Petronas announces it will defer FID on Lelu Island Project

General Forums Prince Rupert Forum
21

[quote=“TerriblePerson”]Single mothers working at Wal Mart thank you for your generosity, Crazy Train.

Sheesh, it’s all about the money with some of you people. You don’t give two squats about this community you live, only how much you can suck out of it.[/quote]

They should be thanking me for wanting to provide jobs to their exes so that they’ll be able to pay child support.

Of course it’s about money. $270 million infrastructure deficit, high taxes, trying to recover from years of loss after the pulp mill and fishing industry went sour. Not at all about sucking anything out of the community. In fact, it’s the opposite. More like trying to leave something other than a rundown, impoverished comminity for our children and grandchildren. And to give them some type of hope other than working at Walmart.

22

[quote=“Crazy Train”]

[quote=“TerriblePerson”]Single mothers working at Wal Mart thank you for your generosity, Crazy Train.

Sheesh, it’s all about the money with some of you people. You don’t give two squats about this community you live, only how much you can suck out of it.[/quote]

They should be thanking me for wanting to provide jobs to their exes so that they’ll be able to pay child support.

Of course it’s about money. $270 million infrastructure deficit, high taxes, trying to recover from years of loss after the pulp mill and fishing industry went sour. Not at all about sucking anything out of the community. In fact, it’s the opposite. More like trying to leave something other than a rundown, impoverished comminity for our children and grandchildren. And to give them some type of hope other than working at Walmart.[/quote]

Put your thinking cap on: how much percewntage of income goes towards owning a home? How about renting? If it’s above 30 per cent (as it is for a majority of people) it’s too high.

Listen, I am all for LNG development. But putting down people on lower incomes than yourself isn’t getting you anywhere. James Brown made a semi-valid point: the rising tide of LNG isn’t going to lift all boats. It’s going top sink quite a few of them if – and that’s looking like a major if – it ever happens here. I think some consideration for these people is vital for a healthy community. They are being displaced. And there enough selfish jerks who think “good, they don’t work hard enough and thus should be on the street, which hopefully will be nicer because the city will be flushed with cash”. We don’t need you telling the poor where they can stick it.

And you know for a fact that the vast majority of people living in subsidized housing aren’t welfare bums or alcoholics. They are people on the other end of the economic spectrum. They earn a living, regardless of what you may think about that living. So stop shitting on them just because you have been lucky enough to earn a higher income that pays for your house and truck and two kids (or whatever your lifestyle is).

Where James Brown goes wrong is assuming that the end of LNG here in Rupert will be a benefit to the poor. It won’t be. It’ll just drag the middle class further down the drain. The barn door to unfair rental prices is open already. Landlords aren’t lowering high expectations (for low value in this mouldy city, I must say) until the city once again experiences an exodus.

If LNG goes forward, I hope Lee Brain follows up on getting results for affordable housing in the city. It will make life far nicer for many of my friends who can then serve us our fucking venti coffees at Starbucks or sell us our cheap towels at Wal-Mart.

23

[quote=“TerriblePerson”]

They should be thanking me for wanting to provide jobs to their exes so that they’ll be able to pay child support.

Of course it’s about money. $270 million infrastructure deficit, high taxes, trying to recover from years of loss after the pulp mill and fishing industry went sour. Not at all about sucking anything out of the community. In fact, it’s the opposite. More like trying to leave something other than a rundown, impoverished comminity for our children and grandchildren. And to give them some type of hope other than working at Walmart.

Put your thinking cap on: how much percewntage of income goes towards owning a home? How about renting? If it’s above 30 per cent (as it is for a majority of people) it’s too high.

Listen, I am all for LNG development. But putting down people on lower incomes than yourself isn’t getting you anywhere. James Brown made a semi-valid point: the rising tide of LNG isn’t going to lift all boats. It’s going top sink quite a few of them if – and that’s looking like a major if – it ever happens here. I think some consideration for these people is vital for a healthy community. They are being displaced. And there enough selfish jerks who think “good, they don’t work hard enough and thus should be on the street, which hopefully will be nicer because the city will be flushed with cash”. We don’t need you telling the poor where they can stick it.

And you know for a fact that the vast majority of people living in subsidized housing aren’t welfare bums or alcoholics. They are people on the other end of the economic spectrum. They earn a living, regardless of what you may think about that living. So stop shitting on them just because you have been lucky enough to earn a higher income that pays for your house and truck and two kids (or whatever your lifestyle is).

Where James Brown goes wrong is assuming that the end of LNG here in Rupert will be a benefit to the poor. It won’t be. It’ll just drag the middle class further down the drain. The barn door to unfair rental prices is open already. Landlords aren’t lowering high expectations (for low value in this mouldy city, I must say) until the city once again experiences an exodus.

If LNG goes forward, I hope Lee Brain follows up on getting results for affordable housing in the city. It will make life far nicer for many of my friends who can then serve us our fucking venti coffees at Starbucks or sell us our cheap towels at Wal-Mart.[/quote]

I have a spare thinking cap that I’ll allow you to borrow.

