Frances Bula header image 2

Community centre associations wrestle with changes park board is proposing. Park board: We need equity among centres. Centres: We serve our neighbourhoods best.

January 29th, 2013 · 250 Comments

Vancouver’s community centre associations are the closest thing to participatory democracy the city has. We don’t have the kind of neighbourhood independence that exists in Portland, which gives out grants to neighbourhoods to spend as they choose.

But, failing that, the centre associations have operated as the neighbourhood councils.

Now the park board is acting on a move set in motion by the COPE council of 2002-2005, which asked for a core review of services, and is re-negotiating the arrangement that’s existed between the board and the centres for several decades.

Some community centres are willing to negotiate, while pointing out to the board that it will lose if it undercuts local autonomy to the point where centres lose the enormous wealth of their volunteers and their ability to apply for federal and provincial grants for programs through their non-profit societies.

Other community centres are going to war. Two emergency meetings are being held tonight, with language used to advertise them that might make a casual observer think that the Charter of Rights had been overturned.

Here’s my story in the Globe, which only begins to get at the many aspects of this debate. (Which has been exacerbated, by the way, by some inept handling on the board’s side.)

Also including an open letter from the board chair and, below, the full text of my story.

PARKBOARD

Vancouver has had a unique system for running its parks for decades – one that has produced an unusually high level of community support and activism.

It has the only elected park board in the country. And its community centres have been operated through an uncommon setup where non-profit, volunteer community-centre associations raise their own money to pay for some of their own programs, alongside the ones paid for by the park board.

But a park-board move to change that relationship has created an uproar among some centre supporters and a burgeoning political problem for the ruling Vision Vancouver party, which is now accused of being undemocratic.

“Seniors lunches, exercise equipment and daily service at Vancouver community centres could all be axed” and “Do u want radical changes to happen to your community centre?

If not, JOIN OUR EMERGENCY MEETING” are just a couple of the dire messages from the stream coming out of the Kerrisdale Community Centre’s twitter account these days.

On the other side, the park board’s general manager and its ruling Vision trustees say the change is about creating more equity among the 24 centres, some of which don’t allow low-income holders of special passes to use their facilities.

A meeting set for Tuesday, organized by six of the associations, is about to bring that debate to a head.

“People are really getting mad,” said Ainslie Kwan, president of the Killarney community-centre association, which has over the years organized its own child-care programs that are supported by local efforts. “And the park people talk about equity in the city, but we feel each community knows best what it needs.”

Ms. Kwan said the associations, which put in thousands of hours of volunteer time that the board could never afford to pay for, will be relegated to becoming advisory committees. They can help raise money and offer advice on programs, but won’t be able to have the independence and authority they do now.

But park-board general manager Malcolm Bromley, who has been touring community centres for months to sell the new plan, said centre associations will still get to respond to community needs and run non-profit societies if they need to.

He said some community-centre associations have clearly been able to raise money in the way the park board never could. Raycam and Strathcona, near the Downtown Eastside, brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars for specialized programs for their low-income families.

Under the new arrangement, the board would have formal agreements with those non-profit societies so they can continue to raise that money and spend it on the programs they always have, he said.

Mr. Bromley said the main goal of a new arrangement is to allow centres that are not able to raise as much money to tap into the surpluses that some other centres now accumulate every year.

(He stipulated that the board would not ask for the approximately $10-million of surpluses those centres have accumulated in the past.)

And he wants to see a system where anyone can use any centre equally.

Ms. Kwan said the centres have already agreed to that, even though it means giving the whole city access to facilities, like the fitness centre at Killarney, for example, that the park board had declined to fund originally.

The six associations organizing the revolt are spread across the city – Killarney, Hastings, Marpole, Kerrisdale, Sunset and Hillcrest – and have received considerable media attention.

But many more associations, those who see good arguments on both sides, are deliberately staying out of the fray.

“We understand the park board needs more oversight at the centres, we think the arrangement needs to be rethought, but community stewardship is important. We also depend heavily on the not-for-profit operation we have here,” said Amanda Gibbs, president of the Strathcona community-centre association.

 

Categories: Uncategorized

  • gman

    I have never seen such a bunch of arrogant f..ks as I witnessed at the meeting last night!!!!
    Way to go Vision!!!!!!

  • Eric Harms

    @waltyss #193
    “…PB provides the vast majority of the capital…to the community cente societies to operate and put on programems (sic)”
    I think you’re conflating budgets. It’s already established: Taxpayers fund major capital expenditures – but NOT to completion, because the boffins always (always) underfund replacement of the facilities.

