Comments on: In favour of closing YXD

By: A shifting discourse « pseudo psyence

A shifting discourse « pseudo psyence — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:25:51 +0000

[...] of the statement, in spite of having been engaged and involved in the debate, going so far as to e-mail my city council reps Jane Batty and Ben Henderson about the issue. However, the more I started thinking about it, the [...]

By: bingofuel

bingofuel — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 23:40:26 +0000

Agreed, Alain. Now the real work begins, namely:

Ensuring that TOD and high-density infill in actually created in a way that doesn’t look like piss (which Edmonton is historically known for.
Ensuring the right choices are made for new roads and LRT and Bus routes.
Holding council to account on timelines, while ensuring this staged closure, clean-up and development is orderly.

No one said this was going to be easy, but I truly believe this is a great step forward for Edmonton.

By: Alain Saffel

Alain Saffel — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 23:35:18 +0000

Well, looks like a big first step was taken. You’ll have to stick around for a while. I think it’s going to get even more interesting.

By: Close the Edmonton City Centre Airport at River City Writer

Close the Edmonton City Centre Airport at River City Writer — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:02:05 +0000

[...] In favour of closing YXD – Adam Rozenhart [...]

By: Mack D. Male

Mack D. Male — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:56:11 +0000

I think it would be very unfortunate if they ignore your letter because of the expletives. I wonder how closely they read all the letters anyway. I somehow image they have EA’s organize them into two piles (for and against) and just look at which is bigger lol

By: Adam Snider

Adam Snider — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:48:59 +0000

Personally, I feel like the expletives added to the letter. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that many of those on city council won’t feel the same way. People still have issues with the use of this type of language in public discourse. That, I think, is bullshit. But it’s also true.

By: bingofuel

bingofuel — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:10:40 +0000

A fair point, Mike, and certainly a valid one. Guys like Toncat and Hayter would undoubtedly cry foul over the use of abrasive language in the letter. However, were that considered reason for ignoring the other salient points contained in the letter, then I would argue they’re far too out of touch to hold office.

Expletives can add impact, certainly, and I think the evolution of language is such that though perhaps it still doesn’t have a solid place in the public discourse, it shouldn’t be a reason to completely discount someone’s argument. Was my use of the word bullshit a juvenile move? I suppose it could be perceived that way. But I made a deliberate choice to use it (and I also use the phrase “get its shit together”) precisely because of the impact of the word.

However, if this leads the general reading public to dismiss my arguments, then lesson learned, absolutely.

By: Adam Snider

Adam Snider — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:51:19 +0000

Mike makes a good point. I wondered the same thing, though I quickly got over it (perhaps because I feel strongly enough about the issue that I, too, would use such language).

By: mikekendrick

mikekendrick — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:46:06 +0000

I’ll run the risk of being the prude here. While I more or less agree with what your letter says, I can’t help but feel that using such unparliamentary language in a professional plea somewhat weakens this side of the argument; it just makes us look all the more like the naive kids that so many of the businessmen are painting us to be.

I know that’s how you roll, but was it really necessary to scream “bullshit” in the face of guys like Tony Caterina and Ron Hayter?

By: Mack D. Male

Mack D. Male — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:43:59 +0000

Well said Adam. BTW: I read your blog regularly (it’s in my aggregator).

Make sure to check out my blog tomorrow

By: bingofuel

bingofuel — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:32:19 +0000

Hahaha, thanks Adam. I was hoping for some stirring debate, but when only you, Dave, and Mack (on a good day!) read my blog, there isn’t much to do except vigorously nod at each other.

By: Adam Snider

Adam Snider — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:27:50 +0000

I’ve really got nothing to say other than: I couldn’t agree with you more.

By: bingofuel

bingofuel — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:59:39 +0000

Thanks Dave!

I know the letter doesn’t really go into great detail, but to me this is about two different visions of the development of Edmonton, particularly in the downtown. YXD represents an unprecedented opportunity to bring much needed population density to the core, which will help re-energize that area, allowing all kinds of ancillary businesses to support those people living there.

It’s either that, or continue to grow out in a completely unsustainable way, potentially losing vitality in the form of innovative go-getters who crave this sort of development, and want to live in these kinds of communities. I think over the last 20 years, we’ve seen the way development shouldn’t be done. It’s time to try something different, closing the chapter on an antiquated model of development in favour of one that will result in true, positive change in the core of our city.

By: daveberta

daveberta — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:52:02 +0000

“Thumbs up!”