Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[Oling_Roachinen]

Woolley voted no to a plebiscite discussion is all.

It doesn't mean he was for or against it. He voted against dragging this on until February to further discuss it some more and decide if a plebiscite is needed, which of course would drag it on even more.

[Zarley]

So is the feeling that we are closer to the death of this idiotic scheme? Is this a positive development?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Zarley

So is the feeling that we are closer to the death of this idiotic scheme? Is this a positive development?

It's a negative one, only because it draws it out for another 4+ months.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Woolley voted no to a plebiscite discussion is all.

It doesn't mean he was for or against it. He voted against dragging this on until February to further discuss it some more and decide if a plebiscite is needed, which of course would drag it on even more.

Wrong, this was already covered in this thread, Woolley voted for the speed limit reduction: https://www.660citynews.com/2020/09/...-speed-limits/

So Woolley voted yes for the speed limit reduction, and no to letting the citizens potentially save council from themselves again. And given that he represents my ward, he can piss off.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Is there really a decent sized portion of the populace that feels the need for lower residential speed limits? I haven't spoken to anyone that is for it. I'm sure there are some out there in certain areas with legitimate concerns but as a whole it's just not something that should have got this far in the first place as it's going to get shot down via plebiscite.

There are lots and lots of people who support lower residential speed limits, if you frame the argument in particular ways. The perception that it'll reduce collisions and injuries is strong, and that matters more than the reality of whether it'll work or not.

Lots of people support it on the basis that a collision at 30 km/h as compared to 50 km/h will not cause as many serious injuries to a pedestrian. There are lots of people who support "Vision Zero" and all that: the idea that we can and should try to eliminate all fatalities and serious injuries on our roads. (I support the general principle that we should make our roads safer, but I don't support blanket speed limit reductions to do so [because they won't].)

Lots of other people support it on the basis that it's safer for their kids; less chance of an unfortunate kid darting out, chasing after a ball or whatever, getting hit by a car because a car at 30 km/h can stop much more quickly than one at 50 km/h. (I think they should be better parents and teach their kids proper road safety rules.)

Lots of people have anecdotal experiences with "speeders" in their neighbourhood and they want the cops to put a stop to it.

In reality the number of collisions on residential roads is so small it's almost a statistical error. In reality most people don't speed on residential roads to begin with. But most people care less about reality than they do their perceptions.

To wit: I have been yelled at by an old coot for driving less than 40 km/h down my street. Her perception was that I was "speeding", but in reality I was going about 38 km/h. I asked her how fast she thought I was going, she said it didn't matter exactly: "too fast". I told her I was going about 38 km/h, she said I was lying: I was obviously going faster than that. I told her to go get a radar gun or **** off. People like that can't be reasoned with with pesky things like "facts" and "proof": they don't care. Perception > reality.

[Flames0910]

I told her to go get a radar gun or **** off. People like that can't be reasoned with with pesky things like "facts" and "proof": they don't care.

My hero

[TorqueDog]

I've had the same experience as timun. People are notoriously poor judges of speed and feel the need to impose their perception on others as reality. The fact is that our neighbourhood is as safe as it's ever been and the idea that we have a problem with speeding through it is insane.

Now, people rolling stop signs or flat out blowing them because they don't care to wait for you, I've seen so many near incidents that I called 311 and asked them to evaluate if there was an argument for moving the stop sign in more and drawing a stop line. The guy ended up calling me and said he saw plenty of near-misses just in the fifteen minutes he was watching and he'll be taking his findings back to the Roads dept.

But every time someone bitches about speed enough to get photo radar or a lidar trap in here, they go away pretty much empty handed because the problem only exists in everyone's heads.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

My hero

If you were there you probably would have been impressed with how level-headed my response was.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by timun

There are lots and lots of people who support lower residential speed limits, if you frame the argument in particular ways. The perception that it'll reduce collisions and injuries is strong, and that matters more than the reality of whether it'll work or not.

Lots of people support it on the basis that a collision at 30 km/h as compared to 50 km/h will not cause as many serious injuries to a pedestrian. There are lots of people who support "Vision Zero" and all that: the idea that we can and should try to eliminate all fatalities and serious injuries on our roads. (I support the general principle that we should make our roads safer, but I don't support blanket speed limit reductions to do so [because they won't].)

