Cycling Activists Try Opportunism

[Keith P.]

Take a look at the latest from Bousquet's Blog, from recently displaced ex-Red Star "progressive journalist" Zane Woodford:

https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/city-hall...yclists-and-pedestrians-during-covid-19/

So if I read this right, an urban planner who couldn't make a living at that decided to go into the restaurant business at the worst possible time (though there are whispers he just took the business over from his father who left a bunch of people holding an empty bag of promises), and now is blaming HRM for his problems. Of course, The Usual Suspects - the HCC, the EAC, along with whack-job Martyn Williams and the guy who came up with the silly crosswalk flags among others - all jump in to support the effort to short-circuit the long, expensive and largely unpopular bike lane development plan in HRM. Instead, these activists see that opportunism might help them advance their agenda for their utopian vision of the future, and are calling for instant action to fundamentally change the nature of many streets in what they undoubtedly think would be a permanent way, because you just know once these things go in they aren't ever coming out. Of course there is a cadre of ideologically-driven Council members who are only too happy to help them out in that, along with others too dumb or sleepy to know any better, and they are using this as an opportunity to grandstand for their very blurry vision of the future.

What is truly sad is that Woodford and his employer are using this as a way to smear not only HRM Chief Exec Jacques Dube but also the traffic authority guy, Taso Koutroulakis, whose jobs include the need to keep Council from doing silly, stupid things like this on a whim, and to ensure that the desires of one interest group do not unduly affect the majority in unduly negative ways.

There are plenty of ways to make walking with proper social distancing easier in areas that may need different measures. Most streets do not have this problem but some downtown likely do, even with the vastly reduced traffic and activity levels at present. At a time when HRM needs to be cutting spending dramatically to accommodate the new reality, this Council is still wanting to waste even more money on dumb things like this.

The fall election cannot come soon enough to throw this bunch out.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I'm confused. I was assured by members of this forum that there is no difference in risk between living in a more dense urban area, where peoples' main forms of travel include walking, transit, and, to a lesser extent, bicycles, vs living in a less-dense suburban area where the main form of transportation is personal cars.

So why do we need to widen sidwalks into the street? There is no additional risk for catching COVID-19 from narrower sidewalks with, presumably, more people on them...

The article, like most on Bousquet's site, is written in an confrontational, one-sided fashion, which is mainly why I don't bother with reading anything from there anymore. I was willing to give him a fair shake, but time after time again I find myself reading one-sided SJW-type articles that appear to be more aimed at getting people pissed off than actually trying to reasonably cover a topic, and informing people of things they should know. This was further enforced when I have been listening to his questions during the NS government COVID-19 news conferences - his questions are all loaded and non-productive... typically eye-rollers for me. I don't waste my time with his garbage anymore.

But, yeah, what better time than a health crisis to try to gain traction to advance the cause? While the rest of us are just trying to work with the government's attempt to keep people safe and not overwhelm the health system (and front line workers), some folks appear to be planning on how to use this to gain ground when everybody is focusing on something more important...

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The article, like most on Bousquet's site, is written in an confrontational, one-sided fashion, which is mainly why I don't bother with reading anything from there anymore. I was willing to give him a fair shake, but time after time again I find myself reading one-sided SJW-type articles that appear to be more aimed at getting people pissed off than actually trying to reasonably cover a topic, and informing people of things they should know. This was further enforced when I have been listening to his questions during the NS government COVID-19 news conferences - his questions are all loaded and non-productive... typically eye-rollers for me. I don't waste my time with his garbage anymore.

But, yeah, what better time than a health crisis to try to gain traction to advance the cause? While the rest of us are just trying to work with the government's attempt to keep people safe and not overwhelm the health system (and front line workers), some folks appear to be planning on how to use this to gain ground when everybody is focusing on something more important...

As usual, his cadre of bobbleheads, most of them AOC-lovers, hardcore left-wingers and ardent unionists, are all cheerleading about how great the article is and how awful HRM is for not immediately springing into action to do what the more moronic members of Council want. Every time my feelings about Bousquet and his site start to soften a bit, he publishes something like this or from one of his other equally toxic contributors that makes me come back to my senses.

