Hi everyone, I hope you had a great Easter long weekend. Mine flew by as I did some Good Friday skiing, visited with friends and family and promptly flew back to Calgary.
Over the last 15 years or so, the debate about the legalization of marijuana has drifted in and out of the public discourse, depending on what is going on at the time. In the late 1990's, while Jean Chretien was finishing up his third term there was serious discussion of a change in marijuana laws and a senate report was commissioned to study usage patterns and the effects of marijuana on people. I am not going to discuss this report in great detail, but it is available with a simple google search and is a very interesting read.
When Chretien left power and the conservatives in Canada began to regain power the debate effectively disappeared from the discourse. In the United States, which was much tougher marijuana laws then we do in Canada, the debate started with medicinal marijuana when Bill Clinton was in office. It continued with George W. Bush's administration, but only in a very limited fashion because of larger events such as the war on Iraq, 9/11, and the general right wing ideals of that administration. Recently, the debate has started to enter the public discourse again in the United States.
Often, this discussion gets clouded and dismissed by people who believe that all people advocating for marijuana legalization are simply frequent users who don't want to break the law anymore. Indeed, many people on this side of the debate are frequent users and want the laws changed for basic personal reasons. However, many people advocating for softer marijuana laws are people who are not active users and look at it from a soceital perspective instead of
a individual perspective (like your's truly).
First thing, I am not going to use the term "legalization" further in this discussion. In reality, there are two plausible forms of marijuana law softening - decriminalization and regulation. Decriminialization takes the criminal component out of the personal usage of marijuana. For instance, if a person gets caught smoking a joint, or growing a small amount in her home for personal consumption only is only a summary offense with a fine (similar to a speeding ticket or an open liqour ticket). Selling or growing marijuana for the purposes of sale would remain
a criminal offense. If the laws ever get softened, my guess is this would be the first step in the process as it is the safer option politically.
Regulation is the model that is used in the Netherlands. The government tightly regulates the production, import and sale of marijuana. It can only be purchased in "coffeeshops" in the Netherlands, and can only be consumed within the establishment it was purchased from or (I believe) in a private residence. Many people tout make an argument that it is unfair to group marijuana with other hard drugs such as cocaine, heroin and meth and is more analogous to legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco. While this may be true, I do not believe that any progress in softening marijuana laws will be made using these "it's not that bad" or "it's no worse than
alcohol".
Ultimately, the argument must be made with reference to the one thing everyone pays attention to - money. Currently, the marijuana trade is worth tens of billions of dollars annually in North America alone. The majority of this money goes to underground organizations such as street gangs and drug cartels and the government does not receive any tax revenue from this. However, Canadian and American governments spend large sums of money annually to
combat the marijuana trade through imprisonment, law enforcement, and any adverse effects on the health care system. That money comes out of the taxpayers pocket. Bringing the marijuana industry "above-ground" will give the governments additional revenue and would help greatly in funding programs and enforcement of other "harder" drugs that are mentioned above (which should still remain illegal).
With the marijuana trade being underground, criminal organizations such as street gangs have a large part in keeping the trade moving. Like any organization, criminal or not, they require money to pay their people and various expenses they incur. By taking the marijuana trade out of street gangs and cartels hands you eliminate a key source of revenue for the gangs. By doing that, the gangs may decrease in size and we also may see a crime rate drop. I'm speculating of course, and I don't think anyone knows for sure what the impact on street gang and drug related crime would be.
My prediction would be a short-term uptick in gang violence followed by a reduction over the long-term. The reason is that the various gangs would find themselves "over-staffed" and under increased competitive pressure for less money in the drug market. The gangs would then start battling over turf, and their membership would dwindle to balanced levels more in line with the illegal drug market without marijuana.
One example of this happening was an short-term upswing in gang related violence in Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton in early 2009. Although there is never one single factor for these types of trends one contributing factor was the decreased market for drugs in Western Canada as the economy went into a major downswing. In the years leading up to the recession, the Western Canadian economy was red-hot and there was a strong market for recreational drugs, primarily cocaine. A lot of people in the drug trade started migrating West to help keep up with the demand. When the economy slowed, so did the market for cocaine. The gangs started encroaching on each others' turf to gain more of a reduced market, and violence starting occuring.
