Poker Run

[run2010]

I just came home from a city council meeting. This is basically my comments on other comments at tonights meeting ( some where at coucil and one was a one on one)

Most of council is giving in to SPLASH either by not wanting the Poker Run or by making them purcahse Carbon offsets. I spoke to the organizer of the Poker Run and the quote was" Any additional expenses we will go where we are welcomed" So coucnil is willing to let the economic impact disappear, Hotel and restuarants will not have the business. Thier staff will not get the hours. One person i spoke to says" Its just a few days" Ok . one event here another event there that could be a lot of hours and my next point is those extra hours may be needed by staff.
I heard one couciller say that if we chase them away, they will just go somewhere else and emmissions will come out somewhere else, so much for global - she is right - we lose money and the greenies still lose.
Once counciller made what i thought was a sexist, racist class warfare comment. The Poker Run is for rich white men. Yes a counciller actually said that. Why we are at it lest ban hockey games all the cars coming to the game , the visiting teams buses, the Zamboni, the refrigeration for the ice, the waste from the co0nfection stand, etc. I hope you realize the parody in this

[Dogma]

I certainly do not agree with these "race boats" running around not just making CO2 fumes, but noise.

But, it seems a popular waterfront activity..for some.and a generally successful for downtowns businesses, vitality. .

Tall Ships would be my preference...but that idea died quickly and seemed to loss a lot of money. I have no idea why people did not support such historical events.

Power boats and Kingston's muscle car mentality seems to be rather how the population thinks.

We shall see if the get run out of town,or not.

[TomDall]

The poker run.

First of all whoever the councillor was that made the comment regarding a rich white man needs to make a formal apology.

As for the poker run....well the facts are this. The boats will either move down the river or across it.

If it was the type of event that Kingston could stop, rather than lose I would support it. However the decision to make it more difficult or costly for the participants in an attempt to allow council to feel some sort of environmental responsibility is ludicrous.

The poker run WILL happen, the real decision is do you want to take away the revenue from the city, the retailers, hotels, and restaurants for the sake of saying you tried to do something for the environment when you knew that your decision would have no positive effect on the environment.

Yet again city council shows their inability to read the writing on the wall.

[Dogma]

Tom - you should be a politician...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What does this mean?????????? - exactly!

"If it was the type of event that Kingston could stop, rather than lose I would support it."

[run2010]

I am also confused. Although sometimes after working a midnight shift i tend to type confussing statements

[Dogma]

Frankly;I liked the answer as a answer the general public would in many cases accept, but one that has no reflective depth or meaning.

Maybe, Tom can suggest his current state of mind.

[TomDall]

Tom - you should be a politician...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What does this mean?????????? - exactly!

"If it was the type of event that Kingston could stop, rather than lose I would support it."

If the city of Kingston had the ability to stop the event from happening then I would support that motion.

The unfortunate truth is that the event will just move to another location within the region.

Therefore I am unable to give my support to a motion that will have no postivie effect on the environment, and a large negative effect on an already suffering local economy.

[Rob Matheson]

The motion passed at Council does neither stop the event nor make the preperation to do so. What council has done is to ask staff to negotiate with the City Stakeholders on possibly implementing measures to help offset the real environmental issues that KEAF has brought forward in it's in depth report. These measure could include carbon type offsets purchased locally. We will also be asking for a report back from KEDCO on the economic benefits this event bringst to our city.

As well in another motion we will be asking staff to develop an overarching policy in conjunction with publin input that we call look at all events through, not just the Poker Run.

We do have the capacity to say NO, if we want to and the dwindling Poker Run would be free to move to another City.

Personally I am not in favour of this option, as it would just move the problem, and not provide a solution, while we would lose the economic benefits associated.

Hope this helps.

[run2010]

I took the liberty to call the organizer of the Poker Run in Oakville. Short Answer .If they and /or participants are required to purchase offsets they will not stop at Kingston. I have spoken to a number of people and I would say the majority of people do want the Poker Run to stay

[Dogma]

I appreciate the "current" councilors stakeholders "current" opinions.

I agree the windmills of change abound.

Unfortunately; I (we) have Haiti and other blinding priorities, other than a, maybe petty, maybe debatable... 2 (two) day experience...that needs an avoidable resolution?.

Mr. Hutchison - should realize that Haiti's a homeless society.!!!

Why are Kingstons "agencies" leaders, and future leaders-interested in the least on a silly-marginalized POKER runs. Funding?

[Rob Matheson]

Dogma...Not about Haiti... there is no question that the events there are tragic, and Council will be discussing a motion I have put forward in regards to this tragedy at our next Council meeting and No it does not ask for the City to donate money, but does encourage our Citizens to continue with their aid efforts and asks the Province to step up to the plate as well.

While the environmental costs of the Poker Run when compared with the devastation in Haiti may seem trivial..., the same could be considered of any issue we discuss in our daily personal, business or governmental lives.

