montréal Prolongement de la ligne Bleue

[SameGuy]

There's a housing crisis and a climate crisis. Yes.

[mtlurb]

à l’instant, SameGuy a dit :

There's a housing crisis and a climate crisis. Yes.

Housing crisis is also caused by these type regulations... PMAD is being one of them. Trying to solve an issue with more regulations, rarely produces the expected outcome. 

[SameGuy]

Sure, but we live in a social democracy, not a libertarian utopia. Laws and regulations are implemented for the greater good, even if they're sometimes unpopular among the ignorant masses. Seatbelts save lives. Snow tires save lives. No-fault insurance saves everybody money in the long run, etc etc. As societies we also evolve, and rules and customs that at one time might have been considered beneficial or correct are often revised or deprecated. Should we return to the days of unlimited pesticide use? What about no noise regulations for cars, trucks, airplanes and airports? Indoor smoking? Or on planes? How about no security checks at the airport? The list of (perhaps formerly) unpopular laws, regulations, and procedures is long, and sometimes has costs that are unavoidable, especially at first. We evolve, we adapt.

"Forcing" some things is often considered intrusive and an overreach, but as I've said before, we are generally supposed elect to power people whom we presume to be smarter and more capable than us in order to decide what's best for us. The one major drawback to populism, especially in its current manifestation, is that instead of electing the best and brightest, we are electing those who purport to be "just like us," and we just ain't that bright. Most politics is about ascension to positions of power, and the addiction to retaining that power, so those same populists are actually smart enough to know that if they pander to the unintelligent masses who got them to power, they can keep on keeping on.

[mtlurb]

il y a 23 minutes, SameGuy a dit :

Sure, but we live in a social democracy, not a libertarian utopia. Laws and regulations are implemented for the greater good, even if they're sometimes unpopular among the ignorant masses. Seatbelts save lives. Snow tires save lives. No-fault insurance saves everybody money in the long run, etc etc. As societies we also evolve, and rules and customs that at one time might have been considered beneficial or correct are often revised or deprecated. Should we return to the days of unlimited pesticide use? What about no noise regulations for cars, trucks, airplanes and airports? Indoor smoking? Or on planes? How about no security checks at the airport? The list of (perhaps formerly) unpopular laws, regulations, and procedures is long, and sometimes has costs that are unavoidable, especially at first. We evolve, we adapt.

"Forcing" some things is often considered intrusive and an overreach, but as I've said before, we are generally supposed elect to power people whom we presume to be smarter and more capable than us in order to decide what's best for us. The one major drawback to populism, especially in its current manifestation, is that instead of electing the best and brightest, we are electing those who purport to be "just like us," and we just ain't that bright. Most politics is about ascension to positions of power, and the addiction to retaining that power, so those same populists are actually smart enough to know that if they pander to the unintelligent masses who got them to power, they can keep on keeping on.

I agree with most of what you said, but you're giving examples of general safety and personal safety which are all excellent but they aren't the same as regulating a market. Regulating for personal safety, usually produces expected outcomes, smoking is bad, ban it or make it hard to get.... action and outcome are really simple and straight forward.

Regulating a market, housing specifically, (what can be built, where, how and when ) rarely if ever gives the expected outcome... intentions are amazing on paper though... and its not really only about Montreal, Quebec or Canada,... this is something that is happening in many many cities/countries, i have posted quite a few articles and videos across the years for markets such as London and other cities in the UK as an example. Where regulations are killing the housing market and making it unaffordable for the masses. 

[acpnc]

Il y a 4 heures, mtlurb a dit :

And why is that a problem? These cities answer what their population want or dont want... whats the purpose of the city, if it doesnt listen to its constituents. I mean we like density here, but folks living there dont want it. Do you have to force it thru their throat.

Ton propos est vrai mais dès qu'on l'applique à Montréal, soudainement les critiques de Mtlurb fusent de toute part et on dénonce la go-gauche qui est pourtant une frange non négligeable de la population de la ville centre. D'ailleurs PM est au pouvoir parce qu'une majorité de montréalais on voté pour Valérie et son équipe, qu'ils ont même réélue, même si elle est largement méprisée sur le forum. Pas étonnant non plus quand on regarde la carte politique, les banlieues ont tendance à voter plus à droite que la métropole qui est davantage progressiste.

