REVscene Automotive Forum
Page 2 of 5 1 2 345
Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)
-   Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events (https://www.revscene.net/forums/vancouver-off-topic-current-events_50/)
-   -   BC Municipal Elections -- Oct 20, 2018 (https://www.revscene.net/forums/715322-bc-municipal-elections-oct-20-2018-a.html)

Mr.HappySilp 09-16-2018 10:01 PM
^^ You can never please everyone. And that't the reality. When my co worker who bought into The Met. She purchase the north facing side purely so she can get a mountain view. 2 years later she learn there is going to be a new tower going up that's even higher so it will block her whole view. What can she do? The developer follow all the bylaw and policy.

Yea it sucks what can you or anyone do about it? I don't like the smell or smoking marijuana coz I am very allergic to do it. but it is now legalize now so there is nothing I can do but avoid it best I can. I am sure there are a lot of Canadians is against as well but since most Canadians voted trudeau in and in his platform he did say that's what he will do. Do you think all those who don't like marijuana being legal should go and protest and ask for change? Not at all is done.

Nothing is perfect in this world and no one can ever make everyone happy with their decision. The majority or people in your city isn't against it.

Traum 09-16-2018 11:00 PM
If you don't like Trudeau, vote against him, and try to get others to do the same as well. You do realize that federal election is on Oct 21 next year, right?

My past incident has shown that Clay is not someone who will protect his residents' interests. I think that is a terrible quality to have in a mayor, or anybody in elected office for that matter. On Oct 20, I hope the municipalities will elect representatives that will keep the constituency's interest in mind, instead of merely someone who enjoys being bathed in a position of power.

Mr.HappySilp 09-17-2018 07:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traum (Post 8919453)
If you don't like Trudeau, vote against him, and try to get others to do the same as well. You do realize that federal election is on Oct 21 next year, right?

My past incident has shown that Clay is not someone who will protect his residents' interests. I think that is a terrible quality to have in a mayor, or anybody in elected office for that matter. On Oct 20, I hope the municipalities will elect representatives that will keep the constituency's interest in mind, instead of merely someone who enjoys being bathed in a position of power.
I did not vote for him but he is elected as well. So should I still protest and cry and qq till I get what I want (like what you are saying).

You might not like Clay but there are others who like him. Maybe coz of the development there property price went up and they make money, maybe shop owners like him coz he is bringing more resident into the city and business is booming. What you really mean is "Clay isn't protecting my interest." not "Clay is not protecting his residents' interests". If you don't like him then vote him out and get as many people as you know to do so. If after the election he is still elected it means more people like him. If you dislike his policy so much you can always move to a city where the mayor policy is in line with yours.

Is like how we all bitch at moonbean for putting up so much bike lanes. But he keeps getting voted in coz more people who lives in Vancouver actually use and like bake lines. If enough people who lives in the city of Vancouver hates the bike lane do you think he would still build so many?

Traum 09-17-2018 02:30 PM
LOL~ Thank you for giving me a good mid day chuckle. I am not going to bother replying to your posts here. It is quite obvious your understanding of politics is not quite there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.HappySilp (Post 8919471)
Is like how we all bitch at moonbean for putting up so much bike lanes. But he keeps getting voted in coz more people who lives in Vancouver actually use and like bake lines. If enough people who lives in the city of Vancouver hates the bike lane do you think he would still build so many?

bobbinka 09-17-2018 05:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traum (Post 8919530)
LOL~ Thank you for giving me a good mid day chuckle. I am not going to bother replying to your posts here. It is quite obvious your understanding of politics is not quite there.
I don't think it's just politics.

Tapioca 09-17-2018 06:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traum (Post 8919433)
Hmm... So do you ever go hiking? I used to before I got tied down in life. I do it because seeing the waters and the mountains makes me feel good. In other words, being able to enjoy those views improves the quality of my life. Being able to do the same at home serves a similar purpose. Given 2 real estate properties that are completely identical, but one has a view of the waters and the mountains while the other doesn't, why else do you think the unit with the view is worth more?

