In favour of the skate park

02 August 2012

Members of the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board,

My name is Stephen Graham and I live at 1410 Aspen Place South. I am in support of the development permit for the Henderson Lake Skatepark at 2599 Parkside Drive South (Permit number DEV04402). I believe that providing a venue for a relatively low-cost, all-ages, physical activity in a visible and accessible location is an excellent decision. 

I take exception to some of the objections raised by the appellants, namely the objections about policing, parking, traffic congestion, activity density, and noise.

Regarding policing, I believe that placing a public skate park in full public view of a primary artery will aid in deterring unwanted behaviours. LRPS and the public will be able to see the site and, together with the park users, we will be able to keep an eye on the park.

Regarding parking and traffic congestion, I believe that the majority of the skate park users will not drive to the park, but rather will use their boards. A few will be driven by parents and friends, but I believe that will be a very small minority. Certainly any overflow from the odd concurrent usage may spill onto public streets, but those times will likely be few and far between and not in excess of current on-street parking. For similar reasoning, there should not be any noticeable increase in traffic congestion.

Regarding objections to activity density, I think that creating a skate park in this area will move any skateboarding activity off the main park paths. This will improve safety and enjoyment for pedestrian, bicycle, and skateboard users of this park zone. I do object to some residents claiming ownership or provision of some activities in the Henderson Lake area, and more so for the seeming characterization of these community building events as a burden.

Finally, regarding noise. The sound of people enjoying a park is a good thing. As one document  from Herndon, VA notes, "Studies show that at 100 feet from a skate park, little noise rises above the surrounding ambient noise no matter what surface is used." Most of the appellants live more than 500m from the zoned site or about 16 times that distance. It would be akin to someone in London Road Neighbourhood being concerned about noise from Park Place Mall.

I think that skateboarding is not for me. I lack the coordination to do the tricks and I lack the stamina to use it as transportation. Skateboarding is exercise. It builds strength and coordination. It doesn't require a team or a lot of equipment. Kids and adults can participate solo or concurrently. It doesn't use electricity. It doesn't, to my knowledge, contribute to obesity or delinquency.

It does require some contiguous hard surfaces and some space. Like a sidewalk, rail, curb, quarter-roll, or other similar features. The features you'd find in a skate park. The thought of having a highly-visible, public, maintained, and endorsed place for my kids, and others in the city to conveniently exercise and play makes me happy. It is the kind of thing that taxes are for, yes?

In light of what I have said here, I urge the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board to deny the appeal and uphold the original permit for the benefit of our city.

Thank you,

Stephen Graham, B.Sc., I.S.P, ITCP

1410 Aspen Place South

Lethbridge, AB   T1K 3V4

smgraham@nucleus.com

A good use of tax dollars?

Two items surfaced in the news recently that have caused me to question how our money is being spent. $10M on an inquiry and $84K on a road trip. The PC's in Alberta promised, if elected, to 
"Invest in Families and Communities: we will support wellness, families and communities as an investment in Albertans and Alberta’s future."

So the $10M is to investigate whether or not there is queue-jumping happening in our health care system. My amateur analysis is this: If we have sufficient capacity to to provide quality health care in a timely fashion to everyone, there is no need for queue jumping. $10M hires 20 health care professionals (doctors, nurses, etc) for one year. Or 10 for two years. Or a few lawyers for a few months. I see an immediate value to spending on staff and facilities, but I am hard pressed to see the value of another expensive report that will tell us something we already know. Maybe the government forgot that they promised "Making healthcare more efficient and reallocating as much money as possible to frontline services continues to be our highest priority."

And $84K to go to the Olympics(tm) in London? This must be part of Premier Redford's commitment "to a re-evaluation and bolstering of Alberta’s international strategy, better positioning Alberta business and pro-actively, promote Alberta’s energetic, global focus in everything from tourism and trade, to arts and culture, education, research, innovation, and investment."

I get that we need to sell our brand. I get that, but where and how will the ROI be realized or even measured?  I bet there is no metric in place to gauge the success of this "investment". Will it be in tourism? That may be hard to handle given the previous years' cuts to Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation and Alberta Culture and Community Spirit.  

Maybe it is just a chance to see sports. If that's the case, perhaps the Premier and her ministers could have spent $84K to come to the Alberta Summer Games and invested in Alberta.

I'm just saying.

Coffee shops...

One of the best inventions ever.

I was sitting in a coffee shop and working on a programming problem when a woman with an interesting tattoo sat down at the table next to me. The tattoo was of three mathematical functions the Möbius function, the omega function representing distinct prime factors, and another function which escapes my recall. I asked her about it/them and she explained that, with the provided arguments, the three functions represented her date of birth. We proceeded to talk about number theory, math, and the lack of teachers with a math specialty. She is involved with some exciting research related to the Riemann Hypothesis. If that goes smoothly, she may have time for a second publication for her Masters.