[TheNovaScotian]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

As usual, his cadre of bobbleheads, most of them AOC-lovers, hardcore left-wingers and ardent unionists, are all cheerleading about how great the article is and how awful HRM is for not immediately springing into action to do what the more moronic members of Council want. Every time my feelings about Bousquet and his site start to soften a bit, he publishes something like this or from one of his other equally toxic contributors that makes me come back to my senses.

This Neo-McCarthy hate for all people that aren't right wing really makes it hard to agree with your argument though I do think this is opportunistic. Try to remember unionist fought and died for your right to a 8 hour day, child labour laws, 5 day work week etc. and have no vested interest in bicycle lanes in any official way.

You're argument suffers from massive generalizations. To use this article and some extremist internet tag line nonsense to rile up some good old fashion partisan hate, shows how toxic the whole discussion has become.

[PortaPetee]

.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by PortaPetee

Yup! One could simply not read the propaganda....but it is so constant it becomes hard to ignore.

I wish the mods would do something about the poor behaviour. It buries constructive discussion and drives participants away.

My take on this (I'm open to ideas) is that it's OK for there to be specific threads but it's a problem if one issue starts to dominate everywhere. I value a range of different opinions, so while the forum should be open to all to participate, respectful disagreement and debate are normal and healthy on a discussion forum (and the "respect" or kindness bar is a bit different for posters vs. public figures vs. inanimate objects or concepts; I don't think folks like the mayor or premier will be personally devastated by a comment on SSP, and I am sure the city councillors deal with plenty of in-person criticism).

One problem right now is there isn't a lot of constructive stuff happening due to the pandemic. To make matters worse a lot of people are frustrated and spending a lot of time indoors. The bread and butter on here is really construction updates and discussion and that's a little light right now due to covid. Although I have noticed unfortunately we aren't getting the same frequency of photo updates. I don't live in Halifax and sadly I don't get back that often so I can't contribute much other than what I find online. I'm not sure why but I find even through searching websites, the quality of photography available has not gone up much in recent years. It seems like things are very "Instagrammy" lately, lots of low resolution filter heavy stuff that's mostly the same well-known scenes over and over or selfies. Photographer communities like Flickr don't seem as successful now. Maybe I am just not aware of the good ones.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by PortaPetee

Yup! One could simply not read the propaganda....but it is so constant it becomes hard to ignore.

I agree. The constant propaganda from the cycling lobby, their supporters in the media, and their captives on Council about how cycling is the future way of getting around in HRM like it used to be in Beijing in the 1960s becomes very tiresome and irksome considering that only a small handful actually use the expensive infrastructure that HRM has overlaid onto the city's obsolete street network.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The article, like most on Bousquet's site, is written in an confrontational, one-sided fashion, which is mainly why I don't bother with reading anything from there anymore.

...which is perhaps the same reason why I have lost interest with this site.

Sorry, but it looks like there is a real need for new ideas on this forum. Its seemingly more a venue for gripes and not a forum about building the city.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Summerville

...which is perhaps the same reason why I have lost interest with this site.

Sorry, but it looks like there is a real need for new ideas on this forum. Its seemingly more a venue for gripes and not a forum about building the city.

Fair enough. Participation in this forum is a personal choice. I have no control over the discussion here, just adding my thoughts to what is presented, or introducing new threads that I personally have interest in. I'm only one person and have no control over this board.

What I'm saying, is if you want to elevate the conversation it's in your court to do it. Or you can decide to leave, either way is fine IMHO. I have to say that your comment above seems to be doing the same thing you're complaining about, by griping about the forum rather than doing something to improve it.

Feel free to introduce new ideas and improve the level of conversation as you wish. You might be surprised at how your positive posting results in more positive responses. Give it a try...

[PortaPetee]

.

[Keith P.]

What "extremist tag line" are you referring to? Have you read the responses to this on Bousquet's and Woodford's social media?

[Summerville]

Perhaps I should be honest and direct.

The issue that I have is Keith's vitriol, which done in the way that Keith chooses does not contribute to the Forum.

Months ago Keith made what seemed to me to be a personal attack against Erica Butler, which I thought was slanderous at the time. I thought of calling Keith out.

Keith continually attacks Sam Austen. I'm sure that Sam has a thick skin by now and he chose to be in the public light.

