Sw brt

[4X4]

Originally Posted by SebC

Exactly. You're pissed because you're negatively affected, despite the greater good, and "consultation" is a red herring.

=====================================

I love that the city calls their online portal "Engage". Sass level: over 9000!

Yep, you're right too. If it's going through either way, and if people are going to be pissed, there's no point in "consultation".

[GGG]

The thing that is valuable in consultation is that some of the issues in the area might not be properly understood so the assumptions being made are wrong. In the 162nd/McLeod interchange design the shawville/162 issues weren't really being looked at Some modifications to that intersection was a result of consulatation.

The project still goes ahead. The main access and movements doesn't change, no one cares that some people find the crossing over design confusing, but some of the info is reviewed or more data is collected to verify something.

When consultation instead is used to express myopic internal stupidity to disrupt rather than enhance a project it fails.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by GGG

When consultation instead is used to express myopic internal stupidity to disrupt rather than enhance a project it fails.

Not true for oil and gas.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Not true for oil and gas.

Totally true for oil and gas, in the sense that the consultation fails to serve the needs of society.

[SebC]

Apparently the anti-BRT people are organising a communal "shuttle service" to get to city hall to protest the implementation of public transit.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...-swbrt-meeting

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I mean, we need pipelines, right? Yeah? Ok, so if we talk about running it to Kitimat, and they say they don't want it. And then we talk about it again in 3 years, and they still don't want it, and then we add it to a couple of national pipeline strategy meetings discussing Energy East, and KXL, and they still don't want it, does that mean that if we ram it through today, that they've had enough consultation?

You tell me.

When it comes down to needs vs. wants, consultation means "we are going through with this, this is what we want to do to fill these needs, can you think of a better way to meet the needs?" and not "even though we need it, tell us if you want it or not because if you don't want it then we'll just scrap it."


Consultation isn't asking for permission, I'm not sure why you think the wants seem to carry so much weight.

[Tinordi]

Being consulted with doesn't mean you get what you want.

It means that the city is able to adjust the plans to have address the greatest number of issues among the people impacted by the project.

A consultation is not a veto over a project.

Why is that so hard to understand?

[Resolute 14]

Because entitled rich people aren't used to being told 'no'.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Link to 90 pages of answers to Ready to Engage questions

Have they been consulted yet?

These questions are so laughable, and I applaud the city for dealing with these people.

I can imagine the people writing that report felt some satisfaction knocking down the less reasonable complaints like bowling pins. Still, there's an absurd irony in the city spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on an exhaustive communications campaign that's only necessary because of people who squawk relentlessly about wasteful spending at City Hall.

Originally Posted by 4X4

I just know I'd be pissed if it was my property being affected. Even if I attended 100 meetings, I'd still be pissed.

The SW ring road is going to put a major intersection a couple blocks from my house, it's going to turn my pristine dog park with a view of the mountains where I go for long walks every day into a 6 lane freeway, make by bicycle commutes and bike rides with my family far less pleasant, and dramatically increase traffic on the roads where my kids walk and ride their bikes to school. And since I drive to the NW about four times a year, it has negligible benefit for me.

Still, it's good for the city and I'm not out there screaming at public meetings, eyes bulging with rage, and demanding my alderman shut down the whole project.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Because entitled rich people aren't used to being told 'no'.

Yep. Left my house this morning to find yet another high-gloss pamphlet from the anti-BRT group stuffed in my door handle. The tone of the whole thing is almost hysterical. These people simply can't accept that a major project like this could be carried out against their wishes.

And frankly, I'm still worried that their sustained campaign will pay off. They've already got Colley-Urquhart to pull her support for the SW BRT. It wouldn't shock me to see plans scaled back. It's remarkable how much mischief a few hundred people with $$$ and a monstrous sense of entitlement can cause.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I can imagine the people writing that report felt some satisfaction knocking down the less reasonable complaints like bowling pins. Still, there's an absurd irony in the city spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on an exhaustive communications campaign that's only necessary because of people who squawk relentlessly about wasteful spending at City Hall.



