private resorts provide valuable emergency response capabilities
Vancouver-Hastings MLA Shane Simpson found his way into the news again last week, this time in a Globe and Mail Piece entitled "Environmentalists blast parks plan." (You didn't think he'd have something nice to say did you?) According to the piece Simpson objects to BC Environment Minister Barry Penner's decision to announce proposals for resort construction in 12 wilderness areas. The decision has been made during the legislatures summer break which, in Mr. Simpsons opinion does not allow for "meaningful consultation of the issue".
What do you think? Aside from the fact that the BC Resort Strategy and Action Plan has been in place and available to anyone interested since November 2004, why not take steps to increase tourist visits in our province. Will 12 new resorts result in the mass destruction of BC Parks and Forests as we know them, or will it create a new group of ambassadors to educate even more people about our parks all while providing valuable resources to aid in emergencies. The fact is that we need tourism dollars to cover increased spending in areas such as education and health care and to make up for declines amongst other sectors.
In 2004, we welcomed 22.4 million visitors to the province and they provided us with $9.5 billion in revenue. Within the tourism industry, the resort sector (in 2004) accounted for 20% of this revenue and employed some 26,000 people. Overall in 2004, tourism provided 117,500 full-time jobs while representing a mere fraction of the provinces budget compared to other industries such as forestry. The fact is that tourism has become an extremely valuable asset to our province and the wholesale destruction of "public parks" is unlikely to occur if for no other reason than the fact that its not in the interest of private resort owners to allow this.
In this same article, Policy Director for the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, Gwen Barlee raises her concern that resort development will require the clearing of substantial amounts of land to control the risk of forest fire. While there may be a grain of truth to this statement (some trees will likely have to be cut down), I don't think that she or Shane Simpson are considering the importance that private resort owners and their staff have (and will have) in regards to emergency response in remote areas. Private resort owners, for a variety of reasons such as insurance and liability requirements will staff trained people to respond to the multitude of emergencies that occur everyday in the BC wilderness. Events such as lost hikers, avalanches, medical emergencies and, as the North Shore witnessed this past Sunday, forest fires caused by natural acts like lightning (to name a few) may be dealt with much more quickly through the partnerships that will be developed between resorts and public emergency services.
BC is a wonderful province with much to offer its residents and our guests. "Environmentalists" like Shane Simpson need to understand the importance that private resorts and other tourism operators have in preserving our wilderness and parks rather than discounting them immediately as enemies of the environment bent on the destruction of public park space.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Friday, July 28, 2006
a tribute to the ride.
Recently (after far too big a break), I was re-introduced to my bike. Its a mountain bike and before "life" got in the way I used to ride it 3 or 4 times a week. Of course it helped that I used to live only minutes from some of the best trails in North America, wasn't married, didn't have kids and so on. You get the picture. Thankfully , I've now managed to find a way to fit at least one weekly ride into my otherwise busy "real" life. My regular riding partners and I call this "Thursday Therapy".
This past Thursday we found ourselves on Mt. Seymour's CBC trail. It turned out to be an awesome ride, made possible largely due to the efforts of trail builders such as the North Shore Mountain Bike Association. In fact, the (soft)footprint of the NSMBA has been visible on every ride that I've been on this year. CBC, Oilcan, Seventh Secret, Pipeline, Espresso to name just a few trails have all benefited from the touch of the NSMBA. The result is a series of trails that are safe and considerate towards eco-systems, while providing sufficient challenge to all ability levels. My helmet goes off to these amazing trail builders of the North Shore.
It seems that since I've rediscovered this former passion, I've also become more aware of the cycling going on around me. Yesterday, while sitting on the patio at Vancouver's Frog and Firkin, my friends and I witnessed a very colourful gaggle of cyclists parading down Broadway. I have no idea what they were up to but it sure looked like they were having fun.Words can't describe how happy I am to be back on my bike or how great it is to see so many others doing their part to keep their cars parked. I also appreciate a provincial government that is as supportive of transportation alternatives as the BC Liberals. On July 6 of this year Premier Campbell announced his intention to provide another $2 million toward the improvement of cycling infrastructure for 12 communities in the province. This on top of the approximate $50 million in cycling investment that is a part of the governments Gateway Program. Its great to witness a provincial government that is dedicated to funding transportation strategies that are good for the environment, sustainable and that promote healthy living.
