Jump to content

      












Photo

[Langford] South Skirt Mountain | 2,800 homes | Under construction


  • Please log in to reply
139 replies to this topic

#41 Maverick

Maverick
  • Member
  • 129 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 07:33 PM

There should be some kind of a law to banish these types of environmental activists from our neighborhoods.
Could we please draft up some legislation and send it off to some one for review? I know how about the Supreme Court of BC,on second thought no that would be a total waste of tax payers money or I guess I should of said my money and your money.

#42 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,596 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 07:44 PM

There should be some kind of a law to banish these types of environmental activists from our neighborhoods.
Could we please draft up some legislation and send it off to some one for review? I know how about the Supreme Court of BC,on second thought no that would be a total waste of tax payers money or I guess I should of said my money and your money.

Oh goodness. All the ugly activists bothering the beautiful people. For shame. Screw the rare snakes, spotted owls and native burial sites. :rolleyes:
On with development!

#43 Maverick

Maverick
  • Member
  • 129 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 07:45 PM

Here is a page from the Forest Action Network web site,it is the same bunch just a different location South Skirt Mountain to The Great Bear Rain forest.

http://fanweb.org/home/about.html

You may have to copy and paste it.

A nice bunch of folk they are,just can`t figure why they are hanging around here.
The only thing that comes to mind is the media attention.

Edit: the party referred to in this post contacted VV and stated that the website is not under their control or ownership.

#44 Maverick

Maverick
  • Member
  • 129 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 07:49 PM

With development comes jobs,Do you need one?
Have you seen a native burial site on South Skirt or for that matter on Spaet [Bear Mountain]?Rare snakes the only thing I have heard of close by is those damn 2lb bullfrogs I squash them!

#45 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 07:54 PM

There should be some kind of a law to banish these types of environmental activists from our neighborhoods.


I really dislike freeway building.There should be some kind of law to banish these types of freeway activists from our public meetings.They should all go back to California or wherever they came from.

#46 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,596 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 07:59 PM

With development comes jobs,Do you need one?
Have you seen a native burial site on South Skirt or for that matter on Spaet [Bear Mountain]?Rare snakes the only thing I have heard of close by is those damn 2lb bullfrogs I squash them!

No I have a job thanks. I wasn't being completely accurate about what exactly was in danger of being destroyed. But the fact is we are destroying more and more. When does it stop?
I've watched over the years the generic subdivisions of massive 'look at me' houses where lush lands used to be.
All I see is consumerism, excess, greed, and gluttony. I can find nothing attractive about owning a home too big for my needs to drive excess miles and time in a 'crawl' to call myself successful. What a load of crap. Have fun when you run out of fossil fuels. :P

#47 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,316 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 08:07 PM

^ I agree we don't need to take over anymore space. We do need to convince councils that we need more density instead. Up not out as the saying goes.

#48 piltdownman

piltdownman
  • Member
  • 539 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 08:30 PM

The problem is Langford is full of these new massive craft houses, and its not going to stop anytime soon. Its almost hypocritical for it to stop now, as it would take those people in massive craft houses to say no to more massive craft houses.

The crawl isn't for me. But then again I bet they would think I'm crazy to live downtown in a tiny space, surrounded by crime and the homeless.

#49 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,596 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 08:37 PM

The problem is Langford is full of these new massive craft houses, and its not going to stop anytime soon. Its almost hypocritical for it to stop now, as it would take those people in massive craft houses to say no to more massive craft houses.

The crawl isn't for me. But then again I bet they would think I'm crazy to live downtown in a tiny space, surrounded by crime and the homeless.


Well lets see who the crazies are in the next decade or two. I seem to be having flashbacks of Road Warrior.
If we're downtown with nothing they won't bother us. lmao

#50 Rob Randall

Rob Randall

    BIG TEXAS FORUMER

  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 10:52 PM

Really? Are those the same "big kids" that took years and years to build a marginally successful arena project, the same" big kids" that have been petitioned to a standstill on their deteriorating bridge, the same "big kids" that don't have enough backbone to deal with their graffiti problem etc etc.

I think that you might have them mixed up. The big kids are out here in the Western Communities -the rest are just holding office and hoping that nothing too serious happens on their watch.


You'll get no argument from me about the mishandling of the JSB and other issues. But that wasn't my point. I was talking about the professional way Victoria Council and Mayor handle themselves during public hearings.Applause and booing is not tolerated. I've seen both Mayor Fortin and Mayor Lowe get visibly annoyed at times and be curt with some people on occasion but I have never seen them bully and harass a member of the public like Stew Young does.

If you want to talk policy we will find much common ground. But when it comes to behaviour around the Council table, Stew Young lacks maturity and self-control. Sorry if that makes you upset but that's the way it is.

