Archive for the ‘Personal’ Category

The Suburbs Downtown and Downtown in the Suburbs

May 20, 2008

Vancouver’s downtown condo development market has been very successful.  Developers sold the lifestyle and the convenience.  “Walk to work”, “It’s like the suburbs downtown” are common selling points.  The problem is, condo developers have been so successful they’ve driven up the cost of property so high it discourages commercial property development.  Office projects can’t or won’t compete for prime locations downtown, or what few locations are left.  The condos have taken over downtown.

That has created a commercial office space crunch downtown.  Office vacancies are down to just two percent, the lowest in decades.   It also creates an interesting reverse flow situation where, while people are moving downtown into their new condos, the new office developments have largely been in the suburbs.  Wouldn’t it be an interesting twist if all those people who moved downtown so they could walk to work ended up commuting out to the suburbs to get to the office?

This might be a good time for a major office tower development downtown.  A two percent vacancy rate now, combined with the added interest in Vancouver that will likely follow the Olympics in 2010 should make for good market conditions.  It would take a couple years to complete, so the timing would be right.  The slowdown in the residential real estate market should also get some developers to look to the commercial property sector.

Vancouver could use a high profile office tower downtown.  The Shangri-La, the new multi-use tallest building in the city that is nearing completion, already makes a great addition to the skyline.  A new, even taller, office tower that stands out in both scale and form would add even greater definition.  What’s missing from the skyline is an iconic building, something instantly recognizable that people around the world will see on TV and know is in Vancouver.  It would raise the profile of the city, internationally.

If Vancouver wants to remain the commercial heart of Greater Vancouver, the city should think about trying to get an office project going and zoning to make sure there will be more in the future.  Otherwise, the amusing reverse commute situation could actually happen.  Who knows?  It may seem unlikely now, but maybe even Surrey could develop a downtown commercial district on some of its less attractive land.  They are already clearing out the crackheads and removing some houses with drug connections.  Then there’s that awful junkyard sitting on prime riverfront property.  It has the growing population and land to rival Vancouver.  It will probably have more people within twenty years.

Is Vancouver going to just sit back and let it happen?

Advertisements

New Humanist Symposium (#19)

May 12, 2008

The new Humanist Symposium blog carnival is out, including a post contributed by myself.  It’s all about life from a humanist perspective.  You can find it at:

http://lfab-uvm.blogspot.com/2008/05/humanist-symposium-19.html

Well done, L.C.

Life by Proxy

May 4, 2008

A couple nights ago, there was a story on the news about the little McCann girl who went missing in Portugal.  This one took a different angle.  It looked at it from the point of view of a Canadian clergyman who was assigned to the Anglican church in the Portugese town where it happened, a few days after the tragic event.

In the course of the story, the minister’s wife spoke of how she and the entire congregation prayed constantly for the little girl’s safe return.  They’re still waiting and praying.  She then asked, “How can so many people pray for the same thing and it not happen?”  If ever a question answered itself…  It was screaming out.  I wanted to scream it out.  “Because there’s no one on the receiving end of the prayers, of course!”

How she couldn’t – or wouldn’t – see it is beyond me.  Why millions of others can’t see that prayers aren’t answered is beyond me.  Everyone in a competition can pray for victory, but only one will win.  Millions have prayed for loved ones to come home from wars who didn’t.  Other people will survive complicated surgeries or be found by the police, but these are the results of human actions, not  prayers.  I guess people really are that desperate.

At best, praying for someone is extending good wishes and hopes by proxy, albeit an imaginary one.  But, why channel good wishes through a third party?  Why not give them directly?  It expresses the sentiment you feel and, ultimately, is more sincere.

Prayer could actually be seen as a selfish act.  It makes the person praying feel better.  It does nothing for the target of the prayers.  There was even a study done in Europe recently that monitored results for people who prayed and those who didn’t.  It made no difference.