Anyways, a long rant for today.
Cheers.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Ann Coulter
Greetings everyone. I hope everyone had an enjoyable St. Patrick’s Day. Wednesday St. Patties days are tough, because there are still two days of work left. You know the people I feel for? The people who are actually sick on March 18th and have to call in to work that they won’t be in. Employee “Hello, I’m sick and won’t be in today”. Boss: “Really, the green beer flu?” I work with a girl who came into work legitimately sick on the 18th, because she didn’t want to call in sick on St. Patrick’s day.
American conservative best-selling author and columnist Ann Coulter has been on a limited speaking tour in Canada this past week. She had stops in London Ontario, Ottawa, and a couple days ago in Calgary. For those not familiar with Coulter, she is a very polarizing figure in the United States as she has viewpoints that are far right on the political spectrum. A couple of her books are entitled “Treason” and “How to Talk to a Liberal if you Must”. Her vitriol towards Muslims is well documented; as she has referred to them as “Ragheads” on occasion and made statements such as “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims”. Naturally, her appearances have been met with protests in her three stops; although her Ottawa speech was cancelled because of security concerns about a reported threat to Coulter’s safety.
Ann Coulter, as a topic instead of person, is very interesting to observe with regards to free speech. For one thing, the head organizer of the Ottawa speech warned Coulter about her speech largely because, unlike the United States, free speech is not guaranteed in the same way in Canada. This surprised Coulter and naturally she was quite defensive as she is one of many people (on both sides of the political spectrum) that pushes the concept of free speech in the United States to its limit. In Canada however, the Human Rights Commission can charge someone with hate speech quite easily, and have shown in the past they are quick to do so. I believe that the speech organizer in Ottawa, at least, had Coulter’s best interests in mind.
The reason why is the case of Mark Steyn; a conservative, articulate columnist who often writes for MacLeans magazine. One of his key talking points in recent years has been the demographic challenges Western society faces (in particular Western European nations) with regards to low birth rates and immigration. Western European nations value their social democratic systems and are quite liberal in their policies and ideals. However, to make up for declining birthrates they turn to immigration primarily from Muslim countries in North Africa. Muslim birthrates are much higher than the Western European birthrates. Steyn’s concern, in my opinion a valid one, is that the Islam religion does not lend itself to a secularized society with liberal ideals, and if these demographic trends continue the fabric of the social democratic system the Western European’s hold dear is in jeopardy.
When Steyn wrote an article in MacLeans about this issue, he was charged under the Canadian Human Rights Commission as inciting hate speech and he was able to be charged in any jurisdiction in Canada (which by no coincidence was our most liberal jurisdiction – British Columbia). Steyn’s article was FAR less inflammatory than what Coulter often speaks and writes about. I will not be surprised if she gets a charge laid on her based on something she said in one of her speaking engagements.
I quite frankly have a problem with how some of my fellow Canadians behaved during this brief tour. She is not in any kind of position of power in the United States, let alone Canada, and yet she has threats made on her life based only on her often controversial viewpoints. This sounds strangely familiar to Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks getting death threats after her comments about George Bush in 2003 and Dutch talk show host Theo van Gogh being killed in the streets of Amsterdam because of his opinions on Muslims in the Netherlands. Although I disagree with 90% of what Ann Coulter says, I choose not to support her by not buying her books, or reading anything she writes.
Cheers, and have a great weekend.
American conservative best-selling author and columnist Ann Coulter has been on a limited speaking tour in Canada this past week. She had stops in London Ontario, Ottawa, and a couple days ago in Calgary. For those not familiar with Coulter, she is a very polarizing figure in the United States as she has viewpoints that are far right on the political spectrum. A couple of her books are entitled “Treason” and “How to Talk to a Liberal if you Must”. Her vitriol towards Muslims is well documented; as she has referred to them as “Ragheads” on occasion and made statements such as “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims”. Naturally, her appearances have been met with protests in her three stops; although her Ottawa speech was cancelled because of security concerns about a reported threat to Coulter’s safety.
