Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[Umpaidh]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Resorting to name calling I thought was beneath you.

Another example of you trying to throw mud at those who oppose you, where there is no mud to be thrown, along with willfully ignoring what people are referring to, and changing the subject quickly thereafter.

You know, in the past 24 hours, I see why reading Sun Tzu and using his concepts is an integral part of your process.

[jemartin]

There are two things that I care about in this entire debate.

1. Keeping Lansdowne a public treasure for future generations to enjoy.
2. Helping our City with excellent tax saving options and the manner by which
to achieve them.

I encourage everyone to give back to their City and Nation's Capital.

[davidreevely]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Lets get serious. I quoted a story from what you wrote.

Demonstrate to me the quotations to Nik Nanos were inaccurate.

Demonstrate that both polls did not indicate 18% support for LL.

You can't.

All accurate and from your article. This time however I will add your commentary
after the Nik Nanos recommendation to reject the LL proposal:

Honestly, if you're opposed to Lansdowne Live, the Nanos poll provides you what you're looking for in a poll. Here's the argument, buttressed by what Nik Nanos himself told city council:

1) Lansdowne Live is a huge and important move with a unique piece of land. Morally, moving ahead with it demands significant public support.

2) The poll shows doubt about the proposal. Not massive opposition, but skepticism and uncertainty. People are not convinced. They are not in support.

Therefore

3) We should not move ahead.

"You don't need five polls to make that point. One good one's enough". Direct quotation David Reevely.


That it does not jibe with the inner politics at the Citizen is something you
will have to deal with.

Resorting to name calling I thought was beneath you.

I stand behind the post in its entirety. All my posts, supportive and critical of the Lansdowne plan, are present and accounted for. There was a reasonable line or argument to be made based on the Nanos numbers and I offered it up.

But what you've done is quote part of the post. You put a headline on the post -- "Nik Nanos Poll on Lansdowne" -- that talked about the Nanos numbers. Then you pasted in the Compas numbers without saying they were the Compas numbers, and then followed it up with my commentary on the Nanos numbers.

All the quotations can be accurate and the presentation still present an inaccurate picture.

My view of what's been done with my work here is clear, I think. So I'll bow out.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by davidreevely

This is a profoundly dishonest version of what I wrote. It combines commentary on two polls -- one reliable but inconclusive, one unreliable and indicating opposition to the Lansdowne plan -- as if it were all about one poll.

The post quoted above just pollutes the debate.

WOW.

Thank you David Reevely for coming out of the woodwork and trying to put jemartin in his place. Sadly, he's delusional. I mean really, as if he's arguing that the writer of the article in question was wrong about his own information in the article.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Lets get serious. I quoted a story from what you wrote.

Demonstrate to me the quotations to Nik Nanos were inaccurate.

Demonstrate that both polls did not indicate 18% support for LL.

You can't.

All accurate and from your article. This time however I will add your commentary
after the Nik Nanos recommendation to reject the LL proposal:

Honestly, if you're opposed to Lansdowne Live, the Nanos poll provides you what you're looking for in a poll. Here's the argument, buttressed by what Nik Nanos himself told city council:

1) Lansdowne Live is a huge and important move with a unique piece of land. Morally, moving ahead with it demands significant public support.

2) The poll shows doubt about the proposal. Not massive opposition, but skepticism and uncertainty. People are not convinced. They are not in support.

Therefore

3) We should not move ahead.

"You don't need five polls to make that point. One good one's enough". Direct quotation David Reevely.


That it does not jibe with the inner politics at the Citizen is something you
will have to deal with.Resorting to name calling I thought was beneath you.

Now you're just starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist.

Also, did you or did you not read the information I provided that shows in at least two different polls from months ago that over 60% of Ottawans support the current Lansdowne development.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by davidreevely

I stand behind the post in its entirety. All my posts, supportive and critical of the Lansdowne plan, are present and accounted for. There was a reasonable line or argument to be made based on the Nanos numbers and I offered it up.

