HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 7:17 PM
headhorse's Avatar
headhorse headhorse is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,219
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/bre...147282955.html

The most bewildering part is most of our elected officials, despite warning calls from the U of M, Winnipeg's leading urbanists, and real estate experts, still plan to allow this development. Most of our city council is going along with this undemocratic and highly suspect development. How much more can these people destroy our city before 2014? Is there anything that can be done before then? This is incredibly frustrating.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 7:21 PM
headhorse's Avatar
headhorse headhorse is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryanscott View Post
Does anybody know if I could potentially run into legal problems if I were to publish the email addresses of the city councillors on my blog? I don't see why it should be a problem because they're already public, but I just want to cover my arse.

I hope to encourage my readers to contact the councillors to voice their opposition to that atrocious plan. Might just be a drop in the bucket but at least it's something. Apathy about this is unacceptable.
I really don't see how that would be an issue as they were posted earlier in this thread and, as you said, are publicly available.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 7:33 PM
Lenin's Avatar
Lenin Lenin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Posts: 337
Piece I wrote this afternoon

Dear Diary,

I am so excited I can hardly contain myself! I feel as though I just jumped out of a cake at Natalie Portman’s stagette party, and she and her 46 closest friends decided to show their appreciation by blowing me (balloon animals). But I’m getting ahead of myself. The reason that I am so dizzy with unbridled orgasmic joy is simple….

The brilliant mayor of this city has decided to spontaneously impose his pet / legacy project upon the populace, and we're getting a water park! Whether we want one or not! This is so amazingly awesome for so many amazingly awesome reasons:

Sure, instead of selling land to an ethical developer with a clear vision we’re begging an out-of-province chain to build on the site by offering them $7,000,000 of taxpayer money; cashish that was redirected from the rapid transit fund. And sure, no renderings or design concepts have been offered to the public. And yeah, it may be sitting on the most desired prime real estate in the heart of the city, between Portage and Main and the new national 'world class' human rights museum. Yeah, it is also true that nobody was informed that this particular prime parcel of pristine perfection would be the site offered to the developers. Sure, it’s across the street from the baseball stadium and within walking distance of the Exchange District, a national historic site. And it might be adjacent to the Forks (Winnipeg's Granville Island), and command sweeping views of the Red River and be directly connected to our new iconic pedestrian bridge and our historic French Quarter. But none of this matters, because....

At 50,000 square feet (or less than 1/4 the size of West Edmonton Mall's water park), it's apparently going to be a "world class" venue! The mayor said so himself! [Or at least I think that's what he said while his mouth was full, as he was sucking off an Albertan hotel chain executive at the time.]

Soon we are going to join the ranks of other global tourist magnets! We will stand proudly aside other great metropolises with similar sized water parks. Great cities like Grand Forks, North Dakota, Steinbach, Manitoba, and Yorkton, Saskatchewan!

I can’t wait to see the construction of a beige low rise 3.5 star hotel and it’s accompanying parking structure! I’m even more stoked to explore the attached water park. It is sure to be jam packed with fun, because at 50,000 sq. ft., it will be smaller than a grocery store. And I’m going to ride those three water slides like there’s NO TOMORROW. Because for this part of downtown, there might not be.

Well, I guess I should head out now to get some party supplies, because there’s going to be some celebrating tonight! But before all that, I think I need to change my pants and take a cold shower.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 7:53 PM
chrisallard5454's Avatar
chrisallard5454 chrisallard5454 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,049
This is going to be a long one.


Chris Allard
9:12 PM (18 hours ago)

to Skatz, sfielding, jswandel, phavixbeck, bmayes, jbrowaty, gnordman, mpagtakhan, dvandal, readie, jgerbasi, jorlikow, dsharma, hsmith, tsteen, rwyatt
I have sent this email now multiple times, and have only been responded to through automation. I will continue to send this message until the name of the person who I am emailing is reached. Thank you.

To whom it may concern,

One year ago an idea was put forth highlighting the possible Parcel 4 developments that could spur positive growth for Winnipeg's downtown. It seems this article has fallen on blind eyes, as there has been no attempt at obtaining appropriate development for this site.

Winnipeg is a city on the brink of achieving positive growth in her core after decades of stagnant development, and it is crucial now more than ever that long term decisions be made to utilize this growth in the best possible fashion. Short sightedness (and the impatient mindset that the first piece of development proposed should be chosen) needs to be put aside in order to make way for future planning in this city.

