Canucks fan Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=7336d5ce-2442-4ee1-ab66-bb62cc5b9b4e quote:Soccer stadium needs a second look Don Larson, Special to the Sun Published: Thursday, April 17, 2008 Why would anyone risk soccer moms and kids by placing a new Whitecaps Stadium beside a huge railway shunting yard that carries dangerous chemicals? Do we want even the remote possibility of mixing soccer or music fans with "trichloroisocyanuric acid" during a half-time hotdog munch? The 2004 emergency response guidebook states "inhalation, ingestion by contact (skin, eyes) with vapours or substance may cause severe injury, burns or death." And this is a direct quote from the joint publication by Transport Canada and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Next on the list of concerns to local residents is noise. At up to 92 decibels, the Whitecaps Stadium should keep working-class families and young professionals living nearby up at all hours. Vehicle congestion before and after each event will be a problem, too. In spite of public transit, about two-thirds of those going to the proposed Whitecaps Stadium will use private vehicles. And what about the $131-million vehicle ramp that would have to be built to get cars from the stadium to Granville Street? Is it David Beckham or Posh Spice who is going to pay for this? Oh, the taxpayer? Women's groups in the Downtown Eastside have expressed concerns about Carrall Street pedestrian overpass will likely be built over the railway tracks and to the Whitecaps Stadium. Can you say: "New Granville brawl, er, mall?" Libby Davies, MP for Vancouver East, in her letter to federal Transportation Minister Lawrence Cannon, says, "I believe that core value for the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority is to develop, sustain and enhance port infrastructure as a nexus for trade and transportation for the long term; and that this value serves local, regional and national economic interests -- none of which is compatible with the development of a soccer stadium." I agree. Don Larson is a community activist in Vancouver. © The Vancouver Sun 2008 I thought the crackpots had gone away? sunopinion@png.canwest.com or sunletters@png.canwest.com if anyone is interested in writing a reply to counter this bs (which I hope to get around to doing sometime this weekend) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue and White Army Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 I sent in a letter this morning: Re: Don Larson's op-ed "Soccer stadium needs a second look" (April 16). Shame on Don Larson for making such misleading arguments against the proposed Vancouver soccer stadium. First, he attempts to cause fear by suggesting that toxic substances on railtracks may cause "injury, burns or death" to match-goers if an accident were to occur. If Larson genuinely worries that such a freak mishap might happen, then surely his goal should be to ban toxic substances from the entire downtown Vancouver area. Why does Larson specifically pick on the proposed soccer stadium? Second, he quotes MP Libby Davies by saying that port lands should remain in port ownership. The reality is that the current proposal would see the amount of waterfront land held by the Port Authority increase by two hectares after a land swap with the Whitecaps. Third, Larson is suggesting that the majority of stadium-goers would take their cars. With SkyTrain, WestCoast Express, SeaBus and buses all within walking distance, the Vancouver soccer stadium would be the most public transportation-friendly stadium in the world, allowing people from all across Metro Vancouver to leave their cars at home. Are there any more absurd arguments that Larson would like to scramble up in his desperation to discredit the proposed Vancouver soccer stadium? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piltdownman Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 I'll bite. Trichloroisocyanuric acid is a type of chlorine for great sake. Thank You for the heads up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mpenza Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 I believe the real issue with trains carrying dangerous chemicals is... WHAT ARE THEY DOING IN THE MIDDLE OF DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER IN THE FIRST PLACE? Why is it becoming an issue now? I'm pretty sure that if the "local residents" had the choice between a railyard with trains loaded with chemicals and a soccer stadium, they'd choose option 2... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 I love that the noise is going to keep local residents up at all hours. As if soccer games are played at 3am, and the downtown area of a major city is akin to a library at any other time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue and White Army Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 Email these points in as letters, boys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag futbol Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 I had to laugh reading this. Kerfoot really needs to ditch the nice guy routine for the "I'm going to ram this up your a$$ whether you like it or not" persona. The stadium is failing because there isn't enough of a public champion to drive this deal home. Someone needs to be out there not just fending off these stupid nimbys but telling people what the benefits of this stadium really are. This should really be a one sided arguement, in the opposite direction of what it is right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finchster Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 Ok this has gone too far now Kerfoot, time to act like Donald Trump and get what you want. Be a d*ck and get it done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piltdownman Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 I am writing in response to the article entitled “Soccer Stadium needs a Second look” I for one am baffled by Don Larson's arguments against the proposed Whitecaps stadium. While “trichloroisocyanuric acid”, sounds very dangerous, in truth it is simply a disinfectant(chlorine) used mostly in civil pools and spas. As for the noise, it should be noted that, in the current plan, the stadium will border the water, the port and the rail yard, not buildings filled with working class families. It should also be noted that 92 decibels is not very loud at all, and is the the relative loudness of a Motorcycle. Larson shows a real desperate in his arguments against the stadium, by hiding non-issues behind scientific jargon. I only hope that those who control the fate of this project do not fall for such cheap trickery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piltdownman Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 Off topic but if anyone is looking for ideas maybe mention that in many European cities your ticket to the game is also a transit ticket to and from the match. This encourages people to take transit to events, and is something that the city might want to promote transit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue and White Army Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 Mention that matches finish at 9:00pm, and the downtown area is already the noisiest place in Metro Vancouver (while Highbury is a library...). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piltdownman Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 Also Libby Davies claims to be against the loss of Port Land, but she was the person behind converting Port land to Crab park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