But I know both of Erica and Sam. I used to work with Sam and Erica is a parent at my kid's school. I don't think that they have shares in a bicycle company. They aren't planning to make a personal profit from the things that they believe in. They have aspirations for this city like most of us.

Kourash Rad has probably contributed more to this city in one minute than many of us have. But heck,...let's attack him as a person to make our point.

I've only been coming to this site for the last 5-10 years. Its really your Forum. You can choose to do nothing.

But if you are going to do anything, cut back on the personal attacks. They have little value for people that are excited about the new development in this city and want a venue to discuss what is happening.

I've lived here my whole life. I love the fact that Halifax is developing in the way that it does. I might be in the 1% but I love tall and well designed buildings and also I love biking to work in this city. I've been biking to work for the last 20 years. And dealing with land is my profession,...and it what my family has done as well.

Cut back on the personal attacks and BS. I know that it will mean that Keith has less to say. But I don't think that many of the people that come to this site want to see a thread where old men gripe about change.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Summerville

Perhaps I should be honest and direct.

The issue that I have is Keith's vitriol, which done in the way that Keith chooses does not contribute to the Forum.

Months ago Keith made what seemed to me to be a personal attack against Erica Butler, which I thought was slanderous at the time. I thought of calling Keith out.

Keith continually attacks Sam Austen. I'm sure that Sam has a thick skin by now and he chose to be in the public light.

Kourash Rad has probably contributed more to this city in one minute than many of us have. But heck,...let's attack him as a person to make our point.

Let's be clear here. You claim I made "personal attacks" on these individuals, but offer no specifics. That may well be a personal attack on me by your definition.

I would be happy to outline my criticisms of those individuals if you wish to engage. But I suspect your definition of "personal attack" is one of any criticism of those who take positions that are aligned with your own.

EDIT: I just did a search of the entire forum for any posts by me containing the word "Butler" since I could not recall any particular commentary. I found 4 results. The only one from the recent past was a reply to a post YOU made touting an article she apparently penned for Bousquet's Examiner blog, but which was a bad link and so remained unread by me.

Also you should be aware that what I wrote about Mr. Rad was taken from a discussion on the same topic in another forum by those more familiar with the situation than myself, so it is hardly a secret. Given how you characterize his contributions to the city, are you saying he works in the public sector in addition to being a restaurateur?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Summerville

Perhaps I should be honest and direct.

The issue that I have is Keith's vitriol, which done in the way that Keith chooses does not contribute to the Forum.

Months ago Keith made what seemed to me to be a personal attack against Erica Butler, which I thought was slanderous at the time. I thought of calling Keith out.

Keith continually attacks Sam Austen. I'm sure that Sam has a thick skin by now and he chose to be in the public light.

But I know both of Erica and Sam. I used to work with Sam and Erica is a parent at my kid's school. I don't think that they have shares in a bicycle company. They aren't planning to make a personal profit from the things that they believe in. They have aspirations for this city like most of us.

Kourash Rad has probably contributed more to this city in one minute than many of us have. But heck,...let's attack him as a person to make our point.

I've only been coming to this site for the last 5-10 years. Its really your Forum. You can choose to do nothing.

But if you are going to do anything, cut back on the personal attacks. They have little value for people that are excited about the new development in this city and want a venue to discuss what is happening.

I've lived here my whole life. I love the fact that Halifax is developing in the way that it does. I might be in the 1% but I love tall and well designed buildings and also I love biking to work in this city. I've been biking to work for the last 20 years. And dealing with land is my profession,...and it what my family has done as well.

Cut back on the personal attacks and BS. I know that it will mean that Keith has less to say. But I don't think that many of the people that come to this site want to see a thread where old men gripe about change.

Thanks for your honest and direct input. Since you quoted my post, obviously something I wrote had a negative effect on you as well, so I will try to do my part and not participate in negative threads like this, even if I agree with them or have thoughts about it that are not positive. I will also do my best to not react to posters when they present a condescending viewpoint or post something negative about something I feel positive about - there's no point in extending the negativity even further.

I will not ignore ageism, though, as I think the continual comments and generalizations about 'boomers' or 'old men' (as in the last line of your post) are not appropriate, just like negative generalizations about 'millennials' are also inappropriate and not welcome. Ageism makes my experience here a negative one.

