Winnipeg | Portage and Main

[Wolf13]

Goodness, just wake me up when it's open one day lol

[trueviking]

I think the perception of arrogance comes from being challenged with facts and not having any to respond with. I’ve heard a lot that the Yes side doesn’t understand the No’s point of view. But it’s not like we are debating two sets of facts and which are important to each side. It’s facts against perception. I’ve heard numerous times when presenting the results of the Dillon Study, ‘I don’t believe you’.

If presenting facts comes across as condescending, I’m not sure what to do about that. If there was a 95 page engineering study to support the preconceptions of the no side it would be different. Then we could talk about values. That’s not what this debate is.

[headhorse]

lol right wingers love to do this, shift the conversation away from facts and truths to "tone" and "civility" when they realize there is nothing to back up their ideas.

[trueviking]

I have not heard a single person use the word idiot.

[trueviking]

The

Originally Posted by wardlow

Sorry, but this is a poor compromise. Vote Open had the results of the Dillon study to back up a solid standalone argument that streets should be accessible. This came at a time when the real estate agreement is expiring, the barricades need major repairs, there's a mayor who likes the idea, and there's a farcical plebiscite about it. Now is the time to be precise and strategic. Not so much to win the plebiscite, but to keep the issue clear and on-message for the next four years.

But then Vote Open threw that away in the desperate hope it would allay what you rightly call unfounded fears.

An open Portage and Main is an issue that ties to so many other downtown issues, but as a good idea it stood on its own. What Vote Open did this week was anchor the issue to *some kind* of traffic "solution" to the problem that opening the intersection will cause. They made a big issue out of what the Dillon study said wasn't a big issue.

You're right this transit mall is conceptual and half-baked (which is why I'm not bothering to comment on how terrible it would be for the Exchange District and for Transit riders), but now the Portage and Main issue is not just about making an intersection accessible, but about fixing downtown's traffic problems.

So when a new Council discusses this issue, the pro-open side will be the ones who agreed with the unfounded public sentiment that an open Portage and Main is a big problem... but also that needs a costly solution. I can hear yes-leaning councillors now: "I agree Portage and Main should be open, but there needs to be a plan in place. So let's wait for the results of a transitway study... let's wait for public consultation... let's wait until there's money in the capital budget for dedicated bus lanes..." Then the no-leaning councillors: "I'm against this big costly waste of money. Sync the lights more and leave it at that."

I don't want to spend another 40 years at design charrettes asking "what are the possibilities?" I just want to cross the street.

I totally understand your concern. In a debate where facts and realism don’t seem to win minds, other strategies might need to be considered...as a political strategy only. The next four years is up the the planners and politicians to work out.

Neither of those groups are involved in trying to win a fight that they will have to deal with the ramifications of for the next term and likely we’ll beyond. They have left it to a group of well-meaning volunteers made up of graphic artists, pr people and others. The only professional involved is a councillor who is on a personal crusade to keep it closed.

So. In the end. The mayor and next council will have to take what they get. It was their job to do this. I agree completely with your points but I’m not sure what else could be done. A no vote will end this for a decade. It has nothing to do with next steps. It’s about winning the votes of a general population on an issue that most don’t care about, or have not taken the time to research. You’d be shocked how many people don’t even know it’s on the ballot.

[windypeg]

Originally Posted by trueviking

I have not heard a single person use the word idiot.

I have used it privately on numerous occasions when referring to Jeff Browaty, but to be fair I did that long before the P&M debate as well.

[Ando]

The problem is that the issue has become a political battle rather than a discussion of facts. Funny, that's what happens when you have referendums along with an election. One of the rules at the federal level with referendums is that they can't be held during an election period. It's to avoid mixing it up with politics as much as possible. But there are no rules for this referendum, and that is the biggest abdication of responsibility by city council members and the mayor.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by trueviking

I think the perception of arrogance comes from being challenged with facts and not having any to respond with. I’ve heard a lot that the Yes side doesn’t understand the No’s point of view. But it’s not like we are debating two sets of facts and which are important to each side. It’s facts against perception. I’ve heard numerous times when presenting the results of the Dillon Study, ‘I don’t believe you’.

If presenting facts comes across as condescending, I’m not sure what to do about that. If there was a 95 page engineering study to support the preconceptions of the no side it would be different. Then we could talk about values. That’s not what this debate is.

10 years ago I was oposed to the opening, but just a little bit of thinking and connecting of the market dots drastically changed my mind.

I don't know what we couldn't understand from their point of view when they CLEARLY are not listening to our side, the Dillon Study, or general social/economic sense.

Originally Posted by headhorse

lol right wingers love to do this, shift the conversation away from facts and truths to "tone" and "civility" when they realize there is nothing to back up their ideas.

