Good Through Bad: The CSA's Latest


Montreal - Today, the CSA fought a battle, willingly. But beyond any personal gratification, how much did they gain? Very little I fear; this event was another example of good played out badly.

CSA stands for Centre Social Autogéré. Their goal is to re-appropriate, for social housing development, buildings on land otherwise destined for private condo projects. Needless to say, it’s hard for any city to say no to plans put forth by wealthy developers that want to convert ‘dead space’ into sure-selling and highly-taxed luxury units for well-paid professionals. However, this current building trend that’s invading lower-income neighbourhoods implies major impacts on their overall areas and infrastructures, as well as negative consequences for low-income families…

And the site fought for by the CSA is prime real-estate in every possible sense, which also makes it an important strategic target for the CSA. Those familiar with the bike bath that winds its way along the Lachine Canal—the portion in Pointe-St-Charles between the quaint, tree-covered boat rental office and the pedestrian, crescent-moon bridge that crosses over to the Atwater market—will certainly recall the now defunct candle factory that imposes itself on park space where Atwater branches into St. Patrick Street. An ideal setting for what nearly everyone already expects to find at that bustling park entrance: a combination of picturesque café, bistro, sports shop, roller-blade rental, and artsy tourist store… a perfect start or goal to any stroll and a great way to promote that greener/healthier city Montreal is quickly becoming renown for. Instead, the cit is presently reviewing a plan to convert the space into a 6 story, 53 units condo complex, which also calls for a change in zoning regulations.
This would-be-blight, in my opinion, is definitely worth fighting against.

The CSA thinks so too, so, after opting for a militant approach to their cause, they organized a 2 day manifestation that began yesterday at 18:00, June 29, when approximately 500 people gathered near Charlevoix metro station; banners, screeching megaphones, dreads, long beards, and piercings, anarchist and peace symbols, and varying street performers aplenty… But most striking was the similarity between participants, nearly all white French Canadians, who each seemed to embody activist stereotypes in his/her own way, and hence amplified my overall first-impression of ‘bitter, juvenile, and wildly idealistic’ I had had through the group’s Website (their site can’t be viewed through what they call ‘Microshit’ Explorer …). As I look back, that such a community-worthy cause should attract only a certain type of people reveals important limitations linked with CSA’s approach as well as an apparent weakness in the team’s ability to exploit communications, despite clever (but empty) ideas like using made-up names (in French) playing on Grandmaison i.e. ‘big house.’ Nonetheless, my impression was confirmed once their main (and only) strategy was played out. The manif was nothing more than a political parade to gain momentum and courage and a justifiable context for the CSA’s next course of actions, who made good on their ‘About Us’ words and literally took control of the building. Although the CSA spokespeople didn’t want to admit to it directly, the grimaces and gestures they offered me in lieu of answer confirmed that they had broken into the building illegally.
As evening progressed, about 1/3 of the protesters barricaded themselves inside the empty factory; essentially, their plan was this: break the law and hold an edifice hostage to get their voice heard and force negotiations with city officials. Having witnessed the group’s preparedness in dealing with the swat’s tactics and the intimidation of the riot-geared police—nearly all wore bandanas, scarves, etc. with which they could cover they noses and mouths and many had goggles or eye-protectors— it’s clear that they also had a secondary goal in mind; they were doing their best to exploit police action to gain public sympathy and add validity to their anti-totalitarian and anti-capitalism chants. It’s a pretty standard form of the passive-aggressive militant-martyr approach often adopted by those who loudly and stubbornly proclaim to possess zero faith in bureaucracy and politics but who aren’t willing to admit that much of their anger is based on ignorance or feelings of intimidations or helplessness a propos this sphere. Otherwise, surely they would attempt other means to gain this building… so many things come to mind, especially with the change-in-zoning-law public hearing which the city must hold, and next weekend’s Montreal Citizen Summit! (more on the summit in my next post)

On the other hand, the city of Montreal once again showed us that it doesn’t negotiate or deal with any ‘event’ representatives who didn’t submit their plan to city-hall and acquire the proper permits… even if they promise it to them.
Negotiations with police produced a specific time when, CSA representatives were promised, they would be given an opportunity to publicly voice their issues in a conference with concerned city officials.
In spite of this, whether as part of a newly adopted post-Seattle and Quebec City approach to activists or another instance of Gerald Tremblay at his two-faced best, the protesters were quick to realize that they had been duped when they opened the door at the agreed time for their agreed-on conference. A line of menacingly grim, heavily shielded, baton-wielding, pepper-spray toting, and visibly annoyed officers—one of them flaunting a gas-powered metal and concrete saw—greeted them instead of officials. At that exact same moment, the impressively swift SWAT was doing their thing on the building’s roof and dropped several cans of tear-gas.