This does not mean that we should stop living or making personal, business or governmental decisions policy making.

What it does do in my humble opinion is highlight the fragility of our civilization and the importance in making sound ecological decisions.

It also highlights the altruistic generous and loving spririt that comes to the fore of our human condition when tragedy hits, and thankfully our desire to help those less fortunate among us.

There but for the Grace of God go we.

[Dogma]

What it does do in my humble opinion is highlight the fragility of our civilization and the importance in making sound ecological decisions.Maybe I agree with you that spending public money, councils time, motions etc., administrative staff work... (in my humble opinion) better served regarding Haiti...in this case. But, there is a fine line what this motion will actually contribute.

SPLASH - in my (humble opinion) is "using" politicizing...NOT JUST HIGHLIGHTING...COUNCIL regarding the Poker Run as a symbol of our current societies wastefulness traditions.

To me, this is unacceptable and NOT an appropriate place to politicize an "interest groups" agenda.

Council needs to deal with CURRENT council business, not any all interest groups "highlight's", or concern!

Where does one stop? "Women against cloth diapers?"

And really an appropriate use of the the City's resources? You think so?

Was there a significant petition offered up by SPLASH to prioities "The City of Kingston's business" or councils agenda's to warrant such attention?

How is the cities business prioritized?

There must be a minimum threshold for such interest group "agenda" or motions to be allowed in council?

Otherwise anyone could suggest a banning of anything!

Additionally; interest groups such as this, and others, could at any point garner attention (time) from this council.

I understand (you) and other councilors have many "interest groups" clamoring for the ear of council - for ones "cause".

But, is there an actual "process" other than any person/groups - to "petition", and the allowable 10 minutes of Cogeco 13, that could (at least) screen some of these groups "agendas".

I have no problem with "petitioning" per say, publicly, please do.....but at council whenever they want?

I would imagine that you and other councilors (most who work full time) and have a lot on their council plate, from by-laws to public policy, and I personally find many "presentations" waste council's time, and our paid representatives time.


Could there not be a committee that manages/reviews such "interest group" complaints? - That infact get referred to local/provincial Government agencies (that have the expertise and resources) to handle such public interest cases?


Should I (can I) request a (petition) for motion myself?: - I have no idea???

I would even suggest "condolences and congratulations" of council should be eliminated, or at least done internally.

Why in the world is the public aware of such matters? this is a private (or internal) matter.

Why are councilors spending time and salary on such personal (internal) matters?

Could someone make a motion to at least look at these (2) two traditional process?

I am sure council and the public would agree, handling interest groups complains, and congratulations to staff and their families could be better handled in a more professional, and less political forum.

[run2010]

Will checking my stats on my websitetoday , I noticed something intresting. I had a sudden surge of visitors from the US. I wanted to see why. The visits were refered to by an offshore boating website. One person said this

"I will spend the $5k to $7k for that weekend in another area buying gas, food, meals, beverages, hotel rooms, souvenirs and so forth. All the employees, property tax paying owners, shareholders, contractors and suppliers of the establishments in the new area where these moneys will be spent will I am sure welcome the new spending. "

That is a lot of money being pumped in by one person. I asked the members to let me know how much money they would spend at these events.

[3aw6]

In regards to the poker run you must consider the message the event sends to children and youth. I have previously worked for Downtown Kingston (organizers of the Poker Run). During this time I was one of a few people who ran the poker run, making sure everything was set up and where it needed to be, etc.

The entire weekend promoted consumption. Giant trucks, Hummers, huge boats, wealthy people throwing money around like it grows on trees. The weekend celebrates consumption, and makes it an ideal for our youth. There is nothing wrong with wanting success in life, but wasteful, unsustainable consumption is not he message our youth need. They are already bombarded with it every day through tv commercials and through peer pressure (just gotta have that new ipod). The last thing we need to do is have the city use our tax dollars to promote this kind of lifestyle.

If we are really that concerned about losing money to another community, why not come up with an alternate event to draw people downtown or into the city? While I don't agree with all of the ideas that SPLASH put forth, I do agree that eco-conscious events could be planned instead? Why not a big concert or music festival that is free? Zero emissions concerts have been staged around the world, why not do one here? I would rather take my family to see socially responsible musicians (I'm not talking about Lady Gaga here) than to see power boats. Think about a weekend-long music festival in market square, or city park. Make it free (or at least ***** if the city wants to recoup some costs). Choose some musicians with a positive message to their music (I don't mean religion, but socially and environmentally responsible), perhaps bring in a keynote speaker or two to address the audience between bands (if we are on the environmental scene think someone like David Suzuki, or perhaps someone like Rick Mercer or George Strombo). An event like this would likely bring just as many people to town, and could be done without creating the pollution associated with the poker run, and without promoting unsustainable consumption to future generations.