The SW ring road is going to put a major intersection a couple blocks from my house, it's going to turn my pristine dog park with a view of the mountains where I go for long walks every day into a 6 lane freeway, make by bicycle commutes and bike rides with my family far less pleasant, and dramatically increase traffic on the roads where my kids walk and ride their bikes to school. And since I drive to the NW about four times a year, it has negligible benefit for me.

Still, it's good for the city and I'm not out there screaming at public meetings, eyes bulging with rage, and demanding my alderman shut down the whole project.



Yep. Left my house this morning to find yet another high-gloss pamphlet from the anti-BRT group stuffed in my door handle. The tone of the whole thing is almost hysterical. These people simply can't accept that a major project like this could be carried out against their wishes.

And frankly, I'm still worried that their sustained campaign will pay off. They've already got Colley-Urquhart to pull her support for the SW BRT. It wouldn't shock me to see plans scaled back. It's remarkable how much mischief a few hundred people with $$$ and a monstrous sense of entitlement can cause.

She's brutal though. Basically no time for community consultation in my experience so she probably has friends on that 'anti' group and goes with the wind.

[Resolute 14]

I'm betting that Colley-Urquhart received a number of contributions for her upcoming re-election campaign. Next civic election is only a year away, after all.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I'm betting that Colley-Urquhart received a number of contributions for her upcoming re-election campaign. Next civic election is only a year away, after all.

Do the Ward Boundary changes affect her and give her more potential constituents along the SW BRT route?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Do the Ward Boundary changes affect her and give her more potential constituents along the SW BRT route?

No, only Woodbine and Woodlands are on the route and in her riding (both before and after the ward boundary changes).

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

And frankly, I'm still worried that their sustained campaign will pay off. They've already got Colley-Urquhart to pull her support for the SW BRT. It wouldn't shock me to see plans scaled back. It's remarkable how much mischief a few hundred people with $$$ and a monstrous sense of entitlement can cause.

I have heard rumours of the dedicated lanes past rocky view being shortened or removed.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by GGG

I have heard rumours of the dedicated lanes past rocky view being shortened or removed.

One of the issues is that sometimes the designers will bend over backwards for these consultations, compromising the design.

Then it leads to people afterwards saying "SEE! WE TOLD YOU SO!" when the original design wouldn't have done that.

12th ave bike lane, 10th street bike lane, peace bridge intersection are three such things I know of where consultations created an abomination of the original design.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Being consulted with doesn't mean you get what you want.

It means that the city is able to adjust the plans to have address the greatest number of issues among the people impacted by the project.

A consultation is not a veto over a project.

Why is that so hard to understand?

That obviously can't be the case, because if it were, we'd have more pipelines.

Hopefully the green text is not necessary. The point is that indigenous advocates are trying (succeeding?) in moving the goalposts, so it should not be surprising if their interpretation of consultation (as a veto) gets picked up by the general NIMBY populace.

[Tinordi]

Except First Nations are another nation as recognized or not by treaties signed between sovereigns and enforced through common law.

Slightly different legal standing...

[Regorium]

https://twitter.com/AnnaliseAK/statu...69510431707136

"Woolley asks spkr what about students that can't afford cars. Spkr says he worked hard and things weren't handed to him on a silver platter."

https://twitter.com/AnnaliseAK/statu...69267757703168

"Speaker #17 essentially just said if you need to get to hospital to visit and don't have a car, you could just call a friend."

"Speaker #9 wants Mount Royal University students surveyed about how they get there. He says they don't go to school at 6,7,8 or 9 a.m."

Hahahaha. How out of touch are these people.

[Looch City]

Just build a wall around their community. And make them pay for it.

Bunch of NIMBY-ists.

[Fuzz]

Don't they already have a wall? Can we fill it with water? Glenmore Reservoir 2.0!