babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » from far and wide   » bc, alberta, saskatchewan   » CBC says the number of homeless people in Vancouver has doubled in the last 3 years

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: CBC says the number of homeless people in Vancouver has doubled in the last 3 years
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 05 January 2005 10:52 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Jan 5 2005
CBC Evening News

There are many defenders of COPE on this board. Any explanations offered?

Please don't mention the Woodward's Building again. We all know about it.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
cottonwood
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4839

posted 05 January 2005 11:42 PM      Profile for cottonwood     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not even from the Lower Mainland and this challenge seems too easy. Insufficient revenue sources for municipal governments coupled with drastic reductions in taxes and services at both the federal and provincial level. How do you figure COPE is to blame? All the cities are begging for money to deal with issues like low income housing.
From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Privateer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3446

posted 05 January 2005 11:47 PM      Profile for Privateer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
City councillors here in Halifax will point out that poverty and homelessness are primarily provincial issues. Municipal politicians can only help indirectly.
From: Haligonia | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7142

posted 06 January 2005 12:05 AM      Profile for Left Turn        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, this is what happens when the provincial government pulls the support out from under the most vulnerable people in society. Which, by the way, CBC did not mention. But then the mainstream media rarely bothers to relate news stories to their underlying causes.
From: BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 06 January 2005 02:15 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
VanLuke, don't be silly. The municipal government has limited powers and limited abilities compared to that of the provincial government. The only thing that might save Vancouver is the fact that property assessments have shot up dramatically, and so with it, property tax revenues.

I've seen with my own freakin' eyes this increase in the homeless. Every city block I walk downtown now has its homeless guy or girl begging for change. It's like the goddamn Great Depression.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 06 January 2005 03:42 AM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was just in Van for the first time in a while Tuesday, and the number of homeless did strike me as being higher from my last real visit around a year ago around this time....

Has another "tent village" emerged somewhere like that around the old Expo grounds a year or so back? Mind you... if you know of one, perhaps it shouldn't be advertised.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 06 January 2005 03:54 AM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve:
I'm not even from the Lower Mainland and this challenge seems too easy. Insufficient revenue sources for municipal governments coupled with drastic reductions in taxes and services at both the federal and provincial level. How do you figure COPE is to blame? All the cities are begging for money to deal with issues like low income housing.

Jeesh Steve of course COPE is to blame, they've basically created all the problems Vancouver faces by not solving everything in the whole world. Hello what's your problem by not blaming it on them? It's not as if the policies of the provincial government have anything to do with this.

I don’t think BC's economic downturn in 2001, 2002 and the begging of 2003 helped increase the number of homeless.

Also the fact that a lot of people come to Vancouver thinking that it's some sort of new start, even though they have nothing to begin with (the sort who are ripe to become homeless in the first place) has nothing to do with this.

Remember it’s all COPE’s fault. All of it!

/sarcasm

Seriously though PJ:

quote:
Has another "tent village" emerged somewhere like that around the old Expo grounds a year or so back?

Not that I've seen.

Just an increase in homeless throughout the city, you can see it in a lot of strange places. Near Oakridge Mall, in the South West portion of (a very nice neighbourhood I might add), I saw homeless people a few months back. Other than that Mall it's a very residential neighbourhood with relativley high property values.

[ 06 January 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 06 January 2005 12:40 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Isn't it strange that I DID NOT use the word 'blame'. I used 'explanation' and some posters have provided exactly that while others just react to ANY criticism of COPE.

So maybe my question was silly or maybe just not fully considered.

No need to mount the barricades immediately.

It seems one is not allowed to criticise COPE even from the left when they didn't even bother to correct their website which still says they are for frozen transit fares. I know, I know it was not COPE's fault. But why did Larry have to vote for an increase when it would have passed just the same? To spit into the faces of the poor?

And it was this *perceived* attitude towards the poor that led me to pose the question. Silly maybe, but it was a question, which apparently is enough for some to swing into attack mode immediately.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 06 January 2005 01:19 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
By the way, exactly the same thing happened in Ontario under Mike Harris. Despite having the good luck of governing during a strong economic boom, the number of homeless in Toronto and elsewhere in Ontario skyrocketed, due to a whole host of provincial actions:

-kicking people off of welfare
-reducing rates for those who remained
-bailing out of public housing and dumping it on the cities
-weakening rent controls and tenant protections

Meanwhile, the cities (especially Toronto) could do very little about homelessness, because the province was downloading costs and actively restricting revenues.

I can't speak to the situation in Vancouver and B.C., but I suspect that it's similar.


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 06 January 2005 05:15 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It was a silly question therefore I razzed you with sarcasm VanLuke; jeesh you don't have to be so serious about it.

Of course homelessness is a serious issue, and yes COPE (light) has done some shitty things (i.e.: the transit fare increases) -- but that was just a strange use of logic on your part.