    Let me illustrate. Two years ago, Hastings was being considered for replacement, so we and PB entered into an intensive planning exercise with a local architectural firm. In the plan, the centre went from our current 37,500 sq. feet to 30,000 sq. feet, which is what is currently held to be the Ideal, regardless of current or forseeable need. The anticipated space allocated to our preschool meant we would go from having the capacity to accommodate 100 children to forty.

    You see our dilemma. We would either have to face the parents of sixty kids and tell them that they’d lost out to austerity, or we would have to un’trap’ enough to cover the difference. Good thing we have the dosh, innit? Mind you, after that, we’d be bouncing two nickels together, trying to get them to mate…

    In terms of operating expenses for the centres (including building upgrades/upkeep) associations system-wide already account for 55% of costs. Reasonable people will conclude that we already pay our fair share of the cost, but we’ve repeatedly attempted to steer the conversation to a new cost-sharing agreement that would see significant amounts of PB’s annual community centre operating budget being freed up (not ‘trapped’, Andrew!) to be applied to the ‘have-nots’, without grabbing the revenue.

    “…what is wrong with the PB taking some of that income to redistribute…”
    See my comments above about reasonable people – there are none so blind as those who will not see. I’ve twice corrected this mistake (once with Chris Keam, and once with Frances). What PB has now passed is an agreement (how can and agreement include only one party?) that anticipates stripping all of the revenue. Not ‘some’ of it.

    ALL. Of. It.

    There’s no way to soft-peddle all.

  • Glissando Remmy

    Thought of The Morning

    “Bolshevism is alive and kicking in Vancouver… courtesy to Vision Vancouver and Vision dominated Park Board.”

    This is the story:

    http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/Vancouver+park+board+decides+ahead+with+changes+community/7917754/story.html

    What the story doesn’t say is how the vote was taken in the early hours of the morning, cca.3:00 AM, how the Vision Vancouver hacks called the Vancouver Police as an intimidation tool against the most vocal seniors, yes… seniors, how the Vision members on the Park Board were in continuous chat with the present Vision Vancouver Executive.

    They stood there for 9 hours listening to speaker after speaker, pretending to care, when in fact their minds were pretty made up.
    Disgusting really.

    Here’s Vancouver’s 14% choice …aaron jasper… constance barnes…
    sarah blythe… niki sharma… trevor loke…

    In other news, Assholeism have reached new levels in the city by the sea, ocean, whatever…

    We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

  • waltyss

    Eric:
    The document the PB General Manager handed out last night, notwithstanding its errors, also seemed to require a sort of super group made up of CCA’s. Would they decide the programming or only what to do with any surplus.
    Sharma, ever the good soldier, on the CBC this morning was still saying they are going to negotiate.
    Again, my pea brain is having trouble deciphering what they are going to negotiate.
    I was one of the people standing outside the venue last night because the room was packed. I did not think think either side of the Park Board Commissioners acquitted themselves all that well at least until 9 pm when I left.
    What is particularly troublesome to me is that Vision is rushing a plan through that significantly risks undermining local control and involvement for no clear purpose.
    The Manager’s slide show said it wasn’t about the money. Well, sure as shootin’, it was all about the money.

  • rf

    I’m pretty confident my mother rolled over in her grave last night.

    Volunteers have been advised that their efforts to gather input from their community and solicit donations to their local community association are going to be overseen and decided by the Vision Parks Board ‘Senate’.

    Volunteers will now be forced to “lobby” to the political masters of the day for funds.

    How can they raise funds for a project in the second half of a 3-year election cycle? They can only lobby. They would not be able to know if the funds they raise will even be available to them. The fund raising will basically get skimmed by politicians.

    It’s just so wrong.

    The volunteers for the ‘have’s” will simply quit. They might as well dedicate their time and efforts to politics instead of their community.
    Politicking will be the only way to reverse this decision.

    This argument that it’s going to redistribute some equality?

    The pool of funds will shrink.

    If the so called have’s had been asked, “hey, how would you feel about ‘adopting’ and less prosperous community association in town and direct some funds their way in consultation with their community association about an absent need?”

    I honestly believe they would say “Yes, let’s keep the politicians out of it. Good idea.”

    The approach and result of last night’s meeting has got to rip the heart out of a lot of volunteers.

  • Morven

    The key message that I take from this disaster is that we no longer have any need for a Parks Board.

    The elected PB representatives continually fail to address the public interest and do not seem to have any oversight of staff or participate in developing policies.