Ann Coulter, as a topic instead of person, is very interesting to observe with regards to free speech. For one thing, the head organizer of the Ottawa speech warned Coulter about her speech largely because, unlike the United States, free speech is not guaranteed in the same way in Canada. This surprised Coulter and naturally she was quite defensive as she is one of many people (on both sides of the political spectrum) that pushes the concept of free speech in the United States to its limit. In Canada however, the Human Rights Commission can charge someone with hate speech quite easily, and have shown in the past they are quick to do so. I believe that the speech organizer in Ottawa, at least, had Coulter’s best interests in mind.
The reason why is the case of Mark Steyn; a conservative, articulate columnist who often writes for MacLeans magazine. One of his key talking points in recent years has been the demographic challenges Western society faces (in particular Western European nations) with regards to low birth rates and immigration. Western European nations value their social democratic systems and are quite liberal in their policies and ideals. However, to make up for declining birthrates they turn to immigration primarily from Muslim countries in North Africa. Muslim birthrates are much higher than the Western European birthrates. Steyn’s concern, in my opinion a valid one, is that the Islam religion does not lend itself to a secularized society with liberal ideals, and if these demographic trends continue the fabric of the social democratic system the Western European’s hold dear is in jeopardy.
When Steyn wrote an article in MacLeans about this issue, he was charged under the Canadian Human Rights Commission as inciting hate speech and he was able to be charged in any jurisdiction in Canada (which by no coincidence was our most liberal jurisdiction – British Columbia). Steyn’s article was FAR less inflammatory than what Coulter often speaks and writes about. I will not be surprised if she gets a charge laid on her based on something she said in one of her speaking engagements.
I quite frankly have a problem with how some of my fellow Canadians behaved during this brief tour. She is not in any kind of position of power in the United States, let alone Canada, and yet she has threats made on her life based only on her often controversial viewpoints. This sounds strangely familiar to Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks getting death threats after her comments about George Bush in 2003 and Dutch talk show host Theo van Gogh being killed in the streets of Amsterdam because of his opinions on Muslims in the Netherlands. Although I disagree with 90% of what Ann Coulter says, I choose not to support her by not buying her books, or reading anything she writes.
Cheers, and have a great weekend.
Monday, March 8, 2010
New Regina Stadium
Hi everyone,
Hope everyone had a great weekend. It was around the +10 mark in Calgary over the weekend so I took advantage of that with some walking, running, and patio beers.
In the last 6-8 months, a lot of discussion has been centered around a new stadium in Regina to house the Saskatchewan Roughriders. Various options have been talked about including a dome stadium, open air stadium, and upgrading and fixing the existing Mosaic Stadium. Ultimately, some money has to be spent going forward.
Not surprisingly, the most costly option is the dome stadium, followed by the open air stadium, followed by improving Mosiac. Before I get into my opinions on what should be done, I will preface that if a dome is built it MUST have a retractable roof. In the summertime in Saskatchewan, there are few better things to do then sit outside on a +25 Saturday afternoon enjoy some beverages and cheer on the green and white. I would not go to nearly as many games in the summer if they were played with a roof over my head.
The attraction for the Dome stadium in Saskatchewan has less to do with the Riders and more to do with the ability to attract other large events such as concerts, trade shows, and other sporting events such as the Vanier Cup. The dome is being entertained largely because the provincial government is more likely to help fund a multi-use facility then a cheaper outdoor option, but used only for football.
Depending on the numbers you believe, a 33,000-38,000 seat dome with a retractable roof is estimated at $400-$500 million. I am going to estimate on the high side, as these things always have cost overruns and say $500 million. There is environmental remidiation from the old railroad, and increasing commodity prices that will push the price of this stadium upwards to the half billion dollar mark.
My biggest concern about the retractable roof dome is that it may turn into a white elephant for the province. Although we are starting to grow after years of stagnant population, we are still only just over a million people in Saskatchewan. We are also still a relatively rural population spread out over a large area with less than 50% of us living in or between our two large centers Regina and Saskatoon. That means we are counting on people to travel to Regina for events to make the dome stadium work. This may not be a huge issue, as people have shown they will travel for the Roughriders and events such as the Rolling Stones and AC/DC.