[3aw6]

The whole point is that the city (wisely) decided to make sustainability our goal. Council has stated that their goal is for Kingston to become the most sustainable city in Canada. This is something that deserves applause.

In order for us to achieve this goal we must make sustainable choices, such as hosting events which promote sustainability, not unbridled consumption at the cost of future generations. This is exactly why the Poker Run is not the kind of event this city should host. This event, although it does draw people downtown, promotes mass consumption and is incredibly unsustainable from the core. Everything associated with the Poker Run is unsustainable. From the jet fuel powered boats, to the gas guzzling trucks and SUVs that haul the crew around. Not only is the event not sustainable, but it promotes an unsustainable lifestyle (unquestioning consumption) to future generations. This is why the Poker Run shouldn't happen.

You may not have interest in a music festival, but thousands of people flock downtown during Blues Fest every year. It draws just as many people downtown as the Poker Run, yet it produces less pollution and does not promote uncontrolled consumption. A music festival was just a suggestion of the type of event that could be held as an alternative to the Poker Run. There are many different events that can bring people to the city, the Poker Run has to be the least sustainable possibility.

[run2010]

Thes boats usually use 87-90 octane fuel - NOT jet fuel. This is the same fuel that is found at you local Shell station. Also these boats are probably better tuned with better emmissions than most vehicles. Sustainability also means jobs. It is very hard to sustain an ecomony without jobs. Sorry, we can not go out and live on the land like one person said in the Sustainability centre downtown. If you really are worried about sustainability lets ban the following.

1) Bands at KROC - some have an entouarge of at least 2 or 3 buses , then trucks for equipmet, talk about consumption here, some of these motorhomes can cost more than an average house. Let them drive a bus like the Partidge Family. And all the sound and lighting equipmet.

2) Hockey Teams, They have to travel, ice refrigeration requires energy

3) Buskers - some of these participants travel here by plane - wow what a ' carbon footprint'

4) Ban the tour boats/ ferry these create more pollution than the PoKer Run

5) Ban Tour Buses - wow they really stink

6) Ban cars

i could go on and on.

I am all for not polluting. but i am also for being gainfully employed. We are already in a questionable economy . Lets not destroy jobs.

[run2010]

LIke it or not consumption does provide jobs. I remember back in the Jimmy Carter Years. He put a tax on Luxery items like yachts. What happened. They stopped buying yachts. Great no nice toys for the rich. One slight problem. The people building the yachts become unemployed and some manufactured closed. I lived not too far from a couple of manufactures in Niagara-on-the-Lake. There was Hinterhaler and C&C Yachts. They both closed down. I believe one reopened later. Unlike previous / present councils, I am not for sending money to another community. If all these events disappear, do not complain if other expenses go up due to lost taxes

[cain]

to quote "http://www.kingstonkiosk.com/kingston-events/1000-Islands-Poker-Run.php"

<quote>
Over 50000 fans come to watch Kingston's 1000 Islands Poker Run which is the largest international poker run. So mark your calendars today, and be sure to capture the spine-tingling thrills of taking part in the Kingston Poker Run. It is held during one of the first weekends in August.
</quote>


Well my $0.02 about the poker run and any other function in the city is does the benefit out way the impact.

So lets compare the poker run apparently brings in 50000 people to Kingston for a weekend and they have logging, food and so on.
Lets say we compare the frontenacs to the poker run. This data is a little older but still will illustrate my point  in 2007 the average attendance for a frontenacs regular season game was 2246 people. There were 34 games.
So over 34 dates there were about 76364 people contribution to the economy over a 6 month period. Compared to the 50000 in 2 days I am not saying that these 2 are the same, but why are we pushing the poker run away (something I personally enjoy). I bet if we compare the environmental impact of the 2 they are likely are equal, I would even be willing to bet the hockey pollution is actually worse for the environment. When you base the, bus travel, the rink etc.
When it comes to the poker run we can stop it from happening here. However All they have to do it go down river to Gananoque, Napanee, Belleville Brockville or maybe even further . We will still feel the environmental impact.
Thanks
Pat.
Cataraqui candidate.

All numbers are based on 2007 regular season.
Numbers came from
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:jW3k502g778J:kcal.ca/Reveal_Fronts.html+average+kingston+frontenacs+att endance&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

[3aw6]

Run2010: The poker run has been given a very conservative carbon footprint of between 100 and 200 tonnes of carbon emissions (the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere from the boats in the water... only for a couple hours per day for 2.5 days). It is also argued that the average Canadian should have a carbon footprint of between 1.5-2 tonnes per year in order to live a truly sustainable lifestyle.

This means that the boats running down the Thousand Islands and back creates as many emissions as a hundred Canadians should produce in a year in order not to cause lasting damage on the planet. This certainly is not a sustainable event in this manner. (Lets not forget that most people don't even get to see the boats while they are driving, people flock to Confederation Basin simply to see the boats parked, and then start up to leave in the morning).

