Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Fair question. I've never reflected on that, so I'll give it a whirl.

Okay, I like snowboarding (but not backcountry; give me a chairlift). So I guess that's one main thing that requires mountains.

I think it's the views I like. I really like mountains and forests, but you're not wrong that I'm not a typical mountain guy. Over the holidays we spent the entire stretch at our Canmore place and my favourite two days were when my son and I played the new Call of Duty a bunch. Made it out to Louise twice, but the snow was so mediocre and I've kind of become a snob about conditions over the past few years so I didn't bother going more. Had it snowed I would have gone riding every day.

I like the aesthetic of chalets...it's sort of my favourite type of atmosphere. Like, I don't enjoy - say - formal or fancy restaurants/settings. The mountains just kind of put me at peace, but I don't need to bushwhack around them to enjoy them. We do hike a lot in the summer, but that's mainly because I watch all the movies at The Lux in Banff and then have nothing to do during the afternoons, so hiking it is. Marching around sort of sucks, but I have a little crew I go with and we usually go to The Canmore Hotel after and drink beer/listen to live music, which is my favourite part of the day every time.

I did buy a full suspension e-bike right at the end of last season, so imma give that a whirl. I think I'll like it - really looking forward to exploring the trails around my place.

But just waking up in the mountains is stress free for me. I camp quite a bit at Tunnel Mountain with a big group. We always walk into town, go for a nice dinner, buy a fata-ton of candy, hang out in the park, then go back to our site and all the parents pop a bunch of cannabis capsules and have a great time. Again, it's just the setting and backdrop I like. Most of my group lives in Bonavista (we didn't meet there; we all moved there to hang out all the time), but we transport ourselves to Banff/Waterton/wherever multiple times per year to party even though we could do the exact same thing in Calgary just as easy since we all live in a one kilometer radius. We all get something more out of the mountains, though.

When I talk about expansion in the mountains, that's what I'm thinking of - more chalets and the architecture you get in the Three Sisters area or in Banff or even just the Parks Canada sort of vibe. It's not like I want Evanston or something in the Rockies. I want just more of the same.

Maybe more just a personal style thing, too. I sort of grew up in the skater/snowboarder style and it's just where I'm comfortable existing. The mountains really are a continuation of a vibe I've always felt home in.

Kind of a long answer, sorry.

Ok, so then you must at least partially understand why some people don't want that ruined, right? Like you may start biking, but then you notice the nice trail throguh the woods suddenly ends at some dude's back porch, and you end up on a crappy paved trail beside a golf course, and can't have anymore fun on a trail throguh the woods? To actually ride a trial without that, you then have to put your bike in a vehicle and drive somewhere else. The greatness of Canmore used to be you could jump out your back door and have endless choices on trails like that. Now most of them have been turned into golf courses, condos, or closed entirely because the golf courses and condos displaced all the wildlife, and biking is apparently the real impediment to animal flow. Says the developers, anyway.

Or perhaps a bit of a stretch for you, but you go on a hike, and have some loser blasting crappy music on a bluetooth speaker, and you spend more of your hike standing to the side letting people by than hiking? That's what happens as you bring more and more people around.

The reality is Canmore is already full. Adding more condos and more people just makes everything worse. Hell, I did a project for Social Studies in 1996 examining the growth in Canmore, and the town was dead set that development would solve the town's financial woes, golf course would bring in the money, and everything would be protected. The reality is all it did was make the financial situation worse, and existing taxpayers foot the bill.

[corporatejay]

what canmore outfits are you talking about? People dress normal there.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Superflyer

OK so the first one is Smith saying that the Feds have made it clear that they are not coming to the table to discuss healthcare. Where in fact they said they would, many times in fact, if the provinces would just show where the money would go. That's it, that's the big bad scary strings that are attached to this. Show your damn receipts. But the premiers don't want to show the receipts, they just want the money to spend as they see fit. Now this could be turned around and say, "Would we deceive you and spend it on other things, trust me". The problem is that this already happened the first time around and now that trust is broken.
Could you imagine if your work just took a Trust me bro as an expense report?


For the second one. Another amazing column by Rick Bell. This time telling us, through Smith, how Trudeau is going to shut down the oil sands and make every person in Alberta unemployed.


So how is he going to kill this province? Well lets read about it.