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
speechpoet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3693

posted 06 January 2005 05:18 PM      Profile for speechpoet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
VanLuke, with respect, that's a little too cute. When you title a thread "CBC says the number of homeless people in Vancouver has doubled in the last 3 years," and then ask babble's "many defenders of COPE" to explain it, you're laying a pretty clear trail of implied responsibility -- especially when you then toss off "Please don't mention the Woodward's Building again. We all know about it."
From: Sunny Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 06 January 2005 05:42 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was just reading the Fraser Institute's explanation for homelessness and usual pro-market clap trap. Somebody give me a virtual slap, please. Those guys are so out of touch it's not funny anymore.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 06 January 2005 05:53 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Come on out to Calgary and I'll slap that inner pinko you've got so hard he goes democratic.
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 06 January 2005 06:03 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I sense real frustration from one of our right brained lurkers.

So who cares about homeless people ?. What can they do to "pull themselves up by their own boot straps" and escape the free market in poverty ?.

If I remember conservative math correctly, there are more than enough jobs to go around and housing,too. It's just that the poor are weak and lazy, is that how it goes ?.

[ 06 January 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 06 January 2005 10:29 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What really astounds me is the fact that I started a thread writing four sentences (not counting the ref to CBC News) one of which was a question and there is this huge flood of answers!

Hey I asked a fu***ng question! HELLO!!!

And for those of you who can only read selectively: I said above that maybe it was a silly question. I am not a redneck after all.

The fact that I have stated several reasons in the past why I don't like what COPE has done (and I voted for them) has got nothing to do with this.

There was little of substance too, especially from the most virulent.

Not a comparison of how much the city spent in each of the last three years in order to alleviate the problem in relation to the total expenditures each year.

That would mean work. Invective is so much easier and so much more fun.

I don't know the figures and for all I know maybe they spend three times as much money as three years ago.

But hell, instead of getting your knickers in a twist because somebody says spomething 'bad' about COPE you could have just refuted me.

Actually, you couldn't because I only asked a question - no matter how loaded it may have been - it was still a question. I'm not allowed to ask a question which by implication seems to put COPE in a bad light? Would that be fascist?

I don't know who said it, maybe it was Lenin, Kautsky was the first revisionist.

And you social democrats are one hell of a bunch. You just want to run the system with a more human face.

Some of us still dream of liberation.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 06 January 2005 10:33 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
... that was just a strange use of logic on your part.

Kindly explain that.
What logic?


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 06 January 2005 11:09 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
FWIW my nickers are fine -- and completely un-twisted.

As for this:

quote:
I'm not allowed to ask a question which by implication seems to put COPE in a bad light? Would that be fascist?

Ask as many questions as you want -- hell claim that Larry Campbell is essentially a centrist running under a left-wing banner. It's basically true.

But it's not fascist for us to dismiss a claim that COPE is somehow responsible for increased homelessness. That's the point of this thread -- therefore I don't see how a dismissal of your point is fascist.

Maybe I was a bit flippant with regards to you but your a grown up -- it's not like I was being mean or completely evading your original question. I simply disagreed with it by being sarcastic -- but if you want to be completely serious fine then. I'm quite serious here because it's ironic for you to claim fascist oppression by me -- when you type all that vitriol to essentially get people to go your way. Or at least that's the way it comes across -- thus it's ironic because it's fascist on your point (if you must use the word fascist).

[Oh look what you started a meta subject about whose being a fascist -- loaded words yay ]

Oh yeah the logic on your part was that COPE has been in power for 2 and half years -- homlessness has risen in the last 3 years -- therefore COPE is responsible for this increase in homlessness. Either in part or in whole.

[ 06 January 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 06 January 2005 11:18 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by speechpoet:
VanLuke, with respect, that's a little too cute. When you title a thread "CBC says the number of homeless people in Vancouver has doubled in the last 3 years," and then ask babble's "many defenders of COPE" to explain it, you're laying a pretty clear trail of implied responsibility -- especially when you then toss off "Please don't mention the Woodward's Building again. We all know about it."

Just wanted to say that you are absolutely right.

But this is a bbs; people make provocative statements through thread titles all the time. And I've expressed displeasure with COPE on various threads many times before.

Nevertheless, I only asked a question.

P.S. I'm waiting for two people at City Hall to call me back. I left messages. I'd like to know some figures. One of them is the Budget Director. Hopefully she'll have the figures. .... if she calls me back ....

Even though I fully agree that the City can't really do ALL THAT MUCH about this problem it is IMHO stil a worthwhile question to ask about Larry Campbell and Friends: How do the poor fare under their policies?

We already know where they stand on transit fares. It's quite something that Larry felt it necessary to express his personal preferences. No other explanation possible because the fare hike would have passed even if he had abstained. (Voted against it? Are you kidding? lol lol lol)

Have they done their best to improve the lot of the homeless with the limited resources at their disposal?

Analysis ought to be the tool of any left opposition.

Anybody got some real budget numbers?

I tried to wade through some 200 page document, or more. I gave up. One fund after another.

Any one of you got any figures?