royalcity Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 I'm sure 92 decibels is far lower than what you get at GM Place during a Canucks game. Or even BC Place when the Lions play. SHHHH everybody, you might wake up the crack-heads! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnnie Monster Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 My response: * * * * * * * * * * Editor: Don Larson’s sky must be falling. It’s the only reason I can think of that he continues to spew his ridiculous conspiracy theories about the Whitecaps stadium proposal. Fortunately, his voice is one of a small, uninformed few who regurgitate the same old nonsense time and time again. They cry foul over the misuse of tax dollars, when the Whitecaps have made it abundantly clear that they will shoulder the entire cost themselves. They warn of massive traffic congestion while ignoring the fact the stadium is being built at the nexus of Vancouver’s transit system, linking it with Waterfront Station’s connections to buses, SkyTrain, SeaBus, West Coast Express and the Canada Line. Once approved, it will be the most transit friendly stadium in North America. They also make doomsday predictions about toxic train wrecks if the stadium is built anywhere near the rail yard - conveniently ignoring the fact that thousands of people have been safely living and working in close proximity to the same tracks for decades, Mr. Larson himself included. If such a danger truly exists, why hasn’t he run for the hills yet? I suspect there are more politics at work behind the anti-stadium movement than meets the eye. Fortunately, it’s a small and ineffective one. I also find it somewhat ironic that Mr. Larson aligns himself with NDP MP Libby Davies. While he’s moaning about the diminishing quality of life in his neighbourhood, she’s on the record supporting the establishment of a legalized brothel nearby. I wonder how this fits in with Mr. Larson’s vision for a happy little neighbourhood? Greg Kerfoot is offering the city an amazing gift that will be admired for generations to come. On behalf of all soccer fans in BC, I thank him for his remarkable patience, and look forward to the day when I can cheer on the Caps from my new seat, pint in hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgary Boomer Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 My response: Shame on the Vancouver Sun for posting a story like this. If you (the editors) had done your homework, you as a publication would have realized this is simply a desperate attempt by a desperate individual to gain personal notoriety. I should also point out, that if and when the Whitecaps go to MLS they would likely play their games in the afternoon to create televised double headers with Toronto and Montreal, not night games which would keep residents "up at all hours". Shame on you. Alexander Peters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footy Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 This hemeroid and his scare tactics ... man these guys keep re-hashing the same old BS the noise claim is funny as I beleive they have at least 3-4 night clubs scattered around the area and I have seen the I just turned 19 crowd making noise and partying on the street at 2:00am ! through out the week. Please sir work on cleaning up your area NOW as its in bad shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmcmurph Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 Desperation? Maybe they are rehashing this now because they are losing? I may be engaging in wishful thinking but if the port authority has made a decision and they got wind of it that would explain the timing of the Sun's sudden concern (con being the operative part). The fact that it is the same old discredited arguments also shows that they have run out of ammo and are now desperate. I wonder if the Sun will give equal space to Bobaduzi to reply? Journalistic integrity from the Sun? Now I'm really stretching it [}] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPjr Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 I'm quite certain that the train tracks that run just north of Skydome/Rogers Center carries its fair share of potentially harmful chemicals. 20 years on, we've been ok. This is a truly ridiculous argument to make. One must question the intelligence of a person who makes such a statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toronto Ruffrider Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 quote:Originally posted by VPjr I'm quite certain that the train tracks that run just north of Skydome/Rogers Center carries its fair share of potentially harmful chemicals. 20 years on, we've been ok. This is a truly ridiculous argument to make. One must question the intelligence of a person who makes such a statement. Perhaps the writer of this piece is grasping at straws, trying to come up with anything he can use to rationalise his argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnnie Monster Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 Never mind the fact that we're talking about a rail STORAGE yard, where train speeds do not exceed 5 km/h. Not much chance of a derailment there, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 What is this about the $131 million for a vehicle ramp? Is that true, or misinformation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piltdownman Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 I know the city of Vancouver/translink is talking about re-developing waterfront station so it would include four new office or hotel towers, a new bus loop, and street level retail stores. This would include an extension of Canada Place and Granville St. Nothing to do with the stadium, but maybe this is what the $131m is about. Bill posted the info here: http://www.canadian-soccer.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14710 I however was completed unable to google anything about $131m. It seems like a number pulled out of thin air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnnie Monster Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 Depending on where the stadium is built, there needs to be additional road infrastructure to facilitate access. I'm pretty sure Don's been sniffing too many toxic fumes off his balcony, because his estimate is double the cost of the stadium itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Canucks fan Women's groups in the Downtown Eastside have expressed concerns about Carrall Street pedestrian overpass will likely be built over the railway tracks and to the Whitecaps Stadium. Now thats funny. since when did these groups ever become authorities on matters of urban planning and accessibility? I am at a loss to see how the building of a stadium has anything to do with gender equality and opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
royalcity Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 I think everybody needs to keep in mind that Vancouver is in the run-up to civic elections in November. The winner gets to suck up all the worldwide glory and attention during the Olympics. Keeping recent Olympic torch headlines in mind, Poverty Inc. and every rent-a-group are going to come out of the woodwork to find a candidate they can endorse. If Poverty Inc. is successful in getting their candidate into the mayor's chair I'm sure they and their rent-a-groups are hoping to advance their "causes" on the world stage in 2010 with a supportive mayor. I think this is unlikely. But you never know with Vancouver politics, it just means us soccer fans need to get our voices heard. And it would be nice if the CSA came out publically and endorsed the Whitecaps stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.