[deasine]

Jennifer Saltman - The Province (http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=79827fca-1af8-4dce-96ef-6b043323e574&k=38252) - May 15A Surrey teen who thinks his city is heading in the wrong direction has decided to run for council in November.
If he’s elected, it’s believed 18-year-old blogger Paul Hillsdon would be the youngest-ever Surrey councillor.
“I think I have a lot of the leadership skills that are necessary for a position like this,” Hillsdon said.
“I have a lot of good ideas.”
Hillsdon’s platform builds on the idea of sustainability and has four pillars: sustainable development, green spaces, vibrant communities and transportation options.
A “green building strategy” would require a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) gold standard for all municipal buildings and encourage developers to green private developments.
Affordable housing is included in Hillsdon’s development plan.
His agenda for green spaces includes a “nature network strategy” covering the expansion, protection, enhancement and connection of green spaces.
To create vibrant communities, Hillsdon would encourage vitalized town centres, expand services for youths and seniors and improve communication between the city and residents.
Transit and transportation are close to Hillsdon’s heart, because he grew up in Cloverdale and used public transit regularly.
He would like to see attractive, effective bus facilities, an expanded cycling network, a rapid-transit plan, a progressive traffic-calming strategy and a green municipal fleet.
“A lot of the ideas in my platform are part of a larger public awareness,” Hillsdon said. “Sustainability is huge right now.”
Having looked at the city’s recent financial reports, Hillsdon said the projects would require a small tax increase, if that, and reallocation of existing funds.
“Most of my ideas are very minimal investments and, while not necessarily completely new, they’re cheap compared to most things,” he said.
Hillsdon is a Grade 12 student at the online school Surrey Connect, but because of his youth and background feels he is representative of a young, diverse community.
He also believes that, like many Surrey residents, he’s not being heard by city council.
“[Mayor] Dianne Watts has done a lot of good things for the city,” he said, “but things could always be better. Considering the power that [councillors] have, they don’t contribute enough in their positions.”
When asked about his chances in November, Hillsdon chuckled and said: “I’m optimistic. I wouldn’t put in all of this time if I didn’t think it was possible.”
His website is www.paulin08.com (http://www.paulin08.com). Roberta Graham - News1130 (http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article.jsp?content=20080515_094400_2376) - May 15A teenager in Surrey has some big plans for the future of his city. 18-year old Paul Hillsdon wants to run for council in November because he thinks Surrey is heading in the wrong direction.
Paul tells the Province newspaper his platform builds on the idea of sustainability and has four pillars, including the creation of a vibrant community and green spaces, more transportation options and sustainable development.
If he’s elected, he would be the youngest-ever councillor in Surrey.I'm sure you know who this guy is. =) If you want to support him on Facebook, check out: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Paul-Hillsdon/15106402026 (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Paul-Hillsdon/15106402026?ref=nf)

[Jared]

best of luck paul!

I'd definately vote for you if I lived in Surrey.

[djh]

What's his SSP name?

[paradigm4]

It's paradigm4. Thanks for the support deasine and Jared. I really appreciate it.

My campaign site is paulin08.com (http://www.pauliln08.com). I'm sure members of this forum will find a lot to like in my platform.

[clooless]

Good luck, Paul.

Even if you lose it's important for young people to be a part of the political process. I also applaud your courage. It can't be easy to put yourself up on the public stage.

[raggedy13]

Best of luck!

You've got my support all the way. :tup:

[mr.x]

You definitely have my support, all the best...... we're behind you 110%!


If you're elected, we'll be watching every move you make. -_-

[CC420]

I'm a resident of Surrey, as you can tell by my avitar and I like what I see in your platform. Developers run this city and we need a stronger effort to end this than what Ms. Watts has so far delivered. Good luck!

Note: I tried to link to your website but it is broken.

[deasine]

I'm a resident of Surrey, as you can tell by my avitar and I like what I see in your platform. Developers run this city and we need a stronger effort to end this than what Ms. Watts has so far delivered. Good luck!

Note: I tried to link to your website but it is broken.

His website still works on my computer: http://www.paulin08.com/

[hollywoodnorth]

good luck kid ;) :)

[Windex]

After looking over your platform, you've got my vote. Best of luck in November.

[Canadian Mind]

Dudue, put Vancouver to shame and hopefully Vancouver planners will pull the heads out fo their collective asses when it comes to certain issues... like the useless viewcones (a few are nice, but the number we have now are rediculous).

[jhausner]

I'll preface this post by saying if you want to discuss any of my post or points in private rather than here on the forums, feel free to send me a PM message. With that said... I hope you don't mind my commenting on your points here regarding your platform but I'm actually really encouraged by what you have written and, if you were willing, would like to discuss a few points a bit more:

Green Building Strategy:

I think your ideas are very well thought out and researched regarding the requirement of LEED certification and the incentives based encouragement of compliance. Not a whole lot of questions on my part regarding that.

I will ask you though, have you put any thought towards Surrey becoming a leader in the Hydrogen Fuel / Fuel Cell department? I actually had the thought a while ago as to which city would be the first in the Lower Mainland to stand up and do something as drastic as requiring at least infrastructure to support 1 x Hydrogen Fuel pump at every gas station designed in Surrey. I wouldn't go so far as saying it should be required for current stations to retrofit at this time, but at least newly built ones.

Would that also fall into your Green building strategy and what are you comments on such a bold initiative?

I mean Surrey does have one of the first 70 MPa capable Hydrogen Fueling stations in the world currently already.

I'd watch going too green too quickly without penalty to developers as it will have a large impact on your next point, affordable housing. Case and point Ultra being built now. They touted it as a huge 'green' development but unit prices were between $50,000 and $100,000 more expensive for the same square footage on the same floor, as everything in the Infinty and Sky Towers complexes. So in essence the price for green was much higher unit prices by the developer. Kind of a slap in the face of affordable housing and a dangerous regional (world?) catch 22 we have been seeing lately.

Affordable Housing Strategy:

I just want to crunch a few numbers here just to estabish an affordable house given your claims. If $32,000 per person is what we're going with and we are to assume that 43% of people are unmarried (57% married), then we have two numbers to go by: $32,000 for a single household, and $64,000 for a double houshold.

Given most banks in the region lend at a 42% of total debt to income ratio for mortgage qualifications, that means 42% of $32,000 = $13,440/y ($1120 per month) and 42% of $64,000 = $26,880/7 ($2240 per month). That means in calculating what type of house most banks would allow you to purchase, we have a total house cap assuming minus mortgage each person is around 10% debt ratio already:

$32,000 income = $143,000 home @ 5.25% 5 year fixed rate over 25 years
$64,000 income = $286,000 home @ 5.25% 5 year fixed rate over 25 years

Obviously you can play around based on that but given average the numbers seem to say the average single person in Surrey can afford a $150,000 home roughly where the average married couple in Surrey can afford a $300,000 home. So correct me if I'm wrong but you are suggesting that if we use the 30% mark, that 30% of all development should be under $150,000 per unit and 30% of all development should be under $300,000 per unit. Either that or combined we would need 30% total to be under $225,000 per unit if we were to combine the middle point of both single people and married couples.