And then that is the other thing -- the new building blocks my view of the waters, so my unit has just lost value. I can certainly be bought (to shut up) if Aragon were willing to compensate me (and other affected owners) for my loss, but that didn't happen. When my money is on the line, of course I am going to come out to fight and defend it. When your money is put on the line like that as well, I suspect you'd probably do the same too.

When the ordeal first started, a hapless chap has just purchased a north-facing unit at the 5th floor at my building. One of the reasons he bought was because he loved the view. When he first learned about the Platform project about 3 weeks after he moved in, I saw his jaw dropped to the ground. He was going to completely lose his view -- a view that he paid good money for.

And that's just me and the others at the Station. The folks at the Lighthouse have it worse. Everyone at the top floor loses a good chunk (or all) of their sunlight and pretty much all of their eastward view at their rooftop patios. Instead, they are rewarded with a view of a giant big wall that is 2 stories higher than their building. Again, those folks paid good money for that feature in their building. Had the same zoning bylaw remained for the Platform building, the new building would also only be limited to 4 stories, and thus the impact to the Lighthouse residents would not be too great.

The OCP is the OCP, but IMO, new developments need to take into account any negative effects it might have on those who are immediately nearby. In the case of this Platform building, I think the negative impact is HUGE on its neighbours. Does 100+ households (between the 2 affected buildings) seem like a small number of residents to you? There is the quality of life aspect, and there is the financial loss aspect. AFAIK, no residents in either building received any sort of compensation from anyone.

If you ask me whether a small number of residents should have a veto power over a development proposal that complies with the OCP, I am going to instead ask you whether a generalized policy should apply its broad stroke power to inflict losses on a good number of residents in specific situations.

Also, perhaps you missed a point in my previous post -- Aragon did ask for permission to build 7 stories even though the OCP only allowed for 6. Do you think they didn't know the OCP only allowed for 6? It's just that they got turned down.

I can tell you though -- I enjoy this discussion far more than the ones I had at the council meetings.
Why should developers compensate adjacent homeowners? I'm sorry, but the homeowners in those two developments bought into a transit-oriented community that is ripe for high density. No one is entitled to views in perpetuity, particularly not in a transit-oriented area.

Those homeowners had a chance to comment about the proposed changes to height limits during the OCP consultation process. We elect officials to take that feedback and make the best decisions in the interests of the city as a whole. I would argue that both the Station and the Lighthouse are zoned for heights that are far less than should be acceptable in this day and age - particularly when they are less than 800m from a Skytrain station.

I lived in a high-rise in Burnaby for many years. Within a few short years, my view of the Lions disappeared. Did I complain to the city? Of course not because development of a former industrial area is expected when it is within walking distance to a Skytrain station. The reduction in views was part of the tradeoff that I made when I moved to the apartment.

Tapioca 09-17-2018 10:14 PM
There was a Vancouver mayoral debate tonight at SFU downtown. A couple of local reporters live tweeted the event, such as Frances Bula. Here's an interesting Tweet quoting Wai Young who happens to dislike bike lanes:


In a crowded field, I think she has a good shot at taking the mayor's seat with 20-25% of the vote. Lots of people, including those folks over at Housing Action for Local Taxpayers, happen to believe that the housing supply in Vancouver is sufficient for local residents (in my opinion, it's not given household formation among millennials). Also, she appeals to older and ethnic Vancouverites who happen to reside in those pesky Vancouver specials on the East Side and in Marpole. There's a significant minority who seem to hate all things that Vision Vancouver stood for, so she's my pick as a dark horse in this election.

Traum 09-17-2018 10:49 PM
We can debate this back and forth ad nauseam, and neither of us is going to convince the other, so let's just agree to disagree on the subject.

Speaking closer to home, does anyone care to share any opinions or insights they might have on the Vancouver situation? IMO, this one is truly a mess.