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 06 January 2005 11:26 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Vansterdam Kid

"all that vitriol"

In which of the four sentences or the title of the thread please?

Retraction?

And just where did I say this?

"Oh yeah the logic on your part was that COPE has been in power for 2 and half years -- homlessness has risen in the last 3 years -- therefore COPE is responsible for this increase in homlessness. Either in part or in whole."

Retraction?

[ 06 January 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 06 January 2005 11:30 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Retraction what?

The vitrol I'm refering to is the general tone of your post at 10:29pm babble time.

[on edit]

Okay I know what your saying now you want me to retract it -- but I stand by my statements. I didn't say you said that COPE was in power therefore it caused homlessness -- you insinuated it rather directly -- by saying:

with the thread title -- Topic: CBC says the number of homeless people in Vancouver has doubled in the last 3 years

and then you said...

quote:
There are many defenders of COPE on this board. Any explanations offered?

Please don't mention the Woodward's Building again. We all know about it.


What were you insinuating if you wern't insinuating COPE's culpability with regards to this subject?

[ 06 January 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 06 January 2005 11:37 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Kindly comment on what I WROTE

Not on what you think I'm insinuating (rightly or wrongly).

Proof or retraction? What is it going to be.

I DID NOT SAY WHAT YOU ALLEGED.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 06 January 2005 11:40 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
and you are getting close to shutting me up.

It's just not worth it.

I am not campainging against Larry. I am not running for office. But I would like to be able to freely express my opinions.

Happy if I give up?

Fascist because of getting me to shut up?

Maybe not.

And you're sooooo predictable. It's the same strategy on every thread where I said something negative about Larry and friends. RAV, plebiscite and more. You remember.

Geoff Meggs couldn't do better.

[ 06 January 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 06 January 2005 11:41 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
CBC says

????

and btw if these people at City Hall ever call me back I will post the figures here WHATEVER they may 'indicate'.

One of them is Judy Graves (often interviewed on the news about the plight of homeless people and not only do I know her personally, we live within a couple of blocks .... anyway she hasn't called me back yet even though I ran into her just a couple of weeks ago at Cambie and Broadway, ... strange? maybe...) the other is the Budget Director Ms. Klein (Kline?) the main switch board referred me to.

604-871-6375 for Ms Klein [spl?]

No answer from either so far.

I don't think any increases or decreases in the municipal budget necessarily indicates anything but would like to have some info and intelligent discussion that doesn't always turn questions and inquiry into battles. But look above at all the attacks BEFORE any response by myself.

[ 07 January 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 07 January 2005 12:02 AM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Geoff Meggs couldn't do better.

He couldn't!!! Oh boy as a bona-fide sell-out quasi left but clearly not left leaning enough person I thank you. (At least compared to your average conservative or liberal.) [this paragraph was edited too]

I basically have a job lined up as a sycophant. Wow sometimes it's difficult to know what you want to do when your 19 years old but, now I know.

It's all because of you Larry Campbell and your COPEster friends -- I essentially defended you -- and in the process found my calling.

/sarcasm

[FWIW I'm not trying to make light of homelessness -- I'm essentially telling you in a light way that this 'back and forth' is becoming pointless because I have not insulted you therefore you can have 'your' thread back -- thus you 'win']

Oh yeah I know this post is cheesy -- [edit] but so is this thread.

[ 07 January 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 07 January 2005 12:06 AM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
indeed
From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 07 January 2005 12:17 AM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Vansterdam Kid

Did I miss it? Did you offer a SINGLE FACT in relation to the topic, however phrased:

Homelessness increased over the last three years.

Please point out to me where above you commented on the issue rather than on my (alleged) COPE bashing?


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 07 January 2005 12:19 AM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In case you missed it, this was the topic:

"CBC says the number of homeless people in Vancouver has doubled in the last 3 years"


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pete Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6814

posted 09 January 2005 08:03 PM      Profile for Pete Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve:
Insufficient revenue sources for municipal governments coupled with drastic reductions in taxes and services at both the federal and provincial level. How do you figure COPE is to blame?


Well, perhaps a municipality can't do anything COPE should remove all the sections of their platform where they make promises in areas that they have no power to do anything. COPE said "vote for us and we'll reduce the number of homeless people." Specifically:

"COPE's New Solutions for housing in Vancouver:
A COPE Council will work increase and maintain safe, affordable housing and take action to decrease homelessness.

Strengthen Vancouver's standards of maintenance by-law to ensure buildings do not fall into states of disrepair. Currently the maximum fine for a by-law infraction is $2000. A COPE city council would impose a strict deadline for compliance with the by-law and would incrementally increase the fine with each infraction.

Legalise secondary suites throughout the city to increase Vancouver's rental housing stock. Suites would have to adhere to basic safety and fire code guidelines.

Implement a anti-conversion and demolition control by-law to prevent market driven evictions of SRO tenants until other housing built.