City Council took 32 years to come up with our first leg of Rapid Transit, and though it could have been done more efficiently, it must be praised that many alternatives were taken into consideration. Should the same not be said of the very valuable piece of land in question? Rather than just agree to build the first thing that comes to mind, should we not sit and contemplate the impact that potential developments may have on the surrounding community and the city as a whole?

Short of offending anyone, I must say that 50, 000 sq feet for a water park falls short of being ‘world class.’ So much so that after a quick search I have found almost two dozen water parks that are larger than this proposal in Canada alone. To build this park would only support the naive and ignorant belief of many Canadians that Winnipeg is "cheap". It is a quick fix to catalyze an empty lot that holds prime real estate. If so much consideration can be given for the SHED zone surrounding the MTS Centre, should not the CMHR, a truly world class museum, receive the same kind of consideration with its surrounding development? I have conversed with multiple city planners, who have spent years studying the principles of making cities sustainable, and I have yet to hear a positive remark from any of them regarding this said proposal. It is appalling to think that a city as wonderful as Winnipeg is willing to settle for something as low as a hotel with a glorified pool.

That being said, I do believe that the city could benefit from a water park, as any municipality would. For this to be considered though, proper planning must be put in place. A water park, like any amusement - based piece of development, is a drive in and drive out facility that does nothing to support the surrounding community. This is proven by major water parks already established throughout Canada: Canada's Wonderland, Falls View, Calypso, Wild Water Kingdom, etc. are all great water parks surrounded by a sea of surface parking. This sort of development belongs in an under utilized piece of land that would not suffer from being home to such a isolated piece of development. Since I am not an advocate of sprawl, I would assume the best location for such a piece of development would perhaps be brownfield property somewhere in St. Boniface, where a community has already been established. This is one example, but several others spring to mind….

Winnipeg's downtown is on the cusp of once again being a place to be. It is finally piercing the veil of public perception that suggests the heart of our city is unsafe. But we are not yet at a place where we can sit comfortably and allow precious property to be given away to any development that comes forth, nor should we ever be. Yet with such a fragile base community, where population growth is the biggest desire, our first concern should be to increase the amount of people living downtown. We should be doing all we can to bring people downtown for long periods of time, if not indefinitely. Safety is not perceived to be an issue during the 9-5 work hours when thousands of people migrate downtown for work. It is after the cars are started and the doors are closed that fear begins to mould its way into the minds of those reluctant to venture downtown.

With more people visiting and living downtown this perception can be reversed. Canada's most desirable cities have desirable downtown cores. And it must be noted that though many have water parks, none such facilities are located in their urban core.

I suspect that this letter will probably fall once again on blind eyes, as this development is being spearheaded by the mayor himself. However, in the interest of our citizens, I soberly and passionately urge all who envision a sustainable and sophisticated Winnipeg to reconsider the supposed merits of this endeavor.


Sincerely

Christopher Allard.

Fielding, Scott
9:25 PM (18 hours ago)

to me
Thanks for your email and comment.


Regards,
Scott Fielding
City Councillor St James-Brooklands
Chair of Finance
City of Winnipeg
(204) 986 5848


Sent from my iPhone


Havixbeck, Paula paula@winnipeg.ca
8:05 AM (7 hours ago)

to me
Thank you for taking the time to write. I concur with a few if your points. This is special land, rich with history, and needs to be developed with care.


Chris Allard
9:39 AM (6 hours ago)

to readie
I have sent this email now multiple times, and have only been responded to through automation. I will continue to send this message until the name of the person who I am emailing is reached. Thank you.

Also I have heard the responses you have put out about placing a water park in suburban neighborhoods. I too am not an advocate for sprawl. But there are some projects that do not belong downtown. Especially when they are on par with towns that are only 10 000 in population.
Ross, please... using a poll that was taken 30 years ago to determine what should occur today? LUDICROUS!!!! A sentence can't even be used to describe my frustration at finding this out!!!! Let me inform you that I -along with a large portion of the people you are trying to bring to this city- wasn't alive then, and policies and desires have changed drastically in the last 30 years. You sincerely believe that the world hasn't changed since 1980. If you don't then pardon my language, but you need to get a clue.
It is a wonder why people think Winnipeg is so backwards, when these kind of arguments spring up. I might as well be an advocate to go to war with Russia with your logic. I will inform the Prime Minister that the Nuclear Warheads are without a doubt about to be launched. Oh, and one last thing... Who is this Bush of which you speak? Oh that's right HE ISN"T EVEN PRESIDENT YET!!!!!


