A little help from my friends
It's been pointed out by several people that they have had difficulty navigating to the comments page. It was described by one reader as "counter intuitive" and I agree. In any case here's how to find and read the comments:
First of all notice that the blog now has three entries, this one at the top, one below it dated May 1, 2006 and the third at the bottom dated March 22, 2006. They were all written by me and posted on those dates. Immediately below each is a line as follows:
posted by denmon at 5:37 PM 1 comments (an envelope icon)
The first part identifies me, denmon, as being the author and notes the time of posting. The number followed by 'comments' tell how many comments have been made to this post. To view them you move your cursor onto the word 'comments' and click once. This should open up another window on your screen. This window shows a box titled 'Leave your Comment' and below that choices for identifying yourself. This is where it starts to get counter intuitive. This window is actually showing you the bottom of its total view. Out of sight above that box are the comments but you have to scroll up to see them! You don't have to click or select anything, just scroll up. The comments are listed according to the date and time they were posted with the first on top and the newest at the bottom.
To post a comment you scroll back to the bottom of the window and clicking your cursor in the comments box begin your post. When you're done composing you choose your identity and then select 'login and publish' or 'preview'. 'preview' just lets you see how it will look in the blog and allows you to make any changes before publishing it.
I hope this helps. If anyone has further difficulties or questions don't hesitate to email me at fraser_fox@yahoo.com or phone 335-0196 and I'll be glad to assist.
Regards, Fox
posted by denmon at 2:00 PM
2 Comments:
Dear Denmon: Your blog rocks! This contribution is from my comment on the North Lands Questionnaire recently distributed to islanders: This questionnaire would be funny if it wasn't so sad. I believe it is designed to promote the pre-acceptance of a proposal to be made in the future by a small group of investors/developers even before a formal proposal has been submitted through normal channels. Rather than itemizing the specific objections to trading land for population density increase, I suggest the committee keep in mind a few bits of traditional wisdom as it proceeds with it's agenda.
l. If something sounds too good to be true, it is.
2. When you compromise your principles to gain a reward, you always lose.
3. As Joni Mitchell said..."you never know what you've got 'til its gone."
4. Someone said "change is inevitable." I agree. A real change from business as usual would be to say no to a zoning change proposal, even if it offers what appears to be a big carrot.
If, as stated, the ad-hoc committee does not support any particular private development of the lands, than why does the questionnaire not ask if the respondants favour or oppose in principle amenities zoning to allow a major change in our O.C.P. in exchange for free logged-over land? The tone of this questionnaire suggests an acceptance of the idea of a trade and by its design touts the supposed advantages of such a deal. Why should this committee appear to be promoting the developers' agenda even before a proposal is presented to the Islands Trust. Let's let the developers try to sell us their proposal after they make one.
Development versus Growth
All the concern about hydrology, amenity zoning, ecosystems, and affordable housing appears to be focused on one decision by three Trustees to accept or reject an exception to the Denman Island OCP. In fact it is really about ignoring the OCP process and ultimately emasculating it.
Those in favour of the current development proposal would have others believe that the collective needs and vision as expressed by the OCP have changed significantly since its inception. They also believe that this shift in opinion is important enough to require circumventing the long OCP development process in favour of a few public presentations, eco-walks, and ad hoc popular opinion. Development investors state that financial constraints make a lengthy open process impossible. They beg the question ‘why should we have to follow the OCP?’ That may or may not be a valid question if it were open for debate. The problem is that it’s not. The way it’s being presented the development application for rezoning will force our elected Trustees to vote on two issues simultaneously. The application itself is obvious but the underlying questions about the very value of our Official Community Plan and its development process have not been officially stated or addressed.
This forces our Trustees to vote against the application not on its merits or lack thereof but due to the absence of any mandate on the second issue and the damage such a deviation from our civic process would inflict. It might be a Catch 22 if the penalty of not voting for it meant the loss of real benefits. To date however the exact description of any benefits let alone their real costs or how to guarantee them remains speculation.
Not getting approval for higher density rezoning will mean the properties in question will be sold as is; the market combined with sellers needs will determine how fast or slow. Perhaps new owners will present new ideas. Time will tell. We may lose an opportunity but we won’t lose our voice! That’s what this exchange is all about.
Post a Comment
<< Home