Call on the provincial and federal governments to partner with the city to re-invest in social housing, and enhance the cold wet weather strategy to ensure no one dies on Vancouver streets due to lack of shelter."


I think this is VanLuke's point, they talk a good left and govern like Larry's real name is Gordon.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 09 January 2005 10:46 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Perhaps although it's a teeny strech. A centrist like Larry talking up the left, is a little diffrent than a righty like Gordon talking about his achievements in health-care and education. It's just that the way he talks about COPE makes it sound like the world is coming to an end if I disagree about X issue. It's a tad hyperbolic.

[ 09 January 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
theblond
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7096

posted 13 January 2005 03:07 AM      Profile for theblond   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It is demoralizing to be on the street homeless and now much of what they do to survive has been made illegal and then the dehumanization. It is frightening on the streets, they don’t know who is going to get them and they have to watch out for everyone even the police and it’s difficult to fall asleep at night and that is why many sleep in the day. These people have nowhere to go and no one who cares there are so many stories of police beating, raping for those no one listens to.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
theblond
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7096

posted 13 January 2005 05:37 AM      Profile for theblond   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"quote"

Just an increase in homeless throughout the city, you can see it in a lot of strange places. Near Oakridge Mall, in the South West portion of (a very nice neighbourhood I might add), I saw homeless people a few months back. Other than that Mall it's a very residential neighbourhood with relativley high property values.

More work of the police as I've heard the homeless complaining about being dropped off in classy neighborhoods forcing them to find their way back to the east side especially now when its so cold out and they would certainly find no help there.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
theblond
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7096

posted 13 January 2005 04:27 PM      Profile for theblond   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
An article on the poor/homeless plight back in 2003 and as the numbers increase things only get harder for them.

http://resist.ca/story/2003/10/5/13464/3836


From: Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 13 January 2005 04:34 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks for the link, blond. I hope we find out more about the state of homelessness in that so called liberal province.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 13 January 2005 04:51 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
It's a tad hyperbolic.

[ 09 January 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


Perhaps it is. I'm not known to be a very laid back person.

However, the fact that you come down on me like one of the furies the moment I say something negative about COPE doesn't help me to remain calm.

You've done it on three threads (rav_pay for it, something related to the 'plebiscite' and here, where at last count I did not find anything related to homelessness except your one statement that you are concerned about) basically demolishing them through lots of arguments, many having no substantive relation to the topic but are nothing but perosnal attacks.


Getting back to the topic: I left messages with 2 people at City Hall, Judy Graves who works with the homless and the budget director. I told the latter I wanted to find out how much the expenditures related to homelessness were 3 years ago and how much they are now. (Have you had a look at the City's budget? Who can find anything there? I got years of accounting experience and I gave up after going from one "fund" to another)

The fact that neither one called me back (and as mentioned I know Judy personally makes me very suspicious.

And as pointed out above, why don't they remove from their website promises they can't keep, or at the very least promises they have defintely broken?

Believe it or not, it still says -and has since before the elction- that they are against raising transit fares.

I know, I know it would have passed without Gordon's -sorry Larry's- vote but him voting for it was likle spitting in my face.

Btw I'm not the only one who is disgusted -and wish others would use some 'hyperbole' too beccause it stinks!

Here are some extracts from elsewhere:

Georgia Straight 23-Dec-2004
"Larry and His Gang Accused of Selling Out

Thanks to Charlie Smith for his insightful article "COPE's Gang of Four Revolutionizes Party" [December 16-23]. As usual, Smith pretty nearly hits the nail on the head.

He warns that there may one day be a "thunderous reaction against" Larry Campbell and his yes men for taking over COPE. I don't claim to be full of thunder, but I am one of many from within and without the party who are strongly resisting the direction Campbell and his cronies are taking the party and the city. I have torn up my COPE membership card and will no longer organize for the party.

I became active in COPE because I saw a possibility for a Vancouver that would support all of its members. As an active fundraiser for the party, I was instructed to tell people that COPE supported the vision of more buses and lower fares. (It still says so on their Web site.) As we have seen with the recent fare increase, Campbell and Raymond Louie do not support bus riders and have no problem breaking election promises. Voters and party members were lied to. In the last election, Campbell said that he wanted a city where there would be no throwaway people, where no one would be left behind. These statements are pretty ironic now that starting January 1 even more low-income bus riders will not have the option of using public transit, being thrown away and left behind for a public-private-partnership RAV line.

The COPE executive has affirmed its support for Larry Campbell in a bid to keep him in the party. Rather than kowtow to the Gang of Four's demands, COPE must tell it like it is and say that Campbell and his gang have sold out the party and its principles in a gross bid for power."

