Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 05-21-2012, 08:58 PM   #21
Regular_John
First Line Centre
 
Regular_John's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

One last gem from @lonnietaylor on twitter who as usual is the smartest guy in #YYC

Quote:
@lonnietaylor
Cutting trees to have a better view through public land and assuming you can use private property to beautify is the same thing.
Regular_John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2012, 08:58 PM   #22
REDVAN
Franchise Player
 
REDVAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Squatters rights? Ever heard of the people? I'm surprised people don't do this more often. They should.

My friends moved into a new community 2 years ago, and a guy bought the house next to them and is paying all the bills etc, but he still lives with his parents and comes by once a year if that. I'm thinking I should move in and stake a claim.
__________________
REDVAN!
REDVAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2012, 09:00 PM   #23
freedogger
Scoring Winger
 
freedogger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Exp:
Default

They went about it all wrong. Should have gone in under the cover of darkness. And tires??? You don't need to mound them until they are at least knee high.
freedogger is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to freedogger For This Useful Post:
Old 05-21-2012, 09:01 PM   #24
shermanator
Franchise Player
 
shermanator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Exp:
Default

While the P4P is a noble cause, IMO, it was created out of sheer selfishness by the organizer.

This woman does not like having a vacant lot nearby. After the traditional methods (ie. complaining to bylaw) does not get her the results she wants, she decides to take over the lot to grow potatoes without getting the appropriate approval to do so.

Also, since when has a community had rights? A community is not an entity that has any rights whatsoever. People have the right to food and shelter, but not a pretty neighborhood.
__________________

shermanator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2012, 09:11 PM   #25
taco.vidal
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Exp:
Default

A common problem in Calgary is that developers will tear down an old building and then not proceed re-developing the land. In my SW neighbourhood there are many lots where old homes were torn down and nothing but weeds have replaced the dwelling on the property. From what Ive read on the issue, I believe other cities require a re-development plan before you can tear down a building whereas Calgary does not.
taco.vidal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2012, 09:22 PM   #26
NuclearFart
First Line Centre
 
NuclearFart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taco.vidal View Post
A common problem in Calgary is that developers will tear down an old building and then not proceed re-developing the land. In my SW neighbourhood there are many lots where old homes were torn down and nothing but weeds have replaced the dwelling on the property. From what Ive read on the issue, I believe other cities require a re-development plan before you can tear down a building whereas Calgary does not.
Is a condemned derelict house somehow better? Maybe there should be some standards of upkeep for a vacant lot, but forcing the owner to keep a decaying building on the lot is stupid.
NuclearFart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2012, 09:49 PM   #27
RougeUnderoos
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clinching Party
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaydorn View Post
One last gem from @lonnietaylor on twitter who as usual is the smartest guy in #YYC

@lonnietaylor
Cutting trees to have a better view through public land and assuming you can use private property to beautify is the same thing.
You know why it's actually different than cutting down trees? Because they didn't cut any trees down.

I love the faux-outrage over this non-issue. Some woman planted some potatoes in a derelict vacant lot, and suddenly the cops have to be involved, and it's a property rights outrage.

And before I get the inevitable "how would you like it bla bla bla...", if I owned a vacant lot on 17th avenue, I wouldn't care if the neighbours put removable planters in there while it sat empty, because I'm not a petty jackass*.


Now look, maybe your method of planting potatoes in planters differs from mine, but, you know, plantin' potatoes, and cuttin' down trees, ain't the same ####in' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same ####in' sport.


*and yes, I do realize the irony in saying I'm not petty, when here I am arguing about this non-issue on the internet with strangers
__________________


Last edited by RougeUnderoos; 05-21-2012 at 09:52 PM.
RougeUnderoos is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
Old 05-21-2012, 10:16 PM   #28
Regular_John
First Line Centre
 
Regular_John's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos View Post
You know why it's actually different than cutting down trees? Because they didn't cut any trees down.

I love the faux-outrage over this non-issue. Some woman planted some potatoes in a derelict vacant lot, and suddenly the cops have to be involved, and it's a property rights outrage.

And before I get the inevitable "how would you like it bla bla bla...", if I owned a vacant lot on 17th avenue, I wouldn't care if the neighbours put removable planters in there while it sat empty, because I'm not a petty jackass*.


Now look, maybe your method of planting potatoes in planters differs from mine, but, you know, plantin' potatoes, and cuttin' down trees, ain't the same ####in' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same ####in' sport.


