Sustainable de-growth for Fernie?

[snowvalley]

The proponents of the de-growth movement reckon that the term of "sustainable development" is an oxymoron. On a planet where 20% of the population consumes 80% of the natural resources, a sustainable development cannot be possible for this 20%: “According to the origin of the concept of sustainable development , a development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, the right term for the developed countries should be a sustainable de-growth”.

How would sustainable de-growth be applied in Fernie?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainabl … -growth.22

http://www.rprogress.org/index.htm

[mtnrat]

Don’t worry. Fernie is degrowing now. Actually at the rate of de-growth we are experiencing, nobody will be living here in the not too distant future. That way you won’t have any way to make a living here, and you too can experience de-growth.

[admin]

The mines are growing, 400 new jobs just this spring.

New families are springing up everywhere and the economic slow-down has created affordable housing opportunities for them!

mtnrat must be trying to sell condos to Calgarians

[mtnrat]

Nope, not a single condo, house etc, just an observation of the amount of business that seems to not be taking place in town. Yep the mines are growing and yes the homes are more affordable for WORKING people. Most of the growth is taking place up valley. Very little in Fernie. Like I said de-growth is alive and well. What with basically no housing starts, and many businesses just holding on, and those that want to expand or get going, cannot get by totally messed up parking bylaws, etc etc. Not a bad thing if your fortunes do not rely on the fortunes of the town, but if you don’t work for the city, hospital, schools or are retired, things are downright scary at the moment for those trying to scrap a living. I know my spending here has basically stopped. By the way, I do know many who used to build those condos, etc who have had to move away with their families to greener pastures as part of the de-growth scenario.

[admin]

Sustainable de-growth is planning for the future given that there will be less people and a smaller local economy.

What is sustainable in a small mountain town? Tourism, mining, forestry, farming, manufacturing, building, outfitting, services, etc.

The question is tabled for discussion…

[mtnrat]

Why should a place like Fernie necessarily have less people and a smaller local economy? Of any small town, Fernie should be able to at least regain its former population base of about 5000 permanent residents.

[admin]

Small communities worldwide are asking that question, the answer is urbanization.

The other factor to consider is that growth is not sustainable. Both population and economic growth will slow and governments of all sizes will have to learn to effectively govern given de-growth.

I am not promoting de-growth, rather am highlighting its existence and the necessity to plan accordingly.

[mtnrat]

I get where you are coming from. However I really believe that Fernie has enough to offer to stem that general tide. On another note, I have begun to consider that there is a large movement that is promoting/causing de-growth in the western world. What concerns me is that the movement of the economic drivers to the developing world will cause far more pollution and ecological degradation than the same industry would be allowed to cause in the western world. Yes there are still large problems here, but the developing world has almost no regulation, and in some areas a culture that basically does not care for the environment in any way, shape, or form. Just some food for thought.
As for urbanization, those people still need resources and places for recreation. We have both. I would rather try to take full advantage of those opportunities, rather than watch more friends and colleagues move away due to lack of opportunity.

[admin]

Demographics is working against Fernie as a option for recreation. The over 50 don’t play, they sit and watch the weather change.

And the resourse that youth require is people, not coal or gas. Rocket scientists desire neighbours who are rocket scientists, etc..

Skiers are a diminishing group.

Time will tell where people move my friend…

[mtnrat]

You could be correct and I could be overly optimistic. What you are telling me leads me to think that we should not waste taxpayer money on official community plans, livability/quality of life studies and seriously look at the size of City staff. Since we are already shrinking in population the money being spend is just being wasted. I think that you are correct and the trends will be very difficult to overcome.

[rednck]

Methane gas, minerals and coal will grow the Elk Valley economy for decades.

You tourism flakes will be groveling for eternity!

[imported_ryland]

what happens when all the coal is gone in the decades you speak of? no matter what way you try to spin it mining is not sustainable. There is a finite resource that does not renew(for millions of years) and when it is gone it is gone.