So again, he is going to kill the oilsands by offering training to anyone that wants to leave it voluntarily. This man has no morals.
Then there is this greatness



So she thinks that the only job in green tech is to install solar panels? Actually that says a lot about what she thinks green tech actually is.
Then there is Firing shots across the bow junk. He is invading our territory with offensive policies and we will not stand by while he offers to help oil workers who are having their jobs replaced with automation! That is not Albertian.

It's a good thing Yoho has no shame because he would be crushed after reading this.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Ok, so then you must at least partially understand why some people don't want that ruined, right? Like you may start biking, but then you notice the nice trail throguh the woods suddenly ends at some dude's back porch, and you end up on a crappy paved trail beside a golf course, and can't have anymore fun on a trail throguh the woods? To actually ride a trial without that, you then have to put your bike in a vehicle and drive somewhere else. The greatness of Canmore used to be you could jump out your back door and have endless choices on trails like that. Now most of them have been turned into golf courses, condos, or closed entirely because the golf courses and condos displaced all the wildlife, and biking is apparently the real impediment to animal flow. Says the developers, anyway.

Or perhaps a bit of a stretch for you, but you go on a hike, and have some loser blasting crappy music on a bluetooth speaker, and you spend more of your hike standing to the side letting people by than hiking? That's what happens as you bring more and more people around.

The reality is Canmore is already full. Adding more condos and more people just makes everything worse. Hell, I did a project for Social Studies in 1996 examining the growth in Canmore, and the town was dead set that development would solve the town's financial woes, golf course would bring in the money, and everything would be protected. The reality is all it did was make the financial situation worse, and existing taxpayers foot the bill.

We get it, all things change, that was 30 years ago. Now people can't go to the mountains to "get away for it all" if you want to be alone in the mountains go to the Yukon, but the golden era for banff canmore is over and now we need to deal with it. If anything parking lots in key areas is only going to make things less stressful.

[Torture]

Curious what those that disagree would think about the fact that Parks Canada's core mandate isn't tourism, it's protecting and sharing natural areas and wildlife for future generations.

Giving Canadians experience in nature and recreation is part of it, sure, but that has to exist within the mandate of maintaining these natural areas, leaving space for wildlife, and not paving them over with parking lots.

On behalf of the people of Canada, we protect and present nationally significant examples of Canada's natural and cultural heritage, and foster public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment in ways that ensure the ecological and commemorative integrity of these places for present and future generations.

Our Commitments
To protect as a first priority, the natural and cultural heritage of our special places and ensure that they remain healthy and whole.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Ok, so then you must at least partially understand why some people don't want that ruined, right? Like you may start biking, but then you notice the nice trail throguh the woods suddenly ends at some dude's back porch, and you end up on a crappy paved trail beside a golf course, and can't have anymore fun on a trail throguh the woods? To actually ride a trial without that, you then have to put your bike in a vehicle and drive somewhere else. The greatness of Canmore used to be you could jump out your back door and have endless choices on trails like that. Now most of them have been turned into golf courses, condos, or closed entirely because the golf courses and condos displaced all the wildlife, and biking is apparently the real impediment to animal flow. Says the developers, anyway.

Or perhaps a bit of a stretch for you, but you go on a hike, and have some loser blasting crappy music on a bluetooth speaker, and you spend more of your hike standing to the side letting people by than hiking? That's what happens as you bring more and more people around.

The reality is Canmore is already full. Adding more condos and more people just makes everything worse. Hell, I did a project for Social Studies in 1996 examining the growth in Canmore, and the town was dead set that development would solve the town's financial woes, golf course would bring in the money, and everything would be protected. The reality is all it did was make the financial situation worse, and existing taxpayers foot the bill.

I'll start with the easy one - yeah, bluetooth speakers (and just that type of guy) are beyond obnoxious. I think when you're on the trails you need to respect them as outdoor spaces meant for us all to enjoy the natural aspects. Main-character behaviour is crazy.

For biking, I've been biking there a bunch over the last couple summers, just not on off-road trails. Typically scooter or ebike on that paved path from Three Sisters down to town. Not to be a goof, but I do wish there were more paved paths because they're the most accessible and I see a lot of old people using that one path. I think the ship has sailed on Canmore being a granola-guy paradise and you'd really need to go to Field or something if that's what you want in 2023. I can empathize big time with you, though, that you miss the way it was and I can understand and appreciate how negative the direction it has taken would feel.

