had enough of NIMBY's
How many people are there in your immediate family? How about your extended family? Ok, how many people do you work with? How about friends, how many do you have? How many are really close to you? How many people out there, reading this have more than 5 people in their lives that are important to them.
Hopefully there are more than 5 people out there that will read this post...
About a week ago I came home to find a single paged leaflet in the mail alerting me and the fine folks of Hastings Sunrise to a potentially disastrous development about to take place at 2750 East Hastings. (site of the former Bell Funeral Home) The group that produced the flyer (sorry, I can't remember their name and my wife recycled the flyer before I had the presence of mind to write this) is urging residents to do whatever we can to stop this atrocity from occurring in our back yard. Write or call your MLA or city hall, take part in a rally... whatever just do something else our neighbourhood will surely be doomed!
So what is the development that is chilling the bones of this very concerned group? A supervised injection site? Is it another liquor store? An arcade (are there still arcades out there?) Is it a skateboard park or are they thinking about building mechanical dinosaurs in Hastings Park? Slot machines?
Sorry, all good guesses but its none of those...coming soon to 2750 East Hastings, Bosa Land Corporation hopes to build a 3 story building that will house a Shoppers Drug Mart on the main floor and offices for Vancouver Coastal Health on the 2nd and 3rd floors. Scary huh! Ok so VCH plans to use these offices to provide counselling and outreach services for patients suffering mental illness. I guess I can see how the ignorant and uninformed might be a little bit scared. These people probably aren't aware that 40% of the clients that will use the facility already live within walking distance of it as they are likely stuck on the fact that 1 in 10 of the people who will use the facility have a chemical dependency. So what!
The group that is opposed to this new mental health facility, in truth offices for outreach workers and approximately 70 clients per day, is clearly misinformed and they would like the rest of us to believe that by allowing this development our neighbourhood will become the next downtown eastside. Once built, according to those ignorant about mental illness and the services that VCH already provides in other communities, our community will be flooded with drug addicts, panhandlers and the homeless. At least those that aren't here already. The truth is however, that there is already a mental health facility that services the DTES located at 330 Heatley meaning that there would really be no sensible reason to believe that our facility would service anyone other than primarily our residents.
According to the Canadian Mental Health Association nearly 1 in 5 Canadians or about 20% of the population will personally experience a mental illness within their lifetime. So again I have to ask, how many people do you know? When I look closely at my friends and family some days I think this number could be more like 1 in 2, but seriously what do we tell our loved ones who need the help as we write our letters, make our phone calls and march en masse to stop this development. Personally I'm ashamed!
Mental illness accounts for approximately 4% of all hospital visits in this country and its treatment costs us about $7.331 billion per year. There are proven and effective treatments for most forms of mental illness and many of those treatments will be available to our community (and others) at 2750 East Hastings. Unless our own selfishness and ignorance gets in the way, you see the trouble with mental illness and the greatest barrier to a persons ability to get treatment is the stigma that we hang on our friends and family members that suffer from it.
Shame on those of you out there that would stand in the way of this badly needed facility!
On another note... sometimes I find myself trapped between the things that I like and my own ideologies (see the comments on my last post). While I really used to enjoy drinking Miller Genuine Draft I had to stop only because of the fact that Miller is owned by cigarette giant Phillip Morris. Many of you will think that this is ridiculous but then I've never admitted to be anything other than ridiculous. In doing research for a tobacco-free strategy at my last job I also learned a surprising fact about Shoppers Drug Mart, a fact that in my mind makes the above development thousands of times more objectionable than the mental health facility that will occupy most of it. Shoppers Drug Mart is owned by none other than Imasco... the same company that controls about 69% of the Canadian tobacco market through its "Players" brand.
So while I personally support VCH's bid for a new facility, guess which new drug store in the community I won't be using.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Ahh Another rainy day in the lower mainland...
My wife loves the rain...at least that's what she tells me every time I start griping about the weather. Me, I understand that rain is important but I'm no great fan of it nonetheless. Especially on a miserable rainy Saturday when my wife is at work and I am left to find creative ways to entertain our two boys.
