
City Staff Promote Political Rally
This is an opinion I don't understand. Why is there a backlash against people who work in govenerment having opionions related to thier job.
I would expect the Economic Development - Manager for COV to advocate for lower buisness taxes, just as I would expect the Housing advocate at the City of Vancouver, to advocate for more money for social houseing. But for some reason this is wrong and "political".
Frightingly enough the bureacracy is one of the more representative institutions that we have, this is how it is suposed to work, but no somehow working for the government means that one must be apolitical and have no opionions related to the work they do all day as if this were some how possible.
So silly but forgettibly partizan things often are, City Caucus is a fun blog to read however if only for the anger it generates and humerous/alarmist photos.
cheers
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Affordable Housing in Vancouver
Hey all my first blog post and that article that inspired me, here is an interesting article from Vancouver City Councilor Geoff Meggs about the upcoming demolition of some of the last affordable housing in Vancouver (89 units at 4500 Fraser)
http://www.geoffmeggs.ca/2009/02/26/frustration-despair-about-affordable-housing/
I am currently shedding a single tear for poor old Geoff and crew who just couldn't do anything to help the people living in these homes and I sincerely hope their upcoming round-table discussion on affordable housing goes great!
Their feigned impotence and glad handing of Vancouver City Council on this matter is vomit inducing. Saying they say they don’t have legal authority to deny the permit when they set the bounds of that legal authority is ridiculous. Similar permits are denied because people don’t have the right number of fancy rocks near their stream beds and salmon wading pools. The City of Vancouver’s authority in these matters is quite explicitly spelled out in the Vancouver Charter/Local Government Act, so they need not worry about legal authority.
Additionally they certainly could of delayed the demolition as Geoff himself pointed out, but alas the “developer would loose to much money”. Which I will leave to speak for itself.
Anyway, thanks for listening to my rant, I’ve been reading ever more news about Civic Politics in Vancouver and getting increasingly angry so hopefully there will be more.
http://www.geoffmeggs.ca/2009/02/26/frustration-despair-about-affordable-housing/
I am currently shedding a single tear for poor old Geoff and crew who just couldn't do anything to help the people living in these homes and I sincerely hope their upcoming round-table discussion on affordable housing goes great!
Their feigned impotence and glad handing of Vancouver City Council on this matter is vomit inducing. Saying they say they don’t have legal authority to deny the permit when they set the bounds of that legal authority is ridiculous. Similar permits are denied because people don’t have the right number of fancy rocks near their stream beds and salmon wading pools. The City of Vancouver’s authority in these matters is quite explicitly spelled out in the Vancouver Charter/Local Government Act, so they need not worry about legal authority.
Additionally they certainly could of delayed the demolition as Geoff himself pointed out, but alas the “developer would loose to much money”. Which I will leave to speak for itself.
Anyway, thanks for listening to my rant, I’ve been reading ever more news about Civic Politics in Vancouver and getting increasingly angry so hopefully there will be more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)