For more information on the North Shore Mountain Bike Association and the trails of the North Shore, visit their site at www.nsmba.bc.ca
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
"Building that capacity, building of that community infrastructure is an essential piece. It doesn't happen overnight. Its something that happens over an extended period of time. Its something that happens through working together, building trust together, building confidence together, learning how to share resources in the community to maximize the impact in a positive way on the community."
Vancouver-Hastings MLA Shane Simpson on building capacity of a community (Hansard vol 7, no 4)
Just thinking out loud...
How did Vancouver-Hastings earn the title of second poorest constituency in BC? Geographically speaking its not a whole lot different from many other communities. I've taken enough sociology courses to recognize that there are a multitude of answers to this question, but still I wonder...
Vancouver-Hastings has an interesting history, full of impressive accomplishments. According to the Hastings-Sunrise Community web pages, New Brighton was born (with money) as a holiday retreat for residents of the capital of New Westminster in 1868. The name changed to Hastings in 1869 and as the community grew it also laid claim to many Vancouver "firsts" like first road, hotel, post office, telephone, subdivision, and so on. At the request of local residents for more "wholesome" activities, the first exhibition was held in 1910, with Exhibition Park being named in 1946. Hastings Park race track had already been established in the late 1800's and has since been able to boast a number of its own "firsts".
All in all a very impressive start for a community that would later become the neighbour to the poorest postal code in Canada. So what happened?
Not discounting the many other factors that have undoubtedly contributed to our current situation, I can't help but wonder how much the ideology of our community representatives (provincial and federal), have contributed to what appears to me to be the inability for our community to move beyond the "ordinary" or the "average".
Provincially, Vancouver-Hastings (Vancouver East prior to the 1991 election) has been represented by a NDP (CCF) MLA since 1933. Federally, Vancouver-East has sent NDP MP's to Ottawa consistently since 1935, with exception to 1974 and 1993. So what you say! Well that is almost 75 years of "glass half empty" (un)leadership for our community. Nearly three quarters of a century of direct exposure to an ideology that historically stifles personal choice and is restrictive towards the rights of the individual. Is it any wonder that our community is poor when we are consistently represented by people that encourage mediocracy and refer to their own loyal supporters as "average" and "ordinary".
You may argue that we have got what we deserve since it has been us that have consistently chosen to elect NDP representatives however, I suggest the possibility that perhaps the voting patterns of Vancouver-Hasting are the result of a particular party interjecting and encouraging the possibility of a community nirvana, mainly through negative campaigning "over an extended period of time". I also believe that this is changing.
The political history of our community obviously doesn't provide all of the answers to its current plight, but what I do suggest is that it is possible that Vancouver-Hastings and Vancouver-East have in some ways suffered because of the guiding principles of our elected representatives. In my opinion, our situation cannot and will not change as long as we continue to elect the NDP. The primary reason being that our current representatives are bound by their own party's democratic socialist constitution that doesn't allow the progress needed to create a completely healthy and robust community that encourages growth. While we have recognized the problems in our community, we haven't done anything to fix them beyond blaming current governments (we haven't even made useful suggestions to fix the problem) , forgetting that in BC, the NDP had ten years to cure the plight of the homeless. What happened?
Shane Simpson accuses the BC Liberals of creating poverty in British Columbia, "...Now that we've created the poor and homeless, we're going to punish you for your circumstances." (Hansard) I suggest that the NDP has done nothing in their own right to prevent this from happening in fact, the NDP need poverty, homelessness and suffering in order to remain relevant. Another reason that they are not doing so well in today's booming economy.
But then I'm just thinking out loud...