To be honest, I have tired of the divisiveness that has attacked our society - you read more right vs left, millennial vs boomer, bicycle vs car, etc. etc. than anything else these days... and not enough meeting in the middle. Let's try to get back to meeting in the middle - have discussions instead of arguments - that would make my experience here a little more positive, because like you I have considered leaving many times, and have for periods in the past - but I have too much interest in my city to stay away too long.

Can't speak for others, but I will try my best to keep things on the positive side, and in fact I may just limit my posts to the more historical aspects of Halifax. I really love watching our city being built up with all the amazing new structures filling out our downtown and other areas, but admittedly I don't have the level of enthusiasm for tall buildings that others have - I like them when they are well done, but not so much when they are not (by purely subjective judgement on my part).

Maybe I should just read and not comment, or just find a more productive way to use my time...

[atbw]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

To be honest, I have tired of the divisiveness that has attacked our society - you read more right vs left, millennial vs boomer, bicycle vs car, etc. etc. than anything else these days... and not enough meeting in the middle.

Maybe I should just read and not comment, or just find a more productive way to use my time...

I’ve mostly stopped posting here. I made a few attempts to back up my side of arguments with data, which is generally ignored. Meeting in the middle generally requires both sides to want to take action. It doesn’t work so well when it’s a “we should change how we do things because there’s a better way” vs. “no we shouldn’t, nobody will like that.”

I appreciate the contributions of members who document all the work going on in Halifax, and the interesting history and discussions, but this forum is exhausting and I can see I’m not alone.

[alps]

I generally agree. There is a difference between "fact-based and logical" criticisms and personal attacks. I was on the receiving end of one of the "fact-based and logical" criticisms on this forum after I was interviewed by a media outlet a few years ago. It was a snide, ageist comment that was not accompanied by any sort of argument. Please, let's not kid ourselves by suggesting that personal attacks are not being made.

I still visit the forum because, after so many years, I have just come to expect this stuff. But I don't blame others for being bothered by it, and it surely must turn off potential newcomers who stumble across the forum through Google! I know another poster who no longer visits the forum due to the overall negativity and vitriol against the "cycling lobby" and whatnot. What really set him off was someone joking some time ago that they would run down cyclists with their car.

[PortaPetee]

.

[someone123]

I honestly don't know what the "cutoff" should be discussion of publicly known local Halifax folks, somebody like Erica Butler being an example. Ideally we should be nice to everybody and focus on issues, not people. However it is perfectly valid to question the arguments or opinions of public figures. And 100% valid to question something like the voting record of a city councillor, for example (not suggesting any particular councillor is good or bad; I don't really follow HRM council enough to know). That's just healthy democratic public debate.

I do know it can be a little different in a small city where things can feel more personal. If somebody rants about Xi Jinping or Donald Trump on here those people will never even know about it. But at the other end the standard is different for somebody who chooses to remain out of the public eye.

I am open to suggestions about reducing what kind of discussion focused on people is allowed but the rule has to be applied uniformly, not selectively enforced against popular people while unpopular ones get a different treatment.

[Undreamt]

Perhaps this is a bit of a strange moment for a new user to jump into the conversation.

If you don't mind, I'd like to aim a bit for the middle-ground here.

There are some pretty vocal individuals fighting for more bike lanes whom are very confrontational and nasty. They have an air of ignorance and are quite unwilling to compromise. They usually tend to tie it into the political as well.

I understand that hearing these people, and having to deal with these bike lanes that are seeming overpriced and underused is frustrating; and the negative attitudes toward them is completely valid.

I personally do believe that bike lanes could benefit the city. I think that having a safe option would be awesome.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Undreamt

Perhaps this is a bit of a strange moment for a new user to jump into the conversation.

If you don't mind, I'd like to aim a bit for the middle-ground here.

There are some pretty vocal individuals fighting for more bike lanes whom are very confrontational and nasty. They have an air of ignorance and are quite unwilling to compromise. They usually tend to tie it into the political as well.

I understand that hearing these people, and having to deal with these bike lanes that are seeming overpriced and underused is frustrating; and the negative attitudes toward them is completely valid.

I personally do believe that bike lanes could benefit the city. I think that having a safe option would be awesome.

Excellent post. One can only hope that it does not get labelled as "toxic".