139 replies to this topic

[Sparky]

And who pays the bill for the supreme court costs of this latest challenge you and I?

Yes, you and I, and the alternative is unthinkable.

Of all of the money that our government (read you and I) pisses away on our behalf, the court system in my opinion, is the centre of the universe with respect to our democracy.

If you and I did not fund the court system, this would not be a country that you would want to live in.

The entire story of Skirt Mountain is worthy of book and movie rights. When Zoe figures that out, perhaps VICFAN will have more in their legal fund for their next challenge.

[Zoe]

Waste of money? I guess you must be REALLY upset about the $5 million the province spent on the Bridge to Nowhere, and the $25 million that Langford taxpayers will have to pay, and the ten thousand or so Langford wasted in three days of court time attacking my credibility - and FAILING. We've been involved with SPAET and Langford for three years and we're not going anywhere.

Censorship? Have you read the posting guidelines? Lucky you didn't get a suspension.

Meanwhile - on other threads, the moderators are requiring those with a vested interest (like candidates and lobbyists) to identify themselves or risk removal. Wouldn't it be great to see that here? We know who Maverick is, but I'm betting there is at least one Bear Mountain partner posting on this thread.

Here's some analysis sent to me from another Langford resident:

Sorry to disagree with you, but if they did not win, then you did. They had the money, power and political pressure. They had the motivation of millions of dollars at stake.

They needed a clear decision in their favour. The decision makes their lives very difficult, and the next challenge can build on this case.

In my estimation...you won!

[gumgum]

The censorship on here is getting a little ridiculous. Zoe is allowed to post her groups "opinion" on the page because of a legal proceeding, yet Maverick is not allowed to post his opinion, because? its inflammatory to the other group? If I'm not mistaken from previous posts Maverick had some involvement with the construction of BM, is it not reasonable and fair to have some voice from that side of the court case? To be quite honest most of what Zoe posts, or rather the tone of her posts are intended, or certainly come across in a manner that is inflammatory, why can't the supporters do the same thing? - Maverick is right, this court case was a waste of money, and the losing side should have to pay for it in my opinion, I'm confused why I have to pay for it? because I certainly do not support this groups actions and grandstanding techniques.

Did you read what he wrote?

[Sparky]

^ There was a previous post that Mike has removed. Marcat may not have had the chance to read it. In all fairness, it was more personal than factual.

[Zoe]

Did you read what he wrote?

Yes, and it only proves my point. Verbal abuse and intimidation don't work with me - those tactics only highlight how irrational and unethical (and desperate?) these individuals are becoming.

So, the developers and their councillor buddies have met an adversary who can't be intimidated or bought off. And they still haven't figured out that more abuse won't fix the problem they created.

Stay tuned, this is only going to get better.

[Mike K.]

And who pays the bill for the supreme court costs of this latest challenge you and I?

Lest we forget the federal government pledged $5-million for an overpass that is sitting partially constructed -- and that $5-million of our money. Who knows how much money the taxpayers of Langford will need to pay to maintain the overpass over the medium term.

The censorship on here is getting a little ridiculous.

VV is one of the least censored discussion forums that I've come across. We have a very open-minded moderation policy because for the most part individuals conduct themselves here very well.

The rule of thumb on VV is that we'll use censorship when common courtesy and appropriate maturity are checked at the door by a respondent. If people moderated themselves, we won't have to. But since tempers can flare and individuals can act out when behind a pseudonym, sometimes we are forced to step in.

If anyone has any issues or questions regarding censorship and moderation, please private message me.

Let's return to the topic at hand.

[Chris J]

The problem with groups like Zoe`s is that this issue is the flavor of the day for them,when this is over they move on to the next little project that can gain them center stage in the media

flavour of the day? VICFAN has had fewer campaigns than most NGOs in the past few years. It's been steady on with this particular pair of developments for the most part.
I think Maverick and others wish we would move on, or be distracted by the flavour of the day issues, but the reality is we haven't moved on. Three years later and here we are still hammering away at this issue. And we're still not going away. too bad for you.