But what you've done is quote part of the post. You put a headline on the post -- "Nik Nanos Poll on Lansdowne" -- that talked about the Nanos numbers. Then you pasted in the Compas numbers without saying they were the Compas numbers, and then followed it up with my commentary on the Nanos numbers.

All the quotations can be accurate and the presentation still present an inaccurate picture.

My view of what's been done with my work here is clear, I think. So I'll bow out.

For God's sakes David the numbers say 18% in both.

Bow out please, it is clear who misrepresented that article.

Very disappointed in you. Apologize when you are ready.

If you want a poll, put one out that shows the real cost to the taxpayer under the developer proposal
and the real advantages of the Conservancy.

That will be a poll worth something.

[phil235]

I really don't think that engaging in this debate is at all productive. This is not an intelligent discussion of conflicting views on the best approach to dealng with a key piece of city land.

Obviously most people understand that this is a complex issue with pros and cons to each approach. There are any number of valid perspectives that an informed individual could reasonably take. However, the individual that you are debating with is not open to real issues-based debate. He has claimed the moral high ground, and dismisses any opposing view on that basis. He seems to believe that all logical people must share his perspective and therefore is only interested in evidence that supports his opinion.

Everything is black and white with him. Anyone in favour of mixed-use development on public land is supporting the interests of a few developers and is against the interests of the city as a whole. City council (except those who voted the way he wanted them to) acted in "bad faith" in supporting this project. The experts on the design review panel are paid by developers and therefore their views shouldn't count. Internal politics at the Citizen force its writers to take positions in favour of developers. The courts will surely vindicate him because his proposal is right and just.

Most of us know that there is no "right" answer here. We prefer what we prefer based on our philosopy of how the central city should develp. What is the point in trying to discuss the issue with someone who believes that anyone with a different opinion has only come to that opinion because some nepharious interest has forced them to do so?

This frustrates me considerably, because there was a rational debate to be had here. We should be talking about the important issues surrounding the site plan, but instead we continue to rehash the same issues repeatedly on a completely superficial level. The site plan went through without much real public debate, because one side of the debate only wanted to talk about the "moral authority" of council to vote, and not the plan itself. There was no real public discussion of the details.

There is also an important debate to be had in the Glebe about how we want our neighbourhood to intensify and where a balance can be struck. That debate has been highjacked by the Friends, for whom the ends justify the means. If this proposal can be stopped, it will be a victory for them (and specifically for the particular demographic represented by that group), regardless of whether it means stagnation at Lansdowne and the complete deterioration of the city's facilities, or whether the Glebe does not end up taking on its fair share of intensification etc. A victory is a victory.

The courts will decide what they will decide. Claims to know that a court will step in and solve this debate once and for all are the equivalent of schoolyard taunting. It is simplistic. It is anti-intellectual. It is pointless.

To avoid getting into this again and again, perhaps we can agree to move forward and discuss current issues such as details of the site plan etc. I am so very, very tired.

[jemartin]

Debate on Lansdowne involves alternatives and the court and why the matter is before the court.

Attempting to dismiss that is not being open to debate..

[matty14]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Attempting to dismiss that is not being open to debate..

How ironic is this statement? YOU of all people have been the LEAST open to debate. You are presenting your ideas from way up there on your high horse as the ONLY "right" idea, and you constantly dismiss other people's arguments with childish retorts such as:
- We are all sucking on the teat of the big bad evil developpers who are going to <sarcasm> destroy the Glebe with giant suburban big box stores and scam millions upon millions of dollars off us poor taxpayers </sarcasm>
- We are all stupid misinformed people who know nothing about what we are debating for
- OR best of all, you ignore people trying to debate by putting out phony (and childish, might I add) trivia questions (that we have already answered, might I further add) and misrepresented information

When we ask you serious questions about your proposal, you simply tell us to "look at the report" or "it's all available in the report"... well guess what, that will NEVER fly at council or in court. You tell a councillor or a judge that the answers are all in your report, it goes in the garbage. They want answers right in front of them so they can make decisions quickly based on the salient points.