Ce qui m'amène à dire que les deux populations, Laval et Montréal ont raison et qu'on doit les respecter pour ce qu'elles sont.

 

[mtlurb]

il y a 26 minutes, acpnc a dit :

Ton propos est vrai mais dès qu'on l'applique à Montréal, soudainement les critiques de Mtlurb fusent de toute part et on dénonce la go-gauche qui est pourtant une frange non négligeable de la population de la ville centre. D'ailleurs PM est au pouvoir parce qu'une majorité de montréalais on voté pour Valérie et son équipe, qu'ils ont même réélue, même si elle est largement méprisée sur le forum. Pas étonnant non plus quand on regarde la carte politique, les banlieues ont tendance à voter plus à droite que la métropole qui est davantage progressiste.

Ce qui m'amène à dire que les deux populations, Laval et Montréal ont raison et qu'on doit les respecter pour ce qu'elles sont.

 

Bien sûr que t’as raison, et c’est en fait plus semblable comme situation que tu le crois. D’un côté une politique de densification qui n’est pas accepté par la population locale. Et de l’autre une politique d’abordabilité qui n’est pas accepté par les promoteurs résidentiels locaux. L’un comme l’autre, tu ne peux pas les forcer à faire quoi que ce soit. La ville de Montréal peut crier sur tous les toits que ce n’est pas juste, si personne ne veut construire elle ne peut rien faire a part le faire elle-même.  

[KOOL]

il y a une heure, acpnc a dit :

D'ailleurs PM est au pouvoir parce qu'une majorité de montréalais on voté pour Valérie et son équipe, qu'ils ont même réélue, même si elle est largement méprisée sur le forum.

 

Dire qu'elle est méprisée, c'est lui donner beaucoup trop d'importance. En ce qui me concerne, elle fait juste me taper sur les nerfs avec les mièvreries qui sortent de sa bouche et son insupportable ricanement.  

Suite à une création hallucinante de nouveaux gratte-ciel en ville ces dix dernières années, c'est tant mieux si ses années au pouvoir coïncident avec l'actuelle instabilité économique et l'absence totale d'annonces de projets d'importance depuis deux ans. La relance n'en sera plus impressionnante après son départ. 

[Doctor D]

On 2/25/2023 at 2:50 PM, SameGuy said:

I'm still waiting for Dorval, Pte-Claire, Beaconsfield, and Baie-d'Urfé to approve densification projects along exo1 that comply with the CMM's PMAD.

Do you think there's a chance considering the NIMBYism of the West Island?

[SameGuy]

Nahhhh

[Enalung]

On 2023-02-25 at 3:36 PM, SameGuy said:

Sure, but we live in a social democracy, not a libertarian utopia. Laws and regulations are implemented for the greater good, even if they're sometimes unpopular among the ignorant masses. Seatbelts save lives. Snow tires save lives. No-fault insurance saves everybody money in the long run, etc etc. As societies we also evolve, and rules and customs that at one time might have been considered beneficial or correct are often revised or deprecated. Should we return to the days of unlimited pesticide use? What about no noise regulations for cars, trucks, airplanes and airports? Indoor smoking? Or on planes? How about no security checks at the airport? The list of (perhaps formerly) unpopular laws, regulations, and procedures is long, and sometimes has costs that are unavoidable, especially at first. We evolve, we adapt.

"Forcing" some things is often considered intrusive and an overreach, but as I've said before, we are generally supposed elect to power people whom we presume to be smarter and more capable than us in order to decide what's best for us. The one major drawback to populism, especially in its current manifestation, is that instead of electing the best and brightest, we are electing those who purport to be "just like us," and we just ain't that bright. Most politics is about ascension to positions of power, and the addiction to retaining that power, so those same populists are actually smart enough to know that if they pander to the unintelligent masses who got them to power, they can keep on keeping on.

It is true that some regulations are necessary, but not all regulation is good. Democracy is a perpetual experiment. We try new laws and regulation, and some of them just don't work out and should be repealed, or replaced. I absolutely despise politicians who have too much pride to admit that they were wrong and continue with their mistaken ways despite the obvious problems that they have caused. I respect those who are willing to have a second look and try something else to find a solution that actually works.