Sustainability is to live a lifestyle that will not harm the earth. To live a life which takes little enough from the earth that no lasting impact will be made. This is not what the Poker Run promotes. It promotes unquestioning mass consumption and a reliance on fossil fuels, these are not sustainable. These practices do damage the earth and are impacting the earth and its systems.

In regards to your posts...

- In past years there has been a boat present at the Poker Run that ran on dual apache helicopter engines. It took tens of thousands of dollars of jet fuel to run for the weekend.

- If 100ish boats produce a conservative estimate of 200 tonnes of CO2 by simply driving to Gananoque and back, they certainly aren't tuned enough to produce fewer emissions than an average car. Conservatively you are looking at 2 tonnes of carbon emissions (ignoring all other emissions and gas/oil leaks) per boat for what, 2 trips to Gananoque? This is MUCH worse than any vehicle on the road. I drive a 2003 Chevy Venture. This van produces an estimated 5,800lbs of CO2 per year if drive approx 12,000km per year. This is just over 1 tonne of CO2 per year I produce from driving my vehicle. So your claim that these boats produce fewer emissions than most cars is insane. It takes 2 years of driving my van to produce the same emissions it takes these boats to produce in 2 trips to Gananoque and back over the period of a weekend.

- I think you are sending quite the message to the users of this site with your posts. No one who seriously thinks they can serve on City Council should debate an issue by stating that 'we shouldn't tell people what they can or can't do, leave that to North Korea' or by telling me that if I am concerned about sustainability I should fight to ban cars from the road, boats from the seas, buskers, etc. These comments belittle an issue that is on the mind of many Kingstonians and citizens of the world, but since you don't understand the importance of sustainability you simply make a mockery of people's concerns. This is not how a member of council should act, and it shows exactly why (thankfully) you have no chance of winning a seat in this election.

- Sustainability isn't about banning driving, banning boats, cancelling events, it is about making them SUSTAINABLE. Instead of mocking legitimate comments why not actually think about them? Instead of driving fossil fuel powered vehicles why not look to alternatives such as electric and/or hydrogen powered vehicles. These are sustainable alternatives if they are done correctly. Instead of banning boats from the water why not look at electric and solar options to remove our dependence on gas and oil? Sustainability doesn't mean we need to stop everything we are doing and live in the woods, it means we need to find ways to change our lifestyles so that we don't destroy the ecosystems we live in for our own personal benefits.

I have recently decided to become a vegetarian. This decision is driven by the fact that the meat industry is not only inhumane, but that it produces more greenhouse gas emissions than the entire oil/gas industry. This is a sustainable choice that I made for the benefit of others. My decision wasn't driven by a dislike of meat, up until a point last year I ate meat on a daily basis. I just finally came to a point where I realized just how unsustainable meat is. I understood I could easily live without eating meat, so I do. It was as simple as that.

The same goes for driving. I would love a car that runs on hydrogen or is fully electric (there are some GORGEOUS ones coming out in the next few years), but I can't afford them in my current situation. Instead, I have made the decision to drive as little as possible. I walk and bike to stores and work as much as possible. This is a decision I have made that makes my life more sustainable. Same with using recycled toilet paper, not using plastic bags at stores, not buying bottled water, by buying second hand, by turning my heat down a few degrees, by opening my windows in the summer, by avoiding giving my money to companies which profit from pillaging the earth. There are thousands of simple actions people can take that create a more sustainable lifestyle that don't include packing up and moving to the woods.

- A sustainable economy doesn't mean a lack of jobs, it means a shift in jobs. Buying local doesn't mean ONLY buying what is produced in Kingston, it means buying what is produced here (when it is available) instead of buying a similar product made in China or Taiwan. If you can buy strawberries grown halfway to Picton then buy them instead of strawberries from California, it is buying local. It is better for our local economy as local jobs are created, and it is a more sustainable choice because far fewer emissions are needed to bring strawberries from Picton to Kingston than from California to Kingston. If you can buy potatoes from the Kingston area instead of PEI, go for it. If you can buy flowers grown locally instead of from Africa, it is a local, sustainable alternative. On the other hand, if you need a new TV, they aren't made here, so find one that is made in Canada, or even the US, instead of one from Taiwan. It could have resulted in fewer emissions due to travel time, and could lead to some more money staying in the Canadian economy (if the tv is made here). Buying local is buying what you can from as close to home as possible. It doesn't mean you can't buy something from another location, it just means that you should focus on supporting local producers and paying fair wages and actual costs instead of buying products for pennies on the dollar at the cost of society and the environment in a distant location (think locally produced clothing instead of sweat shop shirts from Asia).

