514 replies to this topic

[aastra]

It's not the slant that's the problem. Every article is slanted one way or another. The problem in this article is that conclusions are drawn and declarations are made without any evidence to support them.

For example:

"MLA Mary Yapper is livide about allegations that forumers at VibrantVictoria.ca are devil worshippers.

Yapper said officers have found an inverted pentagram drawn on the sidewalk near the home of one forumer. “We’ve respected their right to post messages about development, but being evil is absolutely disgusting.”

[LJ]

[quote name='aastra']It's not the slant that's the problem. Every article is slanted one way or another.


Bingo!! - It is only if you don't agree with the slant that it becomes a problem. You don't see many people that agree with the slant of a particular article slamming the media for being biased.

[spanky123]

Something really bugs me about this article, actually. A newspaper report should, in a sense, be like a courtroom, where you don't get away with introducing evidence that's based on innuendo and hearsay. There is nothing in this article that concretely links one deer carcass and one rabbit skin to the protesters -- nothing. And yet the mayor is quoted as being "livid," as though it's proven that the protesters were responsible. Where is the proof?

Obviously we don't know what the reporter submitted to his editor, but if the reporter submitted the story as is, he's irresponsible, and if the editor changed the story to lead with the deliberately chain-yanking presentation of dead wildlife, then s/he should be kicked out of the profession. Stew Young's sound bite, "We’ve respected their right to protest, but killing deer and rabbits is absolutely disgusting,” practically leads the story, and prejudices the reader's mind. That quote is geared to "proove" that the protesters are no-good, law-breaking wildlife murderers while Mr. Young is "respectful" and law-abiding. But there is no proof.

Editors and reporters only get fired for writing stories about importing cars into Canada or how 5 year olds don't like "the gardens"!

[ingmarz]

Bear Mountain Interchange and Treesit update

Ingmar Lee

The "mid December" start date for the clearing of forest along the proposed $35,000,000 Bear Mountain Clover-leaf Interchange route, -a date which has been announced and is currently posted on the City of Langford website-, direct-action, non-violent civil-disobedient efforts to defend the forest are in full swing, has now come and gone, but the treesitters remain vigilant. Numerous platforms have been installed at canopy level and stocked with food, traverse lines have been rigged, personal lock-down devices have been built and distributed, and work continues. The forest defenders are determined to protect the trees at all cost, and the many other significant values which abound on the site.

The consortium of project proponents, namely, the City of Langford, the Ministry of Transportation, Golder Associates and the Bear Mountain developers, have ignored concerns that the Golder Associates "Environmental Assessment" (EA) and "Archaeological Impact Assessment" (AIA) are both seriously flawed. The Golder EA was completed in December 2006, but was only released for public view a month ago. It has since been altered. In the original document, which first appeared on the City of Langford website last month, "Archaeology" was listed as being one of the 4 parameters to be examined within the scope of the report, but discussion of the significant 80 meter long karst cave, known as the Langford Lake Cave (LLC) is missing. The City of Langford's Bear Mountain Interchange Project Manager Tim Stevens was asked about the omission, but there has been no explanation. Since then, "Archaeology" has been removed from the Golder Associates EA entirely, and there is still no discussion of the cave. Golder Assocates did see the LLC during their EA survey after a local resident showed it to them, but they determined that the cave was too dangerous to enter, so they did not do any assessment. It is also significant that Golder makes no mention of the numerous CMT's which can be seen directly in the middle of their new alignment. They will be destroyed, without proper examination if the project proceeds. Finally, no EA or AIA whatsoever has been conducted along the "new alignment" of the proposal. The plan, apparently, is to bulldoze blind.

The Bear Mountain Interchange (this was the official terminology for the project until last year when it was mysteriously changed to "Spencer Road Interchange") route was previously "realigned" to avoid the cave, -but with no scientific basis whatsoever. Without any examination of the cave, the developers altered the route to avoid the LLC by about 20 metres, presumably because of the public outrage which resulted from the destruction of the sacred Spaet Cave by the Bear Mountain developers last year. The new alignment was based on a 20 year old map of the cave, which indicated that it was 40 metres long, but the cave has recently been re-mapped to 80 metres. And whereas the original alignment centerline went right through the LLC, it has now been diverted to run directly through a series of significant karst sinkholes, which were not noticed by Golder Associates in either their EA or their AIA. In addition to the more than 30 sinkholes, there are also a number of much larger "kettles" in the area which received no mention in the reports. Karst formations often result in enormous cathedral-sized subterranean caverns, and all these sinkholes are clear evidence that something is going on under there which needs to be examined. The crater-like sinkholes are so obvious that the forest floor looks like the bomb-cratered fields of Passchendaele after WW1.