For me, I didn't like Canmore in the 90s. It was Banff or bust. It was only a few years ago that I discovered the Three Sisters area and was like, holy crap, this is what I've been looking for. Banff was always the dream to live in for me, but the hoops and sacrifices necessary to live there were non-starters for me.

You know, I'm fine with capping Canmore at full if we build a new town that is almost as accessible and just as beautiful. Like maybe between Louise and Banff or something. Or one mountain range over. The problem with capping it and not building something else is it pushes Banff and Canmore further out of reach for people. I've got a place there. Your dad has his place there. We're fine, but I'm super uncomfortable with staking my claim and then not letting others in. The demand is there and only growing. I know it's not going to happen since people these days will block any infrastructure anywhere.

I don't understand politics enough to know how it works, but can the provincial or federal government just kind of map out a little town spot and start hacking down trees? That'd be the best.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Torture

Curious what those that disagree would think about the fact that Parks Canada's core mandate isn't tourism, it's protecting and sharing natural areas and wildlife for future generations.

Giving Canadians experience in nature and recreation is part of it, sure, but that has to exist within the mandate of maintaining these natural areas, leaving space for wildlife, and not paving them over with parking lots.

Sure, the core mandate isn't tourism. I think (but don't know) from the start there was a strong element of tourism and interaction with humans intertwined with protecting natural areas. If it was only maintaining natural areas, there would be no development, full stop.

As such, there needs to be a balance, and it isn't easy. I certainly get shutting down Morraine Lake to traffic within the park, but I also get that these sorts of restrictions will also affect other parts of the park and Canmore, further pushing the limits of the existing infrastructure.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Torture

Curious what those that disagree would think about the fact that Parks Canada's core mandate isn't tourism, it's protecting and sharing natural areas and wildlife for future generations.

Giving Canadians experience in nature and recreation is part of it, sure, but that has to exist within the mandate of maintaining these natural areas, leaving space for wildlife, and not paving them over with parking lots.

Isn't the answer in your first sentence? The mandate is protecting and sharing natural areas and wildlife for future generations. You're hardly sharing them if the only way for people to experience them is to cram into half a dozen attractions so long as you show up at 4:30 a.m. to get your spot.

Banff National park is 1.6 million acres.

The townsites of Lake Louise and Banff combined are 1399 acres.

We have to combat this narrative that these natural areas are becoming overrun. They're not. It's that our population has grown, demand has increased at least proportionally, and we need to accommodate that demand by increasing access to more of the sites in the national park. It's perfectly consistent with the mandate to do so.

Right now we're doing jack #### for future generations and it's shameful.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Every time we bring this topic up it's always we need a new town, like between Banff and Lake Louise... why not just triple the size of Lake Louise? There's room.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Torture

Curious what those that disagree would think about the fact that Parks Canada's core mandate isn't tourism, it's protecting and sharing natural areas and wildlife for future generations.

Giving Canadians experience in nature and recreation is part of it, sure, but that has to exist within the mandate of maintaining these natural areas, leaving space for wildlife, and not paving them over with parking lots.

Preserving the environment has not been a key initiative until more recently.


Historically, Banff and area was first seen as a tourist destination, secondly it was viewed as an area for resource extraction, thirdly it was viewed as a source for water storage.

Most trails, and roads were made by logging companies, dam builders or miners.

That doesn't mean develop everything whilly nilly, indeed I think that limiting this development to places that are already over run helps keep the human mess contained. Like fighting banana slug said, there needs to be balance.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Every time we bring this topic up it's always we need a new town, like between Banff and Lake Louise... why not just triple the size of Lake Louise? There's room.

Great idea and that totally works for me.

[Fuzz]

I don't mean any offense to you Sliver, but it's actually people like you from Calgary who have condos that have made it inaccessible for others. Your place takes up space and resources, yet sits empty the majority of the time. There isn't room for young people, because these empty condos have raised the costs so much, and there is limited space. Families can't afford to have a life there, for the same reason. The sense of community has really dwindled, and it's well on it's way to becoming as soulless as Whistler. I don't know what the solution is, but I do know more weekender condos are not it.