Yesterday I decided that after skating lessons we would head out to Langley, the plan being to catch up with some old friends and drop in at my folks place. Driving out there can be a pain at the best of times so I wasn't relishing the idea of making the trip in crappy weather, but we hadn't been out in a while so off we went. On the way I tried to call a couple people to find out who was up for a visit, unfortunately it seemed as though everyone was busy or at least unable to answer the phone. This should have been my first clue but no worries, one of my parents is almost always home so we continued on anyway.
Well in this case it turned out that almost was the optimum word. Worse, when I got to my folks place I realized that I hadn't brought my key and so there we were in Langley, in the rain with nothing to do and no one to do it with. Looking at the entire situation it had appeared as though I had made "the wrong plan!"
What to do next? We loaded ourselves back up into the car and, not knowing anyone else to call we headed back in the same direction that we had come. Back home to kill the couple of hours until we had to pick mom up from work. Needless to say none of us were thrilled but despite the poor planning on my part all went fairly well on the trip home until we got to about the 104th st exit of highway 1. Surprise, surprise here we were at 2:30 on a Saturday afternoon crawling our way west toward the Port Mann bridge.
Turns out that despite being the only way we could have gone at the time we had in fact headed in "the wrong direction!"
I grew up in Langley but have lived about the last 17 years divided between parts of North Vancouver and now East Vancouver or, more specifically Hastings-Sunrise. That said, I'm pretty familiar with the different route choices available to get to my parents house and back again. Choosing a route home yesterday I suppose that I could have gone over the Pattullo bridge but driving through the heart of Langley and Surrey has never been a great option. I guess I could have taken the Alex Fraser route but I've never really been a fan of going to far out of the direction I need to go. Same with the tunnel, plus I've had some pretty bad traffic luck there in the past. Albion ferry? I wouldn't even consider it. To get where I needed to go I was really only left with one choice in crossings, the Port Mann.
Turns out that, despite this lack of choice, I had in fact chosen "the wrong bridge!"
Sound familiar? On Thursday September 27 BC NDP Leader Carole James told the Union of BC Municipalities that "the governments current Gateway plan spends billions of infrastructure dollars on yesterday's solution to tomorrows problem." An interesting statement and I guess I should agree with her since the Port Mann was in fact my problem yesterday. Unfortunately its been the problem of a lot of lower mainland commuters for about 20 years now and will continue to be a problem for thousands of commuters until the expansion proposed with the Gateway Program is completed.
Finally, after months of speculation Carole James has told the people of British Columbia where she stands (albeit not in the same place as most of us and many within her own party) on Gateway. In Carole's world the BC Liberal plan to ease congestion over the Fraser River and stop the idling that happens daily approaching it is "the wrong plan, the wrong direction and the wrong bridge!"
Sort of makes you wonder if Carole James isn't looking at the wrong picture, in the wrong century from the wrong planet doesn't it?
My wife loves the rain...at least that's what she tells me every time I start griping about the weather. Me, I understand that rain is important but I'm no great fan of it nonetheless. Especially on a miserable rainy Saturday when my wife is at work and I am left to find creative ways to entertain our two boys.
Yesterday I decided that after skating lessons we would head out to Langley, the plan being to catch up with some old friends and drop in at my folks place. Driving out there can be a pain at the best of times so I wasn't relishing the idea of making the trip in crappy weather, but we hadn't been out in a while so off we went. On the way I tried to call a couple people to find out who was up for a visit, unfortunately it seemed as though everyone was busy or at least unable to answer the phone. This should have been my first clue but no worries, one of my parents is almost always home so we continued on anyway.
Well in this case it turned out that almost was the optimum word. Worse, when I got to my folks place I realized that I hadn't brought my key and so there we were in Langley, in the rain with nothing to do and no one to do it with. Looking at the entire situation it had appeared as though I had made "the wrong plan!"
What to do next? We loaded ourselves back up into the car and, not knowing anyone else to call we headed back in the same direction that we had come. Back home to kill the couple of hours until we had to pick mom up from work. Needless to say none of us were thrilled but despite the poor planning on my part all went fairly well on the trip home until we got to about the 104th st exit of highway 1. Surprise, surprise here we were at 2:30 on a Saturday afternoon crawling our way west toward the Port Mann bridge.