Fielding, Scott
10:09 AM (5 hours ago)

to me
Chris

Again thanks for your thoughts on the subject.

I respectfully disagree with you opinion. I think the water park is a very good thing for the city and very much like the location. Through the EOI we built in extra points for a downtown location.

In terms of the size of the water park, this is what the market has come forward with. There was 't a proposal for a larger park and thus we have to make a decision based on what has come in. This process has been over 4 years and even with a 7 million dollars subsidy to build it, this is the best proposal. If the city built and ran it, the cost would be 25m plus the operating costs which I can tell you as Chair of Finance would cost us more to operate than anticipated revenue

I am excited and very much support it.

Again, thanks for your comments.

Regards,
Scott Fielding
City Councillor St James-Brooklands
Chair of Finance
City of Winnipeg
(204) 986 5848


Sent from my iPhone

On 2012-04-13, at 8:27 AM, "Chris Allard" <chris.allard54@gmail.com<mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com>> wrote:

Mr Fielding,

Please reply with a few remarks that inform me that you are more than an automation. Otherwise I will continue to press you with my concerns. I am also not naive enough to think you won't block me, so let me remind you that I can get around that. Thank you.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Fielding, Scott <sfielding@winnipeg.ca<mailto:sfielding@winnipeg.ca>> wrote:
Thanks for your email and comment.


Regards,
Scott Fielding
City Councillor St James-Brooklands
Chair of Finance
City of Winnipeg
(204) 986 5848<tel:%28204%29%20986%205848>


Sent from my iPhone


Chris Allard
10:51 AM (5 hours ago)

to Scott
So essentially what you are saying is because there is no vested interest in this location you are willing to settle for this location with a sub-par development. That concerns me, as it should. Especially since the mayor, as always, is claiming that this development will be world class. If the majority of the population would rather this park not be developed than tell me what reason is it that council should push this forward. Please provide me with a good reason.
My second question is why would the city build and run it? There is no desperate call for a Water Park, despite what the Mayor thinks. There is however a desperate call for Rapid Transit (Which is where this money was already slated).
Do not get me wrong, this is not a case of Nimbyism. I just believe (along with the majority of the city planners in this city) that this is poorly thought out, rushed, and more suited to be classified as serving the purpose of the mayor as a pet project, than the citizens of this city.
Please tell me, do you to the best of your knowledge, know if there is a glorified pool (which at 50 000 square feet is exactly that) beside BILBAO? The CMHR is a world Class facility, you should treat it as such, and really think twice before putting a highway chain beside it.
My former warning in regards to response still stands.

Thank you, however for finally getting back to me. And I eagerly await your reply.

Sincerely Chris


Chris Allard
10:58 AM (4 hours ago)

to readie



On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Chris Allard <chris.allard54@gmail.com> wrote:
I have sent this email now multiple times, and have only been responded to through automation. I will continue to send this message until the name of the person who I am emailing is reached. Thank you.

Also I have heard the responses you have put out about placing a water park in suburban neighborhoods. I too am not an advocate for sprawl. But there are some projects that do not belong downtown. Especially when they are on par with towns that are only 10 000 in population.
Ross, please... using a poll that was taken 30 years ago to determine what should occur today? LUDICROUS!!!! A sentence can't even be used to describe my frustration at finding this out!!!! Let me inform you that I -along with a large portion of the people you are trying to bring to this city- wasn't alive then, and policies and desires have changed drastically in the last 30 years. You sincerely believe that the world hasn't changed since 1980. If you don't then pardon my language, but you need to get a clue.
It is a wonder why people think Winnipeg is so backwards, when these kind of arguments spring up. I might as well be an advocate to go to war with Russia with your logic. I will inform the Prime Minister that the Nuclear Warheads are without a doubt about to be launched. Oh, and one last thing... Who is this Bush of which you speak? Oh that's right HE ISN"T EVEN PRESIDENT YET!!!!!


To whom it may concern,

One year ago an idea was put forth highlighting the possible Parcel 4 developments that could spur positive growth for Winnipeg's downtown. It seems this article has fallen on blind eyes, as there has been no attempt at obtaining appropriate development for this site.

Winnipeg is a city on the brink of achieving positive growth in her core after decades of stagnant development, and it is crucial now more than ever that long term decisions be made to utilize this growth in the best possible fashion. Short sightedness (and the impatient mindset that the first piece of development proposed should be chosen) needs to be put aside in order to make way for future planning in this city.