I doubt that removing elevators or reducing high-rise development's need for parking spaces would reduce units enough to be under $225,000 per unit. So I'm curious exactly how this would be applied in your opinion to Surrey. Subsidisation in the case of Austin (done to developers that are SMART compliant) means money from the city spent on that subsidisation (by taking in less money you in effect need to draw money from other pools). So to make up for that lower intake of income would you plan for an increase in taxation elsewhere? Bumping up taxes on less affordable developments?

My only issue with using Austin as an example is we're dealing with a city of 700,000 in a metro area of 1.6 million (43%) vs a city of 450,000 in a metro area of 2.2 million (20%) not to mention we have the added difficulty of multiple city 'players' competing for development and Surrey has a bit less regional pull than Austin. I'm just a little unsure as to the practicality of requiring a large amount of development to be "affordable" and resting the bulk of that on the developers themselves. Don't get me wrong they need to be hit in the pocket book if they price things just insane (Miramar Village or Brio anyone?) but I think in reality in order to accomplish what you want in this regard, you may have to visit other areas to help reduce unit cost.

Nature Network Strategy

Love it. I'm still a bit on the fence regarding Campbell Heights and won't go into details as to why, but at the end of the day nature is a very important thing so wouldn't lose sleep if the project was stopped, slowed, or redone more environmentally friendly. I'm an avid outdoorsman and just love each and every time I get to head up North to enjoy some hunting, fishing, camping, or even skiing in nature.

Thumbs up there.

Guaranteed funding for eco programs and associations

Thumbs up here too. Won't go into details but I agree with your platform here 100%.

A Transportation Hierarchy

Very logical hierarchy. Given this hierarchy and the way Surrey has been structured currently, would you then be for increasing the number of town centers in Surrey given the size of the city and as such encouraging the creation of a more Surrey centric transportation backbone and also densification around these centers?

Let's face it, walking and cycling is not practical in Surrey if people are required to move from one center to the next. I'm going to ignore commuting regionally for work for the time being because that is more of a regional issue currently and a bit more difficult for Surrey alone to attack.

Bus Stop Initiative & Surrey Rapid Transit Plan

If you combine this with your Surrey Rapid Transit Plan then I'm 100% ok with both together. Surrey centric transit plan is a must. Everything is currently focus based towards SkyTrain and Downtown Vancouver. We need better regional transportation and I'd be more willing to pay for it on my property tax than a UBC line trust me.

What would be your interest of a rapid rail line (not skytrain) starting in Surrey towards Abbotsford and YXX? It could result in a quicker travel time between Surrey and Abbotsford Airport than Surrey and YVR. I know it's in that 'dream' area of ideas, but curious to hear your opinion.

Cycling Network Initiative

Please add to this an overpass through Green Timbers' greenway over Fraser Highway. Also add to this better biking along 96th Avenue. The rest you mention is good and yes to smart traffic calming aka bike friendly.

Progressive Traffic Calming Strategy

How do you plan to balance installing traffic calming on a road when it reaches capacity vs expanding the road to increase capacity? Would traffic calming continue to be limited to residential centric roads such as side streets outside the downtown core?

For example I think you'd have very little issue with installing traffic calming on say 142nd street between 64th and the tracks, but try 64th, 140th, or I'd argue even 60th and I'd say good luck.

I think you'll find that most major accident intersections are major roads which y ou couldn't effectively install traffic calming on (76th and KGH, 88th and KGH as examples) anyway so not sure how that would help nor speeding tickets since most RCMP don't speed patrol side streets where traffic calming is currently installed.

So I guess I'm not sure exactly where you're going with this point besides making the traffic calming more bike friendly.

Municipal Green Fleet

I believe this is already being done. Don't quote me on that though in Surrey specifically. I know other regional cities are doing this already. Thumbs up from my point of view though I'll tell you now, the Honda Hybrids are annoying to drive. Really stupid design by Honda imo but that's just my opinion lol.

Vitalized Town Centres Plan

Sounds good, two thumbs up. Most of which, I've been advocating for years in Surrey so hard for me to say no.

A Communications Revolution

Interesting. I'm in the information technology field as a profession specifically working for civic government currently, and this is an area I've actually had extensive experience with. The one thing I will caution you with is that if you were to push forward with such an initiative, please please please listen to your IT department when it provides advice.

Websites, especially those in government, can be extremely over-priced especially when the decision makers are those in a city outside the IT field such as city managers or departmental directors. Granted employees at those levels are the 'boss' and get paid accordingly, but you wouldn't have the head of a Hospital tell a Cardiac Surgeon how to perform a triple bypass would you? I do like where you're going though on the ideas and since I would be at a bit of a conflict to offer any specific advice given my experience in public, I will offer to discuss some topics regarding information technology in cities in private if you ever want to.

I think encouraging the expansion of information technology to Surrey citizens is a good step forward in any capacity.

A renewed investment in Surrey’s youth

Love it.

A renewed investment in Surrey’s seniors

Love it also. Would you also push for encouraging a mix of youth with seniors. It always kind of irked me this disconnect between today's youth and today's seniors. I know every time I go to visit my grandparents out in Chilliwack while I'm living in Surrey, I wonder, why they can't live near me and me near them.

I'd love to see a Councilor and or Mayor push town center developement to encourage the mixing of youth and seniors.



Anyway I think I'll leave it at that for now.

I know massive wall of text but hey you want to enter into politics so get used to it. :-) Again if there is anything you want to discuss feel free to respond here or throw me a PM.

Best of luck to you and I'll give you serious consideration of my vote come the election in November.

[hollywoodnorth]

Go Kid Go!

[Canadian Mind]

Go Kid Go!

:haha:

Ditto. :cheers:

[paradigm4]

lol Thanks all for the supportive comments. Just about to ramp up the campaign in the next month now that school is almost over and summer is finally here. I'm glad jhausner is discussing my platform here, and I'd love to exchange opinions and ideas with anyone else, here or in private. I'll post a complete reply to him shortly.

[paradigm4]

Green Building Strategy:

I will ask you though, have you put any thought towards Surrey becoming a leader in the Hydrogen Fuel / Fuel Cell department? I actually had the thought a while ago as to which city would be the first in the Lower Mainland to stand up and do something as drastic as requiring at least infrastructure to support 1 x Hydrogen Fuel pump at every gas station designed in Surrey. I wouldn't go so far as saying it should be required for current stations to retrofit at this time, but at least newly built ones.

Would that also fall into your Green building strategy and what are you comments on such a bold initiative?

Based on my understanding of transportation and the hydrogen fuel cell technology, I do not see hydrogen cars as the long term solution for sustainable transportation. Obviously, it is an improvement on petrol based vehicles, but it does not solve the larger effects of both car induced urban sprawl and city building around cars (somewhat hand in hand).