Yeah let's dodge that. Righties (like myself) like economic progress and thriving markets, and critically, real estate. Opening P+M favours all that. Although all major landlords will appear to be safely progressive or central in the public, you can bet they're all righties (or mostly) behind their office walls. And they all want the intersection open.

The people you're looking for are the dummies, but there I go being arrogant again.

Originally Posted by Ando

The problem is that the issue has become a political battle rather than a discussion of facts. Funny, that's what happens when you have referendums along with an election. One of the rules at the federal level with referendums is that they can't be held during an election period. It's to avoid mixing it up with politics as much as possible. But there are no rules for this referendum, and that is the biggest abdication of responsibility by city council members and the mayor.

What I'm curious about is how landlords like this bus rerouting... because after all, this is a City/Landlord agreement... this entire referendum is only to decide ONE party's stance in this agreement. Right now, buses lining up on main in front of 300 Main never block the parking loop, meaning access isn't hindered. It's more convenient for 300 to have anyone using public transport to use the front (read: grand) entrance rather than some backdoor.

More critically, buses already line up big time on Fort, and hinder access into and out from the parkade, all of 360/330/300 tenants. The Main street parkade access will become entrance only, meaning all those rich guys driving to linden woods now need to leave via Fort... where you can't turn right. Now everyone's in 201 Portage territory, — up their —.

We've now added significant traffic to Fort from JUST CARS, BEFORE 300 Main is even complete. Throw in 500-600 residents, it gets crazy, and they're now all funneling down Albert to head south.

That's a bottleneck. And ironically, they now have to cross an open P+M hahaha!



And we haven't even added all those buses yet!

I think it's a dumb idea purely generated to throw the NO crowd a bone, that solves little for traffic through P+M but makes it brutal for 360/330/300.

Point being, this is a two party agreement, and it incentives landlards to potentially change their position. And ironically, we're going to create a big traffic problem in the exchange that will be more irritating for motorists who actually pass through P+M everyday to work at 360 or 201.

Sheesh.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by Ando

Are you concerned about facts or are you concerned about perceived elitism or arrogance? Brodbeck says they downfall of the Pro-open crowd will be their arrogance. So this isn't about whether something makes sense or not, but rather whether you like the other person's attitude? There is certainly arrogance on both sides, so does it cancel out?

I agree there is arrogance on both sides. However, the "no side" isn't a campaign. There's no organized group that I'm aware of actively raising money, hosting events, and setting up in Winnipeg Square to lobby for their cause. The "no side" doesn't have an official spokesperson (well, maybe Browaty lol) and is not heavily covered in the media. The spotlight is on Team Open, and thus the condescension that continues to be brought up is more apparent.

Team Open doesn't need to convince me (I already voted Open) or the members of this forum (95% who are in favour of Open). We don't need to preach to the choir or pat ourselves on the back for being enlightened. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who will vote "No" no matter what, and can't be convinced either way. There's no point to belittle them and mock them on social media, as they're not going to be switching their vote.

It's those fence sitters and people who are indifferent who IMO Team Open should have been trying to reach, and maybe they were. However, as I've pointed out several times, it's those who were on the fence that have been turned off completely by Team Open.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Bdog

I agree there is arrogance on both sides. However, the "no side" isn't a campaign. There's no organized group that I'm aware of actively raising money, hosting events, and setting up in Winnipeg Square to lobby for their cause. The "no side" doesn't have an official spokesperson (well, maybe Browaty lol) and is not heavily covered in the media. The spotlight is on Team Open, and thus the condescension that continues to be brought up is more apparent.

Team Open doesn't need to convince me (I already voted Open) or the members of this forum (95% who are in favour of Open). We don't need to preach to the choir or pat ourselves on the back for being enlightened. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who will vote "No" no matter what, and can't be convinced either way. There's no point to belittle them and mock them on social media, as they're not going to be switching their vote.

It's those fence sitters and people who are indifferent who IMO Team Open should have been trying to reach, and maybe they were. However, as I've pointed out several times, it's those who were on the fence that have been turned off completely by Team Open.

How can you say the no side isn't a campaign when we've got multiple mayoral candidates basing their entire platforms on keeping it closed? Furthermore, it was used by a bunch of councilors who couldn't get on EPC as a wedge issue to try and perform the legal equivalent of a coup on bowman. This status quo no side claim that it isn't a campaign is complete garbage, there are political interests representing both sides of the debate despite the fact that team-closed hasn't started a formal group to back them.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

Yeah let's dodge that. Righties (like myself) like economic progress and thriving markets, and critically, real estate. Opening P+M favours all that. Although all major landlords will appear to be safely progressive or central in the public, you can bet they're all righties (or mostly) behind their office walls. And they all want the intersection open.