City Council took 32 years to come up with our first leg of Rapid Transit, and though it could have been done more efficiently, it must be praised that many alternatives were taken into consideration. Should the same not be said of the very valuable piece of land in question? Rather than just agree to build the first thing that comes to mind, should we not sit and contemplate the impact that potential developments may have on the surrounding community and the city as a whole?

Short of offending anyone, I must say that 50, 000 sq feet for a water park falls short of being ‘world class.’ So much so that after a quick search I have found almost two dozen water parks that are larger than this proposal in Canada alone. To build this park would only support the naive and ignorant belief of many Canadians that Winnipeg is "cheap". It is a quick fix to catalyze an empty lot that holds prime real estate. If so much consideration can be given for the SHED zone surrounding the MTS Centre, should not the CMHR, a truly world class museum, receive the same kind of consideration with its surrounding development? I have conversed with multiple city planners, who have spent years studying the principles of making cities sustainable, and I have yet to hear a positive remark from any of them regarding this said proposal. It is appalling to think that a city as wonderful as Winnipeg is willing to settle for something as low as a hotel with a glorified pool.

That being said, I do believe that the city could benefit from a water park, as any municipality would. For this to be considered though, proper planning must be put in place. A water park, like any amusement - based piece of development, is a drive in and drive out facility that does nothing to support the surrounding community. This is proven by major water parks already established throughout Canada: Canada's Wonderland, Falls View, Calypso, Wild Water Kingdom, etc. are all great water parks surrounded by a sea of surface parking. This sort of development belongs in an under utilized piece of land that would not suffer from being home to such a isolated piece of development. Since I am not an advocate of sprawl, I would assume the best location for such a piece of development would perhaps be brownfield property somewhere in St. Boniface, where a community has already been established. This is one example, but several others spring to mind….

Winnipeg's downtown is on the cusp of once again being a place to be. It is finally piercing the veil of public perception that suggests the heart of our city is unsafe. But we are not yet at a place where we can sit comfortably and allow precious property to be given away to any development that comes forth, nor should we ever be. Yet with such a fragile base community, where population growth is the biggest desire, our first concern should be to increase the amount of people living downtown. We should be doing all we can to bring people downtown for long periods of time, if not indefinitely. Safety is not perceived to be an issue during the 9-5 work hours when thousands of people migrate downtown for work. It is after the cars are started and the doors are closed that fear begins to mould its way into the minds of those reluctant to venture downtown.

With more people visiting and living downtown this perception can be reversed. Canada's most desirable cities have desirable downtown cores. And it must be noted that though many have water parks, none such facilities are located in their urban core.

I suspect that this letter will probably fall once again on blind eyes, as this development is being spearheaded by the mayor himself. However, in the interest of our citizens, I soberly and passionately urge all who envision a sustainable and sophisticated Winnipeg to reconsider the supposed merits of this endeavor.


Sincerely

Christopher Allard.


Fielding, Scott
11:12 AM (4 hours ago)

to me
Maybe send me your contact number and we can chat further as I am
Running into a meeting .


Regards,
Scott Fielding
City Councillor St James-Brooklands
Chair of Finance
City of Winnipeg
(204) 986 5848


Sent from my iPhone

On 2012-04-13, at 9:52 AM, "Chris Allard" <chris.allard54@gmail.com<mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com>> wrote:

So essentially what you are saying is because there is no vested interest in this location you are willing to settle for this location with a sub-par development. That concerns me, as it should. Especially since the mayor, as always, is claiming that this development will be world class. If the majority of the population would rather this park not be developed than tell me what reason is it that council should push this forward. Please provide me with a good reason.
My second question is why would the city build and run it? There is no desperate call for a Water Park, despite what the Mayor thinks. There is however a desperate call for Rapid Transit (Which is where this money was already slated).
Do not get me wrong, this is not a case of Nimbyism. I just believe (along with the majority of the city planners in this city) that this is poorly thought out, rushed, and more suited to be classified as serving the purpose of the mayor as a pet project, than the citizens of this city.
Please tell me, do you to the best of your knowledge, know if there is a glorified pool (which at 50 000 square feet is exactly that) beside BILBAO? The CMHR is a world Class facility, you should treat it as such, and really think twice before putting a highway chain beside it.
My former warning in regards to response still stands.

Thank you, however for finally getting back to me. And I eagerly await your reply.