Vancouver-Hastings MLA Shane Simpson on building capacity of a community (Hansard vol 7, no 4)
Just thinking out loud...
How did Vancouver-Hastings earn the title of second poorest constituency in BC? Geographically speaking its not a whole lot different from many other communities. I've taken enough sociology courses to recognize that there are a multitude of answers to this question, but still I wonder...
Vancouver-Hastings has an interesting history, full of impressive accomplishments. According to the Hastings-Sunrise Community web pages, New Brighton was born (with money) as a holiday retreat for residents of the capital of New Westminster in 1868. The name changed to Hastings in 1869 and as the community grew it also laid claim to many Vancouver "firsts" like first road, hotel, post office, telephone, subdivision, and so on. At the request of local residents for more "wholesome" activities, the first exhibition was held in 1910, with Exhibition Park being named in 1946. Hastings Park race track had already been established in the late 1800's and has since been able to boast a number of its own "firsts".
All in all a very impressive start for a community that would later become the neighbour to the poorest postal code in Canada. So what happened?
Not discounting the many other factors that have undoubtedly contributed to our current situation, I can't help but wonder how much the ideology of our community representatives (provincial and federal), have contributed to what appears to me to be the inability for our community to move beyond the "ordinary" or the "average".
Provincially, Vancouver-Hastings (Vancouver East prior to the 1991 election) has been represented by a NDP (CCF) MLA since 1933. Federally, Vancouver-East has sent NDP MP's to Ottawa consistently since 1935, with exception to 1974 and 1993. So what you say! Well that is almost 75 years of "glass half empty" (un)leadership for our community. Nearly three quarters of a century of direct exposure to an ideology that historically stifles personal choice and is restrictive towards the rights of the individual. Is it any wonder that our community is poor when we are consistently represented by people that encourage mediocracy and refer to their own loyal supporters as "average" and "ordinary".
You may argue that we have got what we deserve since it has been us that have consistently chosen to elect NDP representatives however, I suggest the possibility that perhaps the voting patterns of Vancouver-Hasting are the result of a particular party interjecting and encouraging the possibility of a community nirvana, mainly through negative campaigning "over an extended period of time". I also believe that this is changing.
The political history of our community obviously doesn't provide all of the answers to its current plight, but what I do suggest is that it is possible that Vancouver-Hastings and Vancouver-East have in some ways suffered because of the guiding principles of our elected representatives. In my opinion, our situation cannot and will not change as long as we continue to elect the NDP. The primary reason being that our current representatives are bound by their own party's democratic socialist constitution that doesn't allow the progress needed to create a completely healthy and robust community that encourages growth. While we have recognized the problems in our community, we haven't done anything to fix them beyond blaming current governments (we haven't even made useful suggestions to fix the problem) , forgetting that in BC, the NDP had ten years to cure the plight of the homeless. What happened?
Shane Simpson accuses the BC Liberals of creating poverty in British Columbia, "...Now that we've created the poor and homeless, we're going to punish you for your circumstances." (Hansard) I suggest that the NDP has done nothing in their own right to prevent this from happening in fact, the NDP need poverty, homelessness and suffering in order to remain relevant. Another reason that they are not doing so well in today's booming economy.
But then I'm just thinking out loud...
Monday, July 10, 2006
why would anyone want to cover this up?
Here's something completely different, Kevin Potvin (Vancouver Courier columnist)doesn't like the idea that someone wants to build a facility, with his own money, that has multi-use potential for the enjoyment of all. A building that will undoubtedly benefit the people that use and work in it as well as the city and the community that it calls home. (Kevin hasn't read last weeks Courier, or at least the part that talks about how big, private money basically built Commercial Drive).
Even more strange may be the fact that the proposed Whitecaps stadium will be built expounding the very issues that Mr. Potvin preaches to us almost every week. This stadium will be built using sustainable and environmentally sound building practices and it will be the most transit friendly facility of its kind in North America. People will be able to easily access it by bus, train, skytrain, seabus and, even bicycle or foot for many.