Furthermore, the hydrogen technology, again based on my understanding, is nowhere near ready for the consumer market and won't be for at least a decade. Not to mention it would require immense subsidies to make it at all affordable for the first buyers. And we would have to retrofit all fueling stations. Ballard recently ditched it's fuel cell business after over a decade of development - I think it's very clear sign that hydrogen is going nowhere fast, whether or not BC has a hydrogen highway.

I think we need a vast expansion of green public transit options, a great increase in cycling mode share, a renewed drive to build complete communities, plus the shift to smaller, greener cars. I think it's quite clear that we will be shifting over to electric vehicles in time.

I'd watch going too green too quickly without penalty to developers as it will have a large impact on your next point, affordable housing. Case and point Ultra being built now. They touted it as a huge 'green' development but unit prices were between $50,000 and $100,000 more expensive for the same square footage on the same floor, as everything in the Infinty and Sky Towers complexes. So in essence the price for green was much higher unit prices by the developer. Kind of a slap in the face of affordable housing and a dangerous regional (world?) catch 22 we have been seeing lately.

It's debatable whether or not Ultra was specifically more expensive due to it's "greenness". However, it is an important point, and yes, the whole penalty aspect of the GBS would have to be done carefully and properly. The dates I proposed were just an example. There does need to be a balance though with setting real deadlines - for example, waiting 10 to 15 years for all developments to meet LEED is rather excessively slow.

Also, if such an initiative was pursued regionally, it would have less of a possible negative effect. Instead, by acting as an economic bloc, it would enhance the developments all across Metro. But, Surrey is a big market on it's own, and if done properly, I see no reason why the GBS couldn't set a major precedent for cities all around the world.

Affordable Housing Strategy:

I just want to crunch a few numbers here just to estabish an affordable house given your claims. If $32,000 per person is what we're going with and we are to assume that 43% of people are unmarried (57% married), then we have two numbers to go by: $32,000 for a single household, and $64,000 for a double houshold.

Given most banks in the region lend at a 42% of total debt to income ratio for mortgage qualifications, that means 42% of $32,000 = $13,440/y ($1120 per month) and 42% of $64,000 = $26,880/7 ($2240 per month). That means in calculating what type of house most banks would allow you to purchase, we have a total house cap assuming minus mortgage each person is around 10% debt ratio already:

$32,000 income = $143,000 home @ 5.25% 5 year fixed rate over 25 years
$64,000 income = $286,000 home @ 5.25% 5 year fixed rate over 25 years

Obviously you can play around based on that but given average the numbers seem to say the average single person in Surrey can afford a $150,000 home roughly where the average married couple in Surrey can afford a $300,000 home. So correct me if I'm wrong but you are suggesting that if we use the 30% mark, that 30% of all development should be under $150,000 per unit and 30% of all development should be under $300,000 per unit. Either that or combined we would need 30% total to be under $225,000 per unit if we were to combine the middle point of both single people and married couples.

I doubt that removing elevators or reducing high-rise development's need for parking spaces would reduce units enough to be under $225,000 per unit. So I'm curious exactly how this would be applied in your opinion to Surrey. Subsidisation in the case of Austin (done to developers that are SMART compliant) means money from the city spent on that subsidisation (by taking in less money you in effect need to draw money from other pools). So to make up for that lower intake of income would you plan for an increase in taxation elsewhere? Bumping up taxes on less affordable developments?

My only issue with using Austin as an example is we're dealing with a city of 700,000 in a metro area of 1.6 million (43%) vs a city of 450,000 in a metro area of 2.2 million (20%) not to mention we have the added difficulty of multiple city 'players' competing for development and Surrey has a bit less regional pull than Austin. I'm just a little unsure as to the practicality of requiring a large amount of development to be "affordable" and resting the bulk of that on the developers themselves. Don't get me wrong they need to be hit in the pocket book if they price things just insane (Miramar Village or Brio anyone?) but I think in reality in order to accomplish what you want in this regard, you may have to visit other areas to help reduce unit cost.

Good number crunching! The idea was of course to adopt an market-based incentives program to hopefully add more affordable housing stock before we end up in Vancouver's situation. Unfortunately, it clashes somewhat with the GBS, so the question to me was what was more important, and I chose to go with LEED buildings for now. The ultimate long term program would be giving incentives to developments that make the triple bottom line (social, environmental, and economical). I believe Port Moody or one of the Tri-Cities has a policy like this, but with few incentives for developers.

I've been reading more and more into this problem. While examining cases like Hong Kong, New York, and London, it seems like, at least in Vancouver, they need to ensure a substantial portion of all housing stock - rental and owned - will always hit certain barometers of affordability, in accordance to inflation. If this is not done, you just end up forcing required members of the city to live in the burbs and that's obviously not sustainable. For example, all the baristas and yoga teachers downtown should either be paid more to work downtown so they too can live in the area, or there needs to be some specific amount of housing stock just for them and other required similar jobs. But I know this too comes with quite a few problems when you control the market.

Ultimately, Vancouver just needs to densify, at least to mid-rise buildings as a majority, like most European cities.

In Surrey, the situation is more unique obviously. Right now, it's not a huge problem, people can afford to buy, at least townhomes. Rental stock out here is cheaper and newer than other areas of the region. And, all things considered, with the market slowdown and condos no longer selling out (Miramar as you pointed out), developments will have to reduce their profit margins because it's just too expensive!

I'm researching deeper into this area. Any ideas?

Nature Network Strategy

Love it. I'm still a bit on the fence regarding Campbell Heights and won't go into details as to why, but at the end of the day nature is a very important thing so wouldn't lose sleep if the project was stopped, slowed, or redone more environmentally friendly. I'm an avid outdoorsman and just love each and every time I get to head up North to enjoy some hunting, fishing, camping, or even skiing in nature.

Thumbs up there.

Guaranteed funding for eco programs and associations

Thumbs up here too. Won't go into details but I agree with your platform here 100%.

We have a great opportunity out here to save a ton of natural land from unnecessary development. I want to have way more greenspace, and especially outdo Vancouver in this respect before we are built out - because it's damn hard to reclaim once civilisation takes over. Glad we agree here :)

A Transportation Hierarchy

Very logical hierarchy. Given this hierarchy and the way Surrey has been structured currently, would you then be for increasing the number of town centers in Surrey given the size of the city and as such encouraging the creation of a more Surrey centric transportation backbone and also densification around these centers?

Let's face it, walking and cycling is not practical in Surrey if people are required to move from one center to the next. I'm going to ignore commuting regionally for work for the time being because that is more of a regional issue currently and a bit more difficult for Surrey alone to attack.

I think development focus should definitely focus on the existing six town centres. As it is, I think trying to build six really great, dense, centres will be hard enough, without adding more to stretch the market for these developments even more. Also, keeping the focus on the six will ensure transit expansion keeps an eye to connecting these specific areas.

