Originally Posted by PHrenetic
Mr.P.
Washrooms - Phase 1 will have more that you falsely represent - Tuney's, Bayview, Hurdman, Blair. Phase 2 will have more, including LincolnFields, Moodie, Trim. Plus most access in the partner facilities and buildings accessed.
Moose posts online - yep, there we are - no answer, just a side-track, on an answer/out that I blatantly handed you, and you missed it. I repeat - Walkley - where are you ?
Bayview - knew you'd get here. Illegal ? Never tested in court, with most opinion saying you'd lose. CTA had to uphold the absolute letter, but expected it to be appealed, or overridden. Cabinet in right of the Crown overrode it, for the public good. Plus City always stated and documented for future plans and use - by the owner. No timeline under CTA is required - a part of City's appeal. Plus CN/CP have ceded interest in that trackage, by applying to abandon / release interest in any operations in this area. Thus the requirement for accommodating any operations other than the City's virtually disappears, and City can proceed to reduce the importance of providing for alternate operations by reason of no presently viable request or plan in the offing. Done.
Beachburg - several municipalities proposed getting together to propose a low-volume regional commuter service, if a viable partner came forward. Where were you ? There was indeed a small noise from you, but no viable input nor proposal. It died.
You did not oppose ? Yeah - no viable basis for complaint or objection, no viable plan on the horizon let alone the table. Done.
Bristol - yup, seen it, saw it. A good try at protecting and future-proofing for an opportunity to develop a low-volume commuter rail service, as above. But - the same long-term no-show of a viable plan or offer. now eight years later, for them, and still no-show. That is a long time for a municipal council to hold out a faint hope for a plan or offer, to hang on in the face of local residents and businesses asking why,what,when. The motion probably still stands on their record books, but it is now probably (to be polite) noted as "inactive". Done.
Investors - yes, indeed, angels to put up $25 mil at a pop, pop, pop. How many pops ?
Where are they, after they see the books, the plans, and the probabilities ? Still behind-the-scenes private not-for-present-attribution to keep their backers safe ? (Hint - I'm giving you another out here.)
Opposition - Of course there is opposition. You are proposing to make use of infrastructure of the public good for private gain. And that is indeed the nature of RailWays - publicly stated and supported. But that phrase also carries responsibilities - the public good. Opposition is based therein - opponents do not see your public good in sufficient quality or quantity for the required investment, an investment phrased in either your market-driven model or the public investment model.
Now - opposition from within - within the City, OC-T, Public Health (what - public health ? - sorry, can't see that one). Hello - Public Servants can offer advice, information, and support to a certain extent as part and parcel of their jobs, equally and equitably, to all comers, not just you, to aid in development of ideas to viability.
But - and it's a big BUT, the nature of Public Service is to the Public, not to developers (despite some laxness in these quarters), entrepreneurs, and other private interests. Public Service is -Public- service, supplied by Public Servants, to the Public. Any and All public servants knows this and honours it (or should), in thought and deed, no matter the political master of the time or moment, or the private pressure to perform otherwise. This is Idealistic ? Damn right it is. And it is what most Public Servants are made of, and honour, despite being ground down by disrespect and mis-representation of their work.
So. Stop picking and providing strawmen objections and diversions to straight questions, and a paranoid interpretation and apprehension of conspiracies of opposition when there is none.
Instead, give a real proposal, with backers, and financiers, and plans, to get going. Or Not.
P.S. - love your misguided attempt at the misinterpretation or misapplication of Frenetic (def: frantic, frenzied, fanatic) as an attempt to get my attention. My attention has already long been here, and wilfully restrained until you crossed the line. Instead - focus on the diametric opposite, which my name is intended to point to (or do you just not get it ?) : reasoned, rational, methodical, balanced.
As an attempted dig at my, and other, presentations, reason, and debate, by those who have a problem with your seeming flawed and diversion-filled 'logic' and non-answers.....missed again.
|
Prev
Linear Mode