- Reducing consumption doesn't have to cost jobs, in fact changing our consumption patterns can create many jobs. If you buy clothing produced by someone in Kingston you are creating jobs here, for Kingstonians to produce clothing, and you are paying them a decent wage. When you decide to buy clothing made in Asia in a sweat shop you are deciding to employ Kingstonians in low-paying retail positions, and to employ third-world workers in terrible conditions so you can save a few dollars. The local choice may cost a few dollars more, but it will more likely lead to higher paying jobs here, allowing our local producer to spend more money in our local economy than they could if they were stuck working a minimum wage retail position. The same goes for something like fruits of vegetables. You can buy them from some tropical location, but you are supporting low wages and environmental degradation while a majority of your money goes to corporate profits that don't circulate in our local economy. When you purchase a local product you are supporting local producers, who employ local people, who spend their pay in our city.

Sustainability doesn't mean a destruction of our economy. It doesn't mean we have to leave our homes and live in the woods. It is a shift in lifestyle, a shift in production, and a change in the way we all interact.

[3aw6]

- If there truly is a global warming cover up going on in regards to the East Anglia University emails could you please explain it to me? From what I read of the emails there certainly wasn't any conspiracy going on. It appears that those who oppose the idea of climate change have blindly grabbed onto this 'scandal' and have run away with it, even though a vast majority of those I have spoken with have NO idea what the emails said and very few of them even read the emails. So could you please explain to me exactly what 'scandal' there was that you claim leads to proof that climate change isn't happening?

It is also common knowledge that a period of cooling leading into the 1970s was in relation to pollutants and aerosols in the atmosphere. These have a cooling effect, and lead to a period of 'cooling'. Once aerosols became banned/regulated their effect began to decrease, and warming continued. There are also more specific events where large volcanic reactions led to a slight decrease in global temperature the following year as the particulate matter was still in the atmosphere.

- Can you also please explain this 'wealth transfer' scheme to me as well? This is something that conservatives seem to parade around as the underlying conspiracy behind climate change theory. How exactly will wealth be redistributed? Is it because some people believe workers from around the world should be paid decent wages? (many people call this fair trade) Is it that the same environmental and employment regulations that govern us in North America should govern the nations who produce our consumer goods? It is, after all, mostly Western corporations which open these dirty, unsafe factories in third world countries which provide us with goods. So how exactly does climate change lead to wealth transfer? Green technologies are in the hands of Western corporations, not third world nations. Drought-resistant, high-yield seed patents are in the hands of the same kind of companies. These are the people who will benefit from a 'greener' economy. How does this translate into transferring wealth to poor nations? That information must be hidden somewhere near the death panel documents the republicans in the US fear.

Speaking of wealth transfer, a debt forgiveness agreement was just put in place this week for Afghanistan. The country will be forgiven of $1.6 billion in foreign debts. Is this not wealth transfer? Or does it not count because it is unrelated to climate change?

- If we really do want to cut down on emissions we must start with ourselves. We can't simply sit back and point fingers at China and blame them for all of our problems. We must lead by example. We can't sit here and live life as we do, and then expect other people in the world to change.

- As far as alternative fuels go, you may not be a 'fan' of any of the models in development, but it doesn't mean they are quickly closing in on meeting the demands of society. Many of the cars slated to come out in the next couple years are capable of handling highway speeds for hundreds of kilometers on a single charge. Just because you don't like a specific design, doesn't mean the technology isn't becoming viable. As for hydrogen, it is just as reactive as gasoline except for one thing, it is so light it rapidly dissipates into the air when not enclosed. This means the likelihood of a fire is lower than with our existing automobiles. If a tank is punctured the hydrogen will very quickly dissipate into the atmosphere, whereas gas sits around at the site of the accident. There is nothing unsafe about hydrogen, it is just an expensive technology early in its development. As we know with any technology, early in development it is quite expensive, but the more common it becomes, the chea_per it is to produce. Personal computers, lcd tvs, etc.

- You carbon footprint police comment once again underlines your inability to address a concept that might be out of your understanding. It is quite easy to measure pollutants and emissions. Your comment regarding scrubbers cleaning up industry indicates you must believe that it is possible to gather this data, otherwise it would be impossible to tell if scrubbers actually work. With boats running on engines with thousands of horse power it is quite easy to understand the emissions associated with them are going to be immense. Internal combustion engines aren't efficient, and these are very large, inefficient engines. If you look at the Poker Runs America website you can easily read about the boats, many with 2 or three engines capable of upwards of 2000hp each (some of which are aircraft engines).

- The economic benefit of the Poker Run to Kingston is something that must be studied in greater detail. Most of the people downtown viewing the boats are Kingstonians. They may spend money at stores and restaurants downtown, but that is likely their largest impact on the local economy. The hotel rooms filling up will mostly be related to the boat crews. It appears that more hotel rooms and restaurants are filled during Queen's convocation ceremonies and homecoming celebrations than during the Poker Run.