I was going to say, “At worst, prayer is a selfish act”.  Then I remembered another news story that demonstrates it can be worse.  If any of you are thinking praying can’t do any harm, think again.  Remember the story of the girl who died because her parents chose to pray for her rather than take her to a doctor?

If you want to help someone or extend your good wishes, do it in the real world.  Send them a card or letter.  Phone them.  Tell them face to face.  Take them to the hospital or feed them.  Contribute to a fund or charity (one that does practical things rather than convert people and pray for them).  You might just give them a little comfort, rather than yourself.  You might even save their life.  Praying won’t.

New Carnival of the Godless is out

April 28, 2008

No time to write because I have to do my taxes.  In the meantime, the new Carnival of the Godless is out, including a post by yours truly.  You can find it at:

http://www.nmmng.co.uk/4814e44f

Great job, No More Mr. Nice Guy.

Showdown: Law of the Land vs. God’s Law

April 24, 2008

The arrest of Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints leader Warren Jeffs in the U.S. for forcing an underage girl to marry an older man, and recent removal of young women and children from the sect’s temple compound in the belief there may be more underage girls who have been married off, have again raised the question of when the British Columbia and federal governments will finally act against a similar sect in Bountiful, BC, led by Winston Blackmore.  It’s no secret that the Bountiful sect practices polygamy and that polygamy is illegal in Canada.  Vancouver Sun columnist Daphne Bramham has written extensively about the goings on in Bountiful.  It’s featured on local TV news in Vancouver from time to time and, occasionally, there’s a story about it on national news broadcasts.

So, why doesn’t anyone do anything about it?  They’re afraid.  They’re afraid any prosecution will fail because it will violate the Charter of Rights.  They may, by extension, be afraid of being sued for violating someone’s rights.  You see, whoever drafted the Charter included some stuff about freedom of religion, as opposed to freedom of views on the subject of religion, that could be construed as meaning there is no higher principle than one’s religious values.  The result is that BC’s Solicitor General, Wally Oppal, has been waiting for months – although it seems years – for advice as to whether or not prosecution would be constitutional.  I hope he gets it soon and, if it wouldn’t be, that changes will be made to the Charter.

The core conflict was summed up by one of the American sect members in a televised interview with the CBC a couple nights ago.  He said it doesn’t matter if the girls are underage.  He pointed out that the Book of Mormon instructs him to take many young women.  He then made the definitive statement, “When it comes to an issue of whether I choose to obey the law of god or the law of the land, I choose to obey the law of god.”  That is the situation in a nutshell.  Do religious rights supercede secular laws or are they subject to secular laws?  Do secular laws supercede religious rights or are there different laws for different people?

If we allow different laws for different people, how will we decide who gets special treatment and who doesn’t?  There have already been some special, and controversial, exemptions on religious grounds upheld by the courts.  Sikhs in the RCMP can wear turbans instead of hats, for instance.  On the other hand, a request some years ago by a muslim group to allow the use of Shar’ia law within their own community was denied.  That would seem to represent a precedent.  The underlying principle was that you can’t have a group of people enforcing a different set of laws.  There has to be one set of laws for all the people.  I like underlying principles.  They are something you can build on.  They are a solid foundation.

There is nothing stopping the BC government from laying charges under the current laws of the land.  Polygamy is illegal.  If the members of this particular religion want to challenge the charges under the Charter of Rights, let them.  Let it be decided by the courts.  One of two things will happen.  Either the principle that secular laws supercede religious rights will be firmly established, or the opposite will be.  If it’s the latter, I’m sure enough people will be sufficiently reviled by their Charter of Rights upholding polygamy and the partnering of young girls with old men that some changes to the Charter may actually be possible.  The changes would have to make it clear secular laws come before religious codes, that there are principles that outrank religious belief.  Those changes could even accommodate atheists and agnostics, recognizing their equal rights.  If things go really well, maybe we could even lose those opening words recognizing that there is a god.  They only serve to snub non-believers, after all.

