Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[psyang]

Originally Posted by Wormius

“Ending deux ex machina”? What does that even mean? Is he tired of movies with plot holes?

I'm a little surprised to see this.

So I've already mentioned I went to junior high with Nenshi. This person was also a good friend of mine and classmate in high school. I won't say too much, only that he was a brilliant and gifted student then had a huge psychospiritual experience (for lack of a better word) in his 20s which has greatly altered his way of thinking and outlook on life (and his name, for that matter).

I'm not one to do this normally, but this one hits a little close to home. Feel free to attack his policies, but please think twice if you want to attack him as a person.

Edit: Sorry, Wormius - this wasn't directed at you, I just quoted the last message. Just wanted to issue a general message to people wishing to comment on Paul's campaign.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Slava

I know that quite a few people have already who they're voting for, for mayor, but hopefully they're not closing the door on this guy: https://www.hallelujah.news/

Dr. James Cantor at CAMH in Toronto has shown detection of pedophiles on fMRI. If we can test keyholders of the public trust we must: judges, police, doctors, nurses, teachers, anyone given power over vulnerable members of our community.

Also wants to get rid of meat.

Kenney had his "Jobs, Economy, Pipelines"

Paul Hallelujah has "Pedos, Proteins, Paranormal"

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by psyang

I'm a little surprised to see this.

So I've already mentioned I went to junior high with Nenshi. This person was also a good friend of mine and classmate in high school. I won't say too much, only that he was a brilliant and gifted student then had a huge psychospiritual experience (for lack of a better word) in his 20s which has greatly altered his way of thinking and outlook on life (and his name, for that matter).

I'm not one to do this normally, but this one hits a little close to home. Feel free to attack his policies, but please think twice if you want to attack him as a person.

Well, he's put himself out publicly, so we should be free to criticize his ideas. Which, lets be clear, are bat#### crazy.

Lets see here...fMRI to screen all employees for pedophilia. Never mind the privacy invasion, you have issues around false positives, and people who may have inclinations but never in their lives would act on them. So dumb idea.

Free energy transformer. Oh good, lets also ignore the laws of thermodynamics.

Contact alien species because geometric forms are found in clouds on gas giants?

[psyang]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Well, he's put himself out publicly, so we should be free to criticize his ideas. Which, lets be clear, are bat#### crazy.

Lets see here...fMRI to screen all employees for pedophilia. Never mind the privacy invasion, you have issues around false positives, and people who may have inclinations but never in their lives would act on them. So dumb idea.

Free energy transformer. Oh good, lets also ignore the laws of thermodynamics.

Contact alien species because geometric forms are found in clouds on gas giants?

Yup, as I said, no issues criticizing his policies/ideas. I just wanted to hopefully head off any attacks on him as a person.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by psyang

Yup, as I said, no issues criticizing his policies/ideas. I just wanted to hopefully head off any attacks on him as a person.

He seems genuine enough. I had a friend like that, but he always needed logical voices around to remind him of reality. Smart guy, just not very grounded.

[RoadGame]

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...ms-up-in-smoke

I get DF is a fan of more density and in general I agree with that but sometimes you can take the pursuit of an agenda too far.


*Edit: For the avoidance of doubt I'm not a fan of Licia Corbella's writing but had assumed others would likewise tune out her tone and focus on the situation.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by RoadGame

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...ms-up-in-smoke

I get DF is a fan of more density and in general I agree with that but sometimes you can take the pursuit of an agenda too far.

Some absolute Druh Farrell gems in that article as if she's trying to tell them how to make money and run business. The residential equivalent of this is if your house burned down and the insurance money will pay you only enough money to rebuild your house on land zoned to allow your house to be rebuilt on, but the city won't allow you to rebuild your house unless it's a multiplex regardless of whether or not you can afford to build a multiplex over and above your insurance money.

“We are sympathetic to the owner and the franchisee, but this situation actually represents an opportunity for them to build something so much better on the site than what is proposed,” wrote Farrell, as she strongly recommended refusal of the development application.

Farrell wrote to the board that she wants “a mixed-use, high-density development at this location, either with this site alone or combined with the adjacent parcel that is prime” for redevelopment.

“Such a project could even include a new Dairy Queen, but of course without a drive-thru. This is a tremendous opportunity for the owner to extract significantly more financial value out of the site than with what is proposed,” wrote Farrell.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by RoadGame

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...ms-up-in-smoke

I get DF is a fan of more density and in general I agree with that but sometimes you can take the pursuit of an agenda too far.

Meh without the strong editorializing by corbella (I want to see those tear laced tissues) i can see both sides. On the one hand yes totally makes sense to put the same building up. Land owners don’t want the risk and the insurance company is to pay out. But nothing wrong with Farrell making the case for upscaling a piece of property rather than build a new restaurant making it harder to replace the building in the 20 years

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Meh without the strong editorializing by corbella (I want to see those tear laced tissues) i can see both sides. On the one hand yes totally makes sense to put the same building up. Land owners don’t want the risk and the insurance company is to pay out. But nothing wrong with Farrell making the case for upscaling a piece of property rather than build a new restaurant making it harder to replace the building in the 20 years

I can get behind that as long as the city pays out the owner to make them whole.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Cappy

But nothing wrong with Farrell making the case for upscaling a piece of property rather than build a new restaurant making it harder to replace the building in the 20 years

Nothing wrong with her having an opinion and expressing it, however it's the same development that was there before and the land is zoned for it. Druh or the city don't own the land and are not risking any of their capital into the venture. Permit the rebuild of the DQ and get out of the way.