While there are certainly challenges that owners and builders must face given the unique location and preliminary design of this structure, those concerned must remember that stadium plans are still in their infancy. Obviously and for a multitude of reasons, including the ability for emergency services to respond to incidents, the ability to evacuate the premises if necessary, the ability for stadium owners to obtain insurance etc., serious consideration will have to be given to the risk potential of the railyard below. But then it is unlikely that the first shovelful of dirt will be removed until proof that strategies to mitigate such risks have been demonstrated. Conversely, one significant earthquake in the area will likely mean that all that's left of Gastown is the new Whitecaps Stadium.
Still, others have complained that the competition that may be introduced through stadium restaurants and retail outlets will place an unwanted burden on existing Gastown merchants. This despite the latest Mustel report that shows 78% approval for the project by local businesses. There is also the argument that the "look" of the stadium won't fit the "historic design" of Gastown. My kids and I visited Gastown today and it seems to me that the community kind of looks in and onto itself anyway and therefore stands with its "back" to "the last piece of critical waterfront in urban Vancouver". I'm sure that historic Gastown won't even notice its there.
The fact is, this stadium may actually be the very thing needed to re-connect Gastown with the waterfront and, for that matter the rest of the city. Gastown may once again be more than the tourist magnet that it has become. At least that is what two former mayors and a majority of residents and business owners think anyway. Even if Kevin Potvin and a small number of others don't agree.
Here's something completely different, Kevin Potvin (Vancouver Courier columnist)doesn't like the idea that someone wants to build a facility, with his own money, that has multi-use potential for the enjoyment of all. A building that will undoubtedly benefit the people that use and work in it as well as the city and the community that it calls home. (Kevin hasn't read last weeks Courier, or at least the part that talks about how big, private money basically built Commercial Drive).
Even more strange may be the fact that the proposed Whitecaps stadium will be built expounding the very issues that Mr. Potvin preaches to us almost every week. This stadium will be built using sustainable and environmentally sound building practices and it will be the most transit friendly facility of its kind in North America. People will be able to easily access it by bus, train, skytrain, seabus and, even bicycle or foot for many.
While there are certainly challenges that owners and builders must face given the unique location and preliminary design of this structure, those concerned must remember that stadium plans are still in their infancy. Obviously and for a multitude of reasons, including the ability for emergency services to respond to incidents, the ability to evacuate the premises if necessary, the ability for stadium owners to obtain insurance etc., serious consideration will have to be given to the risk potential of the railyard below. But then it is unlikely that the first shovelful of dirt will be removed until proof that strategies to mitigate such risks have been demonstrated. Conversely, one significant earthquake in the area will likely mean that all that's left of Gastown is the new Whitecaps Stadium.
Still, others have complained that the competition that may be introduced through stadium restaurants and retail outlets will place an unwanted burden on existing Gastown merchants. This despite the latest Mustel report that shows 78% approval for the project by local businesses. There is also the argument that the "look" of the stadium won't fit the "historic design" of Gastown. My kids and I visited Gastown today and it seems to me that the community kind of looks in and onto itself anyway and therefore stands with its "back" to "the last piece of critical waterfront in urban Vancouver". I'm sure that historic Gastown won't even notice its there.
The fact is, this stadium may actually be the very thing needed to re-connect Gastown with the waterfront and, for that matter the rest of the city. Gastown may once again be more than the tourist magnet that it has become. At least that is what two former mayors and a majority of residents and business owners think anyway. Even if Kevin Potvin and a small number of others don't agree.
Ahh memories...
"...its also much important for our caucus, because we look forward to the day this house sits after May 12, 2009, when we're on those benches, and we don't want too big a mess to clean up from what you are going to do over the next four years."
Vancouver-Hastings MLA Shane Simpson in his closing statement to the house Thursday 15 September 2005 (Hansard)
How big a mess could this possibly be compared to what was left after 12 years of the NDP? Remember Bingo-gate, the Glen Clark Casino charity scandal, eight years of budget deficit prior to 2001, and among other things, a party that in the end couldn't even play nicely with itself. Oh, and of course theres always...