Transportation between the centres isn't actually that hard - perhaps a bit further than one might consider normally. I don't think it's at all unreasonable for a person to bike between Fleetwood and Guildford, or even Newton and Whalley. However, I understand in a case like South Surrey to Newton, where it's possible, but long and unsafe, providing people with BRT or LRT is a great sustainable and convenient option. Of course, the ultimate should be for them to not even make these centre to centre commutes in the first place.

I would be for the development of neighbourhood centres, such as Ocean Park, Clayton, or Fraser Heights. When LRT gets built and we do TOD, these new communities could be designated neighbourhood centres. I just want to avoid attempting to create 20+ neighbourhoods instead of six great town centres.

Bus Stop Initiative & Surrey Rapid Transit Plan

If you combine this with your Surrey Rapid Transit Plan then I'm 100% ok with both together. Surrey centric transit plan is a must. Everything is currently focus based towards SkyTrain and Downtown Vancouver. We need better regional transportation and I'd be more willing to pay for it on my property tax than a UBC line trust me.

What would be your interest of a rapid rail line (not skytrain) starting in Surrey towards Abbotsford and YXX? It could result in a quicker travel time between Surrey and Abbotsford Airport than Surrey and YVR. I know it's in that 'dream' area of ideas, but curious to hear your opinion.

Yes, transportation has been far too Vancouver focused. It irates me when SSPers talk about expanding SkyTrain down Main or along Hastings when there is still such a huge need out in the Valley - it's like people are a little to self centered sometimes. Or they give the excuse that we build poorly so we don't deserve transit - ugh! Pisses me off!

UBC has to be done by SkyTrain. We locked ourselves into that technology. However, I want Surrey to do it right, with cheap LRT and BRT. Depending on the success of such expansion, which I think can be done way better than SkyTrain ever was, I'd like to see wider connections.

I think Surrey connection with the Valley with increase in importance over time. However, the Surrey to Vancouver connection I think will still be bigger for a while. Abbotsford is almost a completely separately area unto it's own.

Talking blue sky dreams, I ultimately see the Interurban line reused as a commuter rail service. I'd like to see it expanded west to Vancouver for people in Surrey and Langley to bypass SkyTrain, and east to Abbotsford and even Chilliwack to serve all Metro Vancouverites for day trips or, as you suggested, access to Abbotsford's airport.

Cycling Network Initiative

Please add to this an overpass through Green Timbers' greenway over Fraser Highway. Also add to this better biking along 96th Avenue. The rest you mention is good and yes to smart traffic calming aka bike friendly.

I'm quite against overpasses as a solution. Mixing traffic is a better solution in terms of cost and the environment for pedestrians. Separating grades just makes it more convenient for cars to keep chugging along. I'm sure they are planning some kind of crossing or mid-way stop along the median when Fraser is expanded through that stretch. Personally, I'd like to see an overhead pedestrian light on that crossing.

Progressive Traffic Calming Strategy

How do you plan to balance installing traffic calming on a road when it reaches capacity vs expanding the road to increase capacity? Would traffic calming continue to be limited to residential centric roads such as side streets outside the downtown core?

For example I think you'd have very little issue with installing traffic calming on say 142nd street between 64th and the tracks, but try 64th, 140th, or I'd argue even 60th and I'd say good luck.

I think you'll find that most major accident intersections are major roads which you couldn't effectively install traffic calming on (76th and KGH, 88th and KGH as examples) anyway so not sure how that would help nor speeding tickets since most RCMP don't speed patrol side streets where traffic calming is currently installed.

So I guess I'm not sure exactly where you're going with this point besides making the traffic calming more bike friendly.

No, most of the roads you suggested are too busy/important corridors as it is for calming. Perhaps adding side street parking or sidewalk bulges or something like that at most. I basically mean the roads through residential areas.

There was three reasons for this addition to the platform:

1. Stop the speeders in residential areas. Street racing is big in Surrey, and we could at least ensure, through physical measures, that they wouldn't do it on residential streets.

2. Improve streets for pedestrians and cyclists. Slower traffic is much safer for cyclists, and important as they move from residential areas onto the wider network. It also encourages that "suburban" street play. Children have a right to safely play in their neighbourhoods without the fear of getting run over by a car.

3. Shift the current policy. Right now, people need to complain and get support before an area receives traffic calming. With my expansive plans, the policy needs to change and just be done automatically by city staff. This would also ensure a "traffic calmed neighbourhood" is actually a neighbourhood and not just two short stretches of road.

Municipal Green Fleet

I believe this is already being done. Don't quote me on that though in Surrey specifically. I know other regional cities are doing this already. Thumbs up from my point of view though I'll tell you now, the Honda Hybrids are annoying to drive. Really stupid design by Honda imo but that's just my opinion lol.

Also not sure if Surrey is doing this, but it's an important transition all cities should be making.

Vitalized Town Centres Plan

Sounds good, two thumbs up. Most of which, I've been advocating for years in Surrey so hard for me to say no.

Lol Thanks! Advocating? How so?

A Communications Revolution

Interesting. I'm in the information technology field as a profession specifically working for civic government currently, and this is an area I've actually had extensive experience with. The one thing I will caution you with is that if you were to push forward with such an initiative, please please please listen to your IT department when it provides advice.

Websites, especially those in government, can be extremely over-priced especially when the decision makers are those in a city outside the IT field such as city managers or departmental directors. Granted employees at those levels are the 'boss' and get paid accordingly, but you wouldn't have the head of a Hospital tell a Cardiac Surgeon how to perform a triple bypass would you? I do like where you're going though on the ideas and since I would be at a bit of a conflict to offer any specific advice given my experience in public, I will offer to discuss some topics regarding information technology in cities in private if you ever want to.

I think encouraging the expansion of information technology to Surrey citizens is a good step forward in any capacity.

Makes sense and I will take note. The one worry I have is that the Tech people staff in the city are either quite behind in their knowledge of web technologies, or not keen on change. I just have this understanding that there's a big disconnect between the fast paced tech companies like Facebook or YouTube and those guys that go around doing tech support for big corporations or governments.

A renewed investment in Surrey’s youth

Love it.

A renewed investment in Surrey’s seniors

Love it also. Would you also push for encouraging a mix of youth with seniors. It always kind of irked me this disconnect between today's youth and today's seniors. I know every time I go to visit my grandparents out in Chilliwack while I'm living in Surrey, I wonder, why they can't live near me and me near them.

I'd love to see a Councilor and or Mayor push town center developement to encourage the mixing of youth and seniors.

Agreed. I've thought about that aspect too. The passing of knowledge from seniors to youth has always been a critical societal exchange in all major civilisations, so it would obviously be of interest to an anthropologist or sociologist concerning the current disconnect between the two age groups.

But yes, all for mixing of ages, incomes, races, etc. in the Town Centres. That's how you create diversity!