Caves hold numerous important values, which include speleological, paleontological, archaeological, hydrological, environmental, natural historic, historic, cultural and recreational values. In section 4.2 of the AIA Golder claims to have done "..a surface inspection of the interchange alignments using parellel traverses with approximately 2 to 5 metre spacing....A total of 142 shovel tests were excavated within the proposed 50 m wide by approximately 2,500 m long right-of-way. In addition, 58 geotechnical pits were monitored for archaeological materials." Nevertheless, they missed all these sinkholes. It is extremely concerning that Golder, -the Gordon Campbell government's environmental assessor of choice for numerous large projects across the province would miss these significant features, -features which are important enough to be potential show-stoppers. In this case, such a serious omission from these Golder Associates tax-payer-funded assessments, which purport to be conducted to examine for potentially show-stopping features, can only be characterized as ignorant, or purposely negligent.


In spite of the imminence of the announced mid-December start-up date, there remain several obstacles which the City of Langford, Ministry of Transportation, Golder Associates and the Bear Mountain developers need to overcome before they can commence cutting down the forest. The flawed Golder reports have not, apparently, been approved by the BC Archaeology Branch yet, and the project cannot proceed until that happens. As far as I am aware from my communications with the Ministry of Transportation's Bear Mountain Interchange spokesman, Ed Storm, no machinations have yet taken place regarding what to do about the tree-sitting protesters who now occupy the site. Their choices are to get a court injunction to remove the protest, or to make arrests using ample existing laws. The court injunction may not be forthcoming, as was seen in the precedent-setting decision of Justice Quijano, who refused to issue the Campbell government an injunction to remove protesters from Cathedral Grove in 2004. The government was unwilling to make arrests using existing laws, and their 150-slot parking-lot project in the forest there was finally defeated after a two year treesitting stand-off. Perhaps the Campbell government did not believe that their arguments for the giant pay-parking lot would stand up in court. Given the outrageous collusive evolution of the Bear Mountain development on the outskirts of Victoria, currently Vancouver Island's largest and most hideous development project, we think that they will be very reluctant to have all the wheelings and dealings exposed before the court, which would happen if the protesters get arrested using the existing legal options.


And the fact is, they've got a lot of tricky work ahead of them to dislodge the protesters, should push come to shove. I have repeatedly requested information about whatever processes are being undertaken right now to deal with the protesters. Last months exhaustive visit to the forest by undercover RCMP officers notwithstanding, they've got their work cut out for them before they can proceed. And on that point about the RCMP officers, I have appealed to the government to avoid a surprise-attack of the site with a taser-brandishing SWAT team. At Cathedral Grove, the RCMP had the decency to advise us that we would receive ample warning prior to them arriving to remove the protest. They did that out of concern for our safety. Sending out undercover officers to scope out the site an obvious provocation. People at the treesits are already risking much and are putting their lives on the line by the very nature of what they are doing. The RCMP should avoid making the situation even more dangerous.

On last thing, -we've seen that Langford Mayor Stu Young was "livid" and "disgusted" that deer and rabbit carcasses were seen at the site. Of course, Young, who has never once been seen onsite, wouldn't know the provenance of said meat, there's a standing invite to him for a pure vegan dinner out at the treesit anytime. Stu Young, a vegetarian??!! Who knew?!


If any of Victoria's professional environmental organizations should have a change of heart and wish to contribute to this important grass-roots effort to stop the appalling Bear Mountain development, their support will be most welcome.


Cheers, Ingmar

[Caramia]

Thanks for the update Ingmar. It's great to be able to get an in-depth account of what is going on from the protester's side of things. If you get a chance, feel free to read and post in our "Bear Mountain News" thread too as things progress.

[LJ]

I'm smelling a slanted report here. Hmmmmm, where's ms b havin?

[gumgum]

Keep it up, Ingmar. You have my support!

[Ms. B. Havin]

I'm smelling a slanted report here. Hmmmmm, where's ms b havin?