[Maverick]

Still hammering away,I guess the one positive thing in all this ,it gives the law society programs and the environmental programs at UVIC lots of practice for the real world as well as the journalism department for the university.

[LJ]

, Three years later and here we are still hammering away at this issue. And we're still not going away. too bad for you.

And what do you hope to attain by "hammering away at the issue"?

Do you honestly think that the "bridge to nowhere" will not one day connect the South Skirt Mountain and Bear Mountain developments to downtown Langford?

It is not you or Zoe or anyone else stopping progress on this development - it is the economy. As soon as the economy becomes more positive and demand increases, it will be built out, rest assured.

[Zoe]

It is not you or Zoe or anyone else stopping progress on this development - it is the economy.

Are you sure. LJ? Because that's not what Mr. Coutre says.

Developer spokesperson Ron Coutre said VIC FAN’s legal action has delayed the group from seeking financing to start building the upper roads – the connector to Bear Mountain Parkway and Echo Valley Drive.

When those roads are well underway, only then can the Spencer interchange be completed, Coutre said. The roads also need to be built before the actual development can break ground. Until the court challenge is concluded, banks and other institutions aren’t keen to lend money, he said.

“We haven’t finalized construction financing for the upper roads,” Coutre said. “In the face of the legal challenge, we have been forced to put things on hold.”

Just sayin'. Article link

[spanky123]

Are you sure. LJ? Because that's not what Mr. Coutre says.



Just sayin'. Article link

Sounds a lot better than saying the truth.

Zoe and her group stood up for their beliefs and weren't about to get piushed around. Good for them.

I agree with others though that the court action wasn't about to change anything. Aside from any requirement to complete the interchange first, (I am sure that council could fix that with the stroke of a pen) no bank is going to loan money for the project when the neighbour just went bankrupt. A project that wasn't proceeding anyways was "stalled" and council would have just had a 3rd vote if the court action was successful.

[Bob Fugger]

VV is one of the least censored discussion forums that I've come across. We have a very open-minded moderation policy because for the most part individuals conduct themselves here very well.

I hope that the irony of deleting my original post from yesterday disagreeing with this statement is not lost on you and your "open-minded" colleagues. I can't think of a better way to start the morning than laughing my keister off all over again, bwahahahahaha!!!!

As for the Skirt Mountain/Bear Mountain debate, I think that it's important for both sides to bring their views to to the table and discuss them in an open forum, provided that their views stay within the bounds of the law (libel/slander).

[Holden West]

^This forum is not the Wild West where you can do anything short of breaking the law. For those unfamiliar with how forums work, it's more like a pub. Citizens gather and socialize but if one patron acts rude to the next table the owner has the right to toss him out. Fascistic? The owner pays for this venue, and access is a privilege, not a right. Stop whining. This is a lightly-moderated board.

Sorry for the interruption. Now for real news:

Judge tosses bylaw challenge

Supreme Court: council followed proper procedure

Andrew Duffy, Times Colonist

Published: Wednesday, September 29, 2010

The B.C. Supreme Court has thrown out a bid by the Vancouver Island Community Forest Action Network and one of its directors, Tracie Park, to have a Langford bylaw quashed.
Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon ruled the City of Langford did not skirt the boundaries of procedural fairness at public meetings and made available enough information to the public, before rezoning was granted to an area within the municipality.

http://www2.canada.c...a5-20bee5769015

[Bob Fugger]

^This forum is not the Wild West where you can do anything short of breaking the law. For those unfamiliar with how forums work, it's more like a pub. Citizens gather and socialize but if one patron acts rude to the next table the owner has the right to toss him out. Fascistic? The owner pays for this venue, and access is a privilege, not a right. Stop whining. This is a lightly-moderated board.

Nobody asked for your opinion.