Lots of other people support it on the basis that it's safer for their kids; less chance of an unfortunate kid darting out, chasing after a ball or whatever, getting hit by a car because a car at 30 km/h can stop much more quickly than one at 50 km/h. (I think they should be better parents and teach their kids proper road safety rules.)

Lots of people have anecdotal experiences with "speeders" in their neighbourhood and they want the cops to put a stop to it.

In reality the number of collisions on residential roads is so small it's almost a statistical error. In reality most people don't speed on residential roads to begin with. But most people care less about reality than they do their perceptions.

To wit: I have been yelled at by an old coot for driving less than 40 km/h down my street. Her perception was that I was "speeding", but in reality I was going about 38 km/h. I asked her how fast she thought I was going, she said it didn't matter exactly: "too fast". I told her I was going about 38 km/h, she said I was lying: I was obviously going faster than that. I told her to go get a radar gun or **** off. People like that can't be reasoned with with pesky things like "facts" and "proof": they don't care. Perception > reality.

I don't believe this to be the case as a major percentage of the population which is why this will get shot down by Calgarians.

[Roughneck]

Council voted down all the business cases for the 11 new communities (Sutherland was the only one to vote in favour of them, the turd), following admin’s advice this time.

So good news there at least.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Council voted down all the business cases for the 11 new communities (Sutherland was the only one to vote in favour of them, the turd), following admin’s advice this time.

So good news there at least.

Good. The previously approved communities is more than plenty enough to build with for the next while.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Council voted down all the business cases for the 11 new communities (Sutherland was the only one to vote in favour of them, the turd), following admin’s advice this time.

So good news there at least.

Sutherland apparently screwed up using the new electronic voting system, so it was unanimous.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1324022987574530049

[bomber317]

Is Farkas just pandering to his base?

I would like to think alternative methods to compliment and enhance current police work would be a good idea.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1324161768051023873

"Late Tuesday, at the city’s Combined Meeting of Council, councilors debated a plan that could see up to $20 million reallocated from the city budget, including the Calgary Police Service budget, for a Community Safety Investment Framework.

Those funds would be used to address gaps in a variety of “racial and culturally appropriate services.”

During his close on an attempted amendment to have the funds come from the city’s fiscal sustainability reserve, he cautioned the city about making front line cuts to the police.

“It’s not going to work. Clumsy and dangerous attempts to appease extremists will only serve to undermine safety and set us back,” Coun. Farkas said."

“I take offence to those remarks. It’s a complete misrepresentation of what’s happening here,” said Coun. Jyoti Gondek.

“I will not sit here and listen to a colleague that sat on the (police) commission with me misrepresent what we are trying to do. No one is trying to appeal to extremist groups.”

Coun. Farrell had requested Coun. Farkas to withdraw his comment during the meeting.

After refusing to withdraw his comments, as per Mayor Nenshi’s final request, Coun. Farkas had his microphone cut off.

[Ozy_Flame]

Is anyone surprised? The Farkas brand - and by extension the loud angry right - gaslights this issue until the cows come home. Nevermind his whole "removed from the Board" spin doctoring (his term expired), but police funding to "appease extremists" is a shallow, empty non-justification for allocating funds to properly-trained services to perform the same tasks. It enables officer resources to focus on policing matters, and less on providing social support services.

Farkas is going to gaslight his way along most major issues he takes issue with on Council - not unlike what we will hear from third-party advertisers, PACs, and slate candidates over the next 12 months.

[shermanator]

https://twitter.com/EWoolleyWard8/st...70614450905088

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by shermanator

https://twitter.com/EWoolleyWard8/st...70614450905088

Awesome.

[nik-]

"one of" was strategic as well lol

[CliffFletcher]

Yeah, it’s great our elected officials are hurling insults and dunking on each other on social media. No doubt it will improve the delivery of public services.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Yeah, it’s great our elected officials are hurling insults and dunking on each other on social media. No doubt it will improve the delivery of public services.

You know, you don't always have to be a buzzkill and take everything so seriously. It might be nice to enjoy the internet once in a while.

[Oling_Roachinen]

I don't care about the Chu insult, but threatening those who donate to him? That's extremely concerning to hear coming from a councilor. So much so that I assumed it was a fake account.