Spencer Herbert
Former youth chair
and COPE fundraiser
Vancouver

http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=7227

Frome COPE's website:
"COPE will ... keep transit fares frozen."
http://www.cope.bc.ca/index.cfm/fuseaction/page.inside/pageID/DB00B786-CA54-47A8-8A7F20A3E0002DE3/index.html

"... The motion to increase fares was defeated less than two weeks ago, but reappeared on the October 15 agenda as a "motion of reconsideration", put forward by Vancouver COPE Councilor Raymond Louie...."
http://www.vsw.ca/october.htm

"...Prior to the 2002 election, COPE council candidates told the West-Ender that they opposed the introduction of slot machines into Vancouver. This set them apart from a new party called vcaTEAM. After the election, the Gang of Four voted to end the moratorium and introduce up to 1,500 slot machines in the city. The provincial government had gotten what it wanted....

Some voters chose COPE in 2002 because of its promise to freeze transit fares and stop transit megaprojects that drain dollars away from the bus system. However, two members of COPE's Gang of Four, Campbell and Louie, chose instead to support transit-fare increases at the TransLink board. They also approved the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit public-private partnership, upsetting traditional COPE councillors but pleasing senior levels of government. ...

Before the election, COPE promised to bring back a four-day work week for City Hall workers, but it never happened. This pleased developers, who are thrilled with the Gang of Four's support for their industry. Before the election, COPE reiterated its 36-year-old promise to introduce a ward system. That never occurred, in part because of the Gang of Four's halfhearted campaign for a yes vote in the plebiscite. In the past, COPE candidates often criticized the lack of spending limits in municipal politics. After the election, the Gang of Four's leader said he didn't feel spending limits were necessary in plebiscites on the Olympics and on electoral reform. "

http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=7117

"Mayor Campbell also pursued the previous NPA policy of shifting part of the property-tax load from the commercial to the residential sector. This came despite COPE's claim in a pre-election Georgia Straight questionnaire that it would not offset reduced commercial taxes with higher residential property taxes. ...

COPE even made a mockery of its pre-election promise to introduce "more rigorous campaign funding disclosure rules" by refusing to release its list of postelection contributors...."

"COPE Council Stays True to NPA Vision"
Georgia Straight Dec 2003

And of course the dishonesty surrounding the Olympic 'plebiscite' should not be forgotten. I'm talking about the Olympic bid referendum, the plebiscite, call it what you will. Both words mean the same, and neither one is mentioned in the Vancouver Charter.

Jim Green's explanation that a new voters list would be necessary if it was called a "referendum," and that by calling it "plebiscite," COPE was just trying to save money, does not hold any water. In fact, no new voters list is ever necessary if Council wishes. Section 32 of the Vancouver Charter provides for using the provincial list, and Section 27, which Council decided to use in the end, allows for registration at the polls on voting day.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 13 January 2005 05:24 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albireo:
the number of homeless in Toronto and elsewhere in Ontario skyrocketed, due to a whole host of provincial actions:

-kicking people off of welfare
-reducing rates for those who remained
-bailing out of public housing and dumping it on the cities
-weakening rent controls and tenant protections


Wasn't there also an issue of people being released from psychiatric care to save money who weren't anywhere close to being able to function yet?

Whenever someone tells me the Liberals are no better than the Tories I only have to remember the mean-spirited glee with which the Harris government set out to hurt the most vulnerable members of society. Liberals are crooks and liars, for sure, but for true hatefullness you need an avowed right-winger. (And of course in BC those avowed right-wingers ARE Liberals).

[ 13 January 2005: Message edited by: RealityBites ]


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 13 January 2005 07:01 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
VanLuke Personal attacks really now.

Who called whom Geoff Meggs? (With a negative conintation.)

Passive-aggressive? Maybe yes I am. I’m essentially making fun of the hyperbole in your claims, there’s a difference between that and directly attacking you.

But Personal attacks? You're the one who initiated anything that could be perceived as an attack. If I really attacked you personally you could've mailed a complaint to Audra and she would've investigated, but I'm still here with absolutely no warning because these alleged personal attacks from me are fiction. Beyond saying that you’re going off the handle and being obsessed with COPE (observations not an attacks) there has been nothing of the sort on my part.

As for my temperament, I'll admit I'm a bit laid-back sometimes strangely so (at least in the personal sense). But when I compare the way a Larry Campbell has acted to many other things in this world I just can't get angry with Larry Campbell. At worst he's one Fire Ant whereas the other Campbell is a swarm of Hornets.

As for your questions they are good ones and hopefully you get answers too them (the ones you asked at city hall) -- but how responsible for homelessness is the municipal government? Isn’t the federal and provincial government far more responsible?

[ 13 January 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 13 January 2005 07:41 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Vansterdam Kid

I did NOT call you Geoff Meggs.
I said Geoff Meggs would be proud of you. He is Larry's spin doctor and (in my perception) that's what you seem to do a lot

IMHO you wrecked 3 of the threads I started. (Please tell me what you have contributed on this one here for instance other than attacking me except one sentence saying you didn't want to belittle the problem?)

You even resorted to the lamest of flames when you flamed me for writing Grodo (an obvious typo) instead of Gordo when the context made it entirely clear that I was referring to our beloved Premier.