EDIT: And for your own information, I requested clarfication regarding the editorial/moderation policies of this board and wasn't afforded the courtesy of an explanation. In fact, the only response I received was silence. That is the source of my ire. It appears that the vigor in which posts are moderated depends on what side of the bed the moderator got up on and who is being moderated. That is fairly authoritarian, if you ask me,

As for whining, again, that's your opinion - and as much as I disagree with your mischaracterization of it - you are welcome to make it, as I am welcome to ridicule it. Just as folks are allowed to make their comments regarding Skirt Mountain/Bear Mountain.

[Holden West]

Ooh, I got a winky.


Frank Stanford's commentary:

...
THE DECISION IS VIRTUALLY COMPLETE VINDICATION FOR LANGFORD'S CONDUCT. tHE JUDGE LEFT UNANSWERED THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING ON THE BY-LAW WAS CONDUCTED APPROPRIATELY...MAYBE THERE IS TRUTH TO CLAIMS THAT OPPONENTS WERE INTIMIDATED...BUT, AS THE JUDGE OBSERVED, THERE IS NO NEED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE LANGFORD HELD A SECOND HEARING! THE PLAINTIFF'S ARGUMENTS TRYING TO TIE THE TWO TOGETHER WERE REJECTED. ...

[mysage]

flavour of the day? VICFAN has had fewer campaigns than most NGOs in the past few years. It's been steady on with this particular pair of developments for the most part.
I think Maverick and others wish we would move on, or be distracted by the flavour of the day issues, but the reality is we haven't moved on. Three years later and here we are still hammering away at this issue. And we're still not going away. too bad for you.

Too bad? Not really. No one who has any experience with dealing with ad hoc groups such as Vicfan know that they are for the most part comprised of the eco fringe who more often than not contribute no solutions and exist only as a means to fill their coffers through donations of those they can dupe. In most cases they pay no taxes, employ no people, and generally contribute very little to the betterment of anyone other than themselves.

The vast majority of hardworking, contributing members of our society have never heard of you and even it they did they in all likelihood view you as an interesting but harmless side show. Don't take yourselves so seriously - no one else does.

[Chris J]

If VICFAN put 100% of it's donations into wages we'd get a few hours of work done every week, if that. But hey, we should know better than to try to run an organization that doesn't pump money into the economy through jobs and taxes. That's what fighting urban sprawl and loss of biodiversity is really about, huh? The economy. Silly us.

We should also spend more money on advertising and huge symbolic Saturday afternoon protests at the legislature so that the hardworking, contributing members of our region can recognize our 'brand' better.

The solutions have been offered, and are quite simple to understand. Build your developments somewhere else. Brownfielding before greenfielding. Density before sprawl. Have some respect for the diminishing biodiversity and the threatened Garry Oak ecosystem. Protect indigenous heritage sites, don't destroy them and brag about it. Don't get involved in crazy schemes that will end up putting the taxpayer on the hook for things like the interchange.

It matters little to me who gets credit/blame for this project not proceeding. It's not proceeding, and that's the bottom line.

[mysage]

It is not proceeding (at the moment) because of general market conditions. The fact that it is stalled has nothing to do with you or your group. Your court action was a minor irritant at best and in my opinion you actually helped the developers by delaying their spend on the project in these tougher economic times.

I would like to hear your solutions to the pressures that the general public is putting on the Westshore infrastructure. Feel free to let us all know how you would realistically handle the desire from the public (not just the vocal fringe) to live out there.

[Mike K.]

Nobody asked for your opinion.

EDIT: And for your own information, I requested clarfication regarding the editorial/moderation policies of this board and wasn't afforded the courtesy of an explanation.

You received a private message from an administrator informing you that your continued posts about a councillors wife were not appreciated and would be removed. Your posts since then have not contributed to any discussion but insist on raising the issue of your posts being deleted and moderation on this forum. This behaviour is becoming disruptive.

Once again, if you have an issue, raise it with the administrator, in private, who removed your post. This thread is not a debate about moderation, and if you are unhappy with the way this board is moderated, there is no obligation for you to participate.

This is all I have to say on this matter. Let's return to the topic at hand.