I do think there is probably space in the front ranges for a few more towns, but the reality is(as we have discussed) there are towns there, and nobody wants to be in them, for various reasons.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I don't mean any offense to you Sliver, but it's actually people like you from Calgary who have condos that have made it inaccessible for others. Your place takes up space and resources, yet sits empty the majority of the time. There isn't room for young people, because these empty condos have raised the costs so much, and there is limited space. Families can't afford to have a life there, for the same reason. The sense of community has really dwindled, and it's well on it's way to becoming as soulless as Whistler. I don't know what the solution is, but I do know more weekender condos are not it.

I do think there is probably space in the front ranges for a few more towns, but the reality is(as we have discussed) there are towns there, and nobody wants to be in them, for various reasons.

Yeah, dude, you're super right so no offence taken. I struggle with that. I also struggle with the waste of heating that extra building that sits empty while my neighbour there rents and has roommates. Even just parking in front of my garage - they leave it empty for me 24/7 when I'm only there 10% of the time. It's selfish and I have no defense. This is sort of my first experience with having a vacation home and I'm surprised people with two places don't discuss it more. There are people struggling and I have two houses. You can't justify it. I realize we're way closer to the problem than the solution.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Oh they are a detestable breed. Their little outdoorsy-warsie uniforms are vomit inducing, too. I practically have to wear horse blinders when I walk around there because the people are so nauseating to look at. I hate them.

LOL, reminds me of probably my favorite tweet of all time.

https://twitter.com/user/status/920095198952247296

I remember about a 12 or 13 years ago, me and some co-workers decided to do the Rawson Lake hike. Everyone couldn't wait to bust out their hydration packs, Keen boots, hiking poles etc.... I showed up with a pair of jeans, a pair of Chucks and I think an Iron Maiden T-shirt, and smoked about 5 cigarettes on my way up. Me and another guy that had done the hike about 20 times over years ended up waiting about 20 minutes for everyone else to get to the top.

I have found there is a direct correlation between the more expensive the outdoor gear the lower the outdoorsing abilities. It's also like when it's -32 out. You have a bunch of office dwellers running around in Canada goose jackets, mitts and Uggs. Meanwhile, the Native guy is rocking a jean jacket a pair of Adidas and he's changing a car battery with no gloves on.

[KTrain]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Isn't the answer in your first sentence? The mandate is protecting and sharing natural areas and wildlife for future generations. You're hardly sharing them if the only way for people to experience them is to cram into half a dozen attractions so long as you show up at 4:30 a.m. to get your spot.

Banff National park is 1.6 million acres.

The townsites of Lake Louise and Banff combined are 1399 acres.

We have to combat this narrative that these natural areas are becoming overrun. They're not. It's that our population has grown, demand has increased at least proportionally, and we need to accommodate that demand by increasing access to more of the sites in the national park. It's perfectly consistent with the mandate to do so.

Right now we're doing jack #### for future generations and it's shameful.

No person will be barred from visiting Moraine Lake. It will be shared AND protected. If anything it's going to be more crowded up there as there will be a steady stream of people going to the top and not being turned away at the bottom (5000 cars/day last year rather than 900 cars allowed up).

I get you just want to be able to drive to the doorstep of your destination, walk around a few shops and then jump back in your vehicle but 5000 other cars doing it at the same time would make all the destinations intolerable.

We need to added barriers to entry so the crowds (cars and people) don't force us to double lane every road in our National and Provincial Parks.

Maybe we do want some European cities have done. Alternate days that certain vehicles can enter the parks. Half get Saturday and half get Sunday. Alternate every weekend.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by KTrain

No person will be barred from visiting Moraine Lake. It will be shared AND protected. If anything it's going to be more crowded up there as there will be a steady stream of people going to the top and not being turned away at the bottom (5000 cars/day last year rather than 900 cars allowed up).

I get you just want to be able to drive to the doorstep of your destination, walk around a few shops and then jump back in your vehicle but 5000 other cars doing it at the same time would make all the destinations intolerable.

We need to added barriers to entry so the crowds (cars and people) don't force us to double lane every road in our National and Provincial Parks.

Maybe we do want some European cities have done. Alternate days that certain vehicles can enter the parks. Half get Saturday and half get Sunday. Alternate every weekend.

I just think the best way to protect it is to spread the demand for these beautiful outdoor spaces amongst more outdoor spaces. We have cool things all around the area; we just need to build infrastructure to get you there so we aren't all going to the same handful of destinations. I'd also like to see a Fluvarium go into one of the lakes/wetlands/streams around Banff, so there is some low-hanging fruit just waiting for us to execute on.