Traum 09-17-2018 11:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tapioca (Post 8919606)
In a crowded field, I think she has a good shot at taking the mayor's seat with 20-25% of the vote. Lots of people, including those folks over at Housing Action for Local Taxpayers, happen to believe that the housing supply in Vancouver is sufficient for local residents (in my opinion, it's not given household formation among millennials). Also, she appeals to older and ethnic Vancouverites who happen to reside in those pesky Vancouver specials on the East Side and in Marpole. There's a significant minority who seem to hate all things that Vision Vancouver stood for, so she's my pick as a dark horse in this election.
At the municipal level, it is my personal opinion that there isn't very much a municipal government can do in providing relief on bigger issues such as housing and affordability. That isn't to say they can't do anything, but when it comes to dealing with these problems, everything the municipal government does is completely reactionary. Immigration -- and therefore new residents -- is a federal matter. The provincial government has far more tools at its disposal to control province and region-wide housing and prices.

Most important of all, I think it is kind of stupid for the municipal candidates to think that they can do stuff to make housing "affordable" in their respective municipality. Because of the fluidity and freedom in movement for people in Metro Vancouver, any time a particular municipality manages to do something that can create a meaningful impact to make housing more affordable, people from other municipalities in the region (ie. Metro Vancouver) can easily move in try and take advantage of that newfound affordability. But as demand increases, prices go back up, so housing is still expensive and unaffordable!

To prevent this from happening, you really need a bigger policy from either the provincial or federal level that can affect the entire region.

mikemhg 09-18-2018 01:54 PM
She's right. Post Media and the Property Development and Construction firms in Vancouver continue to try to sell this false narrative that Vancouver has a housing supply crisis. It does not. In fact Vox had a great Podcast about this very subject on the Weeds recently, speaking about a slew of coastal cities, including Vancouver.

The problem isn't supply. You are seeing condo development after condo development going up, however it is not affecting the affordability issue in any meaningful way, nor will it. Most of these new condos going up are being speculated, or being held by outside interests to simply shore their money. This does not address affordability whatsoever. This is also why so many condos in Vancouver lay vacant, as well as houses in many of our wealthier communities (West Vancouver, Point Grey, etc).

People need to stop falling for this false narrative that the avenue to fix affordability is to simply build more condos, that is a bold face lie, and needs to stop being perpetuated in the news by garbage rags such as The Province.

It seems as though people are starting to finally clue in on this, it took long enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tapioca (Post 8919606)
There was a Vancouver mayoral debate tonight at SFU downtown. A couple of local reporters live tweeted the event, such as Frances Bula. Here's an interesting Tweet quoting Wai Young who happens to dislike bike lanes:

https://twitter.com/fabulavancouver/...82188818472961

In a crowded field, I think she has a good shot at taking the mayor's seat with 20-25% of the vote. Lots of people, including those folks over at Housing Action for Local Taxpayers, happen to believe that the housing supply in Vancouver is sufficient for local residents (in my opinion, it's not given household formation among millennials). Also, she appeals to older and ethnic Vancouverites who happen to reside in those pesky Vancouver specials on the East Side and in Marpole. There's a significant minority who seem to hate all things that Vision Vancouver stood for, so she's my pick as a dark horse in this election.

Traum 09-18-2018 02:20 PM
Assuming that housing supply is not an issue -- only housing affordability is -- then how do we deal with the issue?

Mr.HappySilp 09-18-2018 04:37 PM
^^ As some simple minded people would say! Stop foreign investment! Oh what that will mean it will cripple our job market and crash your economy. Or you could say some people who are using foreign money to buy are actually Canadian citizen already. Could we really stop Canadian citizens from buying even though is foreign money they are using. Seems a bit unfair.

mikemhg 09-19-2018 09:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traum (Post 8919688)
Assuming that housing supply is not an issue -- only housing affordability is -- then how do we deal with the issue?
To be honest, I'm not sure at this point, Traum. I think the damage has been done.

