Habibfazil
Active Member
how about part of "Big Water" then?I am also not pro fountain, or pro any water feature.
The post paid for by the Concerned Citizens for Greenspaces Without Flowing Liquids Coalition (CCGWFLC).
|
|
|
how about part of "Big Water" then?I am also not pro fountain, or pro any water feature.
The post paid for by the Concerned Citizens for Greenspaces Without Flowing Liquids Coalition (CCGWFLC).
I am now realizing the folly of taking your prior comments seriously.The things you mention are all important considerations and anybody that the City hired to maintain a park would need to have the proper credentials but there are numerous private contractors that work for the City so we're not talking about anything new and revolutionary.
As for city maintenance staff - there would be some attrition. Some staff that would be happy to take early retirement, some would take retraining, and some would move on. Again, nothing different than what private sector employees are confronted with all the time.
I don't doubt you that the parks with water features are absolutely jumping today but there's is a budget problem at the Warehouse Park and its being addressed by omitting a water feature. My opinion is that it's not the best option, so I presented one alternative. It's not necessarily the option that I personally would choose because it would be disruptive to some, but it is an option.
I am now realizing the folly of taking your prior comments serious
It's clear that you want to persuade anybody that holds a view of the park that is different from yours by bullying. I'd suggest that you loosen the strap on your bicycle helmet because out of respect to the other people on this board, I have no desire to accommodate your desire for a hissing contest.I am now realizing the folly of taking your prior comments seriously.
Seems a bit closer to what you're actually doing, really. To refresh your memory, I was on the "water feature good" side, and would still really like there to be one. You've just relied constantly upon imaginary math, lies, dramatics and the most bizarre contortions to try to bludgeon everyone into your viewpoint. Even if I would really like a water feature in that park, you absolutely aren't doing the idea any service.It's clear that you want to persuade anybody that holds a view of the park that is different from yours by bullying. I'd suggest that you loosen the strap on your bicycle helmet because out of respect to the other people on this board, I have no desire to accommodate your desire for a hissing contest.
and ring your damn bell when overtaking...It's clear that you want to persuade anybody that holds a view of the park that is different from yours by bullying. I'd suggest that you loosen the strap on your bicycle helmet because out of respect to the other people on this board, I have no desire to accommodate your desire for a hissing contest.
Are you done lecturing? I'm sorry to have used your sacred bike paths as an analogy for discretionary spending but nowhere have I posted that bike paths should be precluded and graded over. In fact I believe I posted that bike paths have "added to the vibrancy of the urban environment." The lies and imaginary math that you accuse me of posting are figures from the Edmonton Journal so if the reporting is inaccurate then perhaps it's something to be taken up with the publisher.Seems a bit closer to what you're actually doing, really. To refresh your memory, I was on the "water feature good" side, and would still really like there to be one. You've just relied constantly upon imaginary math, lies, dramatics and the most bizarre contortions to try to bludgeon everyone into your viewpoint. Even if I would really like a water feature in that park, you absolutely aren't doing the idea any service.
And as much as I would like one, at the end of the day, I have been looking forward to the demise of the 106 Street Impark Crater for a long, long time. I'm disappointed that there won't be a water feature, but I recognize just how complex they really are to incorporate and keep working and that there isn't a magical way to shake those resources loose by eliminating alternatives to driving or shifting park maintenance to the private sector. And the design they've come up with is not actually bad. The thousands of people who live within a stone's throw of it will certainly use it, especially since it provides amenities which their locality is a bit short on and will be a much better place to hold certain events than Churchill Square is.
And I understand that without the water you won't be there, but that's fine. There's some nice big water features in Hawrelak and Rundle, and you won't be missed.
DING!and ring your damn bell when overtaking...
Good news! When nothing is ever good enough, nothing really matters either! No need to worry!Hope is one thing, but recent reports continue to point to a sub-par experience around the hotel/CBD/entertainment area.
This response was... perfectionGood news! When nothing is ever good enough, nothing really matters either! No need to worry!
I was curious about this and sent an email to their email about this last Monday. Never even got a "We will look into this and get back to you" reply. Disappointing lmaoI'm much more concerned with the impact on the fire hall further up 107th that will now have southbound routes blocked.
I've read somewhere that a new fire hall is required as besides the blocked access the trains running in front can also impact on operations... Hopefully somebody includes those costs in the parks overall cost...