What is the BC government afraid of?  Is it the legal costs?  Are they really going to allow some religious nuts to flout the law to save a few million dollars in legal fees?  Is it the constitutional issues?  Are politicians really so afraid of constitutional talks that they’d allow archaic traditions that exploit young girls to go on in a country that prides itself on, and, in many ways takes its identity from, being progressive?

Once again, the issue appears to be leadership.  No doubt the BC and federal governments will adopt a wait and see attitude.  Wait for the Americans to do something and see what happens.  I say go after them.  If they challenge under the Charter, fight them.  Dare to establish a precedent and a principle.  If the Charter is flawed, change it.  Bring it on.

New Carnival of Cities (April 23, 2008)

April 23, 2008

The latest edition of the Carnival of Cities is up.  It includes a post written by me.  You can find it at:

http://blogs.bootsnall.com/Seafarer/carnival-of-cities-for-23-april-2008.html

Great job, Sheila.

Star Shaped Pegs in Maple Leaf Shaped Holes

April 22, 2008

I find it embarrassing that many Canadians know more about the American political system and landscape than their own.  Even worse, and what makes me mad, is that many – maybe most – Canadians apply American politics to their own country.  They associate certain Canadian parties or candidates with American parties or candidates they like or dislike and, based on a perceived similarity, choose who or what to support accordingly.  They don’t think in terms of Canada, and what’s good for it.  They don’t think about what we are or what we need.  They assume a direct correlation and don’t stop to think that we are a completely different country with different political problems to solve, different priorities, and a different outlook.

This is influenced by, among other things, the fact that we are at different stages of development, or political and economic maturity.  The U.S. is at its zenith.  They are the only superpower in the world, at the moment.  Canada is still in its ascendancy, or adolescence.  Obviously, a superpower at its zenith and an up and comer have different needs, outlooks, and priorities.  For one thing, when you’re on top it can seem that the only way is down, so you act to prevent or delay the inevitable downfall.  You tend to look at the world in terms of perceived threats.  You look over your shoulder.  Right now, China’s ascendancy is looking like a threat to American dominance.  By contrast, when you’re growing and developing you tend to look to the future, and new goals and opportunities.  This outlook could be seen by a superpower as not being in line with their interests, especially if you happen to share a continent with them.  By assuming and applying American views, we often work against our own ambitions.

The U.S. became independent about ninety years before us and in a completely different manner.  They fought a revolution, striking out on their own immediately.  Canadian independence came in stages, starting with Confederation in 1867, then our first independent declaration of war in WW1, then the Statute of Westminster in 1931, the first Canadian passports in the 1940s, and repatriation of the Constitution in the 1980s.  The final step of letting go of the apron strings and ending the symbolic relationship with the British monarchy to establish a Canadian republic – specifically, a secular republic – is one I’m looking forward to.

Here again, however, perceptions of American parallels interfere with true perceptions of Canadian realities.  Historically, any movement in Canada for full independence has been called a republican movement because the result will be a Canadian republic.  Unfortunately, when most Canadians hear the word ‘republican’, they think they hear ‘Republican’.  They apply American politics to Canadian politics and think a movement for a fully independent Canada would lead to Prime Minister George W. Bush – or something like that.  Most Canadians tend to dislike the American Republican party and its policies.  That probably explains why the American right wing media often portrays us negatively.  Those same Canadians tend to associate the Conservative party with American Republicans.  However, it is the Conservatives who are most commited to maintaining the links with the monarchy.  So, Canadians’ perceptions of the possibilities for their own country, and desirability of them, are skewed by inappropriate and inaccurate application of American models to Canada.