When you gave advice on the thread dealing with wrecking threads I was very tempted to tell you that IMHO you had not right to give advice since you are a wrecker yourself.

I resisted because I don't enjoy these acrimonious exchanges either. When have I ever made it impossible for you to discuss anything?

Your response here doesn't surprise me the least and is more or less what I expected.

Of course it's all my fault and you're innocent like a new born baby.

Now I have to go to confession.

P.S. "but how responsible for homelessness is the municipal government? Isn’t the federal and provincial government far more responsible?"

That is entirely possible and I would never come down on you for saying that as indeed I haven't done with the person who siad it above.

And it's related to the subject, something that is often entirely absent when you (in my perception) wreck a thread I started because I don't like the how I got screwed (again my perception) by COPE and their lies.

As I told you before, with one exception (PQ in 1976 and they presented themselves as social democratic anyway) I have voted social democrat all my life. So it's not that I'm some member of Social Credit or the BC Liberals wanting to trash COPE for ideological reasons or just the fun of it.

I am disgusted with Larry Campbell and the rest of COPE Light and the fact that they seem to think they can just stick it to me. They are destroying COPE (I'm not the only one who is pissed off) and I'm surprised that doesn't concern you. At least it doesn't seem to concern you.

Of course this is also off thread but hardly avoidable with a bunch of opportunists who say one thing and think they can do another.

Please note the words "my perception" and don't start arguing with me about having delusions or something.

The priest is waiting for me, got to go.

[ 13 January 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 13 January 2005 10:36 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeesh.

Social services are not mandated to local governments. Nevertheless, local is where homelessness happens, and many municipal governments feel a lot of pressure to do something.

Just as a point of comparison, COPE and City Hall in Vancouver (even with the NPA) have done a lot more than most municipalities. That's not difficult, because most municipalities do absolutely nothing (that costs money) about homelessness. They aren't mandated to do it, they don't have the budget to do it, and they often don't have a clue how to do it.

That being said, COPE has made significant progress in a number of areas. Let's start with the most important ones:

1. Secondary suite policy. Until a few months ago, basement suites etc. were illegal. Secondary suites are now legal, and therefore subject to regulation. It also means it is possible for homeowners to get loans to do renovations and add secondary suites. This leads directly into more affordable housing (therefore less homelessness in the long term).

2. Yes, Woodwards. These things take time, it's not City Hall slowing it down.

3. SRO freezing. Not only halting the number of SROs evicting their tenants and going upscale, but working to improve them. Thus, a mitigation of homelessness.

They are also looking at a variety of other zoning changes etc. to increase the number of possible types of housing being built. This is crucial, because current zoning has a number of outdated requirements that essentially FORCE developers to build big, expensive or not at all.

There is still more they could do, absolutely. Fire Jamie Graham would be a good start.

As for the causes of the increase in homelessness, that's easier. Income Assistance eligibility has been slashed in the past 3.5 years. Large numbers of people have been dumped off the IA rolls. SOme of them have found employment, many have not. No income + no rent + no home.

A number of other factors have also contributed to the increase in homelessness. Cuts to support services for youths and adults with mental illness. Cuts to addiction and shelter services. Cuts to women's services. These all have impacts, particularly when taken all together. When people are unable to access the support they need, when they need it, they fall through the cracks and end up homeless.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 13 January 2005 10:55 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You only think I'm a thread wrecker because I'm not acquiescing to your point of thinking. And frankly I could care less -- if you want no disagreement (and yeah my perception of my actions are VASTLY different from yours) then state it when you start a thread -- although if you do it will be a dry thread to say the least.

Or maybe you should start a blog or something? Seriously -- www.che-lives.com has a lot of ideological purity.

COPE's presentation however is a concern, although I don't see anything that can be done about it unless. A) One side 'purges' the other, B) everyone shuts up and hammers out an agreement on what issues to take up and which ones not to or C) they act like grown-ups and realize that they can have disagreements (including splits in votes) and still be in the same party or not deliberately try to undermine each other.

Frankly COPE ‘classic’ should've known that Larry Campbell would be pretty centrist, wasn't it obvious? He kept saying he has never joined a political party before -- and he lives in Point Grey how left wing can he be?

I’m not a member of COPE therefore I can’t do anything about anything -- this is up to the membership to decide their orientation.

Thanks for the content re: the homlessness issue arborman. Intresting links Luke.

[note I haven't really explored my link extremely well therefore I don't know the quality of the discourse on that site]

[ 13 January 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 13 January 2005 11:02 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
arborman

Thank you for this informative and insightful post.

I really appreciate it (even though many of the items listed were not unknown to me) May be in part becaue it was so well organised and presented.

I'm not some kind of reactionary and I do realise they have done some (maybe even lots) of good.

And Larry can be such a charming guy. Like he was on Mercer's show last Monday.

But why does he have to act like a prick at times?

[ 13 January 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 13 January 2005 11:06 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Vansterdam Kid

don't you realise you're still derailing this thread?

Thanks to people like arborman there's some content, some beginnings of discussion.