I was traveling.

As for slant -- you're referring to Ingmar's report? Everyone knows from the start that Ingmar will have a "slant" or rather: a position, therefore there's nothing to uncover or reveal. You can argue or agree with him, but what's to uncover regarding his position? He's perfectly transparent about where he stands!

But a newspaper cloaks itself in the mantle of objectivity, and therefore when it blatantly strays into the murky area of deliberately planting "slants" (read: prejudices) in the reader's mind (as that article on the deer carcass & rabbit fur did), it deserves to be critiqued. Newspaper editorials can afford to take positions (and should, imo), but an article that claims to be a report? Nuh-uh. This one was particularly weasel-like because it pretended to present facts, but presented them in such a way as to create what amounts to a visceral sense of revulsion in readers ("oh, poor deer, poor wabbit, nailed to a board/ tree") -- without in the least proving any connection between the objects of "disgust" and the alleged perpetrators.

LJ, you're clearly in favour of BM. Why don't you explain why, instead of sniping at those of us who are critical of it? (See your comment directed at G-man in the BM thread, that he's just a NIMBY, etc.)

Even if the built-up quality of the core were comparable to blasting away a mountain in Langford, at least those of us in favour of core density and more development downtown can explain how we think this will benefit (a) the city and (b) the region and © the economy and (d) the environment. We can even articulate what we think is wrong-headed about suburban developments like BM. The only thing you've countered with is that plenty of people seem to like it, so therefore it must be good, otherwise so many people wouldn't have invested their money in it. That says plenty in one category, but not nearly enough in any number of others.

(Ingmar, if you're reading this: please consider getting your enviro-friends to get their heads around the issue of urban density, too, instead of having a reflexive leftist anti-developer stance that, fatefully, in the core aligns with reactionaries and retardants who want to stifle Victoria's development as a city. Read some Jane Jacobs, read some Janine Benyus on Biomimicry, read some Richard Florida on creative cities -- get people to think laterally instead of in old categories or silos. Please.)

[LJ]

[quote name='Ms. B. Havin']I was traveling.


But a newspaper cloaks itself in the mantle of objectivity, and therefore when it blatantly strays into the murky area of deliberately planting "slants" (read: prejudices) in the reader's mind (as that article on the deer carcass & rabbit fur did), it deserves to be critiqued. Newspaper editorials can afford to take positions (and should, imo), but an article that claims to be a report? Nuh-uh. This one was particularly weasel-like because it pretended to present facts, but presented them in such a way as to create what amounts to a visceral sense of revulsion in readers ("oh, poor deer, poor wabbit, nailed to a board/ tree") -- without in the least proving any connection between the objects of "disgust" and the alleged perpetrators.

No newspaper in NA cloaks itself in the mantle of objectivity, they are all owned by parties that have vested interests in protraying certain ideologies and people in a certain light. This goes for both the left and right. If you think you have been getting unbiased reporting from the TC or any other local media outlet you are grossly misguided.

LJ, you're clearly in favour of BM. Why don't you explain why, instead of sniping at those of us who are critical of it? (See your comment directed at G-man in the BM thread, that he's just a NIMBY, etc.)

I live there and love it. Not everyone wants to live in a high rise in the core of the city. Thousands of other people, myself included, want to be away from the core of the city. Nice to visit but wouldn't want to live there. I want a yard and access to trail systems, and recreation I enjoy etc. that this lifestyle provides. In the lower mainland, where I used to live, I moved 3 times to get farther away from the city, but it kept encroaching, as it will here. I will not complain about that - if I find the area an enjoyable place to live then so will other folks, and I don't deny them their right to be here

Even if the built-up quality of the core were comparable to blasting away a mountain in Langford, at least those of us in favour of core density and more development downtown can explain how we think this will benefit (a) the city and (b) the region and © the economy and (d) the environment. We can even articulate what we think is wrong-headed about suburban developments like BM. The only thing you've countered with is that plenty of people seem to like it, so therefore it must be good, otherwise so many people wouldn't have invested their money in it. That says plenty in one category, but not nearly enough in any number of others.