Turns out that despite being the only way we could have gone at the time we had in fact headed in "the wrong direction!"
I grew up in Langley but have lived about the last 17 years divided between parts of North Vancouver and now East Vancouver or, more specifically Hastings-Sunrise. That said, I'm pretty familiar with the different route choices available to get to my parents house and back again. Choosing a route home yesterday I suppose that I could have gone over the Pattullo bridge but driving through the heart of Langley and Surrey has never been a great option. I guess I could have taken the Alex Fraser route but I've never really been a fan of going to far out of the direction I need to go. Same with the tunnel, plus I've had some pretty bad traffic luck there in the past. Albion ferry? I wouldn't even consider it. To get where I needed to go I was really only left with one choice in crossings, the Port Mann.
Turns out that, despite this lack of choice, I had in fact chosen "the wrong bridge!"
Sound familiar? On Thursday September 27 BC NDP Leader Carole James told the Union of BC Municipalities that "the governments current Gateway plan spends billions of infrastructure dollars on yesterday's solution to tomorrows problem." An interesting statement and I guess I should agree with her since the Port Mann was in fact my problem yesterday. Unfortunately its been the problem of a lot of lower mainland commuters for about 20 years now and will continue to be a problem for thousands of commuters until the expansion proposed with the Gateway Program is completed.
Finally, after months of speculation Carole James has told the people of British Columbia where she stands (albeit not in the same place as most of us and many within her own party) on Gateway. In Carole's world the BC Liberal plan to ease congestion over the Fraser River and stop the idling that happens daily approaching it is "the wrong plan, the wrong direction and the wrong bridge!"
Sort of makes you wonder if Carole James isn't looking at the wrong picture, in the wrong century from the wrong planet doesn't it?
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
facebook, the planet and the many faces of the environmentalist
Thanks to Facebook I have recently re-connected with an old high school friend. (Yes I too am part of the massive and growing facebooker movement) In my friends profile he lists as one of his favorite books "endgame" by Derrick Jensen and along with the book he posts a challenge for all to "shut the #%$! up about current affairs until you've read it!" Not being able to resist a good challenge (and needing to be able to talk about current affairs) I immediately went out and bought Volume 1 (its a 2 volume book)"The Problem of Civilization" and dove right into reading it.
Derrick Jensen, for those that haven't heard of him is a bit of an environmental extremist. According to his bio he is a "leading voice of uncompromising dissent" and fellow author (Peoples History of the United States) Howard Zinn praises Jensen as "a rare and original voice of sanity in a chaotic world". Endgame basically tells the story of how civilization has and is ruining the planet and all of the living things, (plant and animal) that occupy it.
Looking at the world around me, its really hard to disagree with many of the points raised by Jensen or with the twenty premises that he poses at the start of the book. I too am concerned about our environment and I can't disagree that civilization has had the greatest negative impact on our planet and the future of everyone and thing that calls it home. Still, there were several times throughout my reading of Endgame where I thought I would put it down and move on to something else. I don't know if Jensen is in fact the leading voice of dissent but he is certainly the loudest I've read in a while. His points are valid, I'm just not so sure that I'm ready to buy into his solutions yet!
According to Derrick Jensen the only way to save the planet is to destroy civilization as we know it. Blow up dams, pull down cell phone towers, and all-in-all create a level of chaos that will force those people who survive to change the way that they are living. All for the benefit of the salmon (Derrick Jensen really likes salmon).
Civilization has most certainly reached a crossroad where we must make what could arguably be the most important decision we've ever made before. The decision that we make will have a profound impact on the future of not only civilization but the planet as a whole for sure, but I'm not yet at the point with Jensen where I believe that we need to start blowing up dams to save the world. Perhaps the biggest challenge that I had with the book lies in the fact that Derrick Jensen seems to dismiss the impact that we as individuals have or can have on a sustainable future. No doubt our efforts are small and seemingly insignificant when stacked up against the damage caused by industry and government but I can't help believe that more of us need to clean up our own back yards to demonstrate that we actually have the conviction to take on the big offenders. Only once the majority of us agree that our planet is important and that saving it is a priority will we be able to truly affect any kind of positive change.
