I notice that the local lefty paper and politicians are on again about secondary suites.
They, and all planners, seem to have missed the point, which is the usage load on a property.
Who cares if a house with basement suite has an elderly retired couple upstairs and a single student down? I would care a great deal if my neighbor sold his house to a large family, say mother, father, brother in law, 3 teenagers and 2 little kids. They will of course be replete with 2 cars per adult and a motorcycle or two for the teens, plenty of friends, parties and all the usual accoutrements, such as a large smoky fire pit and multiple high speed comings and goings. They could be the nicest people in the world and they would still be overloading my neighbors house, which is a 2 bedroom bungalow.
And yet situation one is illegal and situation 2 is perfectly legal.
How about a bylaw that each occupant must have 500 square feet if an adult and 250 square feet if a child and that there be off street parking for all but 2 vehicles for any single residential building? Or something. Maybe create a point system with a by-law enforcement visit if there are egregious breaches by many points.
Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Thursday, 23 June 2011
Arab on Bikes
I observe that Paula Arab of the Herald has another moderately nuts column about how the city needs more and special bike paths and lanes. She seems not to get that her entire argument boils down to "we need bike paths because Paula Arab wants them for her own use".
She notes that only 1% of locals use bikes, and fails to see that 10,000 out of 1 million residents do not require and should not get a special $28M bike path system. The wants of such a small minority do not merit huge costs and upheavals even if Paula Arab wants it and even if it would be nice.
Further, the cost is quoted at $2,800 per cyclist, but given its a governmental $28M we all know it will be $100M in two shakes of a bureaucrats butt, so $11,200 per cyclist. Even worse, I expect the costs do not include land the city already owns so the cost numbers will not include opportunity cost, or the cost of expropriating new roads to replace the road lanes given to bikers so I'm guessing the real actual cost the way a businessman or dude in the street would see it will be near $400M, or $40,000 per biker.
I drive a motorbike and I save both traffic room and "the environment" (Hogwash. More anon) when I do. Where's my $2,800? Or $11,200? Or $40,000?
Arab writes: "The transportation bureaucrats are out of touch with the needs of those commuters for alternative modes of transportation". Needs? Really? How did "wants" become "needs"? Does she give any evidence of "need", some similarity between bicycle riding and food, clothing and shelter? No, of course not.
I too want a full bicycle path network, but I don't want to pay for it. It's pretty clear that most people feel the same way, 99% of us in fact. So guess what, I can't have it. Add it to the list of things we'll all have in Big Rock Candy Mountain. Some of us, a lot of us, probably most of us, think the City should stay out of funding fun, entertainment, "civic jewellery", and stick to necessities. The streets actually used by the 99% cry out for work and need that $28M.
Arab is also a bit of a totalitarian, finishing her article with "The folks who wrote Calgary's proposed policy should be forced to give up their parking and start cycling to work". No doubt she believes it a good idea that those daring to have a different opinion from a lefty Herald editorial writer "need" a stretch in a Gulag for re-education.
She notes that only 1% of locals use bikes, and fails to see that 10,000 out of 1 million residents do not require and should not get a special $28M bike path system. The wants of such a small minority do not merit huge costs and upheavals even if Paula Arab wants it and even if it would be nice.
Further, the cost is quoted at $2,800 per cyclist, but given its a governmental $28M we all know it will be $100M in two shakes of a bureaucrats butt, so $11,200 per cyclist. Even worse, I expect the costs do not include land the city already owns so the cost numbers will not include opportunity cost, or the cost of expropriating new roads to replace the road lanes given to bikers so I'm guessing the real actual cost the way a businessman or dude in the street would see it will be near $400M, or $40,000 per biker.
I drive a motorbike and I save both traffic room and "the environment" (Hogwash. More anon) when I do. Where's my $2,800? Or $11,200? Or $40,000?
Arab writes: "The transportation bureaucrats are out of touch with the needs of those commuters for alternative modes of transportation". Needs? Really? How did "wants" become "needs"? Does she give any evidence of "need", some similarity between bicycle riding and food, clothing and shelter? No, of course not.
I too want a full bicycle path network, but I don't want to pay for it. It's pretty clear that most people feel the same way, 99% of us in fact. So guess what, I can't have it. Add it to the list of things we'll all have in Big Rock Candy Mountain. Some of us, a lot of us, probably most of us, think the City should stay out of funding fun, entertainment, "civic jewellery", and stick to necessities. The streets actually used by the 99% cry out for work and need that $28M.
Arab is also a bit of a totalitarian, finishing her article with "The folks who wrote Calgary's proposed policy should be forced to give up their parking and start cycling to work". No doubt she believes it a good idea that those daring to have a different opinion from a lefty Herald editorial writer "need" a stretch in a Gulag for re-education.
Tuesday, 21 June 2011
Muzak
I see that the business world is still oblivious to the hatred some of us have for telephone Muzak. I am currently on hold at Direct Energy Regulated Services waiting for an agent. I am also trying to work at my desk. While listening to lousy elevator music. Blech.
It really is quite unprofessional of Direct Energy to expect me to listen to trash music when I am professionally trying to use my time by working while I wait.
Oh well, at least it's not the screaming, ancient, boomer rock and roll most businesses inflict on me.
Perhaps you could have your software people put a telephone menu item to let us stop the noise. "Press 1 if you want peace and quiet and no background muzak, music, singing, radio, nor nothing else either".
It really is quite unprofessional of Direct Energy to expect me to listen to trash music when I am professionally trying to use my time by working while I wait.
Oh well, at least it's not the screaming, ancient, boomer rock and roll most businesses inflict on me.
Perhaps you could have your software people put a telephone menu item to let us stop the noise. "Press 1 if you want peace and quiet and no background muzak, music, singing, radio, nor nothing else either".
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)