Anyway I think I'll leave it at that for now.

I know massive wall of text but hey you want to enter into politics so get used to it. :-) Again if there is anything you want to discuss feel free to respond here or throw me a PM.

Best of luck to you and I'll give you serious consideration of my vote come the election in November.

Thanks jhausner! This was fun! Good chance to elaborate and touch up on my ideas and also enjoyed the exchange of your experiences on the topic!

Please mind any typos though. Don't feel like rereading the whole thing atm! :)

[jhausner]

Based on my understanding of transportation and the hydrogen fuel cell technology, I do not see hydrogen cars as the long term solution for sustainable transportation. Obviously, it is an improvement on petrol based vehicles, but it does not solve the larger effects of both car induced urban sprawl and city building around cars (somewhat hand in hand).

Good points. I do think though that a lot of push against car based urban sprawl in recent years has been a result of cars polluting and the amount they contribute to the environmental issue. Remove that from the equation and it isn't quite as negative. Though yes it can be argued that it isn't the entire part of the equation since when I drive around Coquitlam and see 'executive style' homes being built in clear-cut areas that were not long ago forests on mountains, I cringe.


Furthermore, the hydrogen technology, again based on my understanding, is nowhere near ready for the consumer market and won't be for at least a decade. Not to mention it would require immense subsidies to make it at all affordable for the first buyers. And we would have to retrofit all fueling stations. Ballard recently ditched it's fuel cell business after over a decade of development - I think it's very clear sign that hydrogen is going nowhere fast, whether or not BC has a hydrogen highway.

Actually that is incorrect. Ballard has not ditched it. There were talks back in 07 about the possibility but it wasn't because of flaws in the technology rather Ballard focussing all its eggs in 1 basket so to speak. Because of the length before it can go to market, Ballard needed other revenue sources and as such was contemplating shelving auto based fuel cells for a more profitable market. They have gotten a lot of action lately on the power backup systems using fuel cell technology especially in China, a major market, and because of that are continuing work in the auto industry.

The stumbling blocks though aren't entirely cost now. And with any new technology, cost isn't REALLY a stubmbling block when the technology is right. Case and point, 4 years ago Plasma screens 32" in size were $19,000. Today you can hardly find a 42" Plasma screen for over $2,000. Supply and demand. When the major autos start pushing out the fuel cell vehicles then the prices will start to drop. They've already broken the Platinum issue so that it isn't an issue anymore.

It's a chicken and egg issue though. Without infrastructure, there is no great push to release hydrogen cars. Without the cars, there is no great push to build infrastructure. That's why I think if a city were to stand up and say "Hey let's build the infrastructure because it is important." it will help speed the process along when adoption is here.

And trust me, a decade is not actually that long. Anyway that's just my take on it. I don't think you're ever going to get rid of cars. There are a LOT of cars in European cities that have 50 times the transit system we do here. If they can't get rid of cars, we never will. So I think we have to also deal with the pollution portion of them as a society.


I think we need a vast expansion of green public transit options, a great increase in cycling mode share, a renewed drive to build complete communities, plus the shift to smaller, greener cars. I think it's quite clear that we will be shifting over to electric vehicles in time.

Electricity has to come from somewhere and right now most in North America comes from coal. It does help, but even electric isn't a for sure solution. Way better than E85 which is a complete joke though. I do agree though. Really my only beef with Transit is for me to get to work it takes 2 hours 1 way by bus but 25 minutes 1 way by car even in the worst of traffic. That stuff has to change. I'm not the only one. I have an employee in Coquitlam that by car takes him 1 1/2 hours to get to work but by bus it would take him 3 1/2 hours. 4 hours added to commute just to be environmentally friendly.

And biking isn't an option as the travel distance is 31km for me and more for him. The only true option would be to move closer and yes that is an option, but then you wouldn't have my vote as I'd be living in a different city. ;-)


It's debatable whether or not Ultra was specifically more expensive due to it's "greenness". However, it is an important point, and yes, the whole penalty aspect of the GBS would have to be done carefully and properly. The dates I proposed were just an example. There does need to be a balance though with setting real deadlines - for example, waiting 10 to 15 years for all developments to meet LEED is rather excessively slow.

I'd agree with that. A large issue I have with government is the artificial delays added onto projects or initiatives. Often they are just a result of council not wanting a project to start and end on their term netting the possibility of failure and re-election. I'm sure, if you go far in politics, you will find that a lot of 'old school' councillors are typically 50% concerned with the city and pushing things forward and 50% concerned with being re-elected.

That's why very few ever really put their head on the line with progressive concepts. That's part why I think Diane Watts is fairly well supported right now in Surrey, because she isn't just going through the motions and while some may disagree with some of her points, they can't disagree with her having the guts to stick her head out if she thinks it will help progress the city forward.

There is truth though to the fact that in society, green = more money. It's a cash cow right now, the in thing, like American Idol with the young crowd. Green is big business. I just want to see it become the norm rather than the fad and I do like the direction you're going.


Also, if such an initiative was pursued regionally, it would have less of a possible negative effect. Instead, by acting as an economic bloc, it would enhance the developments all across Metro. But, Surrey is a big market on it's own, and if done properly, I see no reason why the GBS couldn't set a major precedent for cities all around the world.

Very true. It could also be a world standing point for Surrey to set us in a different light than Vancouver. Sure we don't have Stanley Park, but in a decade we'll have more people than Vancouver.


Good number crunching! The idea was of course to adopt an market-based incentives program to hopefully add more affordable housing stock before we end up in Vancouver's situation. Unfortunately, it clashes somewhat with the GBS, so the question to me was what was more important, and I chose to go with LEED buildings for now. The ultimate long term program would be giving incentives to developments that make the triple bottom line (social, environmental, and economical). I believe Port Moody or one of the Tri-Cities has a policy like this, but with few incentives for developers.

And I'd agree with the focus on LEED for construction. That and dealing with out high need for moving around large distances. We're getting closer and closer to a point in time when a household will be spending more on gas for their car(s) per month than their mortgage. If you can't entirely help with the mortgage in reducing house prices drastically, helping at the gas pump is another biggy. That can only really be done on the city level by constructing areas well and correctly to encourage what you said at the top, walking, cycling, and taking public transit. Though I'd argue that walking and cycling would help a lot more since public transit = fuel usage = they raise prices over time based on fuel prices anyway so it doesn't _really_ fully get you away from that market.

I for one live in Fleetwood and can typically stay around my area for most things. But if I want to say go to a restaurant, I have to drive a km towards 152nd street or to Guildford / Langley. If I want to get some office supplies I have to drive to Surrey Central and go to Staples. Or if I want to watch a movie it's either Langley, Guildford, or Strawberry Hills.

Now that doesn't happen too often, but as I will be moving to the Central Surrey area, something as easy as a movie theater there would go a long way to reducing a lot of car trips for people.