Next, a business consultant friend of mine arrives and suddenly I'm embroiled in a conversation about customer service, and getting the customer to put a value on IT service. Keen insight gained.

I'm just saying: $1.87 well spent!

I can no longer hide...

I believe that in the last few days, I have created or reinforced so much of my social networking that I will never be able to hide from the web. Ever. (As if there was even a chance last week!)

My wife (@NancyLTG) introduced me to Klout.com, an influence ranking site. After some connect the dots and social networks, and after waiting for the engine to get caught up, I have now got an ego-stroking Klout score of 54/100 (or whatever the badge at the bottom says now). If anyone reads this, likes this, shares this, +1's this, tweets or retweets this, or links it on their blog, I will get a smidgen more Klout. (please?)

It may not mean much to me today, but according to an article in Wired magazine, "Klout—a three-year-old startup based in San Francisco—is on a mission to rank the influence of every person online." This could have implications on whether or not I (or you) get a job.

Until someone figures a way to hijack the algorithm, we probably had better scratch each other's backs and give each other K+

I'm just saying.

Schrödinger's soldiers?

Are soldiers heroes or not? Or both? Or does it depend when we observe them?

I've been seeing groups like Soldiers are Heroes and posts on various social media with the same message. Today I saw a post on Facebook looking for my support to shut down a group page called Soldiers are Not Heroes or some other pages like it.

I visited the pages and I find that I fall more toward the "not heroes" camp. Here's why.

Being a soldier doesn't make you a hero. Being admired for doing something courageous, outstanding or noble makes you a hero. Soldiers may be heroes to some, but it seems that hero-ness is relative. If we are forced to accept that "all soldiers are heroes", then we must accept Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, every German soldier in WWII who marched Jews to the death camps, and anyone who participated in the My Lai Massacre or the Somalia Affair as heroes. That seems like a very difficult stretch for me.

Furthermore, I think the declaration "All Soldiers are Heroes" is an example of a Moralistic Fallacy. The proponents would like to believe it should be true, so they assume it is true. If pressed, I'm pretty sure those proponents would concede that "All Soldiers" an overstatement. Some closer phrases might be: "All soldiers in the service of my country" or "Those soldiers in the service of my country who maintain the code of conduct and do nothing that I find morally intolerable", but those don't have a catch bandwagon ring. Saying a thing is true doesn't make it so.

I am a proponent of the Canadian Armed Forces. I think we in Canada have the history and the ability to raise and maintain an appropriate defence force that has the ability to help our and other nations in distress. If our armed forces are actually helping people in ways and places that are difficult and dangerous, and they are doing good in the world in a way that is above and beyond the call of duty, then those particular people might be heroes to me.

Do your own thinking. Pick your own heroes.

I'm just thinking.

Will I suddenly be 9 months older?

According to Hansard, MP Stephen Woodworth wants to know:
(i) what medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth,
(ii) is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the declaration in Subsection 223(1) that a child is only a human being at the moment of complete birth,
(iii) what are the legal impact and consequences of Subsection 223(1) on the fundamental human rights of a child before the moment of complete birth,
(iv) what are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court to affirm, amend, or replace Subsection 223(1).

Blogger Stephen Graham wants to know:

(i) what medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a human being is or is not an adult before the moment of turning eighteen,
(ii) is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the declaration in Subsections 2(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Canadian law that a human being becomes an adult at the moment of turning eighteen,
(iii) what are the legal impact and consequences of those sections of law on the fundamental human rights of a human being before the moment of turning eighteen,
(iv) what are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court to affirm, amend, or replace definitions in Canadian law that restrict the rights of Canadians under eighteen.



Also, if a child is a human being at, say, the moment of conception, how will that affect the measurement of age under the law? Is this part of deferring OAS?

I know it's crazy to try and treat all law equally, but gooses and ganders.

I'm just saying.

I've not been shy about my love of the concept of parliamentary democracy. I love it. I think it has the potential to be the best flavour of democracy going. I frequently regret that there is insufficient altruism in politics to make it work.

It is a simple premise: The room is not big enough for everyone to sit in the legislature at once, so we elect someone to go sit there on our behalf. Those elected representatives go to Edmonton with their local biases to make good law for Alberta. A bunch of those people will be "The Government" and will propose laws. The rest will be "The Opposition" and they will oppose any flaws in the laws and propose changes to the laws in the hopes of making a better Alberta.

Note that the job of the Opposition is not to say, "The Government is wrong" it is to say "We believe this part of the law would better serve Alberta with these amendments."

Then, the coolness happens! Parliament.

It's why we read the bills 3 times and debate them. To talk about it. Not brag or nay-say, but to actually find and create the best law available.

Please, newly elected Government and Opposition, take our diverse and elected members and use them ALL to our best advantage. We live in a great province, so let's keep it that way.