*and yes, I do realize the irony in saying I'm not petty, when here I am arguing about this non-issue on the internet with strangers
Obvious Troll is Obvious.



Quote:
Residents say they were just trying to spruce up an ugly lot

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/Ci...#ixzz1vYQX0kM5
Fact, this group didn't like looking at an empty ugly lot, so they put a lot of effort into improving the looks. Like it or not this is no different than cutting down trees that don't belong to you because you want a better view.

Millionaires wanted a better view of the city, cut down trees.
Non-millionaires wanted a better view of their community, planted potatoes in decorative tire planters.

The "feeding the community" angle is just a red herring to distract from their ultimate intention of having a nicer view from their home.

Now, we can agree or disagree that the by product of these actions (lost public trees VS community food) are not equal, but don't act like the motivators were any different.

But hey, keep on raging against the machine if you must.

Last edited by Regular_John; 05-21-2012 at 10:27 PM.
Regular_John is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Regular_John For This Useful Post:
Old 05-21-2012, 10:25 PM   #29
Dion
Not a casual user
 
Dion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by puffnstuff View Post
Did they plant po-ta-toes? Or po-tah-toes? Maybe this is all a misunderstanding derived from pronunciation.
__________________
Dion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2012, 10:28 PM   #30
pylon
NOT Chris Butler
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Exp:
Default

I wonder if she instructed her kid to have that sad, dejected look in the photo.
pylon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2012, 10:30 PM   #31
RougeUnderoos
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clinching Party
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaydorn View Post
Obvious Troll is Obvious.





Fact, this group didn't like looking at an empty ugly lot, so they put a lot of effort into improving the looks. Like it or not this is no different than cutting down trees that don't belong to you because you want a better view.

Millionaires wanted a better view of the city, cut down trees.
Non-millionaires wanted a better view of their community, planted potatoes in decorative tire planters.

The "feeding the community" angle is just a red herring to distract from their ultimate intention of having a nicer view from their home.

Now, we can agree or disagree that a the by product of these actions (lost public trees VS community food) are not equal, but don't act like the motivators were any different.

But hey, keep on raging against the machine if you must.
So am I trolling, or raging against the machine? Come on man, we need clarity!

Maybe it's just a personal matter for me. A few years ago my neighbour's lawn was going to hell while he was on vacation, so I mowed it for him. He didn't seem to mind. He actually bought me a case of beer.

The following December I cut down the Douglas Fir in his front yard and used it as a Christmas tree. He comes knocking on my door and, instead of another case of beer that I was hoping for, he's got the cops with him.

"What's the difference?", I said.
__________________

RougeUnderoos is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
Old 05-21-2012, 10:35 PM   #32
frinkprof
First Line Centre
 
frinkprof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pylon View Post
I wonder if she instructed her kid to have that sad, dejected look in the photo.
My guess would be it was the photographer/journalist.
frinkprof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2012, 10:43 PM   #33
Regular_John
First Line Centre
 
Regular_John's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos View Post
So am I trolling, or raging against the machine? Come on man, we need clarity!

Maybe it's just a personal matter for me. A few years ago my neighbour's lawn was going to hell while he was on vacation, so I mowed it for him. He didn't seem to mind. He actually bought me a case of beer.

The following December I cut down the Douglas Fir in his front yard and used it as a Christmas tree. He comes knocking on my door and, instead of another case of beer that I was hoping for, he's got the cops with him.

"What's the difference?", I said.
Well in all fairness I don't believe John Mar or bylaw Bruce has asked them to replace the weeds & replant them within 24 hours
Regular_John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2012, 10:46 PM   #34
frinkprof
First Line Centre
 
frinkprof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaydorn View Post
Obvious Troll is Obvious.





Fact, this group didn't like looking at an empty ugly lot, so they put a lot of effort into improving the looks. Like it or not this is no different than cutting down trees that don't belong to you because you want a better view.

Millionaires wanted a better view of the city, cut down trees.
Non-millionaires wanted a better view of their community, planted potatoes in decorative tire planters.

The "feeding the community" angle is just a red herring to distract from their ultimate intention of having a nicer view from their home.

Now, we can agree or disagree that the by product of these actions (lost public trees VS community food) are not equal, but don't act like the motivators were any different.

But hey, keep on raging against the machine if you must.
I think that's a bit of a stretch. The motivations may be similar from a certain angle, but the tactics and circumstances are quite different.

Covert in the middle of the night vs. open and notorious in the light of day.

Public property vs. private property.