I've been reading more and more into this problem. While examining cases like Hong Kong, New York, and London, it seems like, at least in Vancouver, they need to ensure a substantial portion of all housing stock - rental and owned - will always hit certain barometers of affordability, in accordance to inflation. If this is not done, you just end up forcing required members of the city to live in the burbs and that's obviously not sustainable. For example, all the baristas and yoga teachers downtown should either be paid more to work downtown so they too can live in the area, or there needs to be some specific amount of housing stock just for them and other required similar jobs. But I know this too comes with quite a few problems when you control the market.

Very true. You're seeing it right now where your average house price in Vancovuer is over $750,000. You have to be pulling in a 6 figure household income to afford that. And even then you typically get a 40 year old home with very little land.

The only issue with paying more for location though is that it gets passed on. For example if you pay the yoga teachers downtown more money so they can live downtown, the yoga places will bump up the price to compensate. Then suddenly they are charging say $20 for a session compared to a yoga place in Burnaby charging $10. I've have witnessed people drive 2 hours to save $20 on a $800 computer graphics card (obviously costing them more than $20 in gas) so just a $10 drop in services would more than likely mean a large reduction in clients to the downtown location.

Though it could be argued that they will still get a large amount of business due to proximity. It has to be a balance and unfortunate is largely dependant on on the line of business. What's good for a yoga place may not be good for a Pizza by the Slice place, or a Blockbusters.

What about the idea of requiring a certain amount of affordable housing units per construction project? So for example having a requirement that say a development like Quatro have 10% of all units fall into the affordability range and having a subsequent requirement that they not be sold to investors who will just jack up the price and resell them upon completion? I know this idea is part of what you had mentioned in your platform, but you didn't really go into any more details as to how it could be guaranteed to be maintained in the affordable housing sector and not simply purchased and re-sold.

Maybe you did and I missed it though.

I know easier said than done, but I do think it may be an option. I'm talking affordable housing too not free housing for the poor and or lazy like the APC wants.


Ultimately, Vancouver just needs to densify, at least to mid-rise buildings as a majority, like most European cities.

Yup. I wouldn't be on a Sky Scraper forum if I didn't believe that also. ;-)


In Surrey, the situation is more unique obviously. Right now, it's not a huge problem, people can afford to buy, at least townhomes. Rental stock out here is cheaper and newer than other areas of the region. And, all things considered, with the market slowdown and condos no longer selling out (Miramar as you pointed out), developments will have to reduce their profit margins because it's just too expensive!

I'm researching deeper into this area. Any ideas?


I think you are on the right track when you had mentioned government helping the process along. Case and point, Infinity and Sky Towers. Two very important developments for the city of Surrey. Infinity phase 2 though (towers 2 & 3) were delayed due to Surrey council by 6 months. In today's construction costs, that can have a huge impact on a development as has been evident by some developments in the Lower Mainland going bankrupt due to delays.

Sky Towers currently too is being delayed largely due to the city not the developer. Now those are all sold so it doesn't affect it immediately but in larger projects, what it does do is delay everything after. That means phase 3 of Infinity will be largely more expensive to build and as such will be sold at a higher price. It also means other developers will look and see that if such a large project with a lot of push can be delayed 6+ months, they can expect the same, so those developers will include into the initial prices the assumption of delays just so they don't get caught with their pants down.

I think speeding up the process of building in the city could help in part with costs. Not all, maybe only 10%, but every bit counts and any where efficiencies can be found (as you've said on your site) they should be pushed for.


We have a great opportunity out here to save a ton of natural land from unnecessary development. I want to have way more greenspace, and especially outdo Vancouver in this respect before we are built out - because it's damn hard to reclaim once civilisation takes over. Glad we agree here :)


Absolutely. You get no argument from me on that front. We also have enough golf courses thanks and that's coming from someone that owns a business making money off the golf industry right now. ;-)


I think development focus should definitely focus on the existing six town centres. As it is, I think trying to build six really great, dense, centres will be hard enough, without adding more to stretch the market for these developments even more. Also, keeping the focus on the six will ensure transit expansion keeps an eye to connecting these specific areas.

For sure. Glad to hear it. I also think it is easier to focus on lesser than more.


Transportation between the centres isn't actually that hard - perhaps a bit further than one might consider normally. I don't think it's at all unreasonable for a person to bike between Fleetwood and Guildford, or even Newton and Whalley. However, I understand in a case like South Surrey to Newton, where it's possible, but long and unsafe, providing people with BRT or LRT is a great sustainable and convenient option. Of course, the ultimate should be for them to not even make these centre to centre commutes in the first place.

I would actually counter that from Fleetwood to Guildford is isn't actually easy. For one, the sidewalks through most of Fleetwood are either very poor or non-existent. For two, many major roads including 160th (one of the few ways to reach Guildford) have unsafe shoulders for bikes meaning bikes must be on the road which on a 1 lane major road, isn't going to work.

That results in going down side streets which requires a lot of intersection crossing. I've tried it trust me, it's not that easy in reality. I think encouraging bike usage in Surrey means pushing for roads to have at least 1 x bike land in either direction. At least the major roads. Fraser Highway has just gone through a major upgrade but it was to add 1 lane for cars and new sidewalks. Neither of which really benefit cycling. There's a big difference between commuter style cycling and leisure going out with the kids cycling.

I think Surrey is going in a good direction but several areas such as the above I've mentioned, continue to be missed and or forgotten.


I would be for the development of neighbourhood centres, such as Ocean Park, Clayton, or Fraser Heights. When LRT gets built and we do TOD, these new communities could be designated neighbourhood centres. I just want to avoid attempting to create 20+ neighbourhoods instead of six great town centres.

Can't disagree with you there. 6 is a nice number, maybe 7 if you include Port Kells (not sure if you were already including that). My only issue though may be with Cloverdale. I find Cloverdale right now development wise is quite wide. You have a lot of dev around Fraser Highway yet the center of Cloverdale is Highway 10 and 176th. Which would be the focus? Or would it be more logical to break them down? Any thought on how you'd handle that?

Newton is also a big one to a degree. Would the focus remain around the 72nd and 136th area?


Yes, transportation has been far too Vancouver focused. It irates me when SSPers talk about expanding SkyTrain down Main or along Hastings when there is still such a huge need out in the Valley - it's like people are a little to self centered sometimes. Or they give the excuse that we build poorly so we don't deserve transit - ugh! Pisses me off!

Glad I'm not the only one. ;-) Go Falco Go? Haha just kidding. I'd argue against them that some of the poor design out in the suburbs has actually be more a result of 1) crazy prices in Vancouver requiring the single housing market to move out here and 2) so much transit and infrastructure being focussed on Vancouver and Burnaby that we don't have a backbone to densify around.

I don't like using the term but it's another one of these chicken and egg areas like Hydrogen power. Difficult to densify without transit backbone, difficult to build transit backbone without densification. One has to put out their hand first and I'd say it should be transit being built to encourage dense and smart growth.


