I agree, it's like a boiled down Urban Geography 101 class, dressed up in a flash skin that makes it accessible to the average citizen, and easy to understand the concepts. The boxes on the bottom right flesh out a lot of the concepts and principles behind the results. That's why I like it.

ABDAA for me, too.

There was a lot of money and effort put into the last Regional Growth Strategy but I don't think there was much buy in from the municipalities and even less from the public. It's unfortunate that the CRD meeting was shanghied by "off the leash" interest groups. This is a time where a regional approach is more important than ever in terms of transportation, housing and the economy. Rather than clicking on boxes in a software program regarding motherhood statements it would be more interesting to tease out peoples attitudes. When Sidney did their OCP people supported affordable housing but opposed increased density. I would be more interested in seeing the CRD ask the question "are you feeling lucky" so nothing needs to change or do you think the future is going to be different and if so what are you prepared to accept.

I think these sessions would be more productive if you chose the model that was used for public input into voting reform. Pick a few dozen purely random citizens like for jury duty. Give them a brief rundown of planning principles and then see what happens. I have a lot of trust in that model.

Then you won't have the gang of usual suspects that always hijack these sessions.

But you will probably still be dealing with people who are enthusiastic about eco-density, transportation upgrades etc..."as long as it's not on my street and it doesn't affect my taxes".

Quote: When Sidney did their OCP people supported affordable housing but opposed increased density. I would be more interested in seeing the CRD ask the question "are you feeling lucky" so nothing needs to change or do you think the future is going to be different and if so what are you prepared to accept.