The success of the Roughriders over the last three seasons and the attraction of stadium concerts to Mosaic has created the buzz for the dome stadium. The Rolling Stones and AC/DC were very successful. The Roughriders have packed the house for every home game in the past three years. However, has anyone completed an analysis on whether there is additional demand for Roughrider tickets to warrant the additional capacity in a dome stadium? The one thing we as a province can not do is adopt an "if we build it they will come" attitude.
Another concern is that large concerts, while quite profitable, are becoming fewer at the scale that can fill a 35,000 seat stadium. The acts that can fill them are getting old and it is unlikely the Stones or AC/DC will ever be back to Regina, even with a Dome. The only act that is still touring that is guaranteed to fill a stadium is U2. The only other act I can think of that would fill a stadium would be a Zeppelin reunion. There are many other acts that can easily fill 15,000-20,000 seats such as Foo Fighters, Coldplay, The Killers, and various pop performers like Beyonce and Rihanna. However I doubt, with the exception of maybe Coldplay, that any of these acts would fill 35,000 seats in Regina. We just don't have the population for it. We are right next door to Edmonton and Calgary, which would also grab a date on the same tour and we would therefore not get many travellers from Alberta.
Ultimately, the criteria for building a dome should be does it make money and will it pay for itself. Dallas just completed its new stadium to house the Cowboys which was over a billion dollars but had cowboys owner Jerry Jones putting up a significant amount of his own money to help build the stadium. Jones is in the top 200 richest men in the world according to Forbes. Cowboys stadium was largely a statement of Jones' hubris and that stadium does not need to pay for itself necessarily.
However, in a lot of these new NFL stadiums the practice of seat licensing is becoming common to help recoup building costs. Depending of the quality of the season tickets, season tickets holders may be required to put up licensing fees for their seat in the tens of thousands of dollars IN ADDITION to the costs of their tickets. This happened at both Cowboys Stadium and the New Meadowlands in New jersey where the Jets and Giants play. A good idea when you have a fan base willing and able to do this. This base of licensing fees works as a type of endowment that helps cover operating costs from year to year (I believe it is refundable if season tickets are cancelled, but the next season ticket holder must pay it).
Now, no Rider fan is going to pay a licensing fee in the tens of thousands for a seat. However, as a Rider season ticket holder I would be willing to help pay my share for a dome or open air stadium. If 15,000 season ticket holders paid a one time fee of $1000 that would pay for 1/3 of the stadium. The Saskatchewan government could then make that contribution tax deductable.
Funding aside, I think that the football stadium should be only a portion of what is built. Twin ice rinks, a three quarter indoor soccer pitch, swimming pool and a fitness facility should also be a part of this development. This will guarantee people are using the facility year round through beer league hockey and soccer, minor hockey and soccer, and the profits from that will go a long way in paying for the stadium as a whole. Linking a hotel and casino to the stadium is a good idea, but tourism and hotel revenue can also be realized through a sports complex.
Overall, I'm just not confident a dome stadium will work in Regina (or Saskatoon for that matter). I think an enclosed open air stadium is a more logical option.
Cheers.
Hope everyone had a great weekend. It was around the +10 mark in Calgary over the weekend so I took advantage of that with some walking, running, and patio beers.
In the last 6-8 months, a lot of discussion has been centered around a new stadium in Regina to house the Saskatchewan Roughriders. Various options have been talked about including a dome stadium, open air stadium, and upgrading and fixing the existing Mosaic Stadium. Ultimately, some money has to be spent going forward.
Not surprisingly, the most costly option is the dome stadium, followed by the open air stadium, followed by improving Mosiac. Before I get into my opinions on what should be done, I will preface that if a dome is built it MUST have a retractable roof. In the summertime in Saskatchewan, there are few better things to do then sit outside on a +25 Saturday afternoon enjoy some beverages and cheer on the green and white. I would not go to nearly as many games in the summer if they were played with a roof over my head.
The attraction for the Dome stadium in Saskatchewan has less to do with the Riders and more to do with the ability to attract other large events such as concerts, trade shows, and other sporting events such as the Vanier Cup. The dome is being entertained largely because the provincial government is more likely to help fund a multi-use facility then a cheaper outdoor option, but used only for football.