Do they actually care all that much? I understand they all eventually signed on to the idea, but I don't see what's in it for them, really. If traffic gets worse around that area, it would only add to the incentive for their tenants to relocate somewhere else.

[buzzg]

Running busses currently on Main through the Exchange (King/Princess) to get to Fort is an absolutely deplorable idea. King & Princess are already inhospitable enough to the patios that have sprung up along them, and the least "human" streets in the Exchange – the last thing we should do is add hundreds of loud, giant busses a day going through there, past OMS. Having it use Assiniboine at the south end may even be worse. Shame.

I like the idea of Fort as a transit mall on its own right, however I don't think it should be done unless in connects back to Main at P&M and Broadway – but P&M would be a mess. You could have busses enter/exit at Graham, but then does taking them off Main for 5 blocks do anything?

[windypeg]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Do they actually care all that much? I understand they all eventually signed on to the idea, but I don't see what's in it for them, really. If traffic gets worse around that area, it would only add to the incentive for their tenants to relocate somewhere else.

I suspect that as people running large businesses they are inclined to make decisions based on a cold analysis of facts and data instead of emotion and hysteria, meaning they are well aware that traffic won't spiral out of control and delays will be a minute or two at worst. For them it's really a decision of whether they want their properties to be located in a dead zone or a vibrant and interesting neighbourhood.

[Ando]

Originally Posted by Bdog

I agree there is arrogance on both sides. However, the "no side" isn't a campaign. There's no organized group that I'm aware of actively raising money, hosting events, and setting up in Winnipeg Square to lobby for their cause. The "no side" doesn't have an official spokesperson (well, maybe Browaty lol) and is not heavily covered in the media. The spotlight is on Team Open, and thus the condescension that continues to be brought up is more apparent.

Team Open doesn't need to convince me (I already voted Open) or the members of this forum (95% who are in favour of Open). We don't need to preach to the choir or pat ourselves on the back for being enlightened. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who will vote "No" no matter what, and can't be convinced either way. There's no point to belittle them and mock them on social media, as they're not going to be switching their vote.

It's those fence sitters and people who are indifferent who IMO Team Open should have been trying to reach, and maybe they were. However, as I've pointed out several times, it's those who were on the fence that have been turned off completely by Team Open.

You keep giving us these anecdotal cases that you know of where people have supposedly decided to vote No because they don't like the Yes group. Think about the logic of that. A reasoned decision is to decide whether you think a project is good or not and vote on that basis. If you think it is a good idea, you don't turn around and oppose because you don't happen to like the group that is lobbying for change. If those anecdotal people you refer to really though opening was a good idea, I suspect most of them would vote that way. BTW, if you think there is no organized No group, then you don't know social media. It has its leaders like Browaty and Motkaluk and Brodbeck and gets its message out in a different way. However distorted that may be.

[Ando]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Do they actually care all that much? I understand they all eventually signed on to the idea, but I don't see what's in it for them, really. If traffic gets worse around that area, it would only add to the incentive for their tenants to relocate somewhere else.

I would get yourself better informed. The corner businesses have been very proactive about this. You have a computer so start doing some searches.

[TimeFadesAway]

Originally Posted by trueviking

I have not heard a single person use the word idiot.

I've used the word idiot. When people are confronted with specific facts that prove specific beliefs that they have wrong and yet continue to repeat their false beliefs as fact, I can think of no better word to describe them.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by TimeFadesAway

I've used the word idiot. When people are confronted with specific facts that prove specific beliefs that they have wrong and yet continue to repeat their false beliefs as fact, I can think of no better word to describe them.

Stubborn and delusional perhaps?

[cheswick]

It's comments like that that people say come across as arrogant. There are no facts that say opening the intersection is right and keeping it closed is wrong. It's a personal opinion. Even someone armed with every fact out there can be of the opinion that it should remained closed. The traffic will get worse. That's a fact. It will cost money. That's also a fact.

I personally want it opened, just because someone wants to keep it closed doesn't mean they're an idiot, doesn't mean they don't have the facts.

[optimusREIM]

If the studies determine there is some net benefit then it is objectively right. There can be right and wrong opinions here. It's not all based on personal opinion

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

If the studies determine there is some net benefit then it is objectively right. There can be right and wrong opinions here. It's not all based on personal opinion

Absolutely not. What study determined a net benefit? A net benefit to whom exactly? To say that a commuter through portage and main who's commute will now be longer will see a net benefit is quite frankly asinine, if you have no idea what said commuter values, and how he values it. So yes, it is personal opinion.