[zippy]

"earth1st" wrote:

Demographics is working against Fernie as a option for recreation. The over 50 don’t play, they sit and watch the weather change.

And the resourse that youth require is people, not coal or gas. Rocket scientists desire neighbours who are rocket scientists, etc..

Skiers are a diminishing group.

Time will tell where people move my friend…

you are so off base you must be blind. i’m 60. skied well over 100 days and mountain bike or hike every day. i take my vacations in places where i can climb or surf.

i revel in the weather changes because i am not sitting, i am doing.

a windy day like today is great.

[mtnrat]

I have been pondering… and have decided the real reason Fernie is experiencing "de-growth", (which I have decided is a moronic term), is because the powers that be are so business unfriendly that nobody has been able to get anything going here. It is now so bad that new investment is passing Fernie by like it was a hot potato. Until that changes I am afraid the downward spiral will continue. The CoF needs to prove it is open for business. Business that includes resource extraction and tourism, as well as welcomes second home owners. Every delayed application, every denied parking variance, every lets do another study before we move forward has a cumulative effect in discouraging business.
I take back the last sentence in my previous post. I was tired and fell into the trap set by those who want nothing to happen anywhere, anyplace or anytime.

[admin]

Ski resort resident populations are dwindling everywhere, and the economic slow down has clinched the pocket books of 2nd home owners. How can you blame the City of Fernie for the impact of larger forces?

My understanding is that winter business was slow due to the poor snow season. Hotel bookings were down 40% and that directly hurt many businesses. How does the City of Fernie factor into a poor snow year?

Your trap is condemning the City of Fernie.

Others are trapped in condemning Fernie Alpine Resort. Are they not responsible?

We live in a culture of condemning when we should be working together to make our town a better place. Accepting de-growth and planning for reality will generate harmony.

[imported_ryland]

I think Fernie is "de-growthing" because the people who never really liked living here anyway because it was "too cold, too much snow, no wal mart, too many people on bikes and on and on …. are all packing up and leaving! Like the sign used to say at the entrance to town. "Love it or Leave it!"

Im with you earth1st. lets embrace our de-growthing and plan to adapt to a smaller (perhaps more sustainable?) population.

[mikes]

Then de-populate already!

[shu]

"Accepting de-growth and planning for reality will generate harmony"

I am afraid this statement sounds a little to dogmatic for my liking and comes across almost as a fundamentalist response to our current modus operandi. Are you really saying that a consensus with this line of thinking with bring about peace and the utopia we all may seek? Cause I substitute a name or two in that sentence it morphs into something completely irrational.

In regards to mineral resource extraction and it’s finite supply, I offer this Macleans article but reserve any comment … http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/13/oils … the-shark/

There is something about the entire concept of sustainable de-growth that puts a sliver into my brain that I just can’t put my finger on. It feels like we need to be apologetic for the wonderful advances we have made in the last few generations, such as doubling the life expectancy, increasing our knowledge of the universe and bio-diversity of this planet, all in pursuit of more harmonious cohabitation with the environment. I hope most everyone would favour less harmful or destructive means of survival. I am reminded of those that ‘feel’ they were born in the wrong decade or century and lament over what could have been. I could not myself envision wishing for a life without the modern advances, knowledge we have gained and potential we titter on for a ‘simpler time’ (though probably much harder and shorter). To engage in issues which move us forward is to be applauded but to sit on the shoulders of the countless individuals that created this world and attempt to dismantle their achievements in an effort to reverse the clock on all of us, seems, well, missing the mark. Let us move forward, amending that which we can. I say grow and bloom.