Sincerely Chris

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Fielding, Scott <sfielding@winnipeg.ca<mailto:sfielding@winnipeg.ca>> wrote:
Chris

Again thanks for your thoughts on the subject.

I respectfully disagree with you opinion. I think the water park is a very good thing for the city and very much like the location. Through the EOI we built in extra points for a downtown location.

In terms of the size of the water park, this is what the market has come forward with. There was 't a proposal for a larger park and thus we have to make a decision based on what has come in. This process has been over 4 years and even with a 7 million dollars subsidy to build it, this is the best proposal. If the city built and ran it, the cost would be 25m plus the operating costs which I can tell you as Chair of Finance would cost us more to operate than anticipated revenue

I am excited and very much support it.

Again, thanks for your comments.

Regards,
Scott Fielding
City Councillor St James-Brooklands
Chair of Finance
City of Winnipeg
(204) 986 5848<tel:%28204%29%20986%205848>


Sent from my iPhone

On 2012-04-13, at 8:27 AM, "Chris Allard" <chris.allard54@gmail.com<mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com><mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com<mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com>>> wrote:

Mr Fielding,

Please reply with a few remarks that inform me that you are more than an automation. Otherwise I will continue to press you with my concerns. I am also not naive enough to think you won't block me, so let me remind you that I can get around that. Thank you.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Fielding, Scott <sfielding@winnipeg.ca<mailto:sfielding@winnipeg.ca><mailto:sfielding@winnipeg.ca<mailto:sfielding@winnipeg.ca>>> wrote:
Thanks for your email and comment.


Regards,
Scott Fielding
City Councillor St James-Brooklands
Chair of Finance
City of Winnipeg
(204) 986 5848<tel:%28204%29%20986%205848><tel:%28204%29%20986%205848>


Sent from my iPhone


Chris Allard
11:16 AM (4 hours ago)

to Scott
It will be long distance as I am currently out of town. I would assume that you have a phone number I could reach with which has a long distance plan. I would have to call you from my gmail account (which doesn't have a registered number), as I am short on funds and do not have a long distance account. I am looking forward to our discussion.

Sincerely,

Christopher.


Chris Allard
11:19 AM (4 hours ago)

to Scott
Scratch that. You can reach me at (1) 519-425-4023. I look forward to hearing from you.


Fielding, Scott
11:22 AM (4 hours ago)

to me
If your free I will call sometime between 11-12 @ the number below


From: Chris Allard [mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 10:19 AM
To: Fielding, Scott
Subject: Re: Canalta Water Park


Mayes, Brian
11:53 AM (4 hours ago)

to me
Based on the information I currently have it is my intention to vote against the proposal. Brian Mayes

From: Chris Allard [mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 10:11 AM
To: MYO-Mayor; Swandel, Justin; Mayes, Brian; Browaty, Jeff; Nordman, Grant; Pagtakhan, Mike; Vandal, Daniel; Eadie, Ross; Gerbasi, Jenny; Orlikow, John; Sharma, Devi (Councillor); Smith, Harvey; Steen, Thomas; Wyatt, Russ

Subject: Re: Canalta Water Park






Vandal, Daniel
11:57 AM (3 hours ago)

to me
Thank you Chris. You obviously are passionate about our city and I appreciate that. I believe the most important consideration is site and building design for this important site. The actual use is not incompatible with the Forks - Museum. Hundreds of young families will flock to this site 12 out of 12 months. With a world class design, it will be a great addition to our City. (If it is approved) DV


Steen, Thomas
11:59 AM (3 hours ago)

to me
Thank-you for your e-mail.


Timothy E. Nyhof
Executive Assistant
Councilor Steen



From: Chris Allard [mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 10:11 AM
To: MYO-Mayor; Swandel, Justin; Mayes, Brian; Browaty, Jeff; Nordman, Grant; Pagtakhan, Mike; Vandal, Daniel; Eadie, Ross; Gerbasi, Jenny; Orlikow, John; Sharma, Devi (Councillor); Smith, Harvey; Steen, Thomas; Wyatt, Russ
Subject: Re: Canalta Water Park






Chris Allard
12:03 PM (3 hours ago)

to Daniel
My Concern is that a facility being proposed by a Highway motel Chain, with a proposed 50 000 square foot facility is in no way "world class". It is in no way "North America Class", it isn't even "Canada Class". But it will be "Manitoba Class", and from the perception of most, that class is non existent. And according to the many Urban planners this site is not at all congruent with a water park. Without the intention of sounding rude, I would most definitely take the word of many educated professionals without hidden agenda's, over that of a city counselor who's mayor has been spearheading this development for four years for no apparent reason.

