Joint Regional Transportation Agency

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by HarbingerDe

I guess the privileged NIMBY boomers don't even think about public transit enough to get involved and derail the public consultation process with counter-productive car-centric lobbying.

The discussion would be more productive without these silly and insulting generalizations. Please, let's be better than this.

[HarbingerDe]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The discussion would be more productive without these silly and insulting generalizations. Please, let's be better than this.

It's not really a generalization. "Privileged NIMBY Boomer" is a quite specific group of people, and I think it is both fair and undeniable to say that they have been one of (if not THE) largest sole factors holding back all manners of positive change and development in the HRM.

I'll concede that my comment wasn't particularly constructive or helpful, but there isn't really anything I would change or retract about it.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by josh_cat_eyes

They should be working on building an actual subway system. Edmonton was the size Halifax is today when they opened their first line.

Judicious use of tunneling could dramatically improve station locations (including multimodal connections) and travel times. I hope JRTA's planning scope looks beyond the old mix of surface BRT and shared heavy rail lines.

It would only take a short line (<= 10 km or so) with a good alignment to offer some "killer" transportation options connecting key inner city areas and avoid some key traffic bottlenecks. The bus system could then be oriented around this backbone, which could also connect to a downtown ferry terminal.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by HarbingerDe

It's not really a generalization. "Privileged NIMBY Boomer" is a quite specific group of people, and I think it is both fair and undeniable to say that they have been one of (if not THE) largest sole factors holding back all manners of positive change and development in the HRM.

I'll concede that my comment wasn't particularly constructive or helpful, but there isn't really anything I would change or retract about it.

It is absolutely a generalization and quite offensive to boot. I guess we should all be thankful you didn't just trot out the "OK Boomer" insult too.

In your defense, I guess you might be a refugee here from the Reddit Halifax cesspool where the junior planning students like to hang out and where such bad behavior is encouraged.

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It is absolutely a generalization and quite offensive to boot. I guess we should all the thankful you didn't just trot out the "OK Boomer" insult too.

In your defense, I guess you might be a refugee here from the Reddit Halifax cesspool where the junior planning students like to hang out and where such bad behavior is encouraged.

The discussion would be more productive without these silly and insulting generalizations. Please, let's be better than this.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Originally Posted by HarbingerDe

(if not THE) largest sole factors holding back all manners of positive change and development in the HRM.

You're giving city council a free pass eh? You don't think that council has a role to play? Giving yourself a free pass too?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

The discussion would be more productive without these silly and insulting generalizations. Please, let's be better than this.

That's exactly my point.

[josh_cat_eyes]

This is another problem, people are constantly bickering about who is to blame instead of using their energy on solving the problem.

Once the first domino falls, the wheels will start turning and will make this whole thing easier. For example say that the south end terminal is relocated. That means CN would no longer need ti use the rail cut to into terminus. The trucks are removed from downtown city streets. The rail cut can be converted to public transportation. Once one domino falls, more of them start to fall.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by HarbingerDe

It's not really a generalization. "Privileged NIMBY Boomer" is a quite specific group of people, and I think it is both fair and undeniable to say that they have been one of (if not THE) largest sole factors holding back all manners of positive change and development in the HRM.

I'll concede that my comment wasn't particularly constructive or helpful, but there isn't really anything I would change or retract about it.

Yes I'd agree with that. It would be a generalization for someone to say that all boomers are privileged NIMBYs or all boomers are privileged. But not to refer specifically to those boomers who are. Nor is it to suggest that the largest cohort of obstructionists fall into a category that includes all three characteristics. Whether or not the claim is true, it's not a generalization.

But yes, it isn't productive to include personal characteristics like age bracket in a critique since some people are very sensitive to that. They tend to get distracted by such things while ignoring the more relevant content. I think there's a fear that even if you're being specific by referring directly to people who posses all three traits, that it might lead others who hear it to draw generalizations.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by josh_cat_eyes

Once the first domino falls, the wheels will start turning and will make this whole thing easier. For example say that the south end terminal is relocated. That means CN would no longer need ti use the rail cut to into terminus. The trucks are removed from downtown city streets. The rail cut can be converted to public transportation. Once one domino falls, more of them start to fall.

I wonder what the business reason and cost-benefit for this would be though. Port traffic isn't growing much and building a new terminal would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. I would imagine the old site would need to be remediated.

The rail cut is a useful piece of infrastructure but its alignment isn't very good for transit as it takes an indirect path through low density areas near the water. The biggest problem from the South End terminal is arguably truck traffic through the core, and a solution to that is to put those containers on rail and unload around Fairview Cove. I think this is already in the works.

[someone123]

I believe the biggest problem is there hasn't been good quality regional transportation planning with buy-in from all levels of government. The HRM BRT plan looked interesting but without the province it is DOA.

If there are concrete proposals with maps, renderings, cost estimates, etc., they will focus the public debate.

[HarbingerDe]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

You're giving city council a free pass eh? You don't think that council has a role to play? Giving yourself a free pass too?

Exactly what demographic of people would you say the council is almost exclusively comprised of?

As I and several others have now said, this conversation is not a productive use of our time and energy. I stand by my words; they are not a generalization.

And no council doesn't get a free pass; they are the privileged NIMBY Boomers I'm criticizing.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by josh_cat_eyes

This is another problem, people are constantly bickering about who is to blame instead of using their energy on solving the problem.

Exactly. It would be nice to get through a discussion without playing the blame game to our personal prejudices, but I accept that some forum members will never be able to get past that, but instead will choose to double down.