- Homecoming weekend is an interesting comparison. An event that brings thousands of people to town (not just drunk students, but also many many wealthy alumni). The event upset some residents of Kingston, so the city acted to change things. Homecoming had become an unsustainable event in that the university celebration had been overshadowed by Aberdeen St. It went from celebrating education and the university to celebrating binge drinking (not socially sustainable). Council decided homecoming brought a bad image to the city, so it acted to change things. What is the real difference between Homecoming and the Poker Run? The Poker Run upsets some citizens. It is not sustainable (environmentally; it could also be argued socially and economically unsustainable as well as it promotes unquestioned consumption to youth). If the city does want to be seen as the most sustainable in Canada, than this event is bad for that image, and like homecoming something should be done to protect that image. What is wrong with council suggesting alternative plans should be made? Homecoming was changed and it had an economic impact on the city, but we have all survived. Why should the Poker Run be any different? Getting rid of it would have an economic impact, but it is something that could be dealt with and it won't destroy our economy.

[run2010]

The Poker Run would still go on regardless, just a different area. (Brockville, Gan). So bottom line - environment impact -same , economic impact - much less for Kingston. ( seems we have sending money down the highway down pat). Will we ask Brockville for money if they go there - why not we did for the Casino). I am all for trying green races to see if they work - lets try it But I do not want to give up the Poker Run in the process. There are two sides to this and each side is passionate about thier beliefs. Although we are in disagreement ( and I have said before - i can not get 100 agreement from everyone. ) I do see lots of people looking at the boat downtown and Point Fredrick at RMC so there is a fan base. Even though i do disagree, you have debated your points in a mature manner. As one counciller said the Poker Run is just a start. How far will they go? As you can see i do not back done on a debate and say what i think.

[3aw6]

Although I do appreciate that you have debated your point of view on here it is a major concern to me that you can't back up your points or views. I believe council should be a place for informed decisions and opinions, not for conspiracy theories. It concerns me that you throw down climate scandal and wealth transfer as reasons why sustainability shouldn't be a major concern for Kingstonians, yet you can't explain what climate scandal you claim exists, or what kind of wealth transfer you claim is hiding behind the climate change curtain. These kinds of massive conspiracy theories (your beliefs, not mine) are the same kinds of blanket lies which have had disastrous effects on society throughout history. Once upon a time it was said that Jews were conspiring to keep Germans poor, that there was a Jewish and sociali$t conspiracy controlling the west. We all look back on this now and wonder how such a ridiculous lie could be believed by so many people. Not so long ago we were all witness to an invasion of a sovereign nation on the premise that its leader was hoarding weapons of mass destruction that threatened the free world. It didn't take long before those lies were exposed to the world. Your beliefs about 'climategate' and a so-called wealth redistribution conspiracy are just the next in a long line of massive lies brought upon the public by people hungry for power. These are not the kind of politics we need in Kingston. We need a strong council that is concerned about the future of our city, not one with underlying neo-conservative ideas which focus on a closed-minded world view.

[Dogma]

I have also heard that in fact buying local is less environmental friendly than regional supplies. Because the food produced is more efficiently produced and less energy used than several local and unorganized groupsof food producers. They all produce but they are not efficient in their use of bio-energy, transportation and logistics.

So, one could suggest it is a myth that buying local is in the long run environmentally friendly. It maybe sustainable and to support local farmers isa good thing. But, from my experience in Kingston many (not all) local farmers are not very good in terms of marketing, logistics or networking ...and in fact have little experience and as a group have a poor network in terms of local delivery service.

Maybe its time we rethink the notion (or sound bite mentality) of what is real and what "conspiracy theorist" - that are left leaning, may need more than some "politically correct knowledge" in their entire argument!

[3aw6]

I assume your comments on the efficiency of local production stem from the recent debate publicized in the Toronto Star?

Buying locally and regionally aren't necessarily different. Cheese production comes to mind. Independent producers of artisan cheeses in eastern Ontario have a marketing board and sort of co-op starting to promote their products. These products are still local, in that they are all from Eastern Ontario, and they benefit from pooled resources for marketing and research. Just because something is local doesn't mean it is bad for the environment. [Generally the main argument against the local movement is that different areas are better at producing (growing) different things. Let the countries who's climates are more suitable for tropical fruits grow them (instead of us trying to grow them in greenhouses) and let those countries who are more suited to growing wheat grow it, instead of trying to entice tropical nations to grow their own wheat. In my mind this plays into the whole concept of buying local, it doesn't detract from it. If we aren't suited to growing bananas or mangoes, then lets not eat them (or at least eat them rarely, and when we do we should pay fair prices for them). If we are suited to growing root vegetables, apples, and berries then lets put more of a focus on eating those types of food. Those who argue that local production is actually worse for the earth are assuming that we don't change our eating habits, and that we want to produce tropical fruits in a local location.]

