There's something else at play here which has only been alluded to by Bigtime so far.
Why is Ald. John Mar getting directly involved in this? Seems to be a really clear case of grandstanding going on. There's no reason for him to show up with the cops or to make it publicly known that it was he who supposedly walked by and noticed this situation (I have my doubts that much is true either, but I digress). The only reason seems to be so he can grab the spotlight and somehow show that he's taking charge or taking care of business or what have you. The showing up with or standing along with policemen is one of his recycled image tactics too (Mar's a former RCMP officer and police issues is a major plank in any of his political platforms).
Really Mar should have stayed out of the whole affair. It's pretty shaky ground for elected officials to hint at the notion that the police are their personal strike force (that's going out on quite the limb I know, and I don't buy it, just saying the optics get cloudy with the messages he his sending). He should have lodged a bylaw complaint and left it at that.
Again, for the record, I think it's entirely appropriate for bylaw and/or police to come down on this. Just questioning Mar's very public involvement as a very obvious case of grandstanding.
The Following User Says Thank You to frinkprof For This Useful Post:
I agree with the questioning over why John Mar is involved in any capacity. Unless he is the lot owner, what gives him the right to file a complaint over what is happening on someone's private property? How does Mar even know that that owner didn't give their blessing to this potato project?
I don't know why bylaw or police being involved is appropriate, seeing as it's private property, unless the owner made the complaint.
Why are people defending a deadbeat property owner? Because it's his/her private property and thus they can let it sit derelict if they want? Y'all do know that property rights aren't constitutionally-protected in Canada, right?
I can't wait to read all the "OMG MY PUNK NEIGHBOURS DON'T EVER CUT THEIR GRASS!" threads in about three weeks, dripping in irony. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts it's the same people complaining about the potato-growers in this thread.
HAHAHA. I love how he latches onto the one tire that says "Occupy" (with a peace sign, no less) and completely ignores the "Love" tire. WHERE IS THE FAIR AND BALANCED APPROACH???
Why should Mar turn a blind eye to this? Taking note of something going on in the riding and doing something about it is a quality I want in a public official. I'm not saying I wish he was my alderman (I think he is nearly useless), but if my alderman would take note of anything, really just about anything, in my ward it would be the second time.
There are not enough face palms in the world for Mar. See everyone? He saved us from Occupy Calgary v2.0
Ugh.
However all this vacant lot talk has me wondering about one on our street, I wonder if any of the neighbours have ever contacted the property owner to do anything constructive with it while it sits empty (and no I don't have a view of it)?
Interesting how nobody wants to utilise the City Sanctioned/Funded Community Gardens. #yyc#yyccc
Nobody? You mean I was just hallucinating those full gardens I've seen in Inglewood, Sunnyside, and East Village? The ones where there is a waiting list to get a plot for the season? Yup, right again John, nobody uses them.
Edit: John has since clarified this statement to me, indicating he was referring to the folks that setup this garden not contacting the city to utilize money for community gardens.
as i'm not overly familiar with all the 'calgary politics' you guys are talking about, i'll stick to the vacant lot stuff....
when my wife and i bought our first house it had (actually, still has) a vacant lot beside it - all over run with weeds and crap. the owner would come by every 6 weeks or so and weed-whack the lot. i went out the one time and talked to the guy for a bit and asked him if he'd mind if i sprayed round-up along the property line just to help keep the weeds out of our yard - he was totally cool with that. in fact, people who had been living in the neighbourhood for a while commented that summer that he was around a lot more frequently knocking down the weeds than in years past.
i guess to me it's pretty cut and dry - it was his property so i got his permission BEFORE i went on it and killed off a bunch of weeds (as a side note, holy crap - when you don't dilute the "concentrated round-up" as per the instructions and it's 2-3x as strong as it should be.... it works really really really fast.... just saying!!)