  1. Give me ONE example where I’ve put down a low income earner.

  2. Ok, so you agree with jamesbrown and his semi valid point. Where I take issue is with this comment:
    " I hope it all bottoms out and housing cost plummet" So many of us in this community took a huge financial hit when the pulp mill closed. Thousands of dollars for many and probably millions of collective loss. Now he is hoping that we experience it again. How much loss does one community need to experience? If you don’t want an economy and want to live in the wild go and move to Oona or some other coastal community.

24

[quote=“Crazy Train”]

I have a spare thinking cap that I’ll allow you to borrow.

  1. Give me ONE example where I’ve put down a low income earner.[/quote]

You assumed that the only people worried about the cost of low-cost rentals were on welfare by coupling the two in your comment "It’s ok to be on welfare and pay low housing costs ".

You might try to backtrack and say “i was only singling out welfare bums” but you never one once made the distinction between who needs low housing costs and the welfare system. Your coupling (I believe was repeated with “Welfare and low housing costs or good paying jobs and higher housing. You pick”) implies that these are the majority who need low-cost housing. That’s not true by any measurement.

If you want to clarify, please do.

[quote=“Crazy Train”]
2. Ok, so you agree with jamesbrown and his semi valid point. Where I take issue is with this comment:
" I hope it all bottoms out and housing cost plummet" So many of us in this community took a huge financial hit when the pulp mill closed. Thousands of dollars for many and probably millions of collective loss. Now he is hoping that we experience it again. How much loss does one community need to experience? If you don’t want an economy and want to live in the wild go and move to Oona or some other coastal community.[/quote]

And I don’t agree with him at all on this. But he’s made a point about the fact that LNG won’t benefit everyone equally, despite claims (not necessarily yours) otherwise.

25

[quote=“TerriblePerson”]

[quote=“Crazy Train”]

I have a spare thinking cap that I’ll allow you to borrow.

  1. Give me ONE example where I’ve put down a low income earner.[/quote]

You assumed that the only people worried about the cost of low-cost rentals were on welfare by coupling the two in your comment "It’s ok to be on welfare and pay low housing costs ".

You might try to backtrack and say “i was only singling out welfare bums” but you never one once made the distinction between who needs low housing costs and the welfare system. Your coupling (I believe was repeated with “Welfare and low housing costs or good paying jobs and higher housing. You pick”) implies that these are the majority who need low-cost housing. That’s not true by any measurement.

If you want to clarify, please do.

[quote=“Crazy Train”]
2. Ok, so you agree with jamesbrown and his semi valid point. Where I take issue is with this comment:
" I hope it all bottoms out and housing cost plummet" So many of us in this community took a huge financial hit when the pulp mill closed. Thousands of dollars for many and probably millions of collective loss. Now he is hoping that we experience it again. How much loss does one community need to experience? If you don’t want an economy and want to live in the wild go and move to Oona or some other coastal community.[/quote]

And I don’t agree with him at all on this. But he’s made a point about the fact that LNG won’t benefit everyone equally, despite claims (not necessarily yours) otherwise.[/quote]

I didn’t assume anything, rather it was you who failed to understand my point. The point was that if we cannot provide jobs by supporting business and industry then we’ll end up with more on welfare and in need of social assistance. It’s a trade off. Provide them good paying jobs and they’re likely to pay more for housing. Less jobs and development means cheaper housing costs but probably more on welfare. Is it really that hard to understand?

26

[quote=“TerriblePerson”]

You assumed that the only people worried about the cost of low-cost rentals were on welfare by coupling the two in your comment "It’s ok to be on welfare and pay low housing costs ".[/quote]

And don’t put words in my mouth. I never said that. If you’re going to quote me use direct quotes not this made up bs that’s based on your misinterpretation of my point.

27

[quote=“Crazy Train”]

[quote=“TerriblePerson”]

You assumed that the only people worried about the cost of low-cost rentals were on welfare by coupling the two in your comment "It’s ok to be on welfare and pay low housing costs ".[/quote]

And don’t put words in my mouth. I never said that. If you’re going to quote me use direct quotes not this made up bs that’s based on your misinterpretation of my point.[/quote]

Don’t worry we believe you. I am sure most here know by now that TerriblePerson continually gets it wrong when quoting other posters comments here for his/her own argument.

Pay no attention to this poster…he/she has continually “put words” in peoples mouths and misconstrued past comments (which I might add are RIGHT there for people to go back to, read and clearly understand).

This poster needs to truly learn how to properly quote people and stop spewing a bunch of twisted/made-up bull.

28

[quote=“TerriblePerson”]Single mothers working at Wal Mart thank you for your generosity, Crazy Train.

Sheesh, it’s all about the money with some of you people. You don’t give two squats about this community you live, only how much you can suck out of it.[/quote]

your right, their wrong, plain and simple… Greed and Materialism Destroys Families and Relationships, plain and simple. Don’t think so look at how many people got divorced after the mill closed down. you think Rupert has a drug problem already wait until there is 5000 thousand men in those camps looking to spend there money on check day! and not just drugs and alcohol there is going to be more prostitution. Then Gangs will move in and want to set-up shop. Yep Rupert will be a real friendly place. turn a blind eye and don’t give two shits about society ills.

