inane

Yeah, there are some examples where density has taken off, others where it hasn't. So? Your point that Vancouver is anti-density at skytrain stations is certainly not as true city-wide as you seem to think it is... Very left wing views haha...sure, if you need to categorize people be my guest, but you're wrong about Burnaby

I don't work in Vancouver, it's not my project, but I mean look at Joyce Station. You don't think there was planning and development there?

You don't need to tell me how the system works, as I've said before I work in municipal government. You can't make everyone happy, that is obvious. To your question that I bolded--stating the status quo is what we get: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/city...sions/index.htm Mount Pleasant is happening right now (http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/cpp/mountpleasant/index.htm) maybe you should go to a public meeting and see all the 'status quo' that gets approved.... Are you just really a pessimistic person or what's your hate on for Vancouver about? Do you really think nothing gets done?

Plans get developed in Vancouver and other cities in the Lower Mainland all the time. Where do you get your information from? Look at that big new development at Kingsway and Knight. These things don't happen over night. If Joe house owners neighbourhood gets designated something denser in a plan, that plan won't be on the ground for years. Who ever argued for prohibiting development?

I don't have anything against Kamloops growing. And I certainly don't want development in the ALR--I have no idea why you'd assume one has anything to do with the other there.... Kamloops, or any other town can grow intelligently. Sprawling suburbs is a 1950's model of development based on unlimited fuel and cars as the #1, 2, 3, 4, 5 priority. Why would you base your town's growth on an outdated, dying philosophy? hmmm, a quick glance at the Kamloops OCP and it seems, at least in theory, they agree with me. from the OCP "The City's growth management approach emphasizes infill and the intensification of land use in order to make efficient use of existing infrastructure and reduce environmental and financial costs of growth. Senior governments are encouraging municipalities to grow and develop in a more sustainable manner, conserving land, energy, and other resources, and reducing the impact on the environment. In principle, this approach is widely supported by the public, but in practice, is often difficult to achieve due to neighbourhood opposition to increased densities in existing neighbourhoods and reluctance to use transit. For the term of this plan, the City will continue to pursue its long-term goal of a more compact, efficient, and sustainable community." http://www.kamloops.ca/pdfs/kamplan/growth.pdf

Yes, and I have no problem with that. Plan away around the stations and densify as it comes. That's great. Forcing it doesn't work.

Well this is the thing, for your single family house to have a highrise designation it would need to go through some kind of planning process to develop a neighbourhood plan or community plan or whatever you want to call it. Then the highest and best use would be some kind of multi-residential building that would have a higher value. But you're suggesting forcing density, to me that means no planning just the prov/feds telling the city what to do. If that's the case and I'm the province, I just expropriate your land now at single family designation (lower market value) then rezone to a higher density. There are numerous reasons why that won't work without serious political/lega ramifications.

Densifying around skytrain stations is a good idea, forcing it is not. Who says you'd get to sell the lot at a premium? Why wouldn't the government just expropriate you at market value?

You want MORE heavy handed, top down government? I bet you would think differently if they wanted to densify your house.

South of Chilliwack? That's a different country. North of Chilliwack? That's a river. You're right about the only a fraction of BC being developed, you should go move into the bush and build yourself a nice cabin.

Yes, I fully support the tolls. I understand trucks need to get around, but there is plenty of highway for trucks to get around as it exists now, we just need to get the people out of the single occupancy cars to make it happen. How do you do that? You don't build more highways. The gas tax is great, but the money raised from it doesn't go back into transit. That's dumb. I agree with raising the price of parking, tolls, etc...charge the user. BUT, I acknowledge you can't do all that without improving transit and other options. Unfortunately, you have different levels of government doing different things...

Yes, these suburbs are trying--Surrey, Richmond, etc... they are trying to create cores and centers to reduce the dependence on cars. So why is the province building all these highways that contradict directly that philosophy?

Shame that Vancouver knows how 1950's highways are, yet as you said, there are numerous examples of highway expansion in the suburbs...

Two points. First, mayors and councils are still accountable to the public. This board is not. That's a big difference. Second, if what you're saying is correct--that the board, like mayors and councils, just basically does whatever bureaucrats come up with--why bother having this expensive board?