Thank you,

Christopher.


Chris Allard
12:04 PM (3 hours ago)

to Thomas
Thomas, I do not accept that as an appropriate response to my concerns. And until you reply with one I will continue to press you with my concerns. Blocking my email will also be to no avail, so please take the time to listen to what I have to say.

Sincerely,

Christopher Allard


Vandal, Daniel
1:45 PM (2 hours ago)

to me
The fact is we really won't know until we see the design...and until then all is speculation. Any company is capable of building quality...it is a function of spending what is needed and proper oversight and direction from those in authority to do so.

I totally agree the desing / look is the important issue. DV

________________________________
From: Chris Allard [chris.allard54@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 11:03 AM
To: Vandal, Daniel
Subject: Re: Canalta Water Park

My Concern is that a facility being proposed by a Highway motel Chain, with a proposed 50 000 square foot facility is in no way "world class". It is in no way "North America Class", it isn't even "Canada Class". But it will be "Manitoba Class", and from the perception of most, that class is non existent. And according to the many Urban planners this site is not at all congruent with a water park. Without the intention of sounding rude, I would most definitely take the word of many educated professionals without hidden agenda's, over that of a city counselor who's mayor has been spearheading this development for four years for no apparent reason.

Thank you,

Christopher.

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Vandal, Daniel <dvandal@winnipeg.ca<mailtovandal@winnipeg.ca>> wrote:
Thank you Chris. You obviously are passionate about our city and I appreciate that. I believe the most important consideration is site and building design for this important site. The actual use is not incompatible with the Forks - Museum. Hundreds of young families will flock to this site 12 out of 12 months. With a world class design, it will be a great addition to our City. (If it is approved) DV

From: Chris Allard [mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com<mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com>]


Steen, Thomas
2:09 PM (1 hour ago)

to me
I indicated that I received the e-mail. I have printed it and put in his in-basket.


Timothy E. Nyhof
Executive Assistant
Councilor Steen



From: Chris Allard [mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 11:05 AM
To: Steen, Thomas


Eadie, Ross
2:42 PM (1 hour ago)

to me

Message read.


From: Chris Allard [mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 8:15 PM
To: MYO-Mayor; Fielding, Scott; Swandel, Justin; Havixbeck, Paula; Mayes, Brian; Browaty, Jeff; Nordman, Grant; Pagtakhan, Mike; Vandal, Daniel; Eadie, Ross; Gerbasi, Jenny; Orlikow, John; Sharma, Devi (Councillor); Smith, Harvey; Steen, Thomas; Wyatt, Russ
Subject: Canalta Water Park


Eadie, Ross
3:35 PM (21 minutes ago)

to me

Well I disagree with you about downtown, I will be voting no for other reasons of more importance.


From: Chris Allard [mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 8:40 AM
To: Eadie, Ross
Subject: Canalta Water Park


Eadie, Ross
3:39 PM (18 minutes ago)

to me

Oh I forgot to mention people are busy, and you cannot expect responses so quickly even though this plan is being foisted on us quickly. It takes some time to figure out what is going on.

From: Chris Allard [mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 10:13 AM
To: Eadie, Ross
Subject: Re: Canalta Water Park


Chris Allard
3:47 PM (9 minutes ago)

to Ross
Thank you Ross for getting back to me, I understand you are busy, unfortunately it is as you stated that because of the speed at which this is being pushed through that I have been trying to get in touch with you in such an urgent format. I apologize for pushing my concerns on you so harshly.

Sincerely Christopher.
__________________
2017 Tryout for DEL 2 Kassel Huskies
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 7:54 PM
headhorse's Avatar
headhorse headhorse is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,219
good news: Ross Eadie replied to another e-mail and let me know he would be voting against the proposal. Please, keep trying to contact your councillors. We can obviously have some effect.

interesting news: Ross said this in his e-mail: "Council will not vote on this plan until April 25, 2012. Executive Policy Committee will be voting on Wednesday, April 18, 2012. You need to find four of them to vote no. Swandel and Havixbeck have already voted yes at the Downtown Committee meeting today. I am not able to convince anyone on EPC to vote no – well maybe Vandal. However, these EPC councilors get bound by other agreements that cause them to vote with each other."