29

You know, not every economically advantaged towns are like Fort Mac…

And BTW, “5000 thousand” men is a lot. One has to wonder how will they fit in such a small plot of land.

30

you assume crime will increase alot because of the work camps, how much has crime increased in Kitimat? because of their work camp for Alcan

31

[quote=“Crazy Train”]

[quote=“TerriblePerson”]

You assumed that the only people worried about the cost of low-cost rentals were on welfare by coupling the two in your comment "It’s ok to be on welfare and pay low housing costs ".[/quote]

And don’t put words in my mouth. I never said that. If you’re going to quote me use direct quotes not this made up bs that’s based on your misinterpretation of my point.[/quote]

So you didn’t say ""It’s ok to be on welfare and pay low housing costs ".

Because as I scroll up, that’s precisely what you wrote.

32

Fact: cftktv.com/news/story.aspx?ID=2064652

In fact, sexual assault increased in 2013.

Even a pro LNG site mentions the possibility of crime increases:

bclnginfo.com/learn-more/communi … y-impacts/

There isn’t a lot of assumption going on. Camp workers have a lot of pressure on them. They can’t smoke marijuana as it stays in your blood system for too long. And drinking is probibited in many camps. But cocaine washes out almost right away, beating drug tests all the time. And it keeps you alert. And the only suppliers of cocaine are gangs. And they need to be close by in order to sell. Thus gangs move in to towns.

timescolonist.com/news/b-c/u … -1.1270375

There is plenty of info on camp workers introducing more crime in to communities, even if not directly. Their mere presence is incentive enough for unseemly behaviour to increase. Facts are facts.

That doesn’t mean they are all bad dudes looking to get high. What it means is there are many who are, and in a camp of 5,000 people, that could be as many as 500 – only 10 per cent when spun another way.

Astro isn’t wrong despite grammatical issues. Basic google searching proves his/her point.

33

Hells Angels have been active at Fairview Terminals and the waterfront in general for many years.

34

LMAO…NO !!! We aren’t Surrey.

35

I imagine there are other folks who have lived in this town for a very long time, who ebb and flow with the economy of Rupert who are frustrated with the recent events. I’ve been here since the '70’s, and just when things were starting to look up (again) for me, the housing shot through the roof (again unattainable).

Wah-wah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, I have to say, it’s a little nice to hear the hesitation for once - maybe this madhouse of rental cost bubble will pop now!

36

[quote=“Gracies Mom”]

LMAO…NO !!! We aren’t Surrey.[/quote]

Excerpt from article Gang activity growing in the North
(News) Monday, 14 January 2008, 00:00 PST
FRANK PEEBLES,Citizen staff

“With the opening of the Port of Prince Rupert, authorities are expecting to see a marked increase in the North in drugs, weapons, child pornography, slavery (sex- and extortion-based) and other ultra-illegal activities gangs revel in although no tangible leads have come to pass. Some of those activities were already going on in Prince Rupert due to the old port, and it is an inevitable circumstance wherever international shipping takes place, said the Mounties.”

The whole article can be found at atowncalledpodunk.blogspot.ca/20 … rn-bc.html

PS: notice the date 2008

37

[quote=“uartz1949”]

LMAO…NO !!! We aren’t Surrey.[/quote]

Excerpt from article Gang activity growing in the North
(News) Monday, 14 January 2008, 00:00 PST
FRANK PEEBLES,Citizen staff

“With the opening of the Port of Prince Rupert, authorities are expecting to see a marked increase in the North in drugs, weapons, child pornography, slavery (sex- and extortion-based) and other ultra-illegal activities gangs revel in although no tangible leads have come to pass. Some of those activities were already going on in Prince Rupert due to the old port, and it is an inevitable circumstance wherever international shipping takes place, said the Mounties.”

The whole article can be found at atowncalledpodunk.blogspot.ca/20 … rn-bc.html

PS: notice the date 2008/quote

You may not believe me but I know a considerate amount about what goes on at Fairview (Maher), there are no Hell’s Angels.

38

[quote=“Gracies Mom”]

You may not believe me but I know a considerate amount about what goes on at Fairview (Maher), there are no Hell’s Angels.[/quote]

Who said they work there? They are gangsters.

39

[quote=“TerriblePerson”]

[quote=“Crazy Train”]

And don’t put words in my mouth. I never said that. If you’re going to quote me use direct quotes not this made up bs that’s based on your misinterpretation of my point.

So you didn’t say ""It’s ok to be on welfare and pay low housing costs ".

Because as I scroll up, that’s precisely what you wrote.[/quote]

You’re taking part of what was said and its placing it out of context. Go back and re-read it.

40

I have read it five times now and it says the exact same thing. The context was. James Brown is hoping some of this LNG hype will die down because it is eating away some people’s ability to live here. You responded with incredulity that this would be a problem, and that it’s “ok to be on welfare and pay low housing costs”. I am more certain of it now than I was when I initially chided you.