Depending on the numbers you believe, a 33,000-38,000 seat dome with a retractable roof is estimated at $400-$500 million. I am going to estimate on the high side, as these things always have cost overruns and say $500 million. There is environmental remidiation from the old railroad, and increasing commodity prices that will push the price of this stadium upwards to the half billion dollar mark.
My biggest concern about the retractable roof dome is that it may turn into a white elephant for the province. Although we are starting to grow after years of stagnant population, we are still only just over a million people in Saskatchewan. We are also still a relatively rural population spread out over a large area with less than 50% of us living in or between our two large centers Regina and Saskatoon. That means we are counting on people to travel to Regina for events to make the dome stadium work. This may not be a huge issue, as people have shown they will travel for the Roughriders and events such as the Rolling Stones and AC/DC.
The success of the Roughriders over the last three seasons and the attraction of stadium concerts to Mosaic has created the buzz for the dome stadium. The Rolling Stones and AC/DC were very successful. The Roughriders have packed the house for every home game in the past three years. However, has anyone completed an analysis on whether there is additional demand for Roughrider tickets to warrant the additional capacity in a dome stadium? The one thing we as a province can not do is adopt an "if we build it they will come" attitude.
Another concern is that large concerts, while quite profitable, are becoming fewer at the scale that can fill a 35,000 seat stadium. The acts that can fill them are getting old and it is unlikely the Stones or AC/DC will ever be back to Regina, even with a Dome. The only act that is still touring that is guaranteed to fill a stadium is U2. The only other act I can think of that would fill a stadium would be a Zeppelin reunion. There are many other acts that can easily fill 15,000-20,000 seats such as Foo Fighters, Coldplay, The Killers, and various pop performers like Beyonce and Rihanna. However I doubt, with the exception of maybe Coldplay, that any of these acts would fill 35,000 seats in Regina. We just don't have the population for it. We are right next door to Edmonton and Calgary, which would also grab a date on the same tour and we would therefore not get many travellers from Alberta.
Ultimately, the criteria for building a dome should be does it make money and will it pay for itself. Dallas just completed its new stadium to house the Cowboys which was over a billion dollars but had cowboys owner Jerry Jones putting up a significant amount of his own money to help build the stadium. Jones is in the top 200 richest men in the world according to Forbes. Cowboys stadium was largely a statement of Jones' hubris and that stadium does not need to pay for itself necessarily.
However, in a lot of these new NFL stadiums the practice of seat licensing is becoming common to help recoup building costs. Depending of the quality of the season tickets, season tickets holders may be required to put up licensing fees for their seat in the tens of thousands of dollars IN ADDITION to the costs of their tickets. This happened at both Cowboys Stadium and the New Meadowlands in New jersey where the Jets and Giants play. A good idea when you have a fan base willing and able to do this. This base of licensing fees works as a type of endowment that helps cover operating costs from year to year (I believe it is refundable if season tickets are cancelled, but the next season ticket holder must pay it).
Now, no Rider fan is going to pay a licensing fee in the tens of thousands for a seat. However, as a Rider season ticket holder I would be willing to help pay my share for a dome or open air stadium. If 15,000 season ticket holders paid a one time fee of $1000 that would pay for 1/3 of the stadium. The Saskatchewan government could then make that contribution tax deductable.
Funding aside, I think that the football stadium should be only a portion of what is built. Twin ice rinks, a three quarter indoor soccer pitch, swimming pool and a fitness facility should also be a part of this development. This will guarantee people are using the facility year round through beer league hockey and soccer, minor hockey and soccer, and the profits from that will go a long way in paying for the stadium as a whole. Linking a hotel and casino to the stadium is a good idea, but tourism and hotel revenue can also be realized through a sports complex.
Overall, I'm just not confident a dome stadium will work in Regina (or Saskatoon for that matter). I think an enclosed open air stadium is a more logical option.
Cheers.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Hi Everyone,
I just got back from a few days in Vancouver at the Olympics and like everyone else in Vancouver I had a great time. Checked out a couple hockey games, some of the sights, and helped keep various Vancouver establishments in business a little while longer. That's about all I'm going to talk about the Olympics on this post, largely because it has been talked about to death.