__________________ "...and there goes Finger up the middle on Luongo!" - Jim Hughson, Av's vs. 'Nucks
I agree with the questioning over why John Mar is involved in any capacity. Unless he is the lot owner, what gives him the right to file a complaint over what is happening on someone's private property? How does Mar even know that that owner didn't give their blessing to this potato project?
I don't know why bylaw or police being involved is appropriate, seeing as it's private property, unless the owner made the complaint.
That's why there's a community standards bylaw. The same reason I can't just leave a 1989 piece of #### van on my front lawn and not get in trouble for it. The onus rests on the owner to ensure that they're complying with the bylaw, not whether or not they want to follow it.
I'm with you up to here.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.
Ultimately I guess we just don't agree on one point here, intent/motivation. Or at least the justification of the actions.
The actions, very much not the same. (destructive VS constructive)
The results, very much not the same. (lost trees VS garden)
The tactics, very much not the same. (sneaking in at night VS broad day light)
You seem to feel the actions of one are more justified than the other, I simply do not.
Good for Gary Mar. When you see someone planting potatoes, you call in the cavalry!
I can't think of a better thing the police could be doing than busting illegal grow-ops.
Potatoes are more than just food -- you can throw them (weapons), fire small pieces of them from a spud gun (again, weapons), and make illegal potato vodka out of them (illegal vodka), potato pancakes (infiltration of foreign customs), even power a lightbulb (potential burns).
Oh sure, the woman and child in that photo can claim innocence, claim that they want to do nothing but help feed the homeless, but we don't know their real motives.
And besides, what's the harm of having an empty lot going to the weeds in an inner-city neighbourhood?
You better edit your post.
This has nothing at all to do with Gary Mar and knowing who Gary Mar is, I think he might take exception with his name being used in this manner.
I think John Mar's the most useless alderman we have (except maybe Gord Lowe), but having said that, I don't think the woman should be allowed to just set up shop with her potato garden on someone else's property. I don't really care how noble it was, if she's allowed to do it, it sets a bad precedent for everyone else. If they ok her in doing her ugly tire farm (and it is hella ugly, so I don't know how it "beautifies" anything), then that means it's ok for other people to do their own interpretation on other vacant lots.
Why are people defending a deadbeat property owner? Because it's his/her private property and thus they can let it sit derelict if they want? Y'all do know that property rights aren't constitutionally-protected in Canada, right?
I can't wait to read all the "OMG MY PUNK NEIGHBOURS DON'T EVER CUT THEIR GRASS!" threads in about three weeks, dripping in irony. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts it's the same people complaining about the potato-growers in this thread.
I'm not sure if you've been following along or read the article, but the individual lot owner has barely entered the conversation. All that's really been said is they should have been asked permission first.
Unless I missed something nobody has come out and said an owner should be allowed to keep a vacant lot in poor condition indefinitely. I think most people would agree there should be limits on what condition a lot should be kept in (nobody wants a scrap yard of rusted appliances/cars next door) and I think many would agree that a garden is a better use of the space than leaving it vacant. But we also wouldn't much care if one off our neighbors decided that our parking pad was arbitrarily converted to a garden without our permission.
I'm not sure if you've been following along or read the article, but the individual lot owner has barely entered the conversation. All that's really been said is they should have been asked permission first.
Unless I missed something nobody has come out and said an owner should be allowed to keep a vacant lot in poor condition indefinitely. I think most people would agree there should be limits on what condition a lot should be kept in (nobody wants a scrap yard of rusted appliances/cars next door) and I think many would agree that a garden is a better use of the space than leaving it vacant. But we also wouldn't much care if one off our neighbors decided that our parking pad was arbitrarily converted to a garden without our permission.
A garden is one thing. An ugly hippy painted-tire potato patch is different altogether. She took an eyesore of a vacant lot (which is totally unacceptable IMO) and replaced it with an even more ######ed version of itself. Using old tires in your garden is fine if you're white trash, but you can't tell me old painted tires beautify anything. I'm used to seeing old tires strewn about in the worst places in Africa and Alabama, not Calgary.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post: