Teriisn’titrich: it won’t help but let me try to explain so that even you may understand. Taking photos of public areas such as buses lined up at Cornwall and Burrard violates no-one’s privacy. Taking photos of a particular person’s house or the cars you claim are visiting there does violate people’s privacy and in addition establishes you as the neighbourhood snoop.
Taking photos of cars you claim are parked in front of someone’s house when the individual doesn’t live there and then publicize negative claims about the individual based on the photos establishes you as either a malicious liar or at best someone indifferent to truth. You can choose which category you fall into.

@Waltyss #48;

Both incidents were on public access streets.

Terisn ‘titrich @ 50, so what? You may be on a public street but it doesn’t give you the right to photograph into my house. It certainly doesn’t give you the right to lie about what you claim to have seen.
But, teri, unfortunately, it has become apparent from your posts that while malice informs each post, truth does not!

@Waltyss: (ongoing)

I don’t care what you think.

I am however, extremely happy, not to be you.

I cannot imagine what it is like to be so delibertly nasty all the time. It takes up too much energy.

teriisn’titrich @54. Even if I were “deliberately” nasty all the time (which is like just everything you spout untrue) I would rather be that than a lying malicious neighbourhood snoop. Wear the title proudly!

Yes, enough with the no one can take pictures of anything outside business. It’s totally irrelevant, and despite what you think a difference in political opinion does not give you the right to personally attack someone. Take it elsewhere.

Walt, who gives a xxx. There could be a thousand reasons why those cars were there. And yes, it’s stupid to assume certain cars at a certain time at a certain place equals the mayor is a hypocrite, but again, who cares. Move on.

This kind of petty bs is killing this.

Boohoo@60 iwould be more than happy to move on and will. However you might note that it is not me that that is keeping this alive.
But I will move on.

Yes and as I thought I pointed out (unless I didn’t send it or it was deleted) the city could have used place speak as they have in the past, which verifies your identify without needing to know the ethnic background of your grandparents. I don’t think they really advertised placespeak in this manner. Perhaps it was due to the conversation that occurs on placespeak, like they want your feedback but don’t want you to discuss topics with others? I also wondered why they weren’t interested in marital status given all the other questions.

Bill McCreery @ 63. When one filters through your usual “Vision Bad, me good” screed, you raise some legitimate issues.
To the extent that one can have anything approaching a rational discussion or debate on this blog, how does a city government, this or any other, guage public opinion and to what extent should they be guided by it?
Gordon Price has been quoted, for example, as saying something like “if only x% are opposed to a proposal, you are doing well.” I can’t recall the number but he has a point. It is usually easy to get out those who are opposed to something. People who are mildly in favour or simply don’t really care are unlikely to turn out to a council meeting, even if they do have an opinion. The anti-Visionistas on this blog, you included, seem to believe that if most people who turn out to a meeting are opposed, that should be the end fo the matter. That would certainly militate against a government, any government making difficult decisions.
How then does an administration guage what the “community” really feels? At a minimum, leaving aside scientific polling (which I for one do not support as a tool for city governments before they make a decision), the City fathers and mothers should use a variety of tools. City council or committee meetings, open houses, and yes, even something like Talk Vancouver (although frankly I question whether it has much utility because notwithstanding all the Orwellian fears expressed by some, as pointed out, you have no obligation to provide any personal information or at least any accurate information).
That said, however, to what extent should a city government (or any government) be guided by the opinions expressed by its residents on any particular issue. A long time philosophical debate has gone on between whether someone elected is a delegate (ie. must be guided by what his or her electors tell him or her) or a representative (elected to utilize his or her best judgement to make decisions in the public interest). Even in the representative model, a politician has to be cognizant of his or her constituents’ views, if they wish to be re-elected.
Personally, i favour the representative model but most people on this blog (you included), seem to be in favour of the delegate model. If that were to be adopted, in my view, one would have government gridlock, but at a minimum it would make seeking out what constituents really felt especially important. That is particularly true in a city and province where politics is played as blood sport and where most people can’t be bothered to get out to the polls and even when do, aside from those who see voting as their civic duty, only do so when they are mad about something.
I welcome debate but brilliant not, unless you have something of substance to contribute, STFU.

Waltyss, you speak about representative vs. delegate democracies. All well and good to raise these models in this discussion. In my experience both are necessary depending on the circumstances.

However, what you and Gordon Price do not take into consideration is that those who may oppose or support a given government initiative often in the process become knowledgeable on the subject. Many, but not all of the:

“People who are mildly in favour or simply don’t really care are unlikely to turn out to a Council meeting, even if they do have an opinion.”

have not taken the time to fully understand the issues and consequences central to the matter at hand. As an elected representative I respected, and listened to the informed opinions (not all are, but that’s partly where one’s judgement is required) and they did/should further inform the elected representative on how he/she should vote. Those who have not taken the time to so inform themselves, ie: the “don’t care” camp can hardly be seen to be somehow taking the opposite position as those who are informed can they?

A perfect example presents itself here in this discussion. As I mentioned above, given that:

“…Vision Van’s track record of holding meetings during the working day, muzzling staff and limiting media and public access to them, limiting debate at Council, announcing new initiatives from the Mayor’s office days before the item comes to Council as effectively approved and so it’s old news when it does, and claiming and manipulating public consultation and then ignoring them, refusing even elected Councillors as well as citizens line item access to City finances, and by rewriting staff and even external reports such as the Affordable Housing Task Force…”

would you not agree that if the larger unengaged population were to become informed about the very fundamental Vision Vancouver attacks on the implements of democracy that they too would raise their voices? One of the problems here is that in a democracy the ‘silent majority’ tends to remain silent until they are directly affected.

Is that a promise……I mean the sign off thing?

teriisn’titrich @71. Even a clock set to the wrong time will be right twice per day. On this one I agree with you. Every level of government has taken on too much secrecy and too much control of information which rightfully belongs to the taxpayers.
There may be an argument (however slight) that having reporters calling up whoever they want when they want is disruptive. However, the cure for that is not to have the information come from through the communications department but to have someone arrange the time.
Sorry, teriisn’titrich, I guess you will now have to change your position. What a Hobson’s choice: agree with waltyss or agree with Vision!

Our low voter turnout is a weak spot in our municipal democracy, i.e. for those that stay at home and don’t vote, is it because 1) they are satisfied with the status quo? Or 2) because they are not, and do not identify any candidate that speaks to them? Or 3) ____? We’ll never know.

Likewise, it’s false to assume that just because the vast majority of the public do not weigh in on a contentious rezoning proposal that they are in support of the proposal. Maybe they are, or maybe not, your guess is as good as any.

I don’t understand how the city plans to use the information from Talk Vancouver regarding rezoning proposals. The West End Mayor’s Advisory Committee was also an adjunct undertaking whose efforts went towards manufacturing consent following public pushback to very large scale rezonings, starting with the handpicked selection of committee members – many of which undeniably are well connected in the Vision Vancouver circle of friends, sycophants & hangers-on.

It’s not like Council will say no to a rezoning proposal, when the planning department has already tipped in favour of it from the onset, even if the vast majority who participate in a Talk Vancouver survey about it may be opposed to the proposal.

And now we see a similar mindset at work in response to the backlash of the Grandview-Woodland community plan: an extension of the timeline (till after the next election) to create a “citizen’s assembly” and the use of surveying, which may trim around the hedges a little but ultimately will be geared towards favourability in large part of what’s being proposed.

This is the way it went down with the 1401 Comox rezoning proposal in the West End. I’m not sure why anyone would think it would be any different for the G-W community plan debacle.

@ThinkOutsideABox:

If 3,000 signatures on a petition against a project (Rize) mean nothing to the Mayor and Cllrs, then how does anyone think posting a comment on Talk (Vision) Vancouver is going to have an ‘impact’.

3 weeks after it was first announced at UBC to jeers of derision (UBC doesn’t consult their own statistical experts for opinions?), the Vancouver Sun’s Tracy Sherlock rewrites a press release about how UBC was suckered for a cheap amount:

UBC forum to collect real-time feedback from alumni and students.
By Tracy Sherlock, Vancouver Sun
The University of British Columbia is creating an online community — the Open Minds Forum — of 5,000 alumni and students to gather feedback and opinions on an ongoing basis.
In the past, such research has been done once every two or three years, said Kari Grist, UBC’s managing director of communications and marketing.
“We felt like we needed something that could be deployed on almost a real-time basis … to understand what people are thinking and to keep our fingers on the pulse of our students and alumni,” Grist said.
“The Open Minds Forum will enable us to better understand our students and alumni, which will be invaluable in creating new programs, updating communications and ensuring that we’re delivering the best services to our current and former students.”
Vancouver-based Vision Critical, a public opinion and research firm, is creating the private online community. Grist said conducting research with an online panel is “highly cost effective” when compared to doing traditional research studies, which can cost $30,000 each.
… Andrew Reid, president of Vision Critical, said the community of members on the Open Minds Forum, which aims to be an even split between students and alumni, will allow the university to gather feedback from its stakeholders very quickly, on almost any topic. For example, if the community was up and running already, the university could have sought instant information about the “rape chant” that occurred on Labour Day weekend.
“That’s a fantastic example. Once the community is recruited, UBC could go out and respond to that, saying, ‘Here’s what our students and alumni think,’” Reid said. “I can imagine in that scenario that UBC could respond inside of 48 hours, or even a lot less, to that kind of information with some really good data.”

MORE… http://www.vancouversun.com/forum+collect+real+time+feedback+from+alumni+students/8940080/story.html

Ubc, teri. Wonder if they’ll be receiving emails after they sign up!

I’d be more optimistic if they called it “Listen Vancouver”.

@Don D #77

Oh how I thank thee……I have been trying to formulate a response as to how pointless Waltyss’s posts are but you Sir did an exceptional job!