[Roughneck]

Normally I'd empathize with the downtrodden, but when Licia Corbella takes the case I know I can generally be pretty safe being on the opposite side of whatever she's supporting. Sorry Shims, going to take my place on the latte-sipper and gelato-licking side of the barricades, I guess?

[Jimmy Stang]

I feel for the owners, but I also understand that planning, zoning, transportation, and so many other things have changed a lot in the past sixty (?) years since the DQ first opened. What worked then doesn't work now, and that's not Drug Farrell's fault.

But I can also see how no/limited parking and no drive through would make a DQ less viable there. Maybe a compromise could be reached by having a higher density development (like the city wants) but also incorporating a drive through, underground parking, etc. Corbella, of course, skipped any reference to any sort of compromise.

And it might sound harsh, but maybe the owners should leverage their asset (the land) and get maximum value for it and give up on the DQ dream. Just because the city doesn't want 1960s planning in their 2020s vision, doesn't mean that you aren't sitting on a valuable asset.

That being said, I would rather see a compromise. There are some great higher-density developments that incorporate creative ways for parking (not that underground is that creative) and incorporate other features that might make it work.

Corbella is entitled to her opinions, but she lays it on pretty thick here and personally tried to pin decades of change on one councillor that she doesn't favour.

[Oling_Roachinen]

I’m pretty usually on Farrell’s side but I think this was the wrong decision.

If they tore down some crappy building and wanted to replace it with a DQ that went against the long term plans for the area,, fair enough. But this was a fire, it wasn’t their choice and if not for this unfortunate disaster the drive thru would still be there and could be there for another 100 years or whatever.

Also an electrical fire? Pssh, with the new DQ pretty much just opening up a mile away we all know this was the first act of the DQ war.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Normally I'd empathize with the downtrodden, but when Licia Corbella takes the case I know I can generally be pretty safe being on the opposite side of whatever she's supporting. Sorry Shims, going to take my place on the latte-sipper and gelato-licking side of the barricades, I guess?

Here's a non-Corbella Article if that's what you need:

https://globalnews.ca/news/7782164/c...street-permit/

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Here's a non-Corbella Article if that's what you need:

https://globalnews.ca/news/7782164/c...street-permit/

Much better. That article is night and day compared to the Corbella column. At least it explains the city's reasoning and doesn't even mention Druh Farrell.

I guess I'm still in the camp of coming up with a creative solution that fits with the 2020s, and not a simple rebuild of what worked decades ago. I hope that both parties can get creative and come up with a solution.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Here's a non-Corbella Article if that's what you need:

https://globalnews.ca/news/7782164/c...street-permit/

Nah it’s too late. Now that I’ve learned that opportunistic upzoning is all that stands between me and some stracciatella, it’s only embiggened my resolve in seeing “iconic” neighborhood parking lots razed to the ground as crocodile tears spill from the Postmedia opinion pages.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Also an electrical fire? Pssh, with the new DQ pretty much just opening up a mile away we all know this was the first act of the DQ war.

Speaking of which, that one has a very small parking lot, no drive through, and available on-street parking, is 20+ blocks further up Centre Street, and is directly across from a Tim Horton's. And the Green Line, if it ever reaches there, will be decades later.

I'd even go as far to say that the owners of the land at the burned down location have a greater opportunity than they realize. They just need to get creative and accept that the exact same type of development isn't the place to focus their energy on.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

Speaking of which, that one has a very small parking lot, no drive through, and available on-street parking, is 20+ blocks further up Centre Street, and is directly across from a Tim Horton's. And the Green Line, if it ever reaches there, will be decades later.

I'd even go as far to say that the owners of the land at the burned down location have a greater opportunity than they realize. They just need to get creative and accept that the exact same type of development isn't the place to focus their energy on.

I can't believe people are taking the city's side on this, this is completely crazy to me. Do you think because someone has commercial property they have an endless amount of cash or credit to just "realize the opportunity".

It is their property, the zoning hasn't changed, why should they have to accept anything.

They owned a property, the zoning allows the building, the owners have insurance. The insurance will replace the building - same as before not something different, not something bigger. And you guys are ok with the city just coming in and saying, "actually we changed our mind, you can't rebuild the same building, you need to come up with a few extra million and see this as an opportunity to invest." People should be outraged - this is private property, not public property.

If the city wants to change their mind, they need to make the owners completely whole, buying the lot at full fair market value as if the building were still there in the same shape.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

Much better. That article is night and day compared to the Corbella column. At least it explains the city's reasoning and doesn't even mention Druh Farrell.

I guess I'm still in the camp of coming up with a creative solution that fits with the 2020s, and not a simple rebuild of what worked decades ago. I hope that both parties can get creative and come up with a solution.

According to city documents, there were several factors that contributed to the rejection of the permit, despite being “technically sound” and in compliance with how the land is currently zoned.

According to the documents, drive-thru restaurants are discouraged in the plan for Centre Street as they “detract from the pedestrian shopping environment.”

There's a difference between discouraged and flat out refusal especially given it was there before. Even the biggest Druh fans have to know she's always been anti-car and this is a pretty heavy handed decision likely driven by you know who. Can't wait until she's gone.

[Wormius]

There is no way a drive thru would work effectively there now, and it would only be worse when the LRT goes up there.