Think about organic farms from around town. There are a few which grow their crops within 10-50km of their place of sale. Most of these farmers don't package their produce, it is simply transported from the field to the market and sold. How can you get more efficient than that?

Local farmers are working on improving access to their goods in town. Last year a new market opened on Sundays in the west end at Collins Bay Rd. and Princess St. This year a market is opening in the east end of town which will feature goods solely produced by Kingstonians (some people at the farmers market resell produce). Many of these farmers have their goods served in local restaurants, and recent events such as Fare in the Square have brought increased awareness of food grown in and around Kingston. CSA's are incredibly popular in Kingston, most have waiting lists to become members, and most have multiple delivery points in the city for customers to pick up their foods.

Marketing skills, or lack thereof, doesn't mean something is inefficient or bad for the environment. Many of these producers are small in size, spending money on marketing doesn't guarantee a return on investment for them, so why risk it?

[3aw6]

Run2010:
You may want to check this article out. It is quite damning to the 'climategate' controversy...

‘Climategate' scientists vindicated in investigation


Raphael G. Satter
London — — The Associated Press Published on Wednesday, Mar. 31, 2010 3:55PM EDT Last updated on Wednesday, Mar. 31, 2010 8:53PM EDT



The first of several British investigations into the e-mails leaked from one of the world's leading climate research centres has largely vindicated the scientists involved.


The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said Wednesday that they'd seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming — two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.


In their report, the committee said that, as far as it was able to ascertain, “the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact,” adding that nothing in the more than 1,000 stolen e-mails, or the controversy kicked up by their publication, challenged scientific consensus that “global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity.”


The 14-member committee's investigation is one of three launched after the dissemination, in November, of e-mails and data stolen from the research unit. The e-mails appeared to show scientists berating skeptics in sometimes intensely personal attacks, discussing ways to shield their data from public records laws, and discussing ways to keep skeptics' research out of peer-reviewed journals. One that attracted particular media attention was Jones' reference to a “trick” that could be used to “hide the decline” of temperatures.


The e-mails' publication ahead of the Copenhagen climate changehttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10x10.gif (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/climategate-scientists-vindicated-in-investigation/article1519115/#) summit sparked an online furor, with skeptics of man-made climate change calling the e-mails' publication “Climategate” and claiming them as proof that the science behind global warming had been exaggerated — or even made up altogether.


The lawmakers said they decided to investigate due to “the serious implications for U.K. science.”


Phil Willis, the committee's chairman, said of the e-mails that “there's no denying that some of them were pretty appalling.” But the committee found no evidence of anything beyond “a blunt refusal to share data,” adding that the idea that Jones was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that weakened the case for global warming was clearly wrong.
In a briefing to journalists ahead of the report's release, Willis said the controversy would ultimately help buttress the case for global warming by forcing the University of East Anglia — and other research institutions — to stop hoarding their data.



"The winner in the end will be climate science itself,” he said.


The winner on Wednesday was Jones, who stepped down temporarily as chief of the climate research unit about a week after the e-mail scandal broke. The committee expressed sympathy with Jones, whom Willis said had been made a scapegoat for larger problems within the climate science community.


“The focus on Professor Jones and the CRU has been largely misplaced,” the report said.


But the lawmakers did criticize the way Prof. Jones and his colleagues handled freedom of information requests, saying scientists could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by aggressively publishing all their data instead of worrying about how to stonewall their critics.


Lawmakers stressed that their report — which was written after only a single day of oral testimony — did not cover all the issues and would not be as in-depth as the two other inquiries into the e-mail scandal that are still pending.


Mr. Willis said the lawmakers had been in a rush to publish something before Britain's next national election, which is widely expected in just over a month's time.


“Clearly we would have liked to spend more time of this,” he said, before adding jokingly: “We had to get something out before we were sent packing.”


One of the two pending inquiries is being headed by former civil servant Muir Russell, who is looking into whether scientists, including Jones, fudged data or manipulated the peer review process. It also is examining the extent to which university followed applicable freedom of information laws. That report is due to report sometime this spring.


Geologist Ernest Oxburgh is leading a parallel investigation into the integrity of the science itself, one staffed by academics including Kerry Emanuel, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Huw Davies, a former president of the International Association of Meteorology & Atmospheric Science.


The committee said that climate scientists had to be much more open in future — for example by publishing all their data, including raw data and the software programs used to interpret them, to the Internet. Willis said there was far too much money at stake not to be completely transparent.
“Governments across the world are spending trillions of pounds, or trillions of dollars, on mitigating climate change. The science has got to be irreproachable,” he said.

[Dogma]

Council meeting tonight (7:30 p.m) on Cogeco 13, will be reviewing the "poker run" report. in terms of economic and sustainable impact that this one event inputs in our community.

I would suggest one watches, reads or listens to the report tabled.