    A new model is needed.
    -30-

  • PW

    While this might not be about the money, the money will certainly come in handy.

    But what happens when that money is gone? It won’t take long.

    I don’t understand how cc’s will be able to raise funds if they do not receive the benefits. Why would they bother? People already pay taxes. Why would they voluntarily contribute more if it is just going into the system?

  • boohoo

    “I don’t understand how cc’s will be able to raise funds if they do not receive the benefits. Why would they bother? People already pay taxes. Why would they voluntarily contribute more if it is just going into the system?”

    This and similar comments strike me as odd. Isn’t the point of volunteering to volunteer and not expect something in return? Who cares if your actions go to help someone in Killarny or Kerrisdale or Kensington?

    When I volunteer for an organization that doesn’t have a home neighbourhood or area, my time and effort gets put into helping people or whatever the objective is wherever the objective is. If I only wanted to help if I knew it was directly benefiting my neighbourhood or people I know, then it’s not truly volunteering is it?

    (No, this is not approval of or comment on anything that happened last night so please don’t go there.)

  • PW

    Well boohoo you are a high-minded and generous sort. Many people do not have your broad vision. They prefer to stay closer to home. And they volunteer their time and money in ways they can appreciate in their communities, however they define that.

    You might not like that and wish they took a more global perspective. But they don’t.

    So, rather than give more to a system they already pay taxes to, some will just not give. And in the future there will be fewer programs and less money.

  • boohoo

    “So, rather than give more to a system they already pay taxes to, some will just not give. And in the future there will be fewer programs and less money.”

    But they already give to that system.

  • PW

    Not as far as they are concerned.

  • IanS

    @boohoo #208:

    “If I only wanted to help if I knew it was directly benefiting my neighbourhood or people I know, then it’s not truly volunteering is it?”

    Not sure if I follow your thought process here. How is volunteering for a particular cause, even if you have connections with that cause, not volunteering?

    Speaking to your more general point, perhaps I’m not as enlightened as some, but I would think it easier to find volunteers to raise funds for a local daycare (by way of example) than to raise funds for the Park Board general revenue.

  • Norman

    Democracy Vision-style. Next year we can teach them how it really works.

  • boohoo

    Ian,

    I suppose it would be easier yes, I guess I look at it as volunteering for your City and not your neighbourhood.

    Just like volunteering for any other group isn’t necessarily for one specific reason or event, but rather a belief in the big picture cause. To further that, I’m talking about ‘repeat’ volunteers, not one offs for a specific event. Of course, one off volunteers are there for that one thing and are interested in seeing their efforts go towards that one thing.

  • IanS

    Well, happily (or unhappily, depending on how you look at it), we won’t be needing to speculate on this much longer, as we will soon see how this change will affect the associations and their volunteers.

    I’m hoping that Eric and others involved will provide updates, as matters develop.

  • brilliant

    @boohoo 214-why would a volunteer donate time or money directly to the PB when it might end up going to farces like the $60,000 Poodle on a Pedestal at Main and 18th?

    Like a thief in the night, Nikki “the sham” Sharma presided over a 3:30 am holdup.

  • teririch

    I read your column Frances – well measured, thank you.

    And onto the comments posted following your article …. this one struck me ‘funny’ – an interesting ‘take’ to say the least.

    I always love when (obvious)Visionistas tell us ‘Change is coming’ – very ‘unionist, NDP’ in terminology…
    And it makes me wonder about, what else is going on in the foreground that we aren’t quite clear on ….yet.
    Like referencing changes to boards and how community centres are manned. It makes me thinks that CUPE just got the ‘cha-ching’ with this latest Vision PB push thru.

    The Vision PB members can try all they like to say this in not a ‘cash grab’, but it is. That and another power grab – control.

    http://deanmalone.ca/2013/02/05/carving-a-new-way-forward-for-our-community-centres-why-fear-and-hysteria-didnt-win/

  • Boohoo

    @brilliant

    You could make that argument for any voluntary donation or effort. Just because my donation *might* go to something I personally don’t like doesn’t mean I’m going to stop volunteering for that group ever again. Why would it?

  • spartikus

    I always love when (obvious)Visionistas tell us ‘Change is coming’ – very ‘unionist, NDP’ in terminology…

    Indeed.