What the hell does that mean? The only agreements councillors should have is with those they represent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 8:02 PM
chrisallard5454's Avatar
chrisallard5454 chrisallard5454 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,049
I for one am all for a public protest against this water park. What about a public petition involving the inhabitants living in the involved neighbourhoods?
__________________
2017 Tryout for DEL 2 Kassel Huskies
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 8:04 PM
headhorse's Avatar
headhorse headhorse is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,219
We need a protest against this entire process. It is undemocratic and should be stopped.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 8:12 PM
Authentic_City's Avatar
Authentic_City Authentic_City is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryanscott View Post
Does anybody know if I could potentially run into legal problems if I were to publish the email addresses of the city councillors on my blog? I don't see why it should be a problem because they're already public, but I just want to cover my arse.

I hope to encourage my readers to contact the councillors to voice their opposition to that atrocious plan. Might just be a drop in the bucket but at least it's something. Apathy about this is unacceptable.
Not if you use the publicly available @winnipeg.ca addresses that anyone can access through the City of Winnipeg webpage. You could also post their office telephone numbers. I have phoned Katz in the past, and he actually phones back.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 8:13 PM
chrisallard5454's Avatar
chrisallard5454 chrisallard5454 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by headhorse View Post
We need a protest against this entire process. It is undemocratic and should be stopped.
I would really like to know what these other agreements are that the EPC is bound by.
__________________
2017 Tryout for DEL 2 Kassel Huskies
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 8:23 PM
Authentic_City's Avatar
Authentic_City Authentic_City is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by headhorse View Post
However, these EPC councilors get bound by other agreements that cause them to vote with each other."

What the hell does that mean? The only agreements councillors should have is with those they represent.
This means that a Councillor will agree to vote yes on this issue in exchange for the support of another Councillor on a different issue. Standard "old boys" club city politics. Basically, it means "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 8:35 PM
armorand93's Avatar
armorand93 armorand93 is offline
Winnipeg Transit Nerd
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Authentic_City View Post
Not if you use the publicly available @winnipeg.ca addresses that anyone can access through the City of Winnipeg webpage. You could also post their office telephone numbers. I have phoned Katz in the past, and he actually phones back.
So whats the tally then?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 9:59 PM
khabibulin khabibulin is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 830
"Short of offending anyone, I must say that 50, 000 sq feet for a water park falls short of being ‘world class.’ So much so that after a quick search I have found almost two dozen water parks that are larger than this proposal in Canada alone."

Hey Chris,

I appreciate your passion and dedication to voicing your opinion on this issue. I would caution you about two things:

I do not believe there are two dozen indoor waterparks bigger than this proposal in Canada. I believe there are only three bigger indoor waterparks in Canada at this point. Sending messages to elected officials that contain inaccurate or misleading information will harm the accuracy of the rest of your message. (The indoor stadium proposal for Regina suffered from this problem).

Second, as you have been remined by others, it is very important to maintain proper decorum in your communications with elected officials. Once there is any indication of malicious and rude comments, the staffers of these officials are ususlly instructed to delete/destroy these messages rather than bringing them to the officials attention. (comments like, Katz GTFO, will guarantee a non response because it is clear that a fair and balanced discourse will be impossible to have).

Anyway, good luck with your campaign.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 10:33 PM
1ajs's Avatar
1ajs 1ajs is offline
ʇɥƃıuʞ -*ʞpʇ*-
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: lynn lake
Posts: 24,337
theres agreements the lock counclers to voting in packs WTF?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 10:59 PM
chrisallard5454's Avatar
chrisallard5454 chrisallard5454 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by khabibulin View Post
"Short of offending anyone, I must say that 50, 000 sq feet for a water park falls short of being ‘world class.’ So much so that after a quick search I have found almost two dozen water parks that are larger than this proposal in Canada alone."

Hey Chris,

I appreciate your passion and dedication to voicing your opinion on this issue. I would caution you about two things:

I do not believe there are two dozen indoor waterparks bigger than this proposal in Canada. I believe there are only three bigger indoor waterparks in Canada at this point. Sending messages to elected officials that contain inaccurate or misleading information will harm the accuracy of the rest of your message. (The indoor stadium proposal for Regina suffered from this problem).

Second, as you have been remined by others, it is very important to maintain proper decorum in your communications with elected officials. Once there is any indication of malicious and rude comments, the staffers of these officials are ususlly instructed to delete/destroy these messages rather than bringing them to the officials attention. (comments like, Katz GTFO, will guarantee a non response because it is clear that a fair and balanced discourse will be impossible to have).