Canada is not at its zenith.  At times, though, it seems like we’re not even trying to get there.  We aren’t planning for our own future success.  No one seems to have a vision for the future beyond selling raw materials to the Americans and, now, the Chinese.  If we’re going to think like Americans, why don’t we think about building our own successful nation?  Why don’t we become a powerhouse?  If, as a certain book store chain said, the world needs more Canada, shouldn’t we let it know we’re here?  To do that, shouldn’t we be a bit more proactive?  Wouldn’t we then stand a better chance of having a positive influence in the world?

How’s this for a start – if the world needs more Canada, doesn’t it need more Canadians?  Then we’ll be a bigger market.  Bigger markets can produce bigger companies.  Bigger companies are more visible and have a better chance of expanding to other countries rather than being acquired by foreign companies.  They can become global players, creating wealth at home and spreading Canadian values abroad.

We need leaders who are bold enough to move us forward.  That may mean choosing a more difficult path.  It may mean standing up to those who may think our own path is not in their interest.  Unfortunately, our political leaders follow public opinion and tell people what they think they want to hear, regardless of whether the public’s opinion is an informed one or not.  I haven’t heard of a really fresh idea in Ottawa in about forty years.  And, where do the public get their opinions?  Very often from American media.  Just as unfortunate is the fact that our business leaders tend to be market followers rather than market makers.  The easy money is in exporting logs and oil and metals – let the Americans do the hard part.  Leaders are supposed to lead.

American socio-political models just don’t apply to Canada.  They debate whether to have a national healthcare system.  We’ve had one for decades.  Yet, many Canadians vote for the Canadian party they associate with the American struggle to get what we already have, when what we really need is a few of those big companies that keep buying us up.

We won’t realize our full potential until we stop applying current American views to current Canadian situations and Canadian goals.  We have to start thinking of, for, and about ourselves.

New Carnival of Observations on Life

April 21, 2008

The latest edition of the Carnival of Observations on Life, which includes a post by me, is out at:

http://anjamerret.com/?p=357

Great job, Anja.

Pope Ropes a Dope, Does Boffo Box Tax Free

April 17, 2008

The pope is in North America on his latest concert tour.  This is one tour I won’t complain about not coming to Vancouver, as it covers the U.S. only.  The easily impressed flock to see him so that they may feel graced by his presence.  They buy up all the souvenirs and concert T-shirts and hold up their lighters shouting, “Yaaaaahhhh!”

Seriously, this is big business.  A papal tour is worth hundreds of millions.  I mean, $695 for a porcelain statue of the guy?  The mark up on these mass produced mementos is – dare I say it – a sin.  Well, it would be if there was a god for it to qualify as a crime against, but, you get the idea.  The pope has criticized Canada in the recent past for not doing enough to narrow the gap between rich and poor.  Then the church gouges its own followers like this?  Talk about excessive profits.  Is a ‘toy pope with your Happy Meal’ McDonald’s deal next?

Ever since they were introduced by his predecessor, papal tours have been a nice little earner for the Catholic church.  Souvenirs of all kinds have been sold at extortionate prices to the suckers – I mean, faithful.  Remember the famous John Paul II pope-on-a-rope soap?  I wonder if it washed away sins.  His tours turned him into a larger than life personality – rivaling Jesus, himself – that the church capitalized on.  Well, who could blame them?  There was a lot of money to be made.

But, what about all that money?  Couldn’t all those good Catholics have used it to feed hungry people instead of the church and their own pride?  Let’s face it, those souvenirs will be shown off as proof that they’ve seen the pope.  Bragging rights will be theirs.  Bragging will ensue.  Some might say the profits are used to feed the hungry.  Are they?  I’m not so certain of that.  The Catholic church is a large organisation with broad financial interests.  They invest on the stock market and are probably one of the great institutional investors of the world.  At one point, I believe,  they were the largest – possibly the majority – shareholder of Coca Cola.  That’s pretty big.

They know how to market the pope like a rock star.  Pretty savvy.  They know how to exploit their star to turn a healthy profit.  That’s entertainment.  They know how to invest and manage huge sums of money.  That’s rich.  And, they don’t pay a penny in taxes.  That’s really rich.  Even Hollywood couldn’t hide profits that well.