And where there aren't natural destinations let's sprinkle in some gondolas, zip lines, gravity go-karts, etc. as that'll also alleviate pressure on the main sites.

As for Moraine Lake, do they even have a candy store there? That's kind of my baseline requirement for a destination to be cool. There's one in Lake Louise, one in Canmore, one in Waterton, one in Banff, one in Jasper...I don't go to Moraine Lake because I'm pretty sure it doesn't have one so for that reason, I'm out.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I don't mean any offense to you Sliver, but it's actually people like you from Calgary who have condos that have made it inaccessible for others. Your place takes up space and resources, yet sits empty the majority of the time. There isn't room for young people, because these empty condos have raised the costs so much, and there is limited space. Families can't afford to have a life there, for the same reason. The sense of community has really dwindled, and it's well on it's way to becoming as soulless as Whistler. I don't know what the solution is, but I do know more weekender condos are not it.

I do think there is probably space in the front ranges for a few more towns, but the reality is(as we have discussed) there are towns there, and nobody wants to be in them, for various reasons.

I'm not super familiar with Canmore and the land use regulations (and restrictions), but... What if the town grew (responsibly, of course)?

What if it became something like Boulder? Like people could actually live and work there, beyond mostly service jobs?

[curves2000]

In some ways, we are a victim of our own success when it comes to tourism across the board globally. In some ways, we are all contributing to the problem via a million ways and some of our modern way of living.

These type of conversations are being had literally everywhere that has a strong amount of tourism and what a lot of people argue, is over tourism.

It's all connected and I know what I am about to say may be controversial but doesn't mean it's wrong. We have become a society obsessed with social media and living a life on a phone for Instagram. Naturally, beautiful spots and stunning scenery make for excellent photos and memories. Our issue is we are literally taking thousands of pictures, videos, posses for every aspect of life. People are literally doing anything and everything for likes and followers. Younger people mostly want to stay at short term rentals, staying at hotels seems "old fashion" Well with taking housing supply out of the market, it causes issues for locals and local services/employee's.

I get that certain arguments are to the contrary but we have an issue with excessive tourism, either dealing with growth, expanding opportunities or making sure we do it properly.

As a personal example, a relative of my families is a majority owner of a private hospital in Athens and Santorini, Greece. Santorini is literally bursting at the seams with tourists and the need to supplement the existing medical facilities for the island are well known. It becomes a super connected problem with the medical needs of tourists, a need for proper housing for the medical and hospital workers (very seasonal) hospital employee's who are expecting accommodations that are reasonable given their incomes and status (Dr's not wanting to share rooms/ toilets with other Dr's)

The island is trying to limit growth, needs housing, has significant shortages of workers but is also being presented with opportunities for development for incredible projects. This island is one of the top destinations for Instagram pictures , on the verge of a cliff, people who take incredible risks for a picture or photo and literally. My uncle tells me the volume of people who have fallen taking high risk photos is staggering. They come in with injuries as if they have been ran over by a bus and he can't convince enough of his Athens based staff to go to Santorini for a few weeks because of the housing shortage. He has taken to building some accommodation for staff and paying for others but everybody has turned their home into an VRBO or Air B&B, he can't be competing with people who are willing to pay through the nose for some Instagram shot and cave pool.

It's a wild situation everywhere.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Isn't the answer in your first sentence? The mandate is protecting and sharing natural areas and wildlife for future generations. You're hardly sharing them if the only way for people to experience them is to cram into half a dozen attractions so long as you show up at 4:30 a.m. to get your spot.

Banff National park is 1.6 million acres.

The townsites of Lake Louise and Banff combined are 1399 acres.

We have to combat this narrative that these natural areas are becoming overrun. They're not. It's that our population has grown, demand has increased at least proportionally, and we need to accommodate that demand by increasing access to more of the sites in the national park. It's perfectly consistent with the mandate to do so.

Right now we're doing jack #### for future generations and it's shameful.

I'm not so sure that the youths would agree that it's shameful that we aren't putting highways, lodges, and developments everywhere in our national parks for their sake.

[Nufy]

Yeah but are they happy to be hiking trails with 1000 of their closest friends every weekend as well ?