This $244 million "mess".
However, our Vancouver-Hastings representative would have us believe that cost overruns are the sole property of the BC Liberals.
"...but for this government (BC Liberals), it thinks nothing of adding tens of millions of dollars to cover cost overruns..."
Shane Simpson also from Hansard
"...its also much important for our caucus, because we look forward to the day this house sits after May 12, 2009, when we're on those benches, and we don't want too big a mess to clean up from what you are going to do over the next four years."
Vancouver-Hastings MLA Shane Simpson in his closing statement to the house Thursday 15 September 2005 (Hansard)
How big a mess could this possibly be compared to what was left after 12 years of the NDP? Remember Bingo-gate, the Glen Clark Casino charity scandal, eight years of budget deficit prior to 2001, and among other things, a party that in the end couldn't even play nicely with itself. Oh, and of course theres always...
This $244 million "mess".
However, our Vancouver-Hastings representative would have us believe that cost overruns are the sole property of the BC Liberals.
"...but for this government (BC Liberals), it thinks nothing of adding tens of millions of dollars to cover cost overruns..."
Shane Simpson also from Hansard
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
BC Liberals Put Students First (again)
Another educational landmark was achieved today in BC with the signing of an agreement between Premier Gordon Campbell and the First Nations Educational Steering Committee. Among other things, this agreement will allow the First Nations the jurisdiction over educational decisions for First Nations students. In other words, First Nations will be ensured the cultural relevance of their education while guaranteeing that it fits and is easily transferable between public schools. The agreement will also allow First Nations students eligibility to post secondary institutions without losing any of this cultural relevance.
Considering this milestone along with the first negotiated contract between the government and the BCTF in over ten years (16% increase over five years and 2% over most other agreements within the BC Negotiating Framework), I sincerely hope that this is the last bit of proof that any remaining naysayers (likely within the NDP and the BCTF) need to demonstrate that this government is now and always has been committed to our students!
One need only look at some of the recent significant commitments made by the BC Liberals to realize which side of the table has been truly committed to education, including the best interests of both teachers and students in BC, right from the beginning.
1. $2 billion specifically for education between 2001 and 2007.
2. $881 increase in spending per student.
3. $1.5 billion in seismic upgrades to BC schools.
4. $196 million increase in funding for post secondary education in the province.
5. $800 million for capital improvements directly for education.
Clearly the government has made the financial commitment toward education, now is the time for the rest of us to work together to ensure that we truly are the most educated province in the country. I for one look forward to five years of cooperation between the province, teachers, parents and most importantly, our students.
Another educational landmark was achieved today in BC with the signing of an agreement between Premier Gordon Campbell and the First Nations Educational Steering Committee. Among other things, this agreement will allow the First Nations the jurisdiction over educational decisions for First Nations students. In other words, First Nations will be ensured the cultural relevance of their education while guaranteeing that it fits and is easily transferable between public schools. The agreement will also allow First Nations students eligibility to post secondary institutions without losing any of this cultural relevance.
Considering this milestone along with the first negotiated contract between the government and the BCTF in over ten years (16% increase over five years and 2% over most other agreements within the BC Negotiating Framework), I sincerely hope that this is the last bit of proof that any remaining naysayers (likely within the NDP and the BCTF) need to demonstrate that this government is now and always has been committed to our students!
One need only look at some of the recent significant commitments made by the BC Liberals to realize which side of the table has been truly committed to education, including the best interests of both teachers and students in BC, right from the beginning.
1. $2 billion specifically for education between 2001 and 2007.
2. $881 increase in spending per student.
3. $1.5 billion in seismic upgrades to BC schools.
4. $196 million increase in funding for post secondary education in the province.
5. $800 million for capital improvements directly for education.
Clearly the government has made the financial commitment toward education, now is the time for the rest of us to work together to ensure that we truly are the most educated province in the country. I for one look forward to five years of cooperation between the province, teachers, parents and most importantly, our students.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