Recently, I had a letter to the editor published in the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, the local Saskatoon newspaper. The issue was regarding a crackdown on speeding due to an ever increasing amount of traffic collisions over the last five years in Saskatoon. The last few years has seen Saskatoon's crime rate fall overall, but traffic collisions has stubbornly increased year after year. One of the solutions was to crackdown on speeding across the city. The story in the newspaper featured a crackdown close to a local high school.
This is a topic that most people have an opinion on, since it affects everyone. Opinions range from the argument that tickets are a hidden tax and officers' time is better spend elsewhere to those welcoming a crackdown to hopefully correct some dangerous driving habits. I don't discount either of those opinions, since money is always a factor in any decision and there are plenty of reckless drivers on the roads. However, if the idea is to reduce traffic collisions on Saskatoon streets focusing on speeding is somewhat of a red herring. My opinion is the reason the city is focusing on speeding is that it is the easiest to enforce.
One of my interests, outside what actually puts food on my table, is urban planning and design. Saskatoon has gone though a lot of growth and transformation in the last 5 years, and my opinion is the design decisions coupled with city growth is the primary reason for collision increases. Cities that are growing rapidly are always behind on infrastructure to support the growth (see: Calgary). Increased cars on the road combined with infrastructure has not expanded to meet those needs will result in more collisions. However, in Saskatoon collisions have risen in greater proportion to increased traffic volume. Therefore, there is an additional issue that is contributing to that.
From 2003 to now, Saskatoon has begun implementing a development model common in many U.S. cities. Big box retail "power centers" that are located in areas that are either on the outskirts of the city or not integrated well with residential areas. The addition of Preston Crossing, Stonegate shopping center, University Heights shopping and the upcoming Wal-Mart anchored power center on the western outskirts of the city have happened in this timeframe.
A large part of what has driven this is the moving of two Wal-Marts out of the shopping malls into these large power centers as a main anchor, along with the addition of a new Wal-Mart in the Southeast of the city. This has greatly reduced the shopping desirability of two shopping malls that not only are more integrated with residental areas but also have transit terminals located right at the mall. The effect of this is that in order to get to these power centers, people have to drive longer distances and on main arteries to run errands.
City planners and developers often tout these power centers as more convenient as they are a one stop shop for everything. The latter is true, but I question whether they are convenient. I am of the opinion that people should be able to run 75% of their errands within their own neighborhoods. The common errands I'm thinking of? Food, household consumables like toilet paper, and prescriptions. Older neighborhoods in Saskatoon typically have a smaller grocer and pharmacy available that is a short walk, bike, or drive away. What is more important, is that even if people drive to these spots they are on local roads and can avoid the major arteries. I do acknowledge that it is not feasible to get everything within one's own neighborhood such as larger consumer goods as home electronics and furniture. However, people generally do not buy household electronics or furniture on a weekly or even a monthly basis. For these higher ticket purchases, people do travel and are willing to travel farther. But, this is the minority of errands people have to run.
If this is indeed the case, then the city will have a much more difficult and expensive reducing traffic collisions and they would have to rethink the city development plan for new neighborhoods and look at what could be done in established neighborhoods that have lost local amenities to the power centers (Sutherland, Downtown, Lakeview for example).
Something to think about...
Cheers.
I just got back from a few days in Vancouver at the Olympics and like everyone else in Vancouver I had a great time. Checked out a couple hockey games, some of the sights, and helped keep various Vancouver establishments in business a little while longer. That's about all I'm going to talk about the Olympics on this post, largely because it has been talked about to death.
Recently, I had a letter to the editor published in the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, the local Saskatoon newspaper. The issue was regarding a crackdown on speeding due to an ever increasing amount of traffic collisions over the last five years in Saskatoon. The last few years has seen Saskatoon's crime rate fall overall, but traffic collisions has stubbornly increased year after year. One of the solutions was to crackdown on speeding across the city. The story in the newspaper featured a crackdown close to a local high school.
