[urbanclient]

This take, phrased like this, is essentially inciting people to engage in maximum conflict with maximum indignation.

Why would you want to do that?

No different that in cities, people should always be heard when raising legitimate concerns.

I've spent a lot of time explaining to Planners, Builders, Architects and UT'ers how to smooth acceptance of change.

It need not involve confrontation, nor patronizing talk. That strategy almost always backfires. Many here have benefited from my advice and seen projects move much more quickly as a result.

HSR would be no different.



You don't understand why a citizen of Canada, and a Resident of Ontario should have any say at all in how their government behaves and how their money is spent, and how their quality of life is affected?

I don't understand that at all.

Of course we ought not to let people ardently opposed to change to be needless obstructive; nor should we allow the ill informed to alter or delay a project for imaginary problems.

But allowing people to have input, to request information, to be consulted at some level is not at all unreasonable, in the absence of same, you just abolished both democracy and minority rights.

No need for all this inflammatory stuff.

Perhaps the way the message was conveyed rather than the meaning behind the message is the issue. Of course the residents of Canada should have a say in how their government spends their tax dollars. The crux of the issue is that far too often, a small minority of stakeholders wield outsized and disproportionate influence on how the government makes decisions. Sometimes it's the rich, sometimes it's NIMBYs. In cases of opposition to public transit projects, it's usually both, all to the detriment of a much larger demographic which often includes less powerful, less affluent people.

"A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It’s where the rich use public transportation" – Gustavo Petro
Or at least a place where the rich may deign to use public transportation on occasion instead of being fearful of its lamentable state

 

[Mihairokov]

No need for all this inflammatory stuff

Sure, just as much as I don't think there needs to be any discussion on these towns getting HSR stops, or any other situation where we're altering a route that should only really have five or six stops maximum.

 

[Urban Sky]

Sure, just as much as I don't think there needs to be any discussion on these towns getting HSR stops, or any other situation where we're altering a route that should only really have five or six stops maximum.

You are describing, whether you like it or not, exactly the levers how local opposition is placated in other countries: You want rural folks to swallow highly disruptive construction work for half a decade and permanent noise pollution? Then better pack some sweeteners and go to the negotiation table!

 

[Northern Light]

Perhaps the way the message was conveyed rather than the meaning behind the message is the issue. Of course the residents of Canada should have a say in how their government spends their tax dollars. The crux of the issue is that far too often, a small minority of stakeholders wield outsized and disproportionate influence on how the government makes decisions. Sometimes it's the rich, sometimes it's NIMBYs. In cases of opposition to public transit projects, it's usually both, all to the detriment of a much larger demographic which often includes less powerful, less affluent people.

"A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It’s where the rich use public transportation" – Gustavo Petro
Or at least a place where the rich may deign to use public transportation on occasion instead of being fearful of its lamentable state

I'm happy enough to agree with this; no one should be accepting of endless obstructionism or public policy's answer to extortion.

But that shouldn't preclude constructive engagement. That doesn't mean false promises of excessive stops, or undue compensation etc. Clearly there are limits necessary to how a project is built to retain its utility and viability, but those can be honoured while giving a fair hearing to concerns.

Sure, just as much as I don't think there needs to be any discussion on these towns getting HSR stops, or any other situation where we're altering a route that should only really have five or six stops maximum.

As noted above, of course there are reasonable limits on numbers of stops and various other project details; listening to concerns, wit an open mind, does not require acceding to every demand/request, nor should it.

 

[ssiguy2]

I love these NIMBYs in the woods. They scream about some trees being felled but sure didn't have a problem felling them to build their house and driveway and I'm quite confident that they didn't bitch when Ontario Hydro had to pull down some trees to provide them with power.

Imminent domain laws should be strengthened in favour of the gov'ts while still employing fair and environmentally responsible practices. We are at a point where in trying to appease everyone, nothing gets built and that has to stop. Spock was right......."the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

 

[reinventingthewheel]

I just watched this video reposted by Oh The Urbanity! on YouTube. It’s a good look at abstract components of Montreal’s REM. Final product aside (for all its shortcomings), the contracts and public policy choices to help develop and deliver this massive project with such haste makes for an interesting case study.

The reason I share it in this thread is because CDQP is apart of the Cadence consortium developing Alto, and I find that encouraging. They have prior experience with investment in infrastructure and now with the REM they have experience wholly owning the project planning and management with limited (much less than usual) government interference. A similar project development model for Alto could really improve the odds of it actually being built.

 

[lenaitch]

I love these NIMBYs in the woods. They scream about some trees being felled but sure didn't have a problem felling them to build their house and driveway and I'm quite confident that they didn't bitch when Ontario Hydro had to pull down some trees to provide them with power.

Imminent domain laws should be strengthened in favour of the gov'ts while still employing fair and environmentally responsible practices. We are at a point where in trying to appease everyone, nothing gets built and that has to stop. Spock was right......."the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

Looking beyond the trite quote from 1980s Hollywood entertainment, the legal term is 'eminent domain' and it is a term not used in Canada. We use the term 'expropriation' for the compulsory acquisition of private property for public works, and it is addressed in both federal and provincial statutes. Like most other actions of the State, it is subject to judicial oversight and I'm not willing to surrender that to make 'the many' happy.

There are also several other pieces of legislation that need to be addressed, including environmental laws, that I'm also not willing to give a government a free pass on in the hopes that they will be 'responsible'.