The "better view" aspect has some different circumstances too it seems. I think there's a difference between an obstructed view of something in the distance and a view of the subject property itself. Further, I don't think it's necessarily the "view" in the same sense in both cases. The built/urban form has effects that go beyond the directly visual. It has a psychological impact in that it forms your sense of place. In my opinion, the issues surrounding the vacant private lot in question have more to do with this than the Britannia case, which purportedly is more to do with the simplistic visual view aspect.

Not saying either are justified at the end of the day. I just think the cases bring up different issues and came about under different circumstances. Saying "both are about having/not having a view of something" is overly simplistic.

Last edited by frinkprof; 05-21-2012 at 10:49 PM.
frinkprof is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to frinkprof For This Useful Post:
Old 05-21-2012, 10:58 PM   #35
Coys1882
First Line Centre
 
Coys1882's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Exp:
Default

If they want that lot to look better; that bird and her kid should go home.
Coys1882 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Coys1882 For This Useful Post:
Old 05-21-2012, 11:05 PM   #36
Regular_John
First Line Centre
 
Regular_John's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frinkprof View Post
I think that's a bit of a stretch. The motivations may be similar from a certain angle, but the tactics and circumstances are quite different.

Covert in the middle of the night vs. open and notorious in the light of day.

Public property vs. private property.

The "better view" aspect has some different circumstances too it seems. I think there's a difference between an obstructed view of something in the distance and a view of the subject property itself. Further, I don't think it's necessarily the "view" in the same sense in both cases. The built/urban form has effects that go beyond the directly visual. It has a psychological impact in that it forms your sense of place. In my opinion, the issues surrounding the vacant private lot in question have more to do with this than the Britannia case, which purportedly is more to do with the simplistic visual view aspect.

Not saying either are justified at the end of the day. I just think the cases bring up different issues and came about under different circumstances. Saying "both are about having/not having a view of something" is overly simplistic.
I guess I just don't agree, all your points are quite valid. But it's mostly splitting hairs over schematics (eg: dollar value, immediate impact, public/private property) in my opinion. Both cases ultimately come down to improving the immediate environment/visual appeal for certain property owners or residents.

Having said that, if you stick the tree cutters & the potato planters in front of a judge one after another I'd certainly hope the book would be thrown at the tree cutters and the potato planters would get off with a simple clean up order.

But like I said, the motivation for both is very much the same. Both were acting on the premise of "how can I improve this view?"
Regular_John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2012, 11:23 PM   #37
frinkprof
First Line Centre
 
frinkprof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Exp:
Default

I'm with you up to here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaydorn View Post
But like I said, the motivation for both is very much the same. Both were acting on the premise of "how can I improve this view?"
Again, I think this is overly simplistic.

I can only speculate, but it seems to me that in the Brittania case, it is "how can I improve my/our view of the skyline," whereas in this case it is "how can I improve my/our view (and I would further contend that it is about more than the visual "view") of this property."

The subject providing the motivation in the Britannia case is the perpetrators' relationship with the skyline, whereas in this case it is the perpetrators' relationship with the property itself. In the Britannia case, the parcel of land is only a part of the equation because it is the one that happens to be in the way. In this case, the parcel of land and the interests involved in it are where it all begins and ends. The site of the land its circumstances is much less arbitrary.

Different issues and questions are raised, and the differences are lost in your presentation.

For example, it's "how important is a view of something if public (or private for that matter) property/assets obstruct that view," and "how important are the aesthetics of particular (especially underused or vacant) parcels of land to immediate neighbours, the nearby community, the whole City and those who hold title to that land?."

Speaking about views of things in general is pretty simple and I think it is more interesting to discuss the first two issues in and of themselves.
frinkprof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2012, 11:25 PM   #38
TurnedTheCorner
Lifetime Suspension
 
TurnedTheCorner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Exp:
Default

They should've raised money to buy the lot and then planted the potatoes. Or if they want to feed people, plant potatoes on their own land.
TurnedTheCorner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2012, 11:29 PM   #39
Swarly
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Swarly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

I'd rather have an empty lot in my neighborhood than one filled with old tires. That is far from improving the look of the area.
Swarly is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Swarly For This Useful Post:
Old 05-21-2012, 11:40 PM   #40
pylon
NOT Chris Butler
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Exp:
Default

What would be stopping some sick a-hole from poisoning the public potatoes? Or peeing in the potato tires? Seems like a rather poorly thought out potato plan.
pylon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:21 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021