All the downing of rental buildings to turn them into high rise condos is certainly one of the major issues, we have essentially lost vast amounts of rental housing in this city.

I think one of the primary ways to combat the problem is to have the local government encourage the development of more rental based buildings. I've seen some of them propping up around the city (for example that building on Hastings/Cassiar across from the Esso), but simply not enough thus far.

There was a time in this city where rental buildings were abundant, this is no longer the case.

Traum 09-19-2018 10:11 AM
Mikemhg,

I can think of a possible solution to alleviate the housing affordability problem, but it will almost certainly bring with it a ton of flaws and new problems.

If the provincial government has the guts to look into providing public housing, that could be a game changer in the entire housing affordability crisis.

I am not suggesting BC should get into the level of extensive public housing as Singapore does, but looking back in time, British Hong Kong has once upon a time achieved what I'd say is a reasonably good balance between providing 2 tiers of public housing, while still supporting a very healthy private (housing) market. Granted, our politicians are nowhere close to the calibre that the old British bureaucrats were, but it can certainly be done.

I can't shake the feeling that once upon a time, people go into public service / office because they want to make a difference and do something to make society a better place. Nowadays, people only do this because they are just greedy or power hungry.

Tapioca 09-19-2018 09:56 PM
The provincial and federal governments used to provide incentives and subsidies to promote the construction of purpose-built rental housing. However, governments gradually withdrew their support for these initiatives in the 1980s and 1990s. It's only been within the last couple of years that there seems to be momentum to use taxpayer money to invest in public housing.

Historically, governments in this part of the world encouraged home ownership as a cost-effective way to facilitate community building and security in old age. Now that we live in an era of freer capital, that model for community building and social stability is becoming increasingly problematic.

With respect to public service, I would argue that most people still get into politics for the right reasons. What happens is that it's such a shitty job that most people become jaded over a short period of time. People here take potshots and yet we do not make politics and public service a worthy calling. Is it any wonder that the most talented, thoughtful, and business minded people remain in private life rather than contribute to their communities and their country?

Mr.HappySilp 09-20-2018 06:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traum (Post 8919820)
Mikemhg,

I can think of a possible solution to alleviate the housing affordability problem, but it will almost certainly bring with it a ton of flaws and new problems.

If the provincial government has the guts to look into providing public housing, that could be a game changer in the entire housing affordability crisis.

I am not suggesting BC should get into the level of extensive public housing as Singapore does, but looking back in time, British Hong Kong has once upon a time achieved what I'd say is a reasonably good balance between providing 2 tiers of public housing, while still supporting a very healthy private (housing) market. Granted, our politicians are nowhere close to the calibre that the old British bureaucrats were, but it can certainly be done.

I can't shake the feeling that once upon a time, people go into public service / office because they want to make a difference and do something to make society a better place. Nowadays, people only do this because they are just greedy or power hungry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tapioca (Post 8919950)
The provincial and federal governments used to provide incentives and subsidies to promote the construction of purpose-built rental housing. However, governments gradually withdrew their support for these initiatives in the 1980s and 1990s. It's only been within the last couple of years that there seems to be momentum to use taxpayer money to invest in public housing.

Historically, governments in this part of the world encouraged home ownership as a cost-effective way to facilitate community building and security in old age. Now that we live in an era of freer capital, that model for community building and social stability is becoming increasingly problematic.

With respect to public service, I would argue that most people still get into politics for the right reasons. What happens is that it's such a shitty job that most people become jaded over a short period of time. People here take potshots and yet we do not make politics and public service a worthy calling. Is it any wonder that the most talented, thoughtful, and business minded people remain in private life rather than contribute to their communities and their country?
As far as I know the gov over the past few years have been building rental housing for low income. Now I am not going to point fingers at any group of people but the company I work for provide Net/cable to some of those buildings and let me tell you the people who live there literally destroy the place. Is useless trying to fix anything because once you fix them it will get destroy in a few days. During some of the installs the apartment is so dirty (needles everywhere, shit stains on the walls, bedbugs) our tech basically refuse to do any installs till they clean up their act. In the end we have to pull out from providing cable because is too dangerous to go in suite and honestly who want to touch the return equipment they return. Over 60% of these people won't not pay their bills and when their service got cut off they would yell and scream and swear. Telus is there but they are smart enough to charge $400 deposit.