This is a topic that most people have an opinion on, since it affects everyone. Opinions range from the argument that tickets are a hidden tax and officers' time is better spend elsewhere to those welcoming a crackdown to hopefully correct some dangerous driving habits. I don't discount either of those opinions, since money is always a factor in any decision and there are plenty of reckless drivers on the roads. However, if the idea is to reduce traffic collisions on Saskatoon streets focusing on speeding is somewhat of a red herring. My opinion is the reason the city is focusing on speeding is that it is the easiest to enforce.
One of my interests, outside what actually puts food on my table, is urban planning and design. Saskatoon has gone though a lot of growth and transformation in the last 5 years, and my opinion is the design decisions coupled with city growth is the primary reason for collision increases. Cities that are growing rapidly are always behind on infrastructure to support the growth (see: Calgary). Increased cars on the road combined with infrastructure has not expanded to meet those needs will result in more collisions. However, in Saskatoon collisions have risen in greater proportion to increased traffic volume. Therefore, there is an additional issue that is contributing to that.
From 2003 to now, Saskatoon has begun implementing a development model common in many U.S. cities. Big box retail "power centers" that are located in areas that are either on the outskirts of the city or not integrated well with residential areas. The addition of Preston Crossing, Stonegate shopping center, University Heights shopping and the upcoming Wal-Mart anchored power center on the western outskirts of the city have happened in this timeframe.
A large part of what has driven this is the moving of two Wal-Marts out of the shopping malls into these large power centers as a main anchor, along with the addition of a new Wal-Mart in the Southeast of the city. This has greatly reduced the shopping desirability of two shopping malls that not only are more integrated with residental areas but also have transit terminals located right at the mall. The effect of this is that in order to get to these power centers, people have to drive longer distances and on main arteries to run errands.
City planners and developers often tout these power centers as more convenient as they are a one stop shop for everything. The latter is true, but I question whether they are convenient. I am of the opinion that people should be able to run 75% of their errands within their own neighborhoods. The common errands I'm thinking of? Food, household consumables like toilet paper, and prescriptions. Older neighborhoods in Saskatoon typically have a smaller grocer and pharmacy available that is a short walk, bike, or drive away. What is more important, is that even if people drive to these spots they are on local roads and can avoid the major arteries. I do acknowledge that it is not feasible to get everything within one's own neighborhood such as larger consumer goods as home electronics and furniture. However, people generally do not buy household electronics or furniture on a weekly or even a monthly basis. For these higher ticket purchases, people do travel and are willing to travel farther. But, this is the minority of errands people have to run.
If this is indeed the case, then the city will have a much more difficult and expensive reducing traffic collisions and they would have to rethink the city development plan for new neighborhoods and look at what could be done in established neighborhoods that have lost local amenities to the power centers (Sutherland, Downtown, Lakeview for example).
Something to think about...
Cheers.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Airport Security
Greetings everyone. Hoping everyone had a good holiday season and all that stuff.
It's been a while since I made a post on here. 2009 was an interesting year for me. In the fall of 2008 I took a job back home in Saskatoon with a company I used to work for. I thought being home all the time was what I wanted; aside from travelling every week. Turned out I got bored VERY quickly, and the job was not incredibly stimulating. Aside from being able to play hockey a lot more frequently, being home in Saskatoon was not what I wanted. I quit that job in June of 2009, and went back to doing what I love - SAP consulting. I took a job that now finds me in Calgary every week for the foreseeable future. Needless to say, I am back to really enjoying myself again.
Now that I'm back to flying every week, the issue of airport security is once again something I pay attention. I'm sure many heard about the thwarted terrorist attempt on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. My opinion is the guy on the plane was not a terrorist. Just a guy who realised he was heading to Detroit mid-flight figured he would rather blow himself up.
All kidding aside, the issue was the bomber snuck through security, and was thwarted by passengers on the plane. The result was another measure of airport security along with the small bottles and taking off your shoes; a limit on carry on bags to small personal items (laptop, purse). This only applies to International flights into the United States as I don't see any changes on my frequent flights from Calgary to Saskatoon.
I believe that the approach to airport security needs to change significantly. One idea that has been thrown around since 9/11 is profiling "high-risk" groups and screen them accordingly. However, this concept is politically unpopular because it can be easily spun into racial profiling. My opinions on the politics of this aside, I believe there is a better method.