Just because I don't choose to live in the core, in a high rise, biking to work and play doesn't make me discount the fact that other people like to live like that. You have not seen me badmouth highrises or development downtown, if that is how you coose to live, that's fine with me. You discount the fact that it is differences that make any place vibrant, if we all choose to live downtown in highrises we might as well live in Hong Kong. Again a nice place to visit, but I sure don't want to live there. You can articulate your opinion about what you think is wrong with Bear Mountain - but that doesn't make it so. My opinion is you're wrong.
There are acres of forest to explore, with a trail system that connects to Goldstream park and Mt. Finlayson. The housing is in "enclaves" separated by areas of forest and natural surroundings, not just clear cut. As the population grows there will be more and more services available in the village that will not require a vehicle to get to. Bus service is starting this year along with the "tram" that has been running for the last 6-8 months.
There are hundreds of deer and other wildlife in the area that get along just fine with humans. There are deer in my backyard everyday.

If you think Bear Mountain hasn't affected the local economy I wont even start to try to explain that to you. You could take any five projects downtown and you wouldn't see the same economic benefit, and thats just in construction.

The development has also put millions of dollars into the tourist economy. There are busloads and carloads of tourists who come to play at Bear Mountain. Some stay at Bear Mountain - some don't. But they all leave hundreds of dollars a day in the local economy.

Change is what makes a place vibrant not stagnant. If the only thing that was built was highrises downtown the influx of population would soon dwindle to nothing. You only have to look at the increase in population in the outlying communities to realize where people want to live, and what lifestyle they want. You can argue that it is more affordable living in the outlying communities but that flies in the face of the argument that Bear Mountain is too expensive as articulated on this forum more than once.

If you don't like what is being built in the outlying areas don't live there - but don't try to deny other people who think it is paradise their opportunity to live their life as they see fit. Bear Mountain is hardly the only area being subdivided, albeit the largest one, and yet I have never seen any other housing subdivision being mentioned on this site. There are litereally hundreds of subdivisions going on at this time, some in clear cut forests or in farmers fields, some more enviromentally sound. But I have not seen word one about any of these. I think Bear Mountain is a convenient target because it is large and well known, and I think a lot of people have a little Len Barry envy. Just remember he was the one that put up the money, along with others, and took a chance. They could have lost it all. Until your willing to do that don't envy somebody that has. Get your friends together and build the best damn highrise that Victoria has ever seen.

[Mike K.]

Bear Mountain is hardly the only area being subdivided, albeit the largest one, and yet I have never seen any other housing subdivision being mentioned on this site. There are litereally hundreds of subdivisions going on at this time, some in clear cut forests or in farmers fields, some more enviromentally sound. But I have not seen word one about any of these.

Royal Bay

Westhills

Aquattro

Bamberton

Sooke-Jordan River tree farm land

We've discussed plenty more in threads not necessarily dedicated to one subdivision.

[G-Man]

Bear Mountain is hardly the only area being subdivided, albeit the largest one, and yet I have never seen any other housing subdivision being mentioned on this site. There are litereally hundreds of subdivisions going on at this time, some in clear cut forests or in farmers fields, some more enviromentally sound. But I have not seen word one about any of these. I think Bear Mountain is a convenient target because it is large and well known, and I think a lot of people have a little Len Barry envy.

^ your not looking at the whole site then. There has been discussion of Royal Bay, Broadmead ,West Hills and more.

Also I think you are confused no one is saying that everyone should live in highrises. I don't. You can have walkable single family housing, townhouses, smaller condo buildings that still leave a much smaller footprint then BM does.

Anyways this dicussion should continue in the Bear Mountian thread rather than in Spencer Interchange so I will stop there.

[LJ]

Royal Bay Discussion of a gravel pit - not existing subdivision

Westhills Hasn't happened yet

Aquattro Hasn't happened yet

Bamberton Hasn't happened yet

Sooke-Jordan River tree farm land - Hasn't happened yet




We've discussed plenty more in threads not necessarily dedicated to one subdivision.

....

[G-Man]

There used to be an extensive Royal Bay thread... Did we lose it in the transition to vbulletin?

[Mike K.]

Bingo. The other big subdivisions have yet to happen. So the reason why we've been more concerned wth BM? Because it's been happening for years so we have an opportunity to reflect on it.

You can't say we haven't discussed any subdivisions, which was your original and firm position, simply because the other developments have yet to materialize.

Anyways, this exchange is beyond silly.