Anyhow... don't want to clog the thread up with such nonsense any further. I've enjoyed the discussion otherwise.

[Nouvellecosse]

In fairness, he immediately acknowledged that it wasn't productive. He simply (correctly) pointed out that calling it an over-generalization was not an accurate criticism. And honestly, being off-topic isn't a relevant criticism either as few of us stay 100% on topic since this is a fairly casual setting.

The correct criticism is that some people expect political correctness with anything related to personal or group identity, and not adhering to that triggers unproductive and distracting reactions. So it's important to be careful about that when speaking to avoid conflict.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The correct criticism is that some people expect political correctness with anything related to personal or group identity, and not adhering to that triggers unproductive and distracting reactions.

It is good to be respectful and it's hard to avoid the third rails, but there are also generational equity issues in Canada because there were dramatic economic and policy shifts at certain dates.

You can see it just in housing over the last couple of years. It was much easier to buy a house in Halifax in 2019 than 2023. There's going to be a political break between the homeowner and non-homeowner groups because of that. Some of it's age based because if you were 17 in 2019 you probably had no opportunity to buy at that time.

I think the big shifts have also made it harder for different generations to understand each other. And it tends to be the older generations more in the driver's seat (partly because older people inherently tend to have more experience) or giving out advice while the younger generation is less established and more vulnerable to economic shocks. Thankfully Canada is not as bad as the USA where a lot of the same people have been in power for decades and are some cases physically and mentally checking out while still in office.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by HarbingerDe

It's not really a generalization. "Privileged NIMBY Boomer" is a quite specific group of people, and I think it is both fair and undeniable to say that they have been one of (if not THE) largest sole factors holding back all manners of positive change and development in the HRM.

I'll concede that my comment wasn't particularly constructive or helpful, but there isn't really anything I would change or retract about it.

Are all homeowners privileged? Is NIMBYism really the factor holding back positive change? Please provide examples. The fact is 60% of Halifax own their home and if you take out people who are probably transient to the city it would be even higher. They want to live in SFH and go downtown for work and infrequent activities. They don't want to pay taxes so those of us against that lifestyle can have urban amenities. I don't think Millenials who are also moving to the suburbs or now exurbs to afford housing are going to change much of that. In fact if you mean actual boomers some of them moving out of their West End houses to downtown to Condos without the need to commute might end up more progressive than their Millennial kids moving to Timberlea.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

In fairness, he immediately acknowledged that it wasn't productive. He simply (correctly) pointed out that calling it an over-generalization was not an accurate criticism. And honestly, being off-topic isn't a relevant criticism either as few of us stay 100% on topic since this is a fairly casual setting.

The correct criticism is that some people expect political correctness with anything related to personal or group identity, and not adhering to that triggers unproductive and distracting reactions. So it's important to be careful about that when speaking to avoid conflict.

I think more attention has been given this than it deserves.

I'll give my reasons for making the comment, then let's put it to rest.

- I've read it stated lately that people feel comfortable posting in the Halifax forum topics because of the respectful dialogue.

- A relatively new poster appears and spills out the typical 'privileged boomer is responsible for all our problems' trope.

- As people from several demographics post here, I thought that perhaps it should be mentioned that this isn't the way to move forward if we want to prevent this from becoming a reddit-like cesspool.

- I thought that the poster might take this as good advice moving forward.

Hopefully we can proceed on the basis that respectful conversation includes not calling out people based on age, race, religion, culture, sexual orientation, etc. Of these, it seems the only thing that is acceptable on this forum is age-based criticism. Perhaps it would be a positive step if we thought of this in the future.

The handy "privileged" descriptor always seems to make it okay, even though people don't seem to consider their own privilege. Therefore it seems a little hypocritical when the 'privilege' card is drawn.

That's all I have to say about it. Hopefully it doesn't offend anybody, as my thoughts are well-intended.

[Nouvellecosse]

^ To be clear, I don't think anyone was saying your concern was invalid. We all acknowledged that using such terms can be unproductive. Everyone is sensitive about certain things - even if not always the same things - and avoiding certain 3rd rail topics can be helpful.

Although I do disagree with the implication that everyone has equal privilege in every context and therefore no one should raise the matter. It should be pretty clear that some people are more privileged than others both overall and in certain contexts and that this affects the substance of the issue. Privilege is, in many ways, just a synonym for power. And power always plays an important role in how a society changes and functions. I remember it was literally in our introductory community design class that the textbook described the importance of power mapping when embarking on major planning projects. Basically creating a map of key stakeholders and demographics, what their interests are, the connections between them, the flows and sources of money, etc. Mainly because powerful vested interests are often what determine whether a plan is successful or not. So power and privilege is essential for planner and public policy makers to acknowledge and discuss.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Although I do disagree with the implication that everyone has equal privilege in every context and therefore no one should raise the matter.

That’s not what I was trying to say, but at least we agree.

All good.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Are all homeowners privileged? Is NIMBYism really the factor holding back positive change? Please provide examples.

If you look at a zoning map of the city you will see that there are large detached housing only areas, including in some cases areas that are already higher density (they have rowhouses or apartments that are banned as new construction). This is a classic NIMBY policy and exists in many Canadian cities.

Around here in Vancouver you can see large swatches of low density housing while new construction gets crammed onto tiny percentages of the land controlled by relatively few developers. I think it's been bad for the city. The land values are such that it's impossible to have affordable low density housing. A single lot can be $1-2M. Halifax is not there yet but is moving in that direction.

I would argue that green belts and agricultural land reserves also have a component of NIMBY support. Halifax has a de facto greenbelt.