“I mean I just don’t understand the big Texas part, like maybe he’s from Texas? I want to know the back story.”


#51 Maverick

Maverick
  • Member
  • 129 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 04:32 AM

In Stu`s position I believe I would loose it if I had to deal with the one or two individuals all the time, knowing what their their sole purpose in life is.
I do not believe I would go as far as to say that he harass people,just that he tries to knock them down a notch or two,that is what I see.

#52 Rob Randall

Rob Randall

    BIG TEXAS FORUMER

  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 08:15 AM

I enjoy watching how Victoria's Council deals with obnoxious speakers. Of course, it's not like they have to be dealt with at all, since there's a strict time limit and you can simply wait them out. Councilor Lucas flips his pen around his finger. Madoff reads documents intently. Young often leans back in his chair, gazing off into the distance. Are they absorbing the speech? Or thinking about the last episode of "Survivor"? We don't know. Regardless, it's over in five minutes and if the speaker acts "unparliamentary" they are reminded of the rules.

Sure, it's a drag when someone wastes your time ranting for five minutes. But when the Mayor loses his temper and voids the meeting, an entire evening is wasted for everybody. If you can't take the heat, try another occupation.

“I mean I just don’t understand the big Texas part, like maybe he’s from Texas? I want to know the back story.”


#53 2F2R

2F2R
  • Member
  • 641 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 10:25 AM

>>>I hope VIC FAN wins this and stops this disgusting development<<<

disgusting developement - yikes and OMG -

I wonder if the same was said about Oak Bay or Uplands or Broadmead as the city grew - - I don't get it!

#54 Rob Randall

Rob Randall

    BIG TEXAS FORUMER

  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 11:26 AM

I do not believe I would go as far as to say that he harass people,just that he tries to knock them down a notch or two,that is what I see.


Really? Is that acceptable behaviour for any public official? Knocking people down a notch?

Read what Richard Watts of the Times Colonist had to say about Young's behaviour:

Young berated, bullied and browbeat those who opposed the development.

In the days following, people approached me to thank me for exposing what had become usual behaviour in Langford politics.

And some sanity emerged. Opponents of the development threatened legal action over Young’s behaviour. Langford council held another hearing and the mayor stayed away.

Read more: http://www.timescolo...l#ixzz0j1tUTyaD


“I mean I just don’t understand the big Texas part, like maybe he’s from Texas? I want to know the back story.”


#55 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 11:52 AM

>>>I hope VIC FAN wins this and stops this disgusting development<<<

disgusting developement - yikes and OMG -

I wonder if the same was said about Oak Bay or Uplands or Broadmead as the city grew - - I don't get it!


Probably not, because people had a different attitude towards sprawl back then. However, today and now, I think it is a perfectly valid question: do we want more Uplands or Broadmeads?

Sure, I understand - you don't want the same people protesting every little development claiming that a rare type of vole will be wiped out. Fair enough. But I don't think the attitude of "screw you, I can build what I want in my backyard" has any more traction. Langford is part of a region with agreed upon urban containment boundaries - they should be held accountable for those. I personally don't want to live in a massive sprawl of Broadmeads, and I think I have every right to publicly make that argument.

#56 piltdownman

piltdownman
  • Member
  • 539 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 12:58 PM

There is a need for more family housing in Victoria. Now the market dictates that there is a need for homes of these types. So where do they go? Ideally houses would be built in land not suitable for farming or industry, in an area that is not a ecological risk, and close to major infrastructure. Is there a better place for these houses? If there is not then I don't see what all the opposition is about.

#57 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 01:45 PM

I'd love to see more family housing in the core. The rest of the world manages families living in the heart of the city, why can't we? Row-houses with modest backyards could replace every historically/architecturally insignificant building in James Bay and Fairfield and we wouldn't have to build on virgin land for decades. I feel so bad for kids growing up out there.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#58 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 02:08 PM

I'd love to see more family housing in the core. The rest of the world manages families living in the heart of the city, why can't we?


We can, if A) people choose to live in the core, in that type of housing, and if B) City land-use policy makes it attractive and financially viable for people to choose to build that type of housing and live that way.

And I'm with you, I think row-housing would go over great.

#59 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 03:08 PM

^ Or encourage larger condos. I'm not really sure why condos max out at 900 sq'. Yes, you can have kids in such a small space, but I don't really blame folks for wanting bigger homes.

#60 seymour201

seymour201
  • Member
  • 213 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 03:33 PM

If people in this town weren't scared of buildings over 8 stories, developers could go to 20-30 stories, making it more economical for them to build, thus passing on the savings. Untill that changes 900sq/ft is gonna be a bit on the pricey side.

But we digress...

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users