I think rental housing is good if it can be done in the right way and people actually respect the place and there are system in place. IE if you trash your place you get the boot. I used to live in a rental housing in HK before I came to Canada and it was fine. i mean it wasn't fancy looking but it was good enough to live in. If Canada wants to do rental housing they can try in tiers your rent is tie to your income so the more you make the more you pay. It will be to be pretty barebone too like no amenities. Let's face it you are in a rental unit the gov shoulnd't have to pay expensive amenities in.

The key point is how to balance rental market vs owning. If the gov make the rental housing too good then they kill the housing market and the normal rental market. Recently HK have been building rental housing but still havne't cool the market yet.

Mr.HappySilp 09-20-2018 06:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemhg (Post 8919817)
To be honest, I'm not sure at this point, Traum. I think the damage has been done.

All the downing of rental buildings to turn them into high rise condos is certainly one of the major issues, we have essentially lost vast amounts of rental housing in this city.

I think one of the primary ways to combat the problem is to have the local government encourage the development of more rental based buildings. I've seen some of them propping up around the city (for example that building on Hastings/Cassiar across from the Esso), but simply not enough thus far.

There was a time in this city where rental buildings were abundant, this is no longer the case.
Developers have been providing rental only units in new development for years.

If you are talking about doing a development of only rental units that will never happen unless is run/funded/management by gov. Is simply too expensive and the cost to maintain it is too much to get any benefit for developer to do that.

68style 09-20-2018 07:30 AM
I will agree that I've had experience with a lot of the rental units in Olympic Village area... and those suites and the common areas around them are DESTROYED by the people in them... a VPD police response car basically lives outside the building on West 2nd... I've seen guys using ropes to raise/lower drugs from their apartments 7 floors up hahaha... it's a joke... there needs to be a system in place to basically tell people they been given a chance and they fucked it up so too bad at some point. Can't hold everyone's hand 24/7, it's ridiculous that people who aren't even trying in any way whatsoever get to live in a posh area in a nice apartment for basically free or next to free. I'm totally in support of housing people who are struggling and trying to move forward... but I've personally witnessed too many people who are just endless draws on the system and want everything handed to them... they will never ever make any contribution to society.

jackmeister 09-20-2018 10:00 AM
why would an investor/developer build rentals when our tenant rights are this awesome? too broke to pay rent so let them squat for a bit with no repercussion. can't kick them out because its hardship. you know its bad when people know how to game the system.

Next year's legal rent increase of 4.5% is too high so lets legislate a lower one. wtf?

Yes it sucks for the tenants to continually have their rents raised, but nothing is getting cheaper nowadays.

carisear 09-20-2018 10:24 AM
Back on topic of who to vote for -- i can't give any suggestions, but i can definitely suggest who NOT to vote for:

Go look on reddit/vancouver. anyone that they support, STAY FAR AWAY FROM. collectively reddit users are the scourge of the earth. if you look 10 years ago, gregor was their golden boy. that alone should say it all!!

but in all seriousness, i've never seen a vancouver election like this. i don't know about the other municipalities, but the next council will most likely be pretty useless. Hopefully they won't be harmful to the city like vision has been.

Traum 09-20-2018 10:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by carisear (Post 8920009)
Back on topic of who to vote for -- i can't give any suggestions, but i can definitely suggest who NOT to vote for:

Go look on reddit/vancouver. anyone that they support, STAY FAR AWAY FROM. collectively reddit users are the scourge of the earth. if you look 10 years ago, gregor was their golden boy. that alone should say it all!!

but in all seriousness, i've never seen a vancouver election like this. i don't know about the other municipalities, but the next council will most likely be pretty useless. Hopefully they won't be harmful to the city like vision has been.
Care to save us some clicks and tell us who is Reddit's current golden boy / girl?

I agree on the comment that the next CoV council will likely be pretty useless. If the councilors are all coming from different parties / coalitions (which may in turn be different from the mayor's political group), it'd be difficult to find consensus to get anything done.

jackmeister 09-20-2018 11:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traum (Post 8920015)
Care to save us some clicks and tell us who is Reddit's current golden boy / girl?

I agree on the comment that the next CoV council will likely be pretty useless. If the councilors are all coming from different parties / coalitions (which may in turn be different from the mayor's political group), it'd be difficult to find consensus to get anything done.
Stewart Kennedy

Coming from a NDP background? no thanks.

Hakkaboy 09-20-2018 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 68style (Post 8918971)
Richmond is at a crisis point in my opinion, lifetime resident of the city... and almost as unbelievably as Trump becoming president, this racist criminal bitch is gaining popularity there:

https://www.richmond-news.com/news/r...ety-1.23427997

If she gets in I'm officially moving... the videos she plays at her speeches about Chinese people needing better representation in Richmond because things are unfair for them there? What a joke.

Nevermind the fact she's a criminal who magically makes millions appear/disappear at her whim... yah nothing corrupt there. She says everything is fine because she paid everyone back from insurance and her own pocket??? Where did she get $7.5 million dollars from out of nowhere? Fucking unbelievable, I seriously doubt any "insurance" policy she had covers employees supposedly taking the money when she failed to put any safeguards in place either.
sorry, but what exactly makes her racist? Is it because she wants better representation of people of her own kind?

CivicBlues 09-20-2018 11:09 AM
I'm guessing it's Kennedy Stewart and Shauna Sylvester most redditors are gunning for. Both independent and are left leaning.

Ken Sim (NPA) and Hector Bremner get a lot of flak on r/vancouver and are right of centre, especially after Bremner's Poster fiasco.

Wai Young gets the most derision for being anti-bike lane and populist like Doug Ford.

In all, a shit show.


I still don't know who to vote for. The leftist candidates seem like voting for more of the same. The right leaning ones don't seem to know wtf they are doing.

And city council? Supposed to be 74 candidates on the ballot list. Fuck that shit! I'm just going to vote by party ranks, but how many of these a-holes are running as independent? DOn't want to accidentally vote for Roller-Girl.

68style 09-20-2018 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hakkaboy (Post 8920021)
sorry, but what exactly makes her racist? Is it because she wants better representation of people of her own kind?
I don't have a link handy, but there was a recording of a video she was showing at her early speeches, someone had translated it at some point (it was not in English) and it was full of nationalist content about Chinese people taking over their rightful place as the dominant culture in Richmond. When she was confronted about it she denied the people who made the video had anything to do with her............. even though she played it publicly at her campaign rally. In addition, yes, I believe publicly saying that you want better representation of one race over another is a racist ideology -- you are elected to equally represent ALL constituents of the city you are mayor of, not focus on improving (what needs to be improved for Chinese people in Richmond anyway???) the situation of one culture's representatives in that city over another.

Here's an article about a different rally she held with a similar type of video: https://www.richmond-news.com/opinio...ond-1.23329740

Of note in today's news she is now being sued for $13,000,000 from 2 investors she stole money from and hadn't responded to their legal suit by the deadline. The article is a mish-mash of shell companies, fraud, mistrust, tens of millions of dollars somehow flying around... makes your head spin. Bunch of criminals: https://www.richmond-news.com/news/r...ute-1.23436524

Also, here's a nice list of all of the times she has broken the rules of her own law society! All 40+ incidents!
https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/lsbc/ap...155&t=Hong-Guo


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:26 AM.
Page 2 of 5 1 2 345
Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net