I'm not ready to blow up dams, but on the subject of dams and recognizing that since most of us don't want to see civilization destroyed, I am in favour of efforts to find alternative sources of energy that don't destroy salmon populations, contribute to melting ice caps or rely heavily on non-renewable fossil fuels. Common sense tells me that finding alternative energy sources is not going to be easy and meeting future demands, especially as our population grows is a challenge that required serious thought and creative solutions. But then I'm no expert when it comes to energy, not like Vancouver-Hastings NDP MLA and Environment Critic Shane Simpson.
When it comes to energy and the environment the BC NDP and Simpson's strategy (or lack of) only manage to confuse me more. British Columbian's have largely told the government that the environment is a priority and the BC Liberals have responded to the level that even environmental groups within the province have applauded the governments efforts. Yet the NDP still find the time to oppose green energy such as independent run-of-the-river projects. In case you've missed it, Shane Simpson is a long-standing opponent to run-of-the-river projects like the one currently being built at Ashlu Creek in the Squamish valley. Run-of river power is achieved (very simply stated) when a portion of a river is diverted through a tunnel or pipeline toward a turbine and then returned, unchanged back to the river. It seems like a pretty reasonable alternative to bigger dams that flood valleys, harm the salmon and face the potential risk of being blown up by Derrick Jensen, doesn't it? Ashlu Creek, once completed will generate enough power to service 23,000 home each year. Not bad considering that BC Hydro doesn't have enough power to service BC right now and has to import power from other places.
So what is Shane Simpson's problem? I know I've said it before but here it is again...
Ownership!
Shane Simpson and the BC NDP don't like the idea that anyone other than the government control power in British Columbia. Shane Simpson and the BC NDP stay awake at night worrying over the very notion that private companies might generate power that they might then turn around and sell...for a profit! Worse, they might sell it to people other than British Columbians! I can understand and in some ways respect a politician, critic, or minister for that matter placing the needs of British Columbians before those of anyone else. This is why we elect them after all, to represent us. That said, there just seems to be something wrong with an environment critic who's concerns for a greener planet stop at the border. On this I have to agree with Nigel Protter in the Oct 4 Georgia Strait where he identifies run-of-the-river projects "as a means of avoiding dirty fossil fuels in electricity generation." Don't we all benefit in some way from cleaner energy?
There are currently some 1.7 million hydro customers in this province and BC Hydro already must import energy to meet our needs. The province's energy demand is expected to increase by 1.7% each year for the next 10 years meaning, as I mentioned earlier, that if we expect to meet our own power demands we will have to seriously explore alternative sources.
Shane Simpson has promised to start asking some serious questions in the legislature about the future and scale of power generation in the province. He intends to use question periods to raise his concerns over "massive projects" like the one at Ashlu Creek and the some 50 other projects awaiting approval.
I may not agree with Jensen's form of extreme environmental dissent but at least I can respect his conviction when it comes to saving the planet (I'm currently reading volume 2 of Endgame). Unfortunately the same can't be said for Shane Simpson, the environment critic that seems to have no clue or conviction at all for a greener planet.
Thanks to Facebook I have recently re-connected with an old high school friend. (Yes I too am part of the massive and growing facebooker movement) In my friends profile he lists as one of his favorite books "endgame" by Derrick Jensen and along with the book he posts a challenge for all to "shut the #%$! up about current affairs until you've read it!" Not being able to resist a good challenge (and needing to be able to talk about current affairs) I immediately went out and bought Volume 1 (its a 2 volume book)"The Problem of Civilization" and dove right into reading it.
Derrick Jensen, for those that haven't heard of him is a bit of an environmental extremist. According to his bio he is a "leading voice of uncompromising dissent" and fellow author (Peoples History of the United States) Howard Zinn praises Jensen as "a rare and original voice of sanity in a chaotic world". Endgame basically tells the story of how civilization has and is ruining the planet and all of the living things, (plant and animal) that occupy it.
