Here's a typical planning issue featured in today's Star.

Wal-Mart wants to locate one of its stores in Port Elgin, a small town close to Owen Sound on the coast of Lake Huron. It is part of a recently merged muncipality named Saugeen Shores and holds a population of about 7,000 people.

As with any new Walmart development noadays, there is massive protest from residents. While the big box development is being approved by council, it is being appealed by the citizen's group, Friends of Saugeen Shores, at the Ontario Municipal Board.

The municipal planner in Saugeen Shores believes that a big new Wal-Mart on the edge of town would be good for the community, and the town council believes that it will bring needed money and jobs to the area. Each OMB case involving big-box developments always use the rationale of increased employment as a way to support such plans, but does it actually hold true?

I suppose these rural Ontario towns may be desperate for any sort of development, given that the "[l]ocal industry has dwindled" and that the "locals [are] anxious for something to bring prosperity back so their children won't have to leave." But at the same time, I am seriously curious if anyone has done any reserach whether a big-box development, like Wal-Mart, acutally yields a net increase in employment growth to a region.

Anyway, according to the article, the impacts this big-box development has on areas like the downtown are not considered planning issues-- which I was seriously not aware of. So the opponents have taken up safety as a planning concern, with an emphasis on women's safety.

I guess that's kind of creative. I'd really like to learn more about the case, but don't you think it's a little too creative? So creative that it smells of desperation?

Is this issue seriously going push the Board or Wal-Mart to oppose the development? The case cited a recent U.S. study as evidence that police respond to almost 1 million incidents at Wal-Marts across the U.S. a year, and that an American court judge declared that Wal-Marts are "a virtual magnet for crime."

I think these statistics are bogus, especially they're not given any context. What kind of crimes are being reported? How do these "1 million" incidents compare to other retailers? Why is Wal-Mart targetted specifically?

Then there are other questions. Aren't parking for office complexes, for exmaple, just as unsafe? They too can have poor natural surveillance, and they too faciliate one type of land use. Would there be opposition if say an office complex was built rather than a big box?

Also, as much as I loathe surface parking, I find them to be much safer than other urban or suburban settings-- at least you can see far in the distance in the sea of asphalt. Seriously, the argument is weak, and I don't think it is a tipping point issue to halt the development.

My planning conscience tells me this development is poor planning, but my logic is telling me that the points to oppose the development seem unwarranted.

I guess my conscience is illogical. What do you guys think?

Wal-Mart foes are playing it safe - [thestar.com]

Degrassi is an awesome show. I just finished Season 6 and 7 of the show, which can be viewed on the CTV Broadband Network.

I weirdly have a urge to watch high school drama shows, I think mainly because of nostalgia. I remember watching so many teen shows during my adolescence. I religiously watched Saved by the Bell, Ready of Not, Beverly Hills 90210, and Degrassi High. I also watched a bit of Breaker High, Dawson's Creek, Blossom, and Student Bodies.

Of course, the Degrassi franchise is very different from the other teen dramas/comedies because it really explored the serious issues facing high school life. While some critics have criticized the show for over-dramatizing teenage life, I feel that teenagers can still learn from the situations on the show.

For those who adored the original Degrassi as much as I did, you will realize that Spike, Snake, Joey and Cailtin are the existing characters that are carried forward in The Next Generation-- although only Spike and Snake now remain as of Season 7. If you recall, Spike was the girl with the crazy 80's rocker spiked blonde hair who got knocked up in Degrassi High. Spike's child, Emma, is now featured in The Next Generation.

There hasn't been that much difference between the original and The Next Generation, which I guess comes to show that teenagers have not changed and are going through the same issues as before. The only new issue that was discussed in The Next Generation is homosexuality. Perhaps that's the reason why the show caught my eye.

In The Next Generation, Marco Del Rossi is the gay character who, who goes through the typical ups and downs of being a gay adolescent: denial, confusion, coming out to friends, dating, coming out to family, breaking up. Anyway, it's a very weird dynamic in Degrassi. Everyone seems so okay with the fact that Marco's openly gay. Is that representative of today's Canadian high schools?

