(02-07-2019, 10:22 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(02-07-2019, 08:55 PM)jamincan Wrote: As much as I disagree with Davey on this issue, you have to give him credit for having a dialogue about it.

No I don't, and frankly, I've blocked him at this point.

Or more specifically, I disagree that he's having a dialog, he's not listening to issues, or evaluating facts, he's trying to justify himself, nothing more.

(02-16-2019, 03:38 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(02-16-2019, 02:58 PM)clasher Wrote: "data-driven discussion"!? Did he vote in favour or against the big study that was proposed and then cancelled?

He absolutely voted against it.

(02-02-2019, 09:43 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(02-01-2019, 06:40 PM)Canard Wrote: The bit that confuses me is they're all "DONT EVER USE SALT!!!!!!!!!! SALT KILLS UNBORN BABIES AND KITTENS!!!!!!!!!111" and then you see this:

Hey, where is that, I need to pick up some salt for my driveway!

(I know where it is, just funny to think that enough salt to supply my house for a season is probably dumped like that in each of many locations every time there is a large snowfall)

More seriously, you’ve located another example of bad-faith argumentation. Those people don’t really care about salt; if they did they would bring it up as a separate issue applying to all snow clearing, not as a “but, but, but…” with respect to City clearing of sidewalks. It’s like people who say “shouldn’t we consider Hyperloop?” when an LRT project is about to begin construction — usually they don’t really want Hyperloop, which doesn’t actually exist now anyway, they just want to stop the LRT project. And I’m sure there are other examples.

(02-14-2019, 02:26 PM)MidTowner Wrote:

(02-14-2019, 11:32 AM)Spokes Wrote: I think it's just further showing that this bylaw is broken

It is. The bylaw is clear in the standards it imposes on property owners. Very few property owners are in compliance with it for any length of time during the winter. Those are not the standards the municipal government would set for itself if it didn't delegate the work.

(02-15-2019, 11:13 AM)clasher Wrote: The labour costs to have proper enforcement would probably be similar to just paying people to clear the sidewalks. There's still sidewalks on my street that are iced over from last week FFS.

(02-16-2019, 03:52 PM)Canard Wrote: I told them the shovels with google-eyes were creepy and he said I’d made someone feel bad who worked on it.

(02-16-2019, 03:38 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(02-16-2019, 02:58 PM)clasher Wrote: "data-driven discussion"!? Did he vote in favour or against the big study that was proposed and then cancelled?

He absolutely voted against it.

Yeah, if he's interested in a data driven decision, he has a funny way of showing it.

(02-16-2019, 08:08 PM)jeffster Wrote: Found this from Mr. Davey interesting: "or punish the good stewards of our city with higher taxation for the sake of the uncompassionate few who fail to do their civic duty."

1) Many people in this city are OLD! When we have rain, snow, ice pellets, freezing rain, etc, falling on our sidewalks, making these area's passable in a timely and regular fashion, is very difficult. It's hard enough for the able bodied to keep on top of this -- especially without the help of -- gasp -- salt, let alone those with disabilities, or the aged. Calling them "uncompassionate" is just wrong. Or perhaps Mr. Davey doesn't know what the definition of compassion is. Perhaps he needs to do research on what compassion is. I get that he did mention this in his editorial, but he's not understanding how widespread the problem is with people who simply are unable to handle this issue.

2) We're not 'punishing' 'good stewards' of 'our city' with 'high taxation' for the sake of those that are apparently 'uncompassionate'.  What we're trying to do is create a safe passage for anyone that walks, cycles (I am fine with this), parents with strollers, and those on mobility scooters to travel safely and consistently.

3) No matter where you go in this city, there are huge chucks of sidewalks that haven't been cleared. This alleged 'few who fail to do their civic duty', is actually a huge number of people that either don't, or can't, do that 'civic duty'. What happens when we have out-of-town landlords that simply can't make it into the city safely due to the weather? Leave it up to the tenants to clear the ice and snow?

The only person I see here that is devoid of compassion is Mr. Davey.

What I do see is the city not wanting this responsibility, not because of a 3.5% hike in property taxes (and city portion only, excludes regional portion), but because of the concern of any lawsuits that might come about for failing to do this job in a timely fashion.

For what it's worth, I live in a section of Kitchener across from a forest. We're totally in-town, but no sidewalks. I don't use sidewalks as I drive everywhere, especially since they took away our GRT route away when the LRT was approved. But I am still okay with the property tax hike because it will help out a lot of people.

However, Mr. Davey is right at one point -- there is no 100% perfect solution. No matter how hard the city tries, no matter how hard home owners try, and no matter how hard they try to help each other, there are always going to be times where sidewalks are not walkable, just like the roads are not clear of snow.

(02-16-2019, 11:05 PM)the_councillor Wrote: Well, I was hoping for a bit of a discussion this evening but I'm off for tonight as my posts apparently take more than an hour to be "approved by a moderator".

Why not post first and review later like everywhere else?

(02-16-2019, 09:17 PM)the_councillor Wrote:

(02-15-2019, 11:13 AM)clasher Wrote: The labour costs to have proper enforcement would probably be similar to just paying people to clear the sidewalks. There's still sidewalks on my street that are iced over from last week FFS.

(02-16-2019, 03:52 PM)Canard Wrote: I told them the shovels with google-eyes were creepy and he said I’d made someone feel bad who worked on it.

yeah... it was mean.

(02-16-2019, 11:32 PM)tomh009 Wrote: As a non-profit site, we are all volunteers, and unfortunately none of the mods were online earlier this evening. 


FYI: New members' posts are initially moderated to enable us manage the spam levels, not to block discussion.

(02-16-2019, 08:48 PM)the_councillor Wrote:

(02-07-2019, 10:22 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: No I don't, and frankly, I've blocked him at this point.

Or more specifically, I disagree that he's having a dialog, he's not listening to issues, or evaluating facts, he's trying to justify himself, nothing more.

Choosing to block someone based on their respectful opposing views is quite telling.

Some of us engage those with differing views to refine their perspective... like me on this thread for example.

(02-16-2019, 09:04 PM)the_councillor Wrote:

(02-02-2019, 09:43 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Hey, where is that, I need to pick up some salt for my driveway!

(I know where it is, just funny to think that enough salt to supply my house for a season is probably dumped like that in each of many locations every time there is a large snowfall)

More seriously, you’ve located another example of bad-faith argumentation. Those people don’t really care about salt; if they did they would bring it up as a separate issue applying to all snow clearing, not as a “but, but, but…” with respect to City clearing of sidewalks. It’s like people who say “shouldn’t we consider Hyperloop?” when an LRT project is about to begin construction — usually they don’t really want Hyperloop, which doesn’t actually exist now anyway, they just want to stop the LRT project. And I’m sure there are other examples.

Or maybe you don't know me.  Maybe I do care a LOT about salt use, water quality, and habitat protection.  Maybe I engaged staff and a close friend in water-protection to understand the implications of hundreds of tons more salt in our community.  Maybe I've engaged staff on ALL salt use and you just aren't aware of it.  But hey... I'm a politician.  An easy target to slam and get lols from your bros.  Surely I'm not some guy researching and doing the best I can to make the best possible decision.  Keep throwing out "bad faith" and saying I "don't really care"  that's why I'm here writing this on a Saturday night on long weekend...

(02-16-2019, 09:35 PM)the_councillor Wrote:

(02-16-2019, 08:08 PM)jeffster Wrote: Found this from Mr. Davey interesting: "or punish the good stewards of our city with higher taxation for the sake of the uncompassionate few who fail to do their civic duty."

1) Many people in this city are OLD! When we have rain, snow, ice pellets, freezing rain, etc, falling on our sidewalks, making these area's passable in a timely and regular fashion, is very difficult. It's hard enough for the able bodied to keep on top of this -- especially without the help of -- gasp -- salt, let alone those with disabilities, or the aged. Calling them "uncompassionate" is just wrong. Or perhaps Mr. Davey doesn't know what the definition of compassion is. Perhaps he needs to do research on what compassion is. I get that he did mention this in his editorial, but he's not understanding how widespread the problem is with people who simply are unable to handle this issue.

2) We're not 'punishing' 'good stewards' of 'our city' with 'high taxation' for the sake of those that are apparently 'uncompassionate'.  What we're trying to do is create a safe passage for anyone that walks, cycles (I am fine with this), parents with strollers, and those on mobility scooters to travel safely and consistently.

3) No matter where you go in this city, there are huge chucks of sidewalks that haven't been cleared. This alleged 'few who fail to do their civic duty', is actually a huge number of people that either don't, or can't, do that 'civic duty'. What happens when we have out-of-town landlords that simply can't make it into the city safely due to the weather? Leave it up to the tenants to clear the ice and snow?

The only person I see here that is devoid of compassion is Mr. Davey.

What I do see is the city not wanting this responsibility, not because of a 3.5% hike in property taxes (and city portion only, excludes regional portion), but because of the concern of any lawsuits that might come about for failing to do this job in a timely fashion.

For what it's worth, I live in a section of Kitchener across from a forest. We're totally in-town, but no sidewalks. I don't use sidewalks as I drive everywhere, especially since they took away our GRT route away when the LRT was approved. But I am still okay with the property tax hike because it will help out a lot of people.

However, Mr. Davey is right at one point -- there is no 100% perfect solution. No matter how hard the city tries, no matter how hard home owners try, and no matter how hard they try to help each other, there are always going to be times where sidewalks are not walkable, just like the roads are not clear of snow.

 
Yeah so not sure how to respond except to say I wrote the below paragraph literally just before the cherry-picked quote above that questions my compassion.  Sigh... c'mon man.

"I am not ignorant of the challenges of those who have trouble getting around our city. I fully agree that we must work toward better support services for those otherwise unable to clear their sidewalk, like many seniors and people with disabilities, but for the rest of us, cleaning sidewalks is a duty of home ownership."


Proof:
https://www.therecord.com/opinion-story/9154915-municipal-snow-clearing-is-a-bad-idea/

(02-17-2019, 12:05 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(02-16-2019, 08:48 PM)the_councillor Wrote: Choosing to block someone based on their respectful opposing views is quite telling.

Some of us engage those with differing views to refine their perspective... like me on this thread for example.

Frankly, I blocked you, because I felt no good would come from the discussion I was having.  I found your continual dismissal of the points I was making frustrating to say the least, continually accusing me of cherry picking data, and since I wasn't likely to be polite about it, so as my mother taught me, if I have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all.

But no no, by all means, make assumptions about how telling it is of my character or whatever.