  • waltyss

    @aterrich#219. I am opposed to the steps the PB has taken but as I listen to some of the ridiculous comments by my fellow travellers I am starting to wonder about my position.
    Because you are for change, you are a “unionist, NDP” er? Like the American President, for example?
    But even if someone saying that is a member of a union or an NDP supporter (this covers 46% of registered voters), are they not entitled to have a position. You may say that well, their views are predictable. But, you know what, that is particularly true of your expressions: according to you anyone who is a member of a union or an NDP supporter is not entitled to speak or is by virtue of that fact, wrong.
    And teririch, what do you say about the contribution by the NPA troll at #203. I guess that is the opposite: a classy free enterprise NPA contribution.
    A friend of mine who is opposed to abortion for religious reasons once told me that the only thing that could make her pro choice was listening to her fellow anti-abortionists. I am feeling the same way even as I continue to believe that the Vision board made a major and remarkably ill advised move last night.

  • Silly Season

    @waltyss #220

    I think you’re being a bit hard on @teririch.

    I too am speculating on where the money will go–and if more union staff will be hired—to replace volunteer positions?

    As I mentioned way up high on this thread, not a peep on this report or the cc associations from CUPE Local 15 Prez, Paul Faoro. Who was very vocal and ever present at Park Board all candidates meetings during the last 2 civic elections.

    I am curious – since, in 2009, he was screaming about proposed union staff layoffs—at PB run cc facilities. Did that happen? And if it did, how did it affect operations? Is now, then, the time to add more union staff? Why? And with what money? Hmmm.

    I really don’t know if staffing levels at PB run facilities have fallen/risen? Anyone know?

    Here’s what struck me about the money ‘thing’—once PB gets it’s hands on it, it will go to where they want it to go. In other words, it can’t but help ‘go political’ (regardless of which party is in power).

    So, if you want to ‘add services/programs’ —as PB GM Malcolm Bromley stated they wanted to do—does that include new, union hires? That cost may perhaps be an important distinction in way PB run vs Association run facilities? And, would they be replacing volunteers—or non-union staff?

    BTW, wish I’d known you were at the meeting. I too was standing outside, in the hallway.

    Ah, two ships passing, in that very lonnnnnnnnnng night… ;-)

  • Higgins

    I’m disgusted by what happened last night. I wasn’t there, but I read about. ALL Vision commissioners are nothing but a bunch of heartless lying, hypocrite thugs. they could have simply saved us the drama and rubber stamp it last month in Penny Ballem’s office.
    If anyone on this thread dares to tell me that Vision Vancouver is a nice, caring, democratic party, I’ll have to break Frances ‘bad words’ gag order and tell them my take on that…
    Ok, who’s first?

  • waltyss

    @Silly Season When at 9 pm they had not gotten to the 10th speaker and my meter had run out, and work in the morning was beckoning, I decided to leave.
    A CUPE rep was on the speaker’s list but the person spoke after I left.
    I don’t know if Faoro was “screaming” in 2009 about staff cuts. He did allege that the City had violated the Labour Code by not giving proper notice of cuts and negotiating either the cuts or severance or the like. I am unaware of any décision that was rendered but I expect that the City and CUPE negotiated something.
    While as I have said, I think this was an ill advised move whose implications are unknown, I very much doubt it is to create more union jobs. That would lead to programme cuts and that is not where I think they want to go.

  • Silly Season

    @Waltyss

    They had free ‘event’ parking under the wecc for the PB meeting. I just stumbled on it, by accident. This might be ironic on several levesls…

    today, I think Adrienne Carr called for some kind of accounting of where funds would go (a motion she will bring at City Hall?). I too, was becoming zoned out, after hours at the community centre.

    So, we shall see, we shall see. Perhaps, it was all a dream…

  • Terry M

    It seems that no one is interested in any other post than this one!
    Higgi baby @222 second you on that 100%!
    Waltyss… 220
    “And teririch, what do you say about the contribution by the NPA troll at #203. I guess that is the opposite: a classy free enterprise NPA contribution.”
    You are the biggest troll of all, Waltyss, NPA, Vision, COPE, you name it…
    What happened Frances? “Troll” is not on your banned words list?

  • teririch

    @Silly Season #221:

    My ‘conspiracy theory’ or outline thereof…

    I am going to throw this into the ring….

    Last year, PB Commish Sarah Blyth was ‘suggesting’ the CC s be made open to the ‘homeless’ for showering and toiletry purposes.

    Vision wants to ‘solve’ homeless by 2015 (either homeless or the revised street homeless).

    Services for the homeless get rolled into the CC’s in some form or another and under some sort of mandate – letting go of some of the HEAT shelters which find it hard to secure space- yet employing CUPE staffers and retaining some fundraising efforts.