Sure, I went to school for planning and am currently in that field. Many disciplines were touched on in my school just as you mentioned (and one of the reasons I chose Planning because it does touch on such a broad spectrum of subjects). But look at that board. Over 90% of that board have solely business/financial/economic backgrounds. One is an actual planner. Like I asked, if you were to vote for the board of a transportation authority would you select bankers and accountants, with no direct experience in planning and/or transportation systems or management to fill over 90% of that board?

haha well you beat me, but please elaborate on your last sentence there...first, how do you know what's behind the many factors leading to transportation planning and second, how would this group of accountants, bankers and financiers?

Question wasn't directed to you, but please tell me how Dale Parker (Board Chair) --former jobs include president of White Spot, CEO of the workers compensation board, CEO of BC financial institutions commission --education in business management James Bruce --Currently chair of 2010 Games Operating Trust Society, formerly as an investment banker with TD and RBC, chair of the Opera commission --education in mechanical engineering and business admin Bob Garnett --chartered accountant, owner of courier companies, chair of Richmond Credit Union and a bunch of other business industries --education in commerce and the institute of corporate directors Sarah Goodman --vice president of business development and services, director of corporate affairs for Teck Cominco, --education in business admin and journalism Howard Nemtin --real estate developer, economic development advisor, chair of the finance committee for SFU community trust, --education in business admin and a bachelor of science in i don't know it doesn't say... Nancy Olewiler --managing editor of Canadian Public Policy, served on the Technical Committee on Business Taxation, --education in economics Robert Tribe --He actually seems qualified. David Unruh --director of Union Gas Limited, Pacific Northern Gas Inc., Ontario Power Generation Inc., Corriente Resources Inc., Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, Canada Line Rapid Transit Inc. and the Globe Foundation. --education in ? An impressive collection of people no doubt, but do you notice a trend in their?? I'll give you a hint--look for the word 'business', I've bolded it for you so you can see--I wonder what their priority will be? Tell me how this group has professional experience in the field of transportation planning? Don't say many of these fields are related, I can see that, but I could make that argument for most fields of study. http://www.translink.ca/en/About-TransLink...-Directors.aspx If this group of people came to you and ask for your vote based on their experience in transportation planning--would you vote for them?

I'm well aware of the way governments work, I work for one. I know our mayor/council don't make all the decisions, but they do have the final word. Yes, it is most often just whatever the bureaucrats say but at least they (mayor/council) are accountable if something screws up. If you're happy to have your money spent behind closed doors, by people you didn't vote for, selected by people on a quasi-secret panel that you can't have input on, holding meetings you're not allowed to watch, listen or even read the minutes from, so be it. That's not my cup of tea.

Do you even know what their background is in? Why don't you look it up and see if their backgrounds are relevant to transportation planning.

Are you reading what I wrote? I just said I'm not talking about putting every little decision to a vote, just putting to a vote those who decide how to spend our money. But, if it's good enough for Translink, then why not the whole Province? I've asked this question a few times now and it's been ignored...care to answer?

You guys come on... I mean democratically choose the people on the board, not have every decision be put to a vote... We elect people, then they make the decisions, decisions how to spend our tax dollars. Why should Translink be different--they are making decisions on how to spend our tax dollars.

I'm not sure what you're arguing--but yeah, green infrastructure means transit, bike lanes and amenities, pedestrian amenities, hybrid/electric cars, etc...

Yeah, I guess you guys are right. Which is why I suggest disbanding Parliament and just letting business run it. I mean it would do a better job right? It would be more efficient right? Same with BC Hydro, the Ferries, why have anything in public hands? It just slows it down and is inefficient right? Just like Translink--who cares that the were appointed by a secret panel we know very little about, who cares that they have little 'industry experience' as you put it, who cares that they are accountable to NO ONE--I mean they wouldn't use that power and exploit it now would they?? No way! If we can't trust business who can you trust? Just like this article where they threaten to return transit service to 1970's levels if the mayors don't do as they are told. http://www2.canada.com/theprovince/news/st...0c8&k=63981 And Campbell refuses to put some carbon tax money back into green infrastructure (hey like transit!) instead we've got to reduce those taxes. Bottom line is this board has the power to raise and lower tax rates. We can't elect them. Taxation without representation sound familiar to anyone?

I'll just address this one point cause I'm not going to waste my time on each one... They weren't public meetings like they are planning a new park and wanted public input. They are no longer open to the public to even watch or read about. You're ok with business, a business that runs of our tax dollars don't forget, being run behind closed doors? Maybe we should just close down Parliament and have the province run that way as well. Screw accountability to the public--it just gets in the way of getting things done right?