[run2010]

Dogma - Just came from the meeting - no mention of the Poker Run. I have been getting a lot of hits a few weeks ago from the US on my website. The analytics site i used traced it to www.seriousoffshore.com (http://www.seriousoffshore.com). I will be compiling some of the replys in about one week and post them as a PDF. I will be letting them know that it was not mentioned ( it was towards the end of the agenda). Note: One guy on this site says he spends 5-7 thousand in a weekend. Another person comes with 3 boats each with a driver, navigator and other support crew and family member for each one of these persons

[Dogma]

The report is avaliable on the City website - agenda, report listing.


The report is generally done by the BIA, and as I have scanned it, the report is a general survey, with only 1/2 participants/information avaliable than really would be required for a "viable" report.

But, it is a good snapshot.

Its main focus is economic impact, (of course) it does not really speak to the environmental impact, or potential alternative options, or cultural aspects of this event.

8) Report 10-128

http://www.cityofkingston.ca/cityhall/council/council_agenda.asp

[run2010]

I have seen the report. Did you see the meeting yesterday. Harvey Rosen seems to be close to throwing a chair soon . Well maybe not but he does not seem to be too happy.

[3aw6]

I don't put much faith into studies carried out by the BIA. I worked for them for a summer and I saw how some of their statistics were collected. Pedestrian counts of the downtown core are the best example I can think of. Employees were paid to sit at specific locations downtown and count the number of people walking by. These numbers were then multiplied to give an hourly number of the pedestrians passing at a given location downtown. What I noticed was a few co-workers who wouldn't even show up at the locations to count pedestrians. Numbers were submitted that were close to previous days numbers instead of actual counts occurring. These numbers are now used when leasing retail space downtown. Potential tenants can see the average number of pedestrians that pass in front of a given storefront. Unfortunately these numbers aren't exactly accurate as many weren't actually observed (not to mention pedestrians were only counted during one week of the summer... close to our peak tourist season... meaning the numbers would have been higher than average anyways).

It's also hard to put much faith into a report states the information has a 'low confidence rating'.

If the numbers are close to correct in this case though, the estimated 14,500 people at the event over the 3 day period is MUCH lower than I have previously heard. I have heard people claiming between 20-50,000 attend the event.

If the BIA were truly interested in considering an alternative event one would assume they would generate some projected numbers for hosting alternative events in order to make a comparison. Sure, you can say $500,000 was made over the 3 days because of the event, but how does that compare to alternatives? These numbers could paint a much better picture of they were compared to other events the city currently hosts, or projected totals of alternative events.

[Dogma]

I agree - with the summation with regards to the "accuracy" of the data.

But, as you suggest the "comparision" to alternative events would be more appropriate information. Even historical events. Tall Ships, music festivals, etc,., could have been in a section of this report as a viable comparision to events (at that site location)

To me, the BIA and many others seem to think this event is generating both interest and income from visitors, and local sources. So, why change? What is the problem? Kingston has it. Its a good fit. It is helping our downtown retail and is "event" worthy.

But, it is what it represents to a generation or the folks that believe this "event" is both enviromentally and economically UN-sustainable.

And I agree. Long term this is not a particularly "innovative" or enviromentally friendly (image) of an event. Nor very imaginative.

To me, a more unique summertime event, for the waterfront would be a waterfront circus/ or waterfront festival. That could link water activities to land actiivites.

Waterfront festivals are very popular in other cities why not here?

You could still include boating, sailing and watercraft events/races etc. with the food, music and amusement rides that families and visitors would
love to attend.

Such ideas as local city sponsored boat cruises of our waterfront, to waterfront events, historical waterfront tours linked to Wolfe Island, wind turbines tours, and open door tours to historical local buildings downtown.

Kingston is the right size that one could enjoy 1-3 different venues to visit each day. And an "anchor event" waterfront amusement park, music, food as the central venue.

To, me the poker run is only one dimentional in a City that is really 3 dimentional. Especially, on the most popular summertime weekend.

[leencoo12]

I am also confused. Although sometimes after working a midnight shift i tend to type confussing statements
Frankly;I liked the answer as a answer the general public would in many cases accept, but one that has no reflective depth or meaning.

Maybe, Tom can suggest his current state of mind.

[Lydia]

Wow, what people consider sustainable or not sustainable always amazes me. I must more appreciate having the Poker run here for a short time as compared to having thousands of people flocking downtown during the Blues Festive, Drawing all those cars downtown for various events all year around is more unsustainable then the damage done during the Poker run.

As a person who doesn't give a hoot about the word "sustainable" as it seems to be used by environmentalists here in this city.

To Me, Sustainable means = Being able to afford living in a city that offers me a quality of life that entertains us, brings economic value to my city, and allows people the freedom to enjoy themselves. Nature sustains itself and no human being will ever control it.

[cain]

What a Perfect Point of View Lydia