I know from past discussions that arborman is close to COPE and very forgiving of the things they've done that he doesn't approve of. He's expressed this publicly on another thread (that -sorry to say- you also ruined). But that's irrelevant. Because he presented a brilliant analysis instead of empty statements. An analysis perhaps somewhat biased in favour
of COPE. But that's OK. None of us has the truth.

With you it seems unacceptable to say anything negative about COPE.

As I said, 'none of us has the truth'; could we please discuss reality to maybe get a little closer to "truth"?

Even obvious things are not always obvious even to intelligent people. Like when it was pointed out to me very early on -and I fully agree with this and don't really know why this had to be pointed out to me- that this is hardly a problem a municipality can handle.

I still would like to know if the City spends the same amount, or less, than it spent 3 years ago.

But as somebody pointed out above, the provincial cuts are probably one big factor. So, as you can see there is some kind of discussion going on here, one where we can all learn from one another.

So why don't you contribute your opinions/knowledge about the issue? I always read you with interest when you're talking to others. I think you got lots of interesting things to say and I've enjoyed many of your contributions or enjoyed contributing information you requested.

Didn't you have that thread on classical music? And that lovely image thread you started; actually I think there were several.

We should be able to discuss publicly.

So go ahead make our day

[ 13 January 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 13 January 2005 11:31 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay I'm not going to talk about anything not to do with political issues anymore on this thread, or at least I'll endeavour not to.

quote:
But why does he have to act like a prick at times?

I think he's used of getting his way perhaps since he's usually 'the boss'. The very fact that ideologically anyways he's a centrist and 5 of the councillors are strongly to the left of him means that there will be arguments -- and he won't be able to assert his dominance. Especially in a municipal setting where party discipline isn't as strong as at higher levels. Therefore he probably gets frustrated and acts out in such a way.

As for the homelessness issue, perhaps regional municipal governments should co-ordinate to a greater extent considering the lack of help from higher levels. One city, regardless of Vancouver's size, can't do too much. Considering Vancouver's revenue power and size I think they've done a decent job on the homelessness issue. As in I think they're making more concrete actions than platitudes on average. Obviously however since the issue is still an issue it's not enough -- but considering outside sources such as migration of homeless from other parts of the country to Vancouver there's not a whole lot the municipality can do to solve the entire issue.


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 13 January 2005 11:44 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
before reading your post I want to tell you and everyone else that I made massive changes to the post you responded to.

Sorry. I didn't expect a rapid response and added quite a bit to the message Vansterdam Kid responded to.

I read your very interesting post but won't respond before you had a chance to do so.

[ 13 January 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 14 January 2005 07:58 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Saying I don't accept any criticism of COPE is completely unfair. If you noticed the Wards vote thread I criticized their bizarre approach, after the vote, once it was clear that they were rather incompetent in handling the issue. So tactically I don't really think they're that with it on many issues. If I were a yes man I would say "there's nothing wrong -- move a long" -- I haven't though.

Whether or not the city spends more or less, I don't know. They seem to spend more considering the Woodwords building thing -- and their less dictatorial approach when compared to the former NPA administration. That being said I don't have concrete figures.

As for my thoughts on the issue of homelessness, I think it should be dealt with by providing housing through a national framework for individuals and especially families. An individual city providing a good framework will be fairly useless if it's swamped due to the lack of a national or at least regional/provincial strategy. I'm not saying the city should be off the hook, however the city should consider putting a greater emphasises in taking a leadership role in lobbying high levels of government (or uniting municipal governments) in common action.

Yes I started the thread on classical music, thanks for the complement.


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 14 January 2005 08:23 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
Saying I don't accept any criticism of COPE is completely unfair. If you noticed the Wards vote thread I criticized their bizarre approach, after the vote, once it was clear that they were rather incompetent in handling the issue. .

That is true.
My apologies.
I was actually quite surprised to read your posts there. (Told you I enjoyed reading your posts. )

Don't forget to listen to Carmina Burana; it'll probably blow your mind.

[ 14 January 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 16 January 2005 03:32 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It may even be worse in Victoria. It's estimated that the number of homeless doubled in a year.

http://tinyurl.com/3oedj

[ 16 January 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
theblond
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7096

posted 17 January 2005 02:32 AM      Profile for theblond   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This mess was made long before Larry Campbell came along and his voice is the one of the few I've heard taking issue with the Provincial government with regards to the homeless problem. However I will have to agree if your not part of the solution your part of the problem.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 18 January 2005 01:52 AM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
and since I have since read on a thread dealing with the same problem in MEtro TO I cannot totally accept the argument some made above that a city council can do nothing or very little.

I agree, the solution should come form the national government, or in their absence from the provincial one. But surely, if there was nothing a city could do why are they debating it?