You know, we might take you more seriously if you didn't present your ideas so pompously and arrogantly.

Face it, one of two things are going to happen:
1. The OSEG proposal will go through after a very short court proceeding, and shovels will be in the ground next June
2. Miraculously, the OSEG proposal is stopped, and it will be Asphalt City at Lansdowne for the next 10-15 years (or until Frank Clair completely collapses)

I'm not sure if you pay much attention to hockey, but not too long ago, Mr. Jim Balsille attempted to buy the Phoenix Coyotes by circumventing the laws of the NHL by purchasing them out of bankruptcy. He basically walked in, tried to play the game by his rules and said that his answer was right and that the NHL should follow him. They laughed in his face and threw him out on the street. Don't make the same mistake.

[Davis137]

Sigh...why do I bother to look at this thread...

[jemartin]

Thanks for your kind words Matty, its pretty clear what your position has been for some time.

The only arrogance I see here are people who are bound and determined to work for private interests rather than public ones.

Lansdowne has been public for 150 years and has faced many attempts to privatize it for its lucrative location.

All attempts have been thwarted as this one will be too.

A bit of advice, give back to your community and plan to keep things beautiful and public for the next generation.

Towers can and will go where they are needed.

Heritage is irreplaceable.

[matty14]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

What I would like to know is why does a bunch of lawyers from the Glebe, the Glebe Community Association and the Friends of Lansdowne Park, all of whom are not elected, believe that they are better than City Council and city staff at planning our city? This really what this all amounts to. This small bunch of special interest groups want to run the city but are unwilling to legitimately run for office to accomplish this.

Exactly. I hear all these people whining and complaining that "developers run this city" when in reality, it's the small community associations and special interest NIMBY groups that will stop at nothing (protests, court injunctions, etc.) to ensure their little paradise isn't "completely ruined" by intensification and smart growth. If we got rid of all these stupid community associations, we would have a much more beautiful city.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Pu...586/story.html

[matty14]

Originally Posted by jemartin

The only arrogance I see here are people who are bound and determined to work for private interests rather than public ones.

I'm sorry I want to see sports, entertainment, shopping, dining, farmers market, and on top of that, a beautiful large urban park that fronts onto a World Heritage Site. If that is what's considered being "bound and determined to work for private interests" then sue me. It's this kind of stuff that I would like to see at Lansdowne, and I am a member of the public. So I am working for public interests. If this board and other polls, articles, studies, etc. are any indication, it's YOU who is working for private (your own) interests, and not the will of the general public (not the minority of self-righteous Glebites)

[jemartin]

Matty you are indeed funny.

Developer interest and influence is rampant not only at city hall directly with placed insiders but notably in campaign contributions.

In fact direct correlation to council support and campaign contributions from the developers just in this proposal are 6:1. In other words the likelihood a vote from council was in favor of the developer proposal was six times more likely based on campaign contributions.

Another way of looking at it was that the total dollar amount paid by the OSEG group for those voting for the developer proposal was six times the amount as the amount of OSEG developer contributions to those that voted against the developer proposal.

All figures from MFIA City of Ottawa.

The numbers get higher when the broader developer contributions are included.

As they say, follow the money. To think that community associations run City Hall is laughable!

[matty14]

Originally Posted by jemartin

All attempts have been thwarted as this one will be too.

As well, this is the arrogance I am talking about. You are walking around puffing your chest out like the the demise of the OSEG proposal is a fait accompli and it's only a matter of time until it is thrown out. And you also believe that council will look at your plan and automatically accept it. I'm sorry but is that not just another example of the "sole-sourcing" your kind have been bitching about this whole time? If OSEG is halted and a design competition is not reinstated, than your deal is the same back door deal that you claim OSEG to be, whether or not you stand to make a profit on it.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by matty14

I'm sorry I want to see sports, entertainment, shopping, dining, farmers market, and on top of that, a beautiful large urban park that fronts onto a World Heritage Site. If that is what's considered being "bound and determined to work for private interests" then sue me. It's this kind of stuff that I would like to see at Lansdowne, and I am a member of the public. So I am working for public interests. If this board and other polls, articles, studies, etc. are any indication, it's YOU who is working for private (your own) interests, and not the will of the general public (not the minority of self-righteous Glebites)

Sounds great Matty.

So I take it you support the Lansdowne Park Conservancy proposal?

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by matty14

As well, this is the arrogance I am talking about. You are walking around puffing your chest out like the the demise of the OSEG proposal is a fait accompli and it's only a matter of time until it is thrown out. And you also believe that council will look at your plan and automatically accept it. I'm sorry but is that not just another example of the "sole-sourcing" your kind have been bitching about this whole time? If OSEG is halted and a design competition is not reinstated, than your deal is the same back door deal that you claim OSEG to be, whether or not you stand to make a profit on it.

There are two discussions in your comment.

One is the legal challenge. That will prevail.

The second is an alternative.

Is the Conservancy an alternative? Absolutely.

Is it the only one? Of course not.

The Conservancy offers a competitive alternative to help our city and reduce taxation.

An open competitive process starting from zero is just as welcome.

It is about giving back Matty.

Try it you might like it, almost as much as free breakfasts.

[matty14]

Originally Posted by jemartin

One is the legal challenge. That will prevail.

It is about giving back Matty.

Try it you might like it, almost as much as free breakfasts.

1. Again, you are saying the court proceedings will work automatically in your favour without any evidence to support it other than your "no cost to taxpayer" dream world AND with evidence for the contrary saying that the special interest groups don't have much of a legal case

2. I AM giving back to the people who want sports, entertainment, and a large urban park in a treasured piece of land that is currently the ocean of asphalt it WILL remain to be if OSEG falls through

3. I'm sorry but what is it you do for a living that allows you to be trolling a public forum at 1:30 in the afternoon? I want that job.

[matty14]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Developer interest and influence is rampant not only at city hall directly with placed insiders but notably in campaign contributions.

In fact direct correlation to council support and campaign contributions from the developers just in this proposal are 6:1. In other words the likelihood a vote from council was in favor of the developer proposal was six times more likely based on campaign contributions.

Another way of looking at it was that the total dollar amount paid by the OSEG group for those voting for the developer proposal was six times the amount as the amount of OSEG developer contributions to those that voted against the developer proposal.

All figures from MFIA City of Ottawa.

The numbers get higher when the broader developer contributions are included.

As they say, follow the money. To think that community associations run City Hall is laughable!

Can you provide a link for these stats?

[phil235]

My problem with the community association in the Glebe is that it doesn't represent who it claims to represent. I can't tell you how many of my neighbours have said that the presence of the stadium and arena at Lansdowne was one of the factors that drew them to the area. It certainly was for me. But those voices are not being represented by the association, which speaks with only one voice.

A note on this juvenile insult claiming that we are "working for private interests". That type of comment demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the interaction between the public and private realms. Some of the most cherished public spaces in the world are not actually publicly "controlled". For instance, the oft-cited Granville Island is covered by long-term leases to private enterprises. Only the streets and the market are truly under public control. Place Jacques-Cartier in Montreal - only the street is public, everything surrounding it is privately held (with the exception of the city hall). Harbourfront in Toronto - though not my favourite, it is the same thing, a whole lot of private development involved in the creation of what anyone would consider a "public" destination that betters the city as a whole.

That is why this debate is pointless. It keeps reverting to the kind of simplistic statements of principle that pepper our friend's last post. Such messages are good for a public campaign against a project, but they are no good for a real discussion of the intricacies of city planning.

If we are interested in debating whether Lansdowne will create a true public meeting place, we should be talking about the site plan and whether it can consistently create the inclusive kind of interactive public domain that it claims to do.

I was recently in Toronto and visited Maple Leaf Square outside of the ACC (again, a private development), which has been hailed as a big city-building success. It was certainly an active public place in the hours leading up to the game. I'd be curious to see how it works at other times. There are bars and retail and the station to draw people through, along with some stunning modern architecture, but I wonder whether they have the critical mass to become a true public place.