There used to be an extensive Royal Bay thread... Did we lose it in the transition to vbulletin?

I think we may have.

[renthefinn]

I like how suburbanites can destroy rural folks way of life, compartmentalize certain parts of it and claim it for their own as a right, but the previous users of the land have no right to their use of the land. I can't wait for all those suburbanites to be pushed out of their areas, and finally have to choose to live in a rural lifestyle or an urban one. Suburban life cannot exist in perpetuity and will be stamped out eventually! Eventually there will be no new places to suburbanize, it will be park/forest land, and urban, suburbs will be way to expensive for anyone to afford!

[B.Bridge]

Need an update on the interchange? Time for a little light reading:

http://bullsheet.wor...misinformation/

[gumgum]

If it hasn't already, I think a war has broken out.

[gumgum]

I hope that you protesters realize that you don't have the public's support by default. Pulling silly stunts like dumping garbage in the area you're trying to protect will do nothing but give people reasons not to support your cause, however honourable the plight.

Langford crews haul away protesters' junk
Bill Cleverley, Times Colonist
Published: Saturday, January 19, 2008

A growing pile of junk, including an old TV and a metal bedspring acting as a barricade at the Langford tree-sit protest was hauled away by city crews early yesterday morning.

"They just came and took down the barricade and then they left," said a protester who identified himself as Merle Brown.

There was no confrontation, he said. About a month ago the protesters had been advised the barricade at the foot of Leigh Road would be removed.

Neighbours on the cul-de-sac, meanwhile, were happy to see the junk gone.

Leigh Road resident Debbie Preston said she had watched with dismay recently when protesters unloaded a truckload of old furniture, some which ended up on the barricade pile, the rest in the woods.

"It's old furniture. What kind of environmentalist does that?"

Donna Armstrong, who was visiting her son who lives on Leigh Road, agreed that the truckload of furniture was over the top.

"There was a desk. What the heck do they need a desk for up in a tree?" she said.

The tree-sit, a protest against the planned $30-million interchange near Spencer Road and the Trans-Canada highway, has been underway since April.

So far, Langford has been content to let the protesters, who have hoisted several platforms into trees in the wooded area, just sit.

Langford Deputy Mayor Denise Blackwell said the municipality won't be moving in to begin work in earnest until it receives provincial approval for its borrowing bylaw.

That borrowing plan has sparked a protest of its own. Langford is borrowing $25 million on behalf of five developers who are paying the lion's share of the interchange costs. Four million dollars is coming from the province and Langford has already contribute about $2.4 million.

At a special meeting Dec. 27, Langford council gave three readings to bylaws that authorized the borrowing and established a local service area.


© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2008

[Maverick]

The internet is a wonderful tool for research.If you google Ingmar Lee and Zoe Blunt you will see how closley they are involved with that radical group Forest Action Network that was disbanded back in 2004. Now 2008 same group of Gorillas, but a new name:Vancouver Island Community Forest Action Network.The Forest Action Network has really given the forest companies a hard time in the past.In my opinion they are the same bad bunch of activists with a capital B.
Also You can find a page that will tell you that Mountain Equipment COOP is supporting these gorillas with some funding of some sort.

Time to cut up the MEC card and start shopping elsewhere.

[G-Man]

^ I'd pause before cutting up that card. You can find internet pages that say a lot of things.

Alien Pictures

This is our collection of the best alien pictures we have been able to find online. Each of the alien pictures shows a different aspect of alien culture and alien envolvement with Earth. Not only do we have normal alien pictures but we also have alien pictures of alien babies and a good number of pictures of dead aliens. The dead aliens are either simply dead in the pictures or are the subject of an alien autopsy. Which just goes to show that we aren't the only ones that know the truth about aliens. If only those people that have worked on aliens would speak up and tell us all the full truth. Still, for all we know they are the ones that released the alien pictures in the first place.



Alien babies aren't always pretty but then again human babies are a bit wrinkled and messy too. This alien baby picture is from the 1950's. Heavens only knows what was thought of the person that took this alien picture way back then but we are glad they were brave enough to pick up their camera and take a picture of the alien baby. We are even more glad that they were brave enough to make sure the picture made it into the public. We don't know what happened to this baby but we do hope it wasn't harmed in anyway but sadly, it probably wasn't treated very nicely.

http://www.alienandu...n_pictures.html