Pete's Viewpoint

It's being floated about, the idea to ban foreigners from buying property in BC. I'm not an expert on this, but one thing I do know. A party offering a populist idea that pledges to ban foreigners from [activity] is bound to attract voters with a certain antipathy towards.. foreigners. Maybe that's the intention, maybe it isn't. But are we 100% sure that it's only foreigners cash that's distorted Vancouver's real estate market? Are we 100% certain that domestic or even local investment hasn't played a role in distorting with housing prices in the city? The answer is "no" to both. I don't claim to be an expert on housing, real estate and relevant regulations. But a narrative in BC that seeks to blame the foreigners isn't philosophically far from Trump's attack on #DACA folks. Blame the foreigners, kick 'em out, that will fix our problems. No. It makes us look like an asshole. My 2 bits.

Hear me out for a moment. First, as far as qualifications go, she towers Trump in every way. She wasn't born into wealth, she had to earn it the hard way. As a black woman, that climb was far steeper than most others had to do. Her challenge is that she's polarizing. Those who like her, love her. Those who dislike her, well you get the picture. To a lesser degree than Hillary Clinton to be sure, but polarizing to be clear. If Democrats nominate Oprah, they validate the narrative told by Republicans that Democrats cater to elite, rich and entitled limousine Liberals. Facts be damned. No mention that Trump, and Romney beforehand were candidates born into wealth and were far more detached from the plight of the average working stiff who's slipping further behind than ever before. But we've well established that we're in a post truth era where facts don't matter, "truth" is told by oft repeated narrative. Democrats need to locate a slate of candidates ...

Again, since I can't stress it enough, SiteC is wrong and should be cancelled. Its financial impact in cancellation is less of a burden than to carry out its construction. Worse, but most compelling for me, is the impact on reconciliation efforts with First Nations and the stated objective of the NDP government to get to a place of compliance with UNDRIP. There is time to reverse this decision, but the government must move quickly to do so. I certainly get the level of frustration going on with the SiteC decision, what I didn't expect is the level of online harassment, name calling, and outright bullying that's happened as a result. It is over the edge. BC is better than this, and internally, so is the NDP. The government has decided to move forward with SiteC, and therefore will have to own all fallout that comes from complications in construction cost overruns (almost a guarantee). They will first have to mitigate the justified uproar of the good folks the Treaty 8 in...

There were many of us who had hoped that through an unflattering review of SiteC by the BC Utilities Commission, that the project would be cancelled. We're not too far along in the construction that it could be halted and reversed for far less cash than what completion would cost. Indeed, that's what the conclusion was; the project was unnecessary, and unnecessarily expensive. While BC is planning to spend upwards of $12 billion (probably more) to build a dam of old world technology, the far greener tech is becoming cheaper to build, maintain, and can pull the necessary kW required for our future needs. Needs that don't yet exist. The NDP had a clean slate here. They also promised to adhere to UNDRIP; an international protocol that calls for Indigenous People's consent for these sorts of decisions. Since SiteC is in dispute with several northern First Nations, we can safely assume that this consent isn't quite satisfied. Putting it mildly. So expect years of hi...

Attn: NDP government For the love of BC, vote no on SiteC. The science doesn't support it. The economics don't support it. It doesn't significantly help in our climate change goals. It's construction runs afoul of our commitments to the area's First Nations, if UNDRIP means anything at least. It's not the job creator it's showcased as. It will destroy arable land and displace families for no good reason. SiteC is as phoney as trickle down economics. But will have very real consequences if it's built. In short, SiteC is a perfect hybrid between Mt Rushmore and the bridge to nowhere . Worse, it's symbolic of a narcissist, megalomaniac leadership of the previous BC Liberal government under both it's Premier's. The NDP's choice now, let the BC Liberals have their monument to waste and destruction, or find a better way to locate sustainable green energy. Cancel SiteC. My 2 bits

To listen to BC Liberals today, you'd think that by completing SiteC, $4 billion would magically appear that could be spent on schools, hospitals and perhaps even tax cuts. The amount comes from what some estimate would be spent in cancellation of SiteC, inclusive of costs rung up so far in construction and the remedial costs that lay ahead. For this article, I'll take that number as granted (though there's some serious dispute on the actual remedial costs needed). Let's sit that $4 billion to stop and remove a dam we don't need, along side the $12-15 billion in costs to complete the dam we don't need. Is $4 billion greater than $12-15 billion? Because the party that wants back in power thinks that's the case. Math is hard. While the BC Liberals are lighting their hair on fire to get their version of the bridge to nowhere built, did any of them answer for the billions siphoned from BC Hydro's revenue stream to pad their imaginary budget surplus? Didn...

To hear some pundits say it, the thought of offering a chance to change BC's voting system is to be the end of human civilization as we know it. What they're doing is misleading people, and it's very dangerous. I just read in the linked article that the fear is that if only 50% bother to vote, potentially 25% +1 will decide the outcome of our system. This is apparently an outrage. But by the same math, should 40% vote for one party in the current FPTP system, they stand to get 100% of the power. If you're still counting, 40% of the 50% turnout is 20% of all voters. Is 25 > 20? Asking for a friend. A more ludicrous assertion was that proportion representation will prop up extremist groups. This is disproven right here in Canada. In 1993 and every election until 2011, the regional support concentration in Quebec meant that one party with an anti-Canada mandate would win 40-60 seats despite 7% nationwide support. Did I mention that this regional party didn't ev...