UBC has to be done by SkyTrain. We locked ourselves into that technology. However, I want Surrey to do it right, with cheap LRT and BRT. Depending on the success of such expansion, which I think can be done way better than SkyTrain ever was, I'd like to see wider connections.

I think we could benefit from using LRT a bit more. We also do have some very nice cooridores through the Hydro right-of-ways. You could use them to easilly make lines from Delta through to South Surrey. Could also cut from Scott Road straight through the bulk of Surrey through the Hydro right-of-way with a LRT through to Fleetwood, Guildford, and Highway 1 ultimately. It's space that only has power lines currently.

There are a lot of options. I do still think the Expo line should be expanded to cover 104th through 152nd to 168th though. It makes sense logically and just visibly would result in Surrey taking a bigger regional step towards inclusion in the large picture. Wouldn't say no to LRT though or the upgrading and reintroduction of the interurban.

I would argue though that UBC is not needed before transit in Surrey. In parallel maybe, but before, I don't think so. I've gone out to UBC recently several times and it is easy. There are multiple bus lines from Burnaby and Vancouver. They get you there quick. They have express runs and they have non-express runs. Really it's not difficult to get there as it is now and SkyTrain would shave not a lot of time imo. Not at the cost of delaying work out in teh Fraser Valley or even the Ever Green Line. I dunno though either way they do need to get done.


I think Surrey connection with the Valley with increase in importance over time. However, the Surrey to Vancouver connection I think will still be bigger for a while. Abbotsford is almost a completely separately area unto it's own.

I agree. It's not as far as people think though. I drove out to Abbotsford on teh weekend actually to drop someone off and it took me less time to get there than it does for me to get to Richmond. And the growth out there, I was amazed. Wouldn't surprise me if it out populates Burnaby in the next decade making it #3 in the region.


Talking blue sky dreams, I ultimately see the Interurban line reused as a commuter rail service. I'd like to see it expanded west to Vancouver for people in Surrey and Langley to bypass SkyTrain, and east to Abbotsford and even Chilliwack to serve all Metro Vancouverites for day trips or, as you suggested, access to Abbotsford's airport.

I've been good with that line for a while now since it was first suggested. As long as they twin the rail to allow for increased frequency over time. No argument here.


I'm quite against overpasses as a solution. Mixing traffic is a better solution in terms of cost and the environment for pedestrians. Separating grades just makes it more convenient for cars to keep chugging along. I'm sure they are planning some kind of crossing or mid-way stop along the median when Fraser is expanded through that stretch. Personally, I'd like to see an overhead pedestrian light on that crossing.

You have to remember though that these are highways not roads. I think the purpose of a highway is to keep cars chugging along. I wouldn't have issue if it were 140th, but it is Fraser Highway. 70km/h + travel speeds, 4 lanes total, makes for some dangerous crossing. And adding a light just defeats the purpose of speeding up the travel through the road.

I think the same can be said in reverse. It is unfair to cyclists to have to traverse a major highway at grade through a major cycling corridore. Build them an overpass and it makes cycling convenient. I wouldn't be 100% turned off by a light though if it did end up being the deciding point.


No, most of the roads you suggested are too busy/important corridors as it is for calming. Perhaps adding side street parking or sidewalk bulges or something like that at most. I basically mean the roads through residential areas.

Then we're on the same page. :-) Just wanted to get a more clear understanding of your stance is all. Clear now!


There was three reasons for this addition to the platform:

1. Stop the speeders in residential areas. Street racing is big in Surrey, and we could at least ensure, through physical measures, that they wouldn't do it on residential streets.

No argument here. Just make sure the traffic calming speed humps used aren't so high that I need to go over them at 1km/h in my Corvette. ;-) Ones through Panarama Drive are good. Some in Delta are horrible.

And yah yah I know price I pay for having an expensive sports car for fun times. :cool:


2. Improve streets for pedestrians and cyclists. Slower traffic is much safer for cyclists, and important as they move from residential areas onto the wider network. It also encourages that "suburban" street play. Children have a right to safely play in their neighbourhoods without the fear of getting run over by a car.

Indeed. Also seperating traffic from cyclists is safer, thus why on the major roads rather than slow them down, I do think dedicated bike lanes is a good answer to not only seperate cyclists from cars but also cyclists from pedestrians.

As for suburban street play, I remember living in Newton and we used to play hockey in the roadway. Then the townhouse complex passed a bylaw not permitting us to play in the street so when the Superstore was built on 76th, we'd head there and play in their massive back parking lot that had no cars ever. Then eventually the Superstore kicked us out and wouldn't allow us to play there.

Still a bit of a sore spot sorry lol.


3. Shift the current policy. Right now, people need to complain and get support before an area receives traffic calming. With my expansive plans, the policy needs to change and just be done automatically by city staff. This would also ensure a "traffic calmed neighbourhood" is actually a neighbourhood and not just two short stretches of road.

Good point. I think it tends to be a balancing act though. The Engineering department only has so much money per year to go around and you have to spread it between traffic calming, repaving, road expansion, and utilities work among other things. Spending more money on traffic calming in a neighborhood rather than a single street will take away from either pipe replacement, sewer expansion, roads being paved, or improvements elsewhere. That may be part of why the have adopted the 'complain first' way of doing things.


Also not sure if Surrey is doing this, but it's an important transition all cities should be making.


Absolutely.


Lol Thanks! Advocating? How so?

Just through words and messages to Mayor and Council over the years. I've part had a desire in recent years to take a stab at office but my career path currently really wouldn't accomodate that (not to mention I'd take a large cut in pay which I'm not quite ready for yet) so I may have to wait until my 40s. Until then I just try to be vocal and impose my opinion on others. ;-)


Makes sense and I will take note. The one worry I have is that the Tech people staff in the city are either quite behind in their knowledge of web technologies, or not keen on change. I just have this understanding that there's a big disconnect between the fast paced tech companies like Facebook or YouTube and those guys that go around doing tech support for big corporations or governments.

Going to take my comments on this to private if you don't mind. :-)


Agreed. I've thought about that aspect too. The passing of knowledge from seniors to youth has always been a critical societal exchange in all major civilisations, so it would obviously be of interest to an anthropologist or sociologist concerning the current disconnect between the two age groups.

But yes, all for mixing of ages, incomes, races, etc. in the Town Centres. That's how you create diversity!

Here here!


Thanks jhausner! This was fun! Good chance to elaborate and touch up on my ideas and also enjoyed the exchange of your experiences on the topic!

Please mind any typos though. Don't feel like rereading the whole thing atm! :)

Not an issue. You're not writing a thesis paper so typos come with the territory. I figured you'd like discussing your stance in a bit more detail anyway. Fun to get the thought juices going!

[paradigm4]

Electricity has to come from somewhere and right now most in North America comes from coal. It does help, but even electric isn't a for sure solution.