One of my favourite comedians, Bill Maher, jokes that as a society we know how to do security if we are willing to spend the money. "Have you ever been to a casino? You can't do math in your head without being booted into the desert!". Granted, a casino is generally a much more profitable venture then an airline and has the money to spend on security. However, a casino does not run every patron through long lines and an X-ray machine before entering. What they do is use tools such as player's cards and people on the floor like pit bosses to monitor behaviours. For instance, a irregular betting pattern at the blackjack table may indicate a player is counting cards.
In a casino, if you are not trying to cheat, count cards, or steal you will be left alone except to be given free stuff if you gamble enough. The airline's model of scanning everyone and randomly searching people more extensively is ok, but a behaviour monitoring strategy would be much more effective.
Airlines, like casinos, collect a lot of information on their passengers through check-in and loyalty programs such as Aeroplan. If you fly internationally, they record the passport number and every movement of a passenger is tracked in their databases. Now I am not an expert in psychology, but being a information systems guy that there is ways to "mine" this vast amount of data to identify patterns of behaviour by passengers to differentiate your run of the mill business traveller to someone who is involved in criminal activity.
Using this concept airport staff may be able to use more intelligent information to pull higher risk people out of the line for more detailed searches. That way, you don't have to pull 75 year old women, or Al Gore out of the line for random searches that only serves to waste valuable time.
My two cents anyway...
Cheers.
It's been a while since I made a post on here. 2009 was an interesting year for me. In the fall of 2008 I took a job back home in Saskatoon with a company I used to work for. I thought being home all the time was what I wanted; aside from travelling every week. Turned out I got bored VERY quickly, and the job was not incredibly stimulating. Aside from being able to play hockey a lot more frequently, being home in Saskatoon was not what I wanted. I quit that job in June of 2009, and went back to doing what I love - SAP consulting. I took a job that now finds me in Calgary every week for the foreseeable future. Needless to say, I am back to really enjoying myself again.
Now that I'm back to flying every week, the issue of airport security is once again something I pay attention. I'm sure many heard about the thwarted terrorist attempt on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. My opinion is the guy on the plane was not a terrorist. Just a guy who realised he was heading to Detroit mid-flight figured he would rather blow himself up.
All kidding aside, the issue was the bomber snuck through security, and was thwarted by passengers on the plane. The result was another measure of airport security along with the small bottles and taking off your shoes; a limit on carry on bags to small personal items (laptop, purse). This only applies to International flights into the United States as I don't see any changes on my frequent flights from Calgary to Saskatoon.
I believe that the approach to airport security needs to change significantly. One idea that has been thrown around since 9/11 is profiling "high-risk" groups and screen them accordingly. However, this concept is politically unpopular because it can be easily spun into racial profiling. My opinions on the politics of this aside, I believe there is a better method.
One of my favourite comedians, Bill Maher, jokes that as a society we know how to do security if we are willing to spend the money. "Have you ever been to a casino? You can't do math in your head without being booted into the desert!". Granted, a casino is generally a much more profitable venture then an airline and has the money to spend on security. However, a casino does not run every patron through long lines and an X-ray machine before entering. What they do is use tools such as player's cards and people on the floor like pit bosses to monitor behaviours. For instance, a irregular betting pattern at the blackjack table may indicate a player is counting cards.
In a casino, if you are not trying to cheat, count cards, or steal you will be left alone except to be given free stuff if you gamble enough. The airline's model of scanning everyone and randomly searching people more extensively is ok, but a behaviour monitoring strategy would be much more effective.
Airlines, like casinos, collect a lot of information on their passengers through check-in and loyalty programs such as Aeroplan. If you fly internationally, they record the passport number and every movement of a passenger is tracked in their databases. Now I am not an expert in psychology, but being a information systems guy that there is ways to "mine" this vast amount of data to identify patterns of behaviour by passengers to differentiate your run of the mill business traveller to someone who is involved in criminal activity.
Using this concept airport staff may be able to use more intelligent information to pull higher risk people out of the line for more detailed searches. That way, you don't have to pull 75 year old women, or Al Gore out of the line for random searches that only serves to waste valuable time.
My two cents anyway...
Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