I am emphatically saying.

Promises, Promises

So... Today I will focus my attention one little detail about the Alberta PCs.

Their campaign, for as long as I can remember, is based on "We've been doing well so you should vote for us." It has even been peppered with the occasional "We did what we said we were going to do!" but those are usually to distract us from other things.

In my research for this election, I was reading through old budgets and found this gem of a promise from April 7th, 2009.

"The Pharmaceutical Strategy will redesign drug coverage for seniors. When it is implemented on January 1, 2010, it will lower or completely eliminate prescription drug costs for about 60% of seniors." (FISCAL PLAN 2009 –12  SPENDING PLAN,  Page 31)

This is rapidly followed up by a press release on April 23rd, 2009 announcing details of the plan that will come into effect July 1, 2010.

Then there was a new budget passed in February 2010 that declared "Under the Alberta Pharmaceutical Strategy, drug coverage for seniors has been redesigned . When it is implemented on July 1, 2010, it will lower or completely eliminate prescription drug costs for about 60% of seniors." (FISCAL PLAN 2010 –13 G SPENDING PLAN, Page 31)

In a press release on March 31st, 2010 it was announced that "Proposed changes to Alberta's seniors' drug plan scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2010, have been delayed in order to address necessary legislative and regulatory changes and align with other government programs for seniors. Meanwhile, the existing seniors' drug program will remain available to all Albertans 65 years and older." (This coverage has not been updated since July 2010).

"In 20 years, Alberta's seniors' population will have doubled from 400,000 to more than 800,000 - an increase from 11 to 21 per cent of our population," said Gene Zwozdesky, Minister of Health and Wellness.  "As a result, a comprehensive approach is needed to address the needs of an aging and rapidly expanding population, and that simply requires more time to get it right."

How much time?

Budget 2011 Announces "The 2011-12 budget provides over $1 billion for these benefits, including
$595 million for prescription drug benefits for seniors." No mention of the redesigned drug coverage plan.

Budget 2012 Announces "There is over $1 billion budgeted for these benefits in 2012-13, including
$552 million for prescription drug benefits for seniors." Still no mention of the redesigned drug coverage plan and notice that prescription drug benefits for seniors is now decreasing despite the increasing number of seniors in Alberta.

This is just one example of "Look how well we (actually) did." There might be more examples. There might not. But, if we're not paying attention, we won't know what else is promised but not delivered.

Be informed. Do some reading. Ask some questions. Make up your own mind. Democracy works better that way.

I'm just saying.


p.s. I'm keeping copies of the platforms so that I can track the winners promises against performance. You should, too!

p.p.s. I was able to download PC, NDP, Lib, Alberta, & Evergreen (as PDF). I was able to download Separation Party, Alberta Social Credit, &  Communist Party of Alberta (by copy and paste),... but for some reason, WR won't let me download their policy documents... Maybe they don't want it thrown back in their faces?

EDIT APRIL 18, 2012
With some digging I found http://www.wildrosecaucus.ca/issues/  There are 14 issues there each with what looks like a policy PDF. I'll have to see if it matches their platform Scribd thing.

Skepticism is healthy... Improve your health!

Recently (about 15 minutes ago) I saw a link in my Facebook(tm) newsfeed to promo page for "Adam and Eve after the Pill: Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution" by Mary Eberstadt

FACT: The fact in the posted image is not a fact. It is a question.

OPINION: The fact alluded to in the question may only be one interpretation of the data available. Here is another set of conclusions from the data: http://www.in-gender.com/XYU/Gender-Preference/

OPINION: Gender selection of offspring is a bad idea and a bad practice.

OPINION: We should be skeptical of broad-sweeping, poorly-supported propagandizing statements purported as fact and relentlessly hold their authors and proponents to account for the veracity and validity of those statements.

I'm just saying.

Sex is abuse?

So I saw this picture "Real men don't buy girls". This is a bold tactic against human trafficking. I don't think that people should be property. I believe it is our personal and societal obligation to protect our young and to not abuse the vulnerable.

STOP HUMAN TRAFFICKING!

That being said, I found this picture in a promotion for the website sextrade101.com. You should read it. There are some real concerns here. People should not hurt other people. The founder of the site, Natasha Falle, said, "Prostitution is the abuse of women plain and simple."

I think it is neither plain nor simple.

What is wrong with exchanging services for money? Lawyers do it. Factory workers do it. Computer programmers do it. Teachers do it. If you have a job, you are trading your services for money. Prostitution is the exchange of sexual services for money.

If lawyering, building, programming, teaching, etc. is not abuse, then the difference must be sex. So then sex = abuse.

That is messed up. Sure there is sexual abuse, but not all sex is abuse and not all abuse is sex.