And arborman if you can tell us -since City Hall doesn't call me back- if the City spent more, or the same 3 years ago on programs related to homelessness, it wouldn't amount to stabbing your friends in the back if the figures point in a direction not necessarily found attractive on the surface. (How much more delicate can I get? It is not my purpose to stab COPE in the back; it actually pains me)

Judy didn't call me back neither did the Budget Director. I'm sure you have many "inside connections" judging by your succinct summaries of the results of COPE action. So please try and find this info and share it with all of us.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 18 January 2005 02:55 AM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That thread has more to do with the OCAP and their radical tactics than Toronto's municipal goverment. There's also various side discussions about the political and psychological positioning of the working and middle class and their attitudes towards the poor. (And the side show discussion about pissing on a side walk.)

But I think the very fact that it's an issue in multiple urban areas shows that it is a national problem.


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 18 January 2005 05:22 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Nobody denies this

Does this mean that cities can do nothing?

And what exactly has the City of Vancouver done, or not done in the last three years?

I don't know and it you do you don't share it with us.

Why should the city get involved in Woodward's housing if it's a national problem and cities can't do anything?

Not that you have said that. But why repeat the same thing about it being a national problem over and over again?

We all agreed on that


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 18 January 2005 06:44 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Because you brought it up again, so I brought my point up again -- what the city has and hasn't done. Therefore I brought the national thing up again. I don't see anything wrong with this persay -- although for the sake of conversation it's pointless.

But if you want to know what the city has done specifically related to this problem why don't you pohone a few city councillors and find out? City staff are all well and good (if they return your calls ) -- but the councillors are elected to represent the city citizens.


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 18 January 2005 10:44 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
no no no this won't do.

I didn't bring it up "again"; I started this thread. Then I noticed -and read- the TO thread.

You are evading again though amd when it suited you you mentioned Woodward's.

You can't have it both ways

Since you are so certain why should I bother to phone a city councellor? Why don't you share your info with us or admit you don't know much more than I do?

[ 18 January 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 19 January 2005 03:46 AM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes you brought it up because you noticed the Toronto thread. But the Toronto thread is talking about diffrent issues as you probably know. There's a discussion about personal responsibility, about social responsibility etc. It's not really focused on the role of the municipal goverment, and what the municipal goverment has or hasn't done.

I suggested that you phone a councillor because you started this thread and it seems very important to you personally. Beyond a spouting platitudes sort of thing. A councillor would be more likely to call you back imo, should they actually want you're vote. I said this considering the fact that you phoned a city staff person, and they didn't respond. Since a councillor is directly accountable to you and I one would think they would find that info out for you.

As for my knowledge on the specific question. Obviously I don't have any, I haven't provided you with any figures, so if you were just waiting for me to confirm it here you go -- I have no idea.

[ 19 January 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 19 January 2005 11:39 AM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

As for my knowledge on the specific question. Obviously I don't have any, I haven't provided you with any figures, so if you were just waiting for me to confirm it here you go -- I have no idea.

[ 19 January 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ][/QB]


That's what's I thought.
So what were you doing above (with the exception of one post)?
I raised a quaetion (loaded as it was, it was a question) and you did what exactly?

P.S. I phoned 2 people at City Hall, who didn't call me back and wouldn't know what councillor to phone. Who has to get my vote in an at large system?

Larry Campbell and Jim Green obviously seem to think they don't need my vote.

You are still "deflecting"

[ 19 January 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 19 January 2005 08:13 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If I'm deflecting something that's loaded well yeah of course! Although it's probably better if I stop even answering if something is loaded eh? I need to learn that.

As for the who has to get your vote thing -- theoretically all of the councillors and mayor since we're still stuck with the ever so lovely at-large system (I don't like the at-large system btw). But I suggest you phone one of Tim Louis, Fred Bass, Anne Roberts, Ellen Woodsworth or David Cadman. They are the COPE 'classic' folks who would probably be more intune with the issue, and since you don't really like Mayor Campbell or his allies (including Jim Green) there's probably no point in calling them imo.

[just re-read the Tor homless thread they've dove tailed back into homlessness and solutions, there was some might big thread drift before theough that's why i said it so you where right about that]

[ 20 January 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 20 January 2005 12:19 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
what's the point?

I sent an email to His Worship (OK I know he's NOT COPE Classic) about the dishonest nature (don't lecture me again, please! I proved it to you before) of the Olympic referendum.

He (or an assistant) even answered me telling me His Worship was sorry. In other words I can go and f**k myself.

As to your "deflections", let me sum up something here:

1) I posed a (loaded) question but had the honesty to include links to the problem (being worse) in Victoria and the babble thread about homelessness in Toronto. (The long post by the street nurse at the beginning does NOT deal with homelessness? Never mind 'thread drift')

2)We both stated we don't know what the city may, or may not, be doing.

3)You posted lots of pronouncements all -with one exception- unrelated to the topic.

Surprised that there is only you and me left here?

Surprised that I called you a thread wrecker?

Surprised if -once again- I give up on a thread I started due to your "good" work?

btw this is the 4th thread I started you managed to silence.

Mazeltov

[ 20 January 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca