Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Osinchuk Vying for (Strathcona County) Mayor

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Spill View Post
    Originally posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    I get the impression Osinchuk is more Edmonton-friendly, which bodes well for the regional board.
    I hope that is true. What I find most disappointing about her platform, however, is her commitment to supporting burried transmission lines in the TUC.
    Why are you disappointed by this?
    Is it:
    a) because activities within the TUC should not be abated or modified,
    b) because you are concerned about marginal increases to an electricity bill that will be increasing regardless or,
    c) because you fear the precedent it may set should the AUC agree with that recommendation or,
    d) some other reason?

    Also, you state that the buried transmission line was the most disappointing stance of her platform. What else are you disappointed about?
    You can never have too much garlic

    Comment


    • #17
      Regional cooperation is key to success for all in the GER.

      Here's hoping that the newly minted Osinchuk will work with Edmonton and others more professionally.
      The world is full of kings and queens, who blind your eyes then steal your dreams.
      It's heaven and hell!

      Comment


      • #18
        She cant be worse...

        CBC did a news clip on how they chased Cathy Olsen around for 24-36 hours trying to get a comment. Cathy hadn't even called Linda.

        Linda advised that this was exactly how the last 6 years has been in chamber. Avoid Hide Avoid...
        "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by incubo nero View Post
          Originally posted by Spill View Post
          I hope that is true. What I find most disappointing about her platform, however, is her commitment to supporting burried transmission lines in the TUC.
          Why are you disappointed by this? ...
          I find her stance most disappointing as there is no scientifically-corroborated evidence of harmful effect and I have no desire to pay for anyone's "view" to be free of power lines in a corridor specifically reserved for such use. And it is, indeed, a provincial issue, not something I expect an elected official of a different jurisdiction to "continue to rally, lobby & fight tirelessly" against. At least not on county time.

          Other than that, some of her advertising seemed a little too overtly anti-Olesen. I do hope that any regional-cooperation objectives Linda might have are not clouded by her seemingly more visible autonomy-minded text.

          Comment


          • #20
            [QUOTE=Spill;325994 I find her stance most disappointing as there is no scientifically-corroborated evidence of harmful effect and I have no desire to pay for anyone's "view" to be free of power lines in a corridor specifically reserved for such use. And it is, indeed, a provincial issue, not something I expect an elected official of a different jurisdiction to "continue to rally, lobby & fight tirelessly" against. At least not on county time. QUOTE]

            My assumption is that you live in Strathcona County but do not live along one of the proposed power line routes. Is that true?

            If so, do you think your opinion on this issue would be different if your "view" was compromised?
            Do you think that the scale of the power line may have more to do with the "outrage" versus any presence whatsoever of a power line?
            You can never have too much garlic

            Comment


            • #21
              Given that transmission costs are borne by the entire province, do you feel it's appropriate for people all over the province to pay to bury the line?

              If I have to pay for it, I get to have a say on it.
              Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by noodle View Post
                Given that transmission costs are borne by the entire province, do you feel it's appropriate for people all over the province to pay to bury the line?

                If I have to pay for it, I get to have a say on it.
                Again, the scope of the power line may be alarming those who feel they are directly affected which is why the communities along the TUC are getting involved.

                If this was a 240 kV line going in, I would assume that there would be less emotion and likely, less persistent involvement from those municipal bodies.
                You can never have too much garlic

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by incubo nero View Post
                  My assumption is that you live in Strathcona County but do not live along one of the proposed power line routes. Is that true?

                  If so, do you think your opinion on this issue would be different if your "view" was compromised?
                  Do you think that the scale of the power line may have more to do with the "outrage" versus any presence whatsoever of a power line?
                  Where I live is irrelevant. My perception of the asthetics of power lines is irrelevant. And, very frankly, the size of power lines is irrelevant. The TUC has been in place for decades. What I find outragious is that some might feel entitled to an unchanging vista or physically at risk with no scientifically-justifiable evidence.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Spill View Post
                    Where I live is irrelevant. My perception of the asthetics of power lines is irrelevant. And, very frankly, the size of power lines is irrelevant. The TUC has been in place for decades. What I find outragious is that some might feel entitled to an unchanging vista or physically at risk with no scientifically-justifiable evidence.
                    Well, don't take this the wrong way, but I do not believe that anyone would consider the "view" nor scope of the powerlines nor any other factor irrelevant if they were located near one of the proposed powerline routes.
                    Regardless, the scope is relevant, otherwise it likely would not have taken the strong arm of Bill 50 to ensure its "need".
                    People, and municipalities, have the right to fight these battles - rightly or wrongly - that's just part of the process.
                    You can never have too much garlic

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by incubo nero View Post
                      Well, don't take this the wrong way, but I do not believe that anyone would consider the "view" nor scope of the powerlines nor any other factor irrelevant if they were located near one of the proposed powerline routes.
                      Well, don't take this the wrong way but you're incorrect. That's not an opinion.
                      Originally posted by incubo nero View Post
                      Regardless, the scope is relevant, otherwise it likely would not have taken the strong arm of Bill 50 to ensure its "need".
                      People, and municipalities, have the right to fight these battles - rightly or wrongly - that's just part of the process.
                      I suggest your considerations belongs in a different thread. Best of luck.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I wonder if we would object to transmission lines and towers as much if they were also pieces of art:







                        http://www.designboom.com/weblog/cat...of-giants.html

                        Just something to think about.
                        Last edited by RTA; 22-10-2010, 03:50 PM.
                        Strathcona City Separatist

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          These transmisson lines are needed... full stop.

                          We have to ensure industry and the general population has access to affordable energy.
                          "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by RTA View Post
                            I wonder if we would object to transmission lines and towers as much if they were also pieces of art:

                            Just something to think about.
                            I'd complain about why Sherwood Park feels it should get special fancy expensive towers over the rest of the province, all on everyone's dime. It's the same argument I have against burying the line in the TUC at my (and your) cost in perpituity.

                            Transmission is like the hull of a boat. We're all sunk if it springs a leak, so we all pay to maintain the infrastructure. Special treatment to squeaky wheels who didn't exercise their due dilligence is a slippery slope I'd rather avoid at this point.
                            Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              ^ I'm not sure you understood my point. It wouldn't be a concession to appease NIMBYs, it would be creating a piece of art in our region that would benefit everyone as any public art would, while also serving infrastructure needs.
                              Strathcona City Separatist

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                It's an increased cost to placate the few. The TUC is already ugly as sin, by nature of the Henday running through it. Some fancy towers would just be ratepayer-funded lipstick on a pig.

                                Note: the Heartland Transmission Project did submit an option for monopole, rather than the traditional lattice towers for reduced visual impact. Just switching 20km of the project to the different tower configuration is an additional $78million. Burying the same 20km adds ~$420million.

                                Info from here: http://www.heartlandtransmission.ca/...%20SUMMARY.pdf
                                Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X