Anyway, good luck with your campaign.
I realized that after I posted the email, When I looked up indoor water parks on google it directed me to Water Parks in general not just indoor water parks.
__________________
2017 Tryout for DEL 2 Kassel Huskies
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 11:04 PM
headhorse's Avatar
headhorse headhorse is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ajs View Post
theres agreements the lock counclers to voting in packs WTF?
after he replied I said

Quote:
Dear Councillor,



Thank you for your reply and I, and many others, are glad you are voting against this project. What are these agreements other councillors are bound to?



Thanks,

Cody
and then got this from Ross:

Quote:
Political trade offs of which I know nothing about as I am not allowed to attend those sessions.
great to see our city council working together for the citizens of Winnipeg.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 4:31 AM
Kitty Surprise's Avatar
Kitty Surprise Kitty Surprise is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by headhorse View Post
"...I am not able to convince anyone on EPC to vote no – well maybe Vandal. However, these EPC councilors get bound by other agreements that cause them to vote with each other."
So our elected officials hide behind these undemocratic agreements which preclude and apparently supersede democratic process? All to push through Shyster Shammy’s pet waterpark, ironically located across from CMHR. Oh wait, apparently democracy isn’t a human right. Well, It’s comforting to know our elected officials are representing those most important to them - themselves. What were they promised? A deal on a home in Arizona with Shyster Shammy if they kept quiet and voted for this embarrassment? Shame on you.

Ironic after so much money and controversy went into our world-class CMHR (that claims to be a catalyst for further forward-thinking downtown and Bilbao-effect revitalization) we are slapped in the face with perhaps the WORST development to ever emerge in our city’s history, all at a time when we have so many more opportunities TO GET IT RIGHT. A generic waterpark across from CMHR? Sorry but the only world-class waterpark that could ever coexist in that location should be nothing less than Khan Shatyry entertainment centre in Astana, Khazakhstan.

If a waterpark must be downtown, then locate it anywhere else, but not at The Forks. Why not build your pet waterpark within SHED district? Oh wait, building a waterpark in SHED doesn’t benefit Shyster Shammy.

And why haven’t we heard anything from the Aspers about this non-world-class waterpark with stucco box motel and parking lot embarrassment being built across from their architectural icon-slash-downtown catalyst CMHR? Well they’re Aspers, and he’s a Katz. Say no more…

City money needs to be spent on Rapid Transit phase 2 to the UofM. NOW. You have pissed off residents living around UofM who would gladly trade a waterpark for the phase 2 rapid transit so to eliminate noise and traffic and congestion on game days.

Our city can also make far more money on that Forks land through proper mixed use medium-to-high density commercial and residential developments.
The old stadium and arena sites at polo park are just crying for development. Put Canalta’s precious waterpark there. Plus there is all the parking they’ll ever want. And no public hatred. But there's nothing there for Sammy to make a buck off of? Pity...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 5:53 AM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 5,785
No doubt all of Sammy "waterpark'' Katz's directions are coming from his overseer's at Winnipeg's planning office located at 1355 Taylor Ave. A prime piece of city owned land that mysteriously sat vacant for as long as Sammy's publicly funded baseball park was in existence and for his baseball parks patrons sole use. No coincidence there of course according to slippery Sammy, just that no other private developer even got a sniff at purchasing the property.

No we get a third rate water park on the last viable piece of land at the Forks with taxpayers kicking in $7 million (of course) to a private enterprise.

Heard Viking quoted on CBC news at 6:00, great comments

Sammy now making good on promises to all friends who helped get his scumbag hide elected mayor, hope the simpletons who voted for him are happy now!

PS maybe they can squeeze a 7-11 onto the hotel site to make those who voted for Sammy feel more at home at the Forks now!
__________________
I'm sober enough to know what I'm doing, and drunk enough to really enjoy it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 6:01 AM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 5,785
Sammy's Shindico vision for the Forks

__________________
I'm sober enough to know what I'm doing, and drunk enough to really enjoy it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 6:04 AM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 5,785
Or might the Forks warrant the four story vision? With great landscaping like this Sammy will surely think he is back home in the Arizona desert!

__________________
I'm sober enough to know what I'm doing, and drunk enough to really enjoy it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 6:31 AM
Bdog's Avatar
Bdog Bdog is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrskylar View Post
or might the forks warrant the four story vision? With great landscaping like this sammy will surely think he is back home in the arizona desert!

lol
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:48 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.