I do not understand what is so wrong about sex. Why should it be illegal to offer to exchange sex for money (or vice versa, no pun intended)? Why should it be illegal to live off the money earned in exchange for sex?

What if the sex trade were unionized? It worked for coal miners and steel workers... just look at how much better protected those workers are under the law than in pre-union times. Not perfect, but better. Think of the income tax implications of adding all that additional self-employment income. Think of the opportunities for better support, health, education, and training. Think how the trade would not be forced into the shadows where people look the other way.

I hope sextrade101.com will help to make everyone safer and happier. If it starts to demonize sex, then maybe what we need to do is make it illegal to live off the avails of special interest propagandizing...

I'm just saying ..

We need our Education to be fully funded.

I'm pretty sure that several someones in the Provincial budgeting process could use some remedial math and problem-solving lessons.

Pop Quiz:
1) An Education department is responsible for funding the operations of school boards with approximately 553,000 students and 36,000 teachers in the 2011-2012 fiscal year. In 2012-2013, the number of students is expected to increase by 1.5% and the salaries for teachers are expected to increase 5.0%. If the actual cost in 2011-2012 was $5,884,134,000 how much should be budgeted for 2012-2013 in order to maintain the same student-teacher ratio? (Choose the best/closest answer.)
   A- $6,082,000,000
   B- $6,270,000,000
   C- Some number that we can claim is a 3.4% increase in spending
   D- None of the above

I claim the answer is B: 5,884,134,000 * 1.015 * 1.05 = $6,270,000,000 (approx.) If you answered A or C then you are a Departmental Minister or someone involved in creating the budget.  (Source: 2012 AB Budget - pg. 26)

Obviously education IS important. It helps us balance our budgets. It helps us solve problems.

Considering this is just one example of bad budgeting, I dread to think how badly forecast the entire budget is!

I'm just saying.

So the criminal code of Canada states (in part) "202 (1) Everyone commits an offence who (d) records or registers bets or sells a pool" and that "(2) Every one who commits an offence under this section is guilty of an indictable offence and liable (a) for a first offence, to imprisonment for not more than two years"

It also states "213. (1) Every person who in a public place or in any place open to public view (c) stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner communicates or attempts to communicate with any person for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction."

Now why do we set up stings for summary conviction offences, but not prosecute indictable offences like football pools?

I'm just asking.

   Recently, on the intertubes, a same-sex divorce case has got some knickers in some knots. A couple of views on the case are this: this and this. I recommend doing your own research and forming your own opinions. For what it's worth, here's what I think.

   Two people who desired and intended to be pair-bond partners vacationed from their homes to be married in a jurisdiction where it is generally permitted for same-sex couples to be married. Years later the same two people no longer want to be legally (civilly) recognized as pair-bond partners.
Enter the law. It turns out that if you live in Ontario, Canada and you want to get married to same-sex person, it is permissible. If you are from somewhere that it is not legal and you are not going to stay afterward, then it is not permissible. At it's heart... the people got their ceremony when they wanted it and years later when they don't want to be married they discover they aren't. Problem solved.

   Yeah... no. It seems now that folks are foaming at the mouth because this undermines a lot of forward progress. And if gay marriages are without legal standing if it is illegal in the homeland then Egyptians in Canada may not blog and Lower Slobbovian women may not drink Fresca on Tuesdays. These mouth-foamers seem to suggest that the solution is "Even if you may not do this in your own country, it is permissible in our culture so everything is fine!". Problem solved.

   Yeah... no. Consider the universal application of this. Suppose I have a hankering for a northern right whale (Eubalena glacialis) steak... I can't do that here that is an endangered species. IT IS ILLEGAL! So I fly over to Lower Slobbovia where it is legal, kill the whale, make a steak for myself and completely use every possible part to feed, clothe, heat, or whatever, the poor people of Lower Slobbovia. And no one should complain.

   You say, "But, Stephen, that is different! We were talking about people getting married."
So try this... Suppose I want to marry my brother in the Province of Alberta. I can't do that here, he is my brother, it is illegal! So we fly to Lower Slobbovia where it is legal to marry a sibling, tie the knot, etc. And no one should complain. Or suppose I want to have 3 wives... or marry a 12-year-old... or marry a corpse...

   In the true big world picture of things, I think we want other jurisdictions to respect our laws so we should respect theirs. In the specific case that started my rant... if they wanted to be married and the laws of the home jurisdiction were so prohibitive, perhaps they should have lobbied to change the law (like in Canada) or move to where the laws are more to their liking.

   Gay marriage, straight marriage, whatever marriage from where I sit should be so much more than the legal standing. It should be about love and mutual support and growth. And for the record... I don't want to marry my brother, a 12-year-old, a corpse, nor 2 more wives! I am exceedingly satisfied with the one spouse I have. I wish everyone could be as fortunate as I have been.

   I'm just saying.