Looking at the world around me, its really hard to disagree with many of the points raised by Jensen or with the twenty premises that he poses at the start of the book. I too am concerned about our environment and I can't disagree that civilization has had the greatest negative impact on our planet and the future of everyone and thing that calls it home. Still, there were several times throughout my reading of Endgame where I thought I would put it down and move on to something else. I don't know if Jensen is in fact the leading voice of dissent but he is certainly the loudest I've read in a while. His points are valid, I'm just not so sure that I'm ready to buy into his solutions yet!
According to Derrick Jensen the only way to save the planet is to destroy civilization as we know it. Blow up dams, pull down cell phone towers, and all-in-all create a level of chaos that will force those people who survive to change the way that they are living. All for the benefit of the salmon (Derrick Jensen really likes salmon).
Civilization has most certainly reached a crossroad where we must make what could arguably be the most important decision we've ever made before. The decision that we make will have a profound impact on the future of not only civilization but the planet as a whole for sure, but I'm not yet at the point with Jensen where I believe that we need to start blowing up dams to save the world. Perhaps the biggest challenge that I had with the book lies in the fact that Derrick Jensen seems to dismiss the impact that we as individuals have or can have on a sustainable future. No doubt our efforts are small and seemingly insignificant when stacked up against the damage caused by industry and government but I can't help believe that more of us need to clean up our own back yards to demonstrate that we actually have the conviction to take on the big offenders. Only once the majority of us agree that our planet is important and that saving it is a priority will we be able to truly affect any kind of positive change.
I'm not ready to blow up dams, but on the subject of dams and recognizing that since most of us don't want to see civilization destroyed, I am in favour of efforts to find alternative sources of energy that don't destroy salmon populations, contribute to melting ice caps or rely heavily on non-renewable fossil fuels. Common sense tells me that finding alternative energy sources is not going to be easy and meeting future demands, especially as our population grows is a challenge that required serious thought and creative solutions. But then I'm no expert when it comes to energy, not like Vancouver-Hastings NDP MLA and Environment Critic Shane Simpson.
When it comes to energy and the environment the BC NDP and Simpson's strategy (or lack of) only manage to confuse me more. British Columbian's have largely told the government that the environment is a priority and the BC Liberals have responded to the level that even environmental groups within the province have applauded the governments efforts. Yet the NDP still find the time to oppose green energy such as independent run-of-the-river projects. In case you've missed it, Shane Simpson is a long-standing opponent to run-of-the-river projects like the one currently being built at Ashlu Creek in the Squamish valley. Run-of river power is achieved (very simply stated) when a portion of a river is diverted through a tunnel or pipeline toward a turbine and then returned, unchanged back to the river. It seems like a pretty reasonable alternative to bigger dams that flood valleys, harm the salmon and face the potential risk of being blown up by Derrick Jensen, doesn't it? Ashlu Creek, once completed will generate enough power to service 23,000 home each year. Not bad considering that BC Hydro doesn't have enough power to service BC right now and has to import power from other places.
So what is Shane Simpson's problem? I know I've said it before but here it is again...
Ownership!
Shane Simpson and the BC NDP don't like the idea that anyone other than the government control power in British Columbia. Shane Simpson and the BC NDP stay awake at night worrying over the very notion that private companies might generate power that they might then turn around and sell...for a profit! Worse, they might sell it to people other than British Columbians! I can understand and in some ways respect a politician, critic, or minister for that matter placing the needs of British Columbians before those of anyone else. This is why we elect them after all, to represent us. That said, there just seems to be something wrong with an environment critic who's concerns for a greener planet stop at the border. On this I have to agree with Nigel Protter in the Oct 4 Georgia Strait where he identifies run-of-the-river projects "as a means of avoiding dirty fossil fuels in electricity generation." Don't we all benefit in some way from cleaner energy?
There are currently some 1.7 million hydro customers in this province and BC Hydro already must import energy to meet our needs. The province's energy demand is expected to increase by 1.7% each year for the next 10 years meaning, as I mentioned earlier, that if we expect to meet our own power demands we will have to seriously explore alternative sources.
Shane Simpson has promised to start asking some serious questions in the legislature about the future and scale of power generation in the province. He intends to use question periods to raise his concerns over "massive projects" like the one at Ashlu Creek and the some 50 other projects awaiting approval.