[mtnrat]

De-growth may work for those who make their living from government agencies, or outside sources. Those that make their living from the local economy must therefore be expendable. Actually our hospital, schools, city works, etc must necessarily shrink. Our population is at the cusp of imploding. What we have, with the help of tourists, barely keeps the doors of many open. It is really tough out there.
As for condemning the CoF. Nobody is wholly responsible, but investment is overlooking Fernie for the main reason that investors cannot determine if or when they may see a return. There is always risk in investment, but the record of the CoF is such that investors see a much higher risk in Fernie, because of the actions and inactions of the City. Investment follows the path of least resistance and potential success. The line on Fernie is high resistance and very few example of success. This was the case before the most recent economic problems and is now seen as reality.
Adding the word sustainable to de-growth is an oxymoron. I think some people like to see failure. I am happy for people who succeed and wish those that try the best of luck. Maybe that is because I understand the effort and vision it takes to take a risk, rather than cowardly throw flies into the ointment of others, from the safety of a life that does not depend on the fortunes of our local economy.

[imported_ryland]

it’s true. sustainable de-growth is an oxymoron. So is sustainable growth.

Why do we have to grow or de-grow. Why cant we figure out how to prosper with what we have before us. Why doesn’t the current population create an innovative new economic driver that will allow us to live here in Harmony and not rely on the fickle tourism industry and the uncertainty (and eventual closure when the ore runs out) of the mines?

Some cool innovative farming on all our our rich farmland that is currently mostly unused. Some green widget factory of some sort.. Selenium farming from our selenium rich river to sell selenium supplements (say that 5 times fast!)

There’s lots of economies we aren’t taking advantage of here that don’t require growth to be successful (although they may encourage it)

[zippy]

everyone here who has not read daniel quinn’s Ishmael, should do so. his premise of takers and leavers gives a unique perspective on the problem.

[admin]

mtnrat – would catastrophic de-growth be more acceptable than sustainable de-growth?

Our society is conditioned to believe that growth is necessary for survival. This is not true.

Most 1st world populations are in decline and the worlds population will peak in the next 40 years.

With shrinking populations de-growth is inevitable. we must change the negative perception of LESS and move forward to sustainable de-growth.

Lets avoid the catastrophy and plan accordingly.

[mtnrat]

earth1st, I don’t think that Fernie needs to subscribe to that dogma. If we keep doing things the way we are now, catastrophic de-growth is a real possibility. If we make a few changes in the way Fernie treats business we can regain our population of 5000 and have a more viable and vibrant community. Fragmentation is now taking place, even in the arts and culture community. Even they don’t seem to be able to get it together, and it is a microcosm of the bigger picture in Fernie.

[rednck]

mtnrat, you are not listening to earth1st or ryland or anyone…your self focused on something for you. What is it?

What are you trying to sell?

Are you a big risk taking developer?

Your city comments are outrageous, "If we make a few changes in the way Fernie treats business we can regain our population of 5000 and have a more viable and vibrant community." Do you really believe this?

Diminishing the arts and cultural community.

The bitterness in your posts communicates a great deal…what happened to you?

[shu]

Two thoughts … and I quote …
"Investment follows the path of least resistance and potential success"
It just might be true that some investors seek higher returns and therefore seek riskier investments, perhaps not always the most successful. I believe the recent financial crisis bares this out extraordinarily well as many people sought higher returns in lieu of the higher risk associated with those investments. Or another example, those that engage in black market activities.

"Our society is conditioned to believe that growth is necessary for survival. This is not true."
I will assume you are discussing the economy here, as I think any mother with child would demonstrate the desire for growth of the off-spring. She may even say, thank goodness for the continuous growth. I know I am. But as for the economy … from a rudimentary point of view I may accept that idea provided I started out my employment history making a decent living wage, never having to adjust for inflation or the likes. Otherwise, I have come to require a continued growth, expansion of sorts. I wonder, many might assume economics as a zero sum game, perhaps more so when the earth is included, but I wonder. I always thought first world nations generally incur a population decrease, an increase in standard of living and an increase in environmental standards. Though we may have a long way to go, isn’t this a recipe for growth. sorry, success?

I suppose my inquiry rests in the underlining assumptions and beliefs I attempt to ascertain concerning our actions while we are on this wonderful orb? Sustainable de-growth seems to confuse me somewhat.