The fact of the matter is that BC is endowed with a myriad of rivers - we are fortunate that we can quite easily provide clean electricity through hydro. Something obviously not as possible in Texas, but then they have other options like solar or geothermal.

I recall Quebec (also big on hydro) doing a study that said if all existing drivers shifted over to electric vehicles, there would be very minimal hydro expansion needed to take them onto the grid. A major part of that is due to people likely plugging in at night, which is of course an "off-peak" time, so it's easier on the grid.

BC has a great opportunity here. If the populace adopts electric vehicles, and we ensure that all transit is run off of electricity, then we could likely be one of the cleanest, least GHG producing places around. All thanks to hydro of course.

[deasine]

xdz46hn3Hbc

[deasine]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7426750/Paul-Hillsdons-Transit-for-Tomorrow-Plan

[raggedy13]

Great clip. You seem like a really amicable, intelligent, and sincere person, Paul. You've got my vote. I sure wish I had that kind of ambition and sense of direction. I don't have a clue what to do with the rest of my life yet.

[Hong Kongese]

You are "The One", kid.

[touraccuracy]

i read about this guy and thought to myself "i bet he's an SSPer"

turns out i was right!

[mezzanine]

Best of Luck, Paul!

A suggestion - is it possible to post your plan PDF without having to login to scribd? I don't want to bother signing up for a login, and I think a lot of people may not try to look at your plan if it is finicky to access.

[deasine]

Yes good luck Paul. Just to let you guys know (he's busy so I'm representing him on the forums), he is campaigning this weekend at Surrey Central on NOv 1 & 2nd.

Campaign canvassing - weekend edition
Hey everyone! Hope you liked the Transit for Tomorrow plan.
I will be canvassing around Surrey Central this weekend. I’d love to have your help and support.
This’ll be the penultimate weekend before the election, so let’s make a big push to get the transit plan out there!
Please email me at paulforsurrey@gmail.com if you are available to come help out.
Thanks!

[NetMapel]

I like your focus on transportation as a key issue, however, you'd rather have a light rail track going to Langley than one going to South Surrey ? Why ? Also, have you considered about future development of Surrey and whether light rail will be able to support it in, say 10 years ? Due to the limited geographical space in lower mainland, density would be key. Would light rail support the population growth in the future ?

[LeftCoaster]

Well as long as the ROW corridor is there that is the important thing. Gauge can always be upgraded later.

It would probably be LONG down the road that any densities in Surrey necessitated heavy gauge rail anyway.

[deasine]

Road Signs are Up Everywhere

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3291/3020503866_62fc1d3760.jpg?v=0

Here is a Google Maps link to all of Paul's Road Signs
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=108398042734710293699.00045b5c4d39a820648dc&t=h&z=12

Let's spread the message around - election is this Saturday. I feel kind of bad because I didn't really help Paul's campaign at all, other than doing the SSP work, which is hardly anything. But anyways, good luck Paul!

[officedweller]

Good luck!
I don't live in Surrey so can't vote for you.

[mr.x]

Good luck!!!!

[Stingray2004]

Paul, I see that you are running for both Surrey council as well as school board.

Anyway, you remind me of another 18-yr. old who ran for Delta School Board back in the early 1990's (?) as an independent against well funded civic slates.

This guy did the same things you did... received alot of media attention and guess what?

He won a school board seat on his first try as an independent.

I hope that little ditty is a good omen for you!

[mr.x]

Global BC reports on Paul Hillsdon for Surrey City Council
7F96XZ33HdU




CBC TV reports on Paul Hillsdon for Surrey City Council
xdz46hn3Hbc






GOOD LUCK PAUL!!!!! Wishing I could have campaigned for you today.....

[mr.x]

Results are coming in for Surrey, not looking good for Paul....

[mr.x]

....oh wait, he's climbing up!

[mr.x]

Good effort Paul, well done!

[worldwide]

how many votes did paul get for council? i just saw on tv that he got over 13,000 votes for school board.

great work. just remember, youre young and you have a whole life ahead of you. you did great all things considered.

[Jared]

Here are results:

http://www.cbc.ca/bc/features/civicvote2008/surrey/results.html

Surrey seems to like voting for incumbents, all but 1 school board incumbent got re-elected.


Anyways Paul, it was a great effort, and given how little backing/financing you had, I think you did very well.

If it's any consolation, I think you've managed to generate a lot of mainstream press about transit options in Surrey and the rest of the South of Fraser, and even though you didn't win, its possible that something similar to your scheme may be implemented anyways.

[deasine]

I was campaigning with him at Surrey today... and they didn't seem very positive about this election thing. I was surprised to see Paul's results and I think the Global TV story really put a boost in his campaign.

We are all proud of you Paul =)

[ravman]

Awesome job Paul... you can only go up from here... that is unless you join the BC Liberals :P

[paradigm4]

Thanks guys. I do appreciate the kind remarks :)

It was a great turnout considering all the factors - my age, low budget, independent status, low community recognition, tough competition, etc. And yes, I'm quite glad with how much I was able to put both light rail, sustainable development, and cycling issues on the map out here.

I ended up getting 11,443 votes for council, btw, beating out a former city councillor and topping the polls for the independents!

[geoff's two cents]

Paul, although I'm disappointed you didn't get the position, I'm so happy you got such a large number of votes. Even though I was living in Ontario for over a year before the election (and thus couldn't qualify as a Surrey resident), I have been a regular at your three websites for some time now, and encouraged everyone I knew to vote for you. After all, I have spent most of my twenty-eight years in Surrey, and think that you're one of the brightest lights in the city. It bodes well for the city's future that somebody with such intelligent and progressive ideas could receive such a large number of votes - again, in spite of all the difficulties you acknowledged that were inherent in the campaign.

As far as age goes, while it never bothered me personally (indeed, I always believed youth to be one of your primary strengths), you can at least take heart in the knowledge that you're a virtual shoo-in for some sort of civic leadership position after a few more years (should you decide to pursue it), and with some education credentials under your belt.

My one fear is that you'll find different uses for your time, geared, perhaps towards different career interests, and that we'll no longer be privy to your insights. If you do have to discontinue your websites, I hope you'll at least keep us up to date on the skyscraper blog. Otherwise, thanks for all of your hard work!

[jhausner]

I think if you are planning on getting into council over the next 2 to 4 elections, you have very few choices other that joining one of the larger political parties. That would at least get your foot in the door.

You did very well and I did actually vote for you as one of my council picks. 11,000 is very good given the points you made above, but the point isn't to lose it's to win so don't sell yourself too short, you do seem to have a great drive and determination.

If you keep with it I have no doubt you can make it onto concil. Unfortunately as I said though, in a city such as Surrey which is trying to become the largest voice in BC above even Vancouver's voice, political affiliation would help you more than anything. Not only does it help you get recognition automatically (I know a lot of people that voted down the line for anyone in Diane Watts' party because of her name even if they didn't know the councillor for example).

Good luck in 2011.