I may not agree with Jensen's form of extreme environmental dissent but at least I can respect his conviction when it comes to saving the planet (I'm currently reading volume 2 of Endgame). Unfortunately the same can't be said for Shane Simpson, the environment critic that seems to have no clue or conviction at all for a greener planet.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
How many New Democrats does it take to save a tree?
A good question isn't it, but I think that the real joke here is in the absence of a punchline (or any answer at all). The truth is that when it comes to an NDP environmental strategy not much has really changed since Glen Clark decried environmentalists as "enemies of British Columbia".
Federal NDP... provincial NDP, take your pick but it really doesn't matter that much as both NDP representatives for Vancouver-Hastings and Vancouver-East (Shane Simpson and Libby Davies respectively) are equally shallow in their criticism of the BC Liberals environmental strategy and both have demonstrated a complete lack of productive solutions to a problem that I for one, take very seriously.
Our own BC NDP Environment Critic Shane Simpson is so confused by his backward left of center ideology that he refuses to even consider the benefits of environmentally sustainable energy sources (like run-of-the-river) as long as that power is owned by private companies. But I'll leave Shane alone for now as the real focus of this particular entry goes a little further east to East Vancouver's "Queen of Junk Mail" Libby Davies.
Earlier this week I came home to find the latest, hot off the press issue of the Vancouver East Community Bulletin, a 16 page multi-lingual quarterly reminder to the fine people of East Vancouver of all the great things that our federal NDP representative, Libby Davies has done to make our lives better. This comes to us in addition to the monthly and at times several times monthly newsletters and updates that Libby likes to send out. This also comes despite my email several months ago asking her to stop sending them and after I stapled all 5 identical newsletters that came addressed to my house together and returned them to sender. (interestingly enough the staple must have failed in the mail and two of the newsletters were re-delivered to my house).
Libby Davies is killing tree's at a furious pace in order to feed her junk mail habit. I haven't received this much mail from any other political figure before...even during an election! But big deal you say! Maybe its recycled paper, maybe not but despite the electronic mediums like email lots of people still send junk mail. Right? This may be so but still there is something unsettling about a 16 page leaflet that outlines the NDP environment strategy" on page 11.
Libby Davies, like Carole James, Shane Simpson and a few others is opposed to the BC Liberals Gateway Program. No surprised here! In her bulletin she tells us of the 5 forums that's she's hosted in East Vancouver and how hundreds of us have told her that we are also against Gateway, primarily because of the environmental impact that the project supposedly brings with it.
Hundreds!!
I don't have a problem with people that oppose a project like Gateway and I think its great that people ask questions of our government and the decisions that it makes everyday on our behalf. The problem that I do have with Libby's (et al) stance on Gateway (her own environmental hypocrisy notwithstanding) is that it appears to be torn out of the same old play book as the BC NDP, SPEC and a few others. Lots of criticism and virtually no reasonable alternatives. Investing in sustainable transportation, public transportation and the efficient use of existing roads and rail are all great ideas for sure, but the trouble is that none of these come close to addressing the current problem of the Port Mann bridge and the bottleneck that it creates for almost 13 hours every single day.
Unfortunately Libby, like her fellow NDP opponents can't seem to see the project beyond the twinning of the Port Mann and the adding of a single lane on each side of the freeway. A lane I might add that can be equally served by buses, hybrids and other alternative energy vehicles. One lane is hardly massive expansion as the critics would have us believe. Unfortunately Libby and those of like thinking don't see the environmental problem (among the other problems) of sitting idle in traffic for several hours each day. Unfortunately Libby, Carole, Shane and those like them probably don't get out to Surrey, Langley, Abbotsford, Chilliwack etc. that often so they likely haven't experienced this grid-lock first hand. Unfortunately it doesn't appear as though Libby has talked to anyone that does make this trip on a regular basis (people like my co-worker who car pools from Chilliwack to North Vancouver with 3 other guys 5 days per week).
Unfortunately Libby Davies and those of like mind don't see the provinces Gateway Program as an opportunity to expand and offer more transportation choices like buses on the Port Mann bridge, light rail, cycling and yes cars.