Also, I find it interesting watching a show that is not targeted to my age demographic. I remember watching Saved by the Bell, and thought how cool kids like Zack, Slater and Kelly were.

By the way, Slater looks hotter with age. Woof.

Anyway, I definitely view the show on a completely different level, now watching Degrassi as a person who has experienced high school. I guess that makes sense, but don't you find that the cast of Degrassi looks way smaller physically compared to say Saved by the Bell? Or is that just my perception because I am older?

It has been a boring election with debates and promises that I didn't find relevant, but that's no excuse not to vote. The endless debate of faith-based schools smothered all other issues: transportation, the provincial economy, the environment, and most importantly provincial-municipal fiscal issues.

It looks like it's another Liberal victory, and while transportation and transit has stayed off the radar during the campaigning period, I will not forget McGuinty's promise with Move Ontario 2020. If he doesn't produce results regarding this, I will forever hold a grudge against him and his party.

Also, support Mixed-Member Proportional regarding the concurrent referendum on electorial reform. I support MMP not necessarily because of what Spacing says about the urban-rural political divide, but plainly because it encourages more diversity of opinions.

Do you know what I'm getting fed up with? Loyalty reward cards. Almost every store's got them, making our wallets the size of cute square-shaped bagels. I was thinking about all the different cards that I could potentially own, and I think it's quite frightening. Here's a list just on the top of my head:

• HBC Rewards - The Bay, Zellers, Home Outfitters, Designer Depot
• Shoppers Optimum - Shoppers Drug Mart
• Sears Club - Sears
• Air Miles - Rona, LCBO, Shell, Dominion, The Shoe Company
• PC Points Mastercard - Loblaw Co. Supermarkets
• iRewards - Chapters, Indigo, Coles
• Dividends Card - Staples Business Depot
• All-Access Pass - American Eagle
• Eddie Bauer Friends Card - Eddie Bauer
• Prestige Card - La Senza
• Love Your Body Club - The Body Shop
• Esprit Club - Esprit
• Signature Member - Bluenotes
• Scene Card - Cineplex Entertainment cinemas
• Moviewatcher - AMC Cinemas
• Pier 1 Imports Rewards - Pier 1
• Blockbuster Rewards - Blockbuster Video

Sure, I may have surrendered and opted for a few cards, but when will this marketing scheme blow over? Are you as tired as I am, when the cashier asks you if you have a [insert reward card name] card?

One card that has been ingrained into my head is the iRewards Card, the loyalty program for Chapters, Indigo, and Coles. When I worked there in high school, managers would continually push the sale of these cards. In fact, iRewards sales was one of three benchmark figures that determine store performance. Because I worked in the Multimedia section of the store, where the books were most expensive, there was a big push to sell these cards, since they were eligible to save 10% on their (big) purchase. The dialogue would often start like this:

[Matt finds a Oracle book for a customer, and places it in his hand]
Matt: Okay, here's the book sir.
Customer: Thanks for your help.
M: You're welcome. Oh by the way, have you heard of our iRewards program?
C: [In a hesitant tone] Um, no.
M: Well, if you become a member of iRewards, you can automatically save 10% on regularly priced books.
C: Oh really? That's pretty good.
M: Yes, you can use it at any Chapters, Indigo, Coles and on our website, and it is a yearly membership of just $20.
C: Oh it costs me? Oh forget it.

Uh huh, it's always fun selling these cards. When the customer goes to the cashier, you can be assured that he's going to hear about iRewards again. Argh!

Anyways, I wonder if there is any research about the effectiveness of these loyalty programs, given that we are now flooded with them. Do I prefer to go to Chapters because of the iRewards Card? Probably not, given that it's hard to buy books from any other book retailer in the suburbs. Perhaps proponents can make the argument that it may encourage customers to buy more.

Another concern I have with these loyalty cards is the customer information that they generate. While most retailers have privacy policies that state that customer information is never sold to other organizations, membership information is definitely used internally to investigate customer spending patterns. Should we be worried about this kind of practice? Perhaps not, I'm not too sure.

Anyway, what loyalty cards do you own?