I’ve written before about how the church doesn’t use nearly all the money it takes in for charity.  In fact, the crumbs they give out to the truly needy along with their prayers are probably nothing compared to what they have available to them.  This is a very large corporation with vast assets that generates huge revenues and profits, but doesn’t pay tax.  It’s time that came to an end.

Post-Season Affective Disorder

April 16, 2008

OK, let’s talk some hockey.  I’ve avoided it so far because I’ve been sick, dealing with the littany of mistakes that various organizations have made at my financial expense, and adjusting to new nocturnal hours.  The disappointment of the Canucks’ late season collapse and failure to make the playoffs was just too much to deal with on top of all that.  Now, I think I can write about it.

On Monday, Canucks general manager Dave Nonis was “relieved of his duties”.  That’s fired, to you and me.  The team had missed the playoffs for the second time in three years.  Last year they made it to the second round, only to be eliminated by the eventual Stanley Cup champions, the Anaheim Ducks.  Everyone expected this year to be a step forward from that, even though there wasn’t much change last summer.  It didn’t work out that way.

The Canucks suffered a neverending string of injuries throughout the season.  Their solid defence – some said the best starting six in the league – never played a single game as a complete unit.  Key forwards also suffered injuries.  Some players had multiple injuries.  To their credit, the players never used injuries as an excuse.  They said they should find a way to win, anyway.  They have to say that and keep trying.  Now that their season is over, however, Hockey Night In Canada’s Kelly Hrudey seems to be saying it is part of the explanation.

To make matters worse, star goalie Roberto Luongo wasn’t his usual spectacular self, mainly because his pregnant wife was thousands of miles away in Florida so that she could stay near her doctor.  There was the potential for complications.  I guess that could make you lose focus, occasionally.

So, why fire the GM?  Because, in this case, two out of three IS bad.  On paper, this team was good enough to be in the playoffs.  People in Vancouver want a winner.  This team has threatened greatness for about seven years, now.  But, it’s always something.  Former goalie Dan Cloutier let’s in a bad one.  The next two years, he’s injured at playoff time.  Director – sorry – referee Kerry Fraser and video goal officials in Toronto make bad calls that cost them games in a first round series they lose in seven games.  Then, the lockout writes off a season.  Then, the Bertuzzi incident and they miss the playoffs.  They bounce back the next year, but now – this.

Francesco Aquilini, the team owner, said the word “leadership” repeatedly at a press conference announcing the change.  Does that mean the coaching staff are next?  What about leadership on the ice?  It was widely believed that captain Markus Naslund, and possibly Brendan Morrison, would not have been re-signed under Nonis.  Will that still be the case?  Will there be a complete clearout of the old leadership on the ice, behind the bench, and in the head office?  That might be the easiest way to deal with the problem because, you see, nobody really knows what is wrong with this team.  Everybody has their favourite target to blame.

Me – I just don’t know.  Maybe it’s just the injuries and Luongo’s temporary distraction.  Maybe the problem would have fixed itself by next year.  Maybe the coach didn’t make the best use of the players he had.  Some people think the owners overreacted, in an emotional manner, because they are also fans.  Maybe.

Now, the talk is about who will be his replacement.  There is speculation that Brian Burke will come back.  Not likely.  He has a year left on his contract with Anaheim.  I seriously doubt the owners there would let him out of it early, considering they just won the Stanley Cup last year.  Pat Quinn’s name has been mentioned.  Then there’s current assistant manager Steve Tambellini, who has also worked with Team Canada.  Trevor Linden’s name has been mentioned as a possible member of the management team, if not the GM.  His experience with the NHL Players Association could help him.

Whoever they hire, and whatever they do, I hope it gets results.  It’s bad enough that I watch the Stanley Cup final every year without really caring who wins – but the entire playoffs?