Fortunately we know better.
Hopefully Libby will soon see the relationship between her own junk mail habit and the points that her party raises in its environmental strategy.
A good question isn't it, but I think that the real joke here is in the absence of a punchline (or any answer at all). The truth is that when it comes to an NDP environmental strategy not much has really changed since Glen Clark decried environmentalists as "enemies of British Columbia".
Federal NDP... provincial NDP, take your pick but it really doesn't matter that much as both NDP representatives for Vancouver-Hastings and Vancouver-East (Shane Simpson and Libby Davies respectively) are equally shallow in their criticism of the BC Liberals environmental strategy and both have demonstrated a complete lack of productive solutions to a problem that I for one, take very seriously.
Our own BC NDP Environment Critic Shane Simpson is so confused by his backward left of center ideology that he refuses to even consider the benefits of environmentally sustainable energy sources (like run-of-the-river) as long as that power is owned by private companies. But I'll leave Shane alone for now as the real focus of this particular entry goes a little further east to East Vancouver's "Queen of Junk Mail" Libby Davies.
Earlier this week I came home to find the latest, hot off the press issue of the Vancouver East Community Bulletin, a 16 page multi-lingual quarterly reminder to the fine people of East Vancouver of all the great things that our federal NDP representative, Libby Davies has done to make our lives better. This comes to us in addition to the monthly and at times several times monthly newsletters and updates that Libby likes to send out. This also comes despite my email several months ago asking her to stop sending them and after I stapled all 5 identical newsletters that came addressed to my house together and returned them to sender. (interestingly enough the staple must have failed in the mail and two of the newsletters were re-delivered to my house).
Libby Davies is killing tree's at a furious pace in order to feed her junk mail habit. I haven't received this much mail from any other political figure before...even during an election! But big deal you say! Maybe its recycled paper, maybe not but despite the electronic mediums like email lots of people still send junk mail. Right? This may be so but still there is something unsettling about a 16 page leaflet that outlines the NDP environment strategy" on page 11.
Libby Davies, like Carole James, Shane Simpson and a few others is opposed to the BC Liberals Gateway Program. No surprised here! In her bulletin she tells us of the 5 forums that's she's hosted in East Vancouver and how hundreds of us have told her that we are also against Gateway, primarily because of the environmental impact that the project supposedly brings with it.
Hundreds!!
I don't have a problem with people that oppose a project like Gateway and I think its great that people ask questions of our government and the decisions that it makes everyday on our behalf. The problem that I do have with Libby's (et al) stance on Gateway (her own environmental hypocrisy notwithstanding) is that it appears to be torn out of the same old play book as the BC NDP, SPEC and a few others. Lots of criticism and virtually no reasonable alternatives. Investing in sustainable transportation, public transportation and the efficient use of existing roads and rail are all great ideas for sure, but the trouble is that none of these come close to addressing the current problem of the Port Mann bridge and the bottleneck that it creates for almost 13 hours every single day.
Unfortunately Libby, like her fellow NDP opponents can't seem to see the project beyond the twinning of the Port Mann and the adding of a single lane on each side of the freeway. A lane I might add that can be equally served by buses, hybrids and other alternative energy vehicles. One lane is hardly massive expansion as the critics would have us believe. Unfortunately Libby and those of like thinking don't see the environmental problem (among the other problems) of sitting idle in traffic for several hours each day. Unfortunately Libby, Carole, Shane and those like them probably don't get out to Surrey, Langley, Abbotsford, Chilliwack etc. that often so they likely haven't experienced this grid-lock first hand. Unfortunately it doesn't appear as though Libby has talked to anyone that does make this trip on a regular basis (people like my co-worker who car pools from Chilliwack to North Vancouver with 3 other guys 5 days per week).
Unfortunately Libby Davies and those of like mind don't see the provinces Gateway Program as an opportunity to expand and offer more transportation choices like buses on the Port Mann bridge, light rail, cycling and yes cars.
Fortunately we know better.
Hopefully Libby will soon see the relationship between her own junk mail habit and the points that her party raises in its environmental strategy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
