Moderator: Team Captains
I wont argue with that but I'll tell you what. Why don't you experiment with so much fuel on your property? Then while you're at it add in a few homeless butt flickers.LFITQ wrote:Downed trees and dead brush also become habitat and help to establish and augment the ecosystem.
I agree with LFIQ on this one. The reason why Vancouver should foot the bill for this clean-up is because they own the park and get the most benefits from it.KnowItAll wrote:Just because you got screwed by the province doesnt make it right for them to do the same everywhere else, and once again, it is not City owned, just leased. In fact, assuming they will be shortly renegotiating a next lease, maybe the city of Vancouver shouldnt put one cent into it until they get the new lease. The feds are liable to let the city and private citizens clean it all up, then lease or sell it to someone else.
What is it with you people. I keep pointing out to you that they do NOT own the park and you keep ignoring that little fact???I agree with LFIQ on this one. The reason why Vancouver should foot the bill for this clean-up is because they own the park and get the most benefits from it.
in other words, you dont want any of YOUR tax money to go to it, but yet, I bet you will still enjoy parts of the park every now and then. You do know that some tourists money that the park brings in makes its way to North Van, doncha?? How about if the city just says, forget, we leave it the way it is and those people on the other side will just have to keep using only 2nd narrows or the seabus.MacNews wrote:I agree with LFIQ on this one. The reason why Vancouver should foot the bill for this clean-up is because they own the park and get the most benefits from it.KnowItAll wrote:Just because you got screwed by the province doesnt make it right for them to do the same everywhere else, and once again, it is not City owned, just leased. In fact, assuming they will be shortly renegotiating a next lease, maybe the city of Vancouver shouldnt put one cent into it until they get the new lease. The feds are liable to let the city and private citizens clean it all up, then lease or sell it to someone else.
If we had formed a mega city then, KIA, when Vancouver paid for the clean-up it'd be the whole lower mainland pitching it. But we haven't, so Vancouver is left footing the bill. I'm fine with that. Why? Because that's what Vancouver got when they leased Stanley Park from the feds. If they were so worried about costs then they shouldn't have leased the park.
The only funding should be from the Parks Board (It's their job) and concerned private citizens.
As mentioned previously, I work for the City. The park is leased from the Feds. The lease will be renegotiated this year. The City is responsible for ALL maintenance and cleanup. However without some aid from other Gov'ts if we spend our entire budget on cleanup after this there won't be much left over to maintain not just this park, but all parks.What is it with you people. I keep pointing out to you that they do NOT own the park and you keep ignoring that little fact???
have they started negotiating the next lease yet? Any talk about it at all?? Do you think it is a 100% given that the city gets the next lease? Is there a point where the city will say, nope, too much? Is anybody at all concerned where you work, or in the parks board?Lion Guy wrote:As mentioned previously, I work for the City. The park is leased from the Feds. The lease will be renegotiated this year. The City is responsible for ALL maintenance and cleanup. However without some aid from other Gov'ts if we spend our entire budget on cleanup after this there won't be much left over to maintain not just this park, but all parks.What is it with you people. I keep pointing out to you that they do NOT own the park and you keep ignoring that little fact???
Because, I count leasing it the same as owning. For that period of time, the City owns it.KnowItAll wrote:What is it with you people. I keep pointing out to you that they do NOT own the park and you keep ignoring that little fact???
Then later you admit they are just leasing. Make up your mind...sheesh
That's a tad short-sighted. Yo sure you want the Feds running the Park..collecting fees and sending them to Toronto?MacNews wrote:Because, I count leasing it the same as owning. For that period of time, the City owns it.KnowItAll wrote:What is it with you people. I keep pointing out to you that they do NOT own the park and you keep ignoring that little fact???
Then later you admit they are just leasing. Make up your mind...sheesh
I think it should be left to the city because they own it (For now) and they have to accept that responsibility. If they don't want to pay for the clean-up, then don't re-negociate the lease and let it roll-over to the feds in 2007.
As with Lion82...the deal will get done.KnowItAll wrote:have they started negotiating the next lease yet? Any talk about it at all?? Do you think it is a 100% given that the city gets the next lease? Is there a point where the city will say, nope, too much? Is anybody at all concerned where you work, or in the parks board?Lion Guy wrote:As mentioned previously, I work for the City. The park is leased from the Feds. The lease will be renegotiated this year. The City is responsible for ALL maintenance and cleanup. However without some aid from other Gov'ts if we spend our entire budget on cleanup after this there won't be much left over to maintain not just this park, but all parks.What is it with you people. I keep pointing out to you that they do NOT own the park and you keep ignoring that little fact???
No I don't want the fees going to Ottawa, but if the City is gonna whine about storm clean-up costs (They're not, it's Global trying to get some viewers) then just let the park go to Ottawa and problem solved.Lion Guy wrote:That's a tad short-sighted. Yo sure you want the Feds running the Park..collecting fees and sending them to Toronto?
Its probably possible, but I highly doubt that would happen, Im sure it would have to be worked out that the City/bridge gets the right of way.Or could the feds lease to someone private who could deny passage through the park, and\or collect a toll??
and then what debate we would see when a tree fell across the road, as to who is responsible for cleanupCB123 wrote:Its probably possible, but I highly doubt that would happen, Im sure it would have to be worked out that the City/bridge gets the right of way.Or could the feds lease to someone private who could deny passage through the park, and\or collect a toll??