[shu]

I am truly apologetic for the double post …

"De-growth may work for those who make their living from government agencies, or outside sources. Those that make their living from the local economy must therefore be expendable. Actually our hospital, schools, city works, etc must necessarily shrink. Our population is at the cusp of imploding"

I wonder how you may refer to ‘our population’ and how you may know it will be ‘imploding’?

"Why do we have to grow or de-grow"

Finally, to answer this question that I somehow missed, I have to plead life. But perhaps I am interrupting grow with change, which may be a fallacy on my part.

[mtnrat]

Actually I am only letting people in our community know the perception of the investment community. That is all. Take from that what you will.

[locazo]

None of this matters anyway. 2012 is just around the corner. We’ll see what happens after that.

[mary]

I find all opinions very interesting, putting myself in an investor’s place i would be bitter at the climate right now in Fernie regarding new development, but the obvious lack of progress in this department isn’t the fault of the city. A few years ago when the world economy was high, properties in this community went up so dramatically that they became unreachable to ordinary workers, even for those making top wages as employees of the mines.

Properties were being purchased by out of country residents and Albertans, so when the economy plummeted these purchasers also dried out.

What would have happened to Fernie if all of the proposed developments had been finished just before the world economy downturn?

Would Fernie now be a town of empty subdivisions, new homes sitting empty gathering dust and falling apart? How would this situation have helped developers?

I also feel a loss at seeing young families moving away to look for employment elsewhere, as a long time resident I also feel the loss of seeing Fernie’s population decrease instead of increase. But how do you force people to move here or remain here?

During the height of high prices, longtime Fernie born and raised residents sold their houses and ran with profits they could hardly believe they had made. Should we blame those people for doing so and reducing the permanent population?

Should we blame realtors who set the prices high by bringing buyers from out of country with readily available money that could pay those prices?

Should we blame city councillors who have a vision of keeping Fernie small and quaint and available only to those lucky few who have jobs?

Should we blame businesses that have pulled out because of no support?

What the heck, why dont we just blame everyone for everything that isnt perfect in Fernie? For sure someone is at fault for something, realistically, no one person or entity is holding Fernie back. Fernie is open for business but that doesnt mean business doesn’t have to adhere to the rights of the citizens who live here. Rules and regulations need to be looked at how they affect all parties. Changes need to consider everyone, sometimes council decisions have hurt individuals but are good for the community as a whole, sometimes council decisions help the individual but arent appreciated by neighbours. There is never a perfect solution to everything.

Worldwide, skiing has taken a downward turn, so if less skiers come here does that mean FAR is to blame? Will adding new development to the hill entice more people to come here to ski? I have heard many times from Albertans that they came to the ski hill much more often when it wasn’t as well known, locals liked it better then too because years ago it was more affordable for their families.

I don’t like to place blame on any one thing, the world is changing on a daily basis, those changes affect Fernie just like it affects other places. It wouldn’t serve our community or make it any better if we had a city council or a staff that allowed everything to happen without studying all angles of issues or without giving all residents opportunity to voice objections or agreement with the direction Fernie is going, and the best way to do this is to attend city council meetings and truly find out what is going on.

[mikes]

Ryland said: "Why do we have to grow or de-grow. Why cant we figure out how to prosper with what we have before us"
Ryland said " Im with you earth1st. lets embrace our de-growthing and plan to adapt to a smaller (perhaps more sustainable?) population."

Very interesting contradictions….. Whats the point of growing tourism if nobodies around to bennefit from it?

I was just a kid when the mines shut down in the early ’90’s and it was horrible. 50 year olds forced to go tree planting, forced to go on "U.I", the housing market crashed and people that owed $50,000 for a house that was now worth $30,000 simply walked away leaving the houses emty. I was a scary time. Thats not what I call sustainable de-growth. Its what i’d call horrible de-growth. And lets hope the town doesn’t have to go through that again.

[Author]

Posts