Many of the protesters were (a bit too) quick to emphasize that the police used gas when kids were present and clearly played up the family-affair versus mean-ol’-machine aspect. One organiser told me she had her three month old daughter with her inside the building when the police ‘attacked;’ hearing her version of events and of having to run out to get her baby to safety, handing it over to a family member before running back into the building—with only one entry point, blocked by a wall of police—her ability to put a spin on a spin somehow convinved me that she has the potential to be a good politician… Unfortunately, her 'youth' barred her from seeing that this, if true, would actually harm the CSA's credibility; how can you be a responsible citizen when you can't be a responsible parent? Remember: protesters were equipped and prepared for, and were thus expecting, harsh police actions.

And the ultimate proof that their objectives were doomed from the start? None of the group's spokespeople could answer my question when asked what the next phaze would be should the city agree to hand over the building to the CSA for conversion to a self-managed social housing project. It's as if no one had bothered to think that far ahead; all I got were different soundbite-perfect versions of the group's goals, even after asking whether or not the CSA had devised a cooperative management model to be implemented in the buildings they hoped to gain. Their lack of planning is disconcerning; it implies a lack of belief in their ultimate goal and an unwillingness to attempt other, more official approaches.

In the end: police took control of the building when they felt like it. Despite a handful of protesters who, for forty minutes, faced-off with the menacing line of officers trying to drive them towards the front of the building, no one was arrested. The gang eventually regrouped into a nearby park for a celebratory picnic...
For many of the young—late teens to early twenties—CSA organizers, it was clear they believed they were on the brink of living a ‘Hollywood’ moment, even though the lack of mobilisation and official attention, and the group’s clear failure to open a dialogue denote otherwise…

And this cost tax payers how much?

Keep on clicking!

PDL

© 2009, Pascal-Denis Lussier
.

Anti Coffee Stirrer Effort: Stats Update


For those of you wondering what’s happening with the stir stick statistics I promised some time back, I’m still working on them. The information is far from readily available; it would appear that no one has yet bothered to calculate how many coffee stir sticks get used throughout the world on a single day.

I’m nonetheless trying to amass the info by combining, deducing, and inferring from all the free data that is available out there; this includes sales reports of stir stick producing companies, import and export reports, stats on everything from per capita coffee consumptions and drinking preferences, etc. **

Several ways to look at it, for example:

There are about 8,600 major-chain convenience stores (a.k.a. 'dep' in Quebec) with coffee bars in Canada alone. Without going into lengthy details, we can assume that they each go through an average of 35 sticks / day; this means that approximately 301,000 stir sticks get used and tossed daily just in major-chain deps across Canada.
This doesn’t even include all of the small ‘mom and pop’ or other kinds of deps which don’t fall under this category and for which concise info is hard to come by.
And what about all the garages or hair-salons or offices that offer coffee?
It’s the same deal for coffee houses. It’s easy to know how many Starbucks and Second Cups there are, but how many independent coffee houses are out there???

Anyhow, it's clear that a really crude guesstimate, and only for Canada and the U.S. (stats for other countries are vague or non-existant), is about all I can hope for by taking this arduous route, so I'm now looking into stir stick manufacturing data. Since stir sticks come in both plastic and wood, and since there is a whole 'specialty' side to this business (e.g. see picture), this route is also pretty bumpy and full of holes…
World wide coffee habits are useful, but only up to a certain point, so…

I’ll keep on plugging away at the question until I get a more accurate fix on the number, but any which way, I feel confident enough to say that over 3 million stir sticks get used and tossed in the trash (although some may make it to the recycling bin; how do we get that info?) throughout the world on any given day.
Now, what does that represent in terms of natural resources? One tree equals how many wooden stir sticks and how much oil goes into making plastic ones? How many acres of landfill and tons of greenhouse producing gases are involved? And why do retailers of plastic stirrers claim to offer a more environmentally friendly product and why do the wood people claim the exact same thing? More importantly, who’s right?
I’m still working on all of that…

Keep on clicking!

PDL

**Note: I’m doing my best to exclude from these stats all of the other reasons or areas which use up stir sticks e.g. school-crafts; hobbies; all sorts of industries which rely on them to mix all sorts of different things, etc. This alone provides its fair share of hair-pulling…

© 2009, Pascal-Denis Lussier
.

Sprawl: The Real Urban Problem...


The Congress for New Urbanism wanted to dispel public misconceptions surrounding new urbanism and to promote the need and viability of green urban planning; they recently held a competition inviting people to explain the connection between urban planning and the environment. Here is the winning video, created by John Paget:


Keep on clicking!

PDL

© 2009, Pascal-Denis Lussier
.

Silly Marketing - The All New 09 F-150




Here’s the narration:
“You’re driving down the freeway doing about 60 when you notice the guy next to you steering with his knees and eating a cheeseburger and talking on the phone; and that is exactly why the all new 09 f-150 is the safest truck in America…”
After the few specs the ad ends with: “…because it’s not just crazy out there; it’s certifiably insane.”

My reaction: Oh! and why is Ford trying to convince us that we need a tank in order to survive today's road conditions? Also, the advert reminded me of my road-raging commuting days and my traffic-jam inspired daydreams of owning a bad-assed Hummer equipped with anti-tank rockets, several machine guns, and a v-shaped plough so then maybe I could be in my office 10 minutes ago without having to deal with all those morons!!! Admit it; you’ve also had this fantasy once or twice.
And is it me or do the colours, images, and floating texts also remind you of the post-apocalyptic backdrop in “The Road Warrior 2”?

My big question is: how does Ford guarantee that these ‘insane’ knee-steering, cheeseburger-eating, phone-talking people don’t wind up behind the wheel of one of these babies??? It's fine if we happen to plough through idiot drivers like a tank through a haystack if they should f*ck up; but what happens when drunk, F-150-driving rednecks lose control and ram non-idiot drivers?
Or is that what they mean by ‘certifiably insane?’ If you got one of those certificates that says you're insane, you don’t get to drive an F-150? No wonder the ‘multi-tasking jerk’ is driving a car (wonder if it’s a Ford? Can’t tell from the camera angle); Does Hummer have the same policy?!

But if everyone was driving smaller cars, wouldn't that be safer? Of course, eighteen-wheelers are still up for consideration but not much stands a chance against those anyway...

I really wonder which came first? this ad concept or all the politicized, lobby-greased puff pieces that have appeared these past months throughout the U.S., claiming bigger cars are safer and electric cars have big hidden costs; or was it Barack Obama’s decision to boost fuel economy standards for cars by using a size-based system that removes incentives for automakers to manufacture only smaller models.… Is the government simply looking out for its newly acquired stocks? Or is all of that part of the same ad campaign, dreamed up and paid for by…??? Hmmm… I'm sure I smell oil and my gut tells me Dick Cheney is in on this somehow... Well, Cheney-like thinking anyhow.

And when you look at this or other commercials produced by the ‘Big 3’ and consider their production costs, we certainly don’t get an image of companies whose very survival relies on huge government handouts and pity from potential customers. Yes; pity, from stupid pride! Because—and I hate to say it—it sure as hell isn’t leadership and a truly competitive product that has kept these 3 in business; it’s some strange sense of ol’ world and post war partisanship, the kind that borders on racism and impassioned patriotism. National pride is ok but in this case Americans have to realize that, according to the great rules of capitalism which they've pretty much established, they lost the auto-industry war!

So, since I’m on the subject: how can these companies still invest millions upon millions in R&D and concept cars that’ll never pass through a production line when tremendous pensions are on the line? Is developing future technology really going to help companies that have a very limited future? And how can they still be tinkering with so many models and styles and obsessing over setting fashion-industry-like trends every year? It's as if they haven't yet figured out what their public wants!!! Car makers from other continents seem to have a better understanding of the North American market. How can that be?

Are people really buying functional pick-ups to feel safe or is this just a spin-attempt to sell an overproduced line to a different demographic? Or, are the company heads outdated and stubborn to the point that they still believe in their self-proclaimed divinity and that if they decide to produce more trucks, Americans will buy trucks for the reasons they’ll tell us?
The 'ol' boys club' mentality that’s directing the ‘Big 3’ automakers still seems to be dominating. But their time has come and their 'empires' are crumbling. Not surprising! This advert clearly demonstrates that even today, they are barely willing to change their course and adopt the attitude they should have adopted some thirty-odd years ago...

Keep on clicking!

PDL

© 2009, Pascal-Denis Lussier
.


Down My Street and Up Yours. Copyrights © 2008 - 2011 by pdl com. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews, no part of this blog may be used in any manner whatsoever without written permission from the owner. For information contact: pdlussier[at]downmystreetandupyours.org