    It was interesting seeing some of the early ‘pro’ speakers at the PB meeting – knowing their background and what they are pushing / advocating for. #DTES

    So… the ball is into everybody’s court…

    After all as we have been told by the Visonistas…’Change is coming’…..

  • teririch

    @Spartikus #219;

    No worries. We all know what side your bread is buttered on.

  • teririch

    @Spartikus#219:

    And one more thing.

    From the taxpayers funding your lifestyle and retirement…. You are welcome.

  • waltyss

    @Spartikus #219: Methinks that teri the rich doesn’t have a sense of humour. Even as she seems to think that “change” is a left wing, unionist, NDP word (ie. bad, according to the rich), she fails to see that it is used by such commies as Obama (actually she probably thinks he is a commie) and her own beloved NPA.
    Come on, teri, lighten up. I’m sure the NPA troll can put up a You tube link to Lois Armstrong singing “What a wonderful world”. Or is the word ” world” too left wing for you. Kind of commise you know, world domination, world socialist league, that kind of stuff.

    And you know what, it really is.

  • teririch

    @Waltysss #229:

    Tell me again what the NDP Layton slogan was again…? And if you want to point to Obama with the ‘Change is coming’ tag line….

    And let up on the troll bit. You have no more right to point that finger at anyone lest you look in the mirror and point it at yourself.

    Just saying.

  • https://twitter.com/glissandoremmy Glissando Remmy

    Thought of The Night

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU

    I hurriedly went to see which NPA troll was Waltyss talking about in his remarkable 220.
    Me? Awww…

    “Well, ain’t that nice!?”

    What a sweet Piece of Strudel you are my dearest.
    Tell me, what exactly did I say wrong? Too much? Exaggerating? What?

    Calling me an NPA troll?
    Again, and again, and again.
    No problemo! Thank you!
    Drink up!

    I have a confession to make though.
    I already know that your neighborhood is full of Asphalt Holes. Damn City Hall! But in all fairness, nice people walking by, some looking like Jerry Kiss, proudly wearing organic cotton or even hemp T-shirts from FrenchConnectionUK. You!?
    What do you like to wear?
    Who’s to say you are not one of them hipsters, eh?

    Anyhoo.
    Nice catching up with you.
    Now, you take care.

    We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

  • https://twitter.com/glissandoremmy Glissando Remmy

    Thought of The Night

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU

    I hurriedly went to see which NPA troll was Waltyss talking about in his remarkable 220.
    Me? Awww…

    “Well, ain’t that nice!?”

    What a sweet Piece of Strudel you are my dearest.
    Tell me, what exactly did I say wrong? Too much? Exaggerating? What?

    Calling me an NPA troll?
    Again, and again, and again.
    No problemo! Thank you!
    Drink up!

    I have a confession to make though.
    I already know that your neighborhood is full of Asphalt Holes. Damn City Hall! But in all fairness, nice people walking by, some looking like Jerry Kiss, proudly wearing organic cotton or even hemp T-shirts from FrenchConnectionUK. You!?
    What do you like to wear?
    Who’s to say you are not one of them hipsters, eh?

    Anyhoo.
    Nice catching up with you.
    Now, you take care.

    We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

  • jenables

    argh, I tried to write this twice already but failed. to morven #200 you actually interpreted my comment completely opposite to what I was trying to say. I do NOT think we should defer to the city. maybe it was my terrible grammar. secondly, boohoo, you have got to be one of the most bitter idealists I’ve come across. please don’t take that the wrong way, I’m not trying to be rude. it’s perfectly ok to want to volunteer your efforts to an association you trust, and it’s also perfectly ok to not trust your civic government, especially when it comes to how they spend our money. it’s actually also ok to want your volunteer time to benefit your neighborhood too. it’s not selfish, and it doesn’t undermine anyone’s contribution if they don’t wish to continue to volunteer under these circumstances. maybe I misunderstood you?

  • boohoo

    Bitter idealist?

    I’m not bitter–like I said, I don’t actually care about this particular issue all that much. For me it’s the bigger picture issues that this type of thing draws out.

    I agree, you can volunteer to whoever, however you want. But when that volunteering comes with conditions, or threats that you’ll stop volunteering if you don’t like every decision they group makes, well, I find that odd.

    I hate certain pieces of art in the art gallery but that wouldn’t stop me from volunteering/donating to the art gallery because the bigger picture cause is worth it.

    But like I said, my bigger picture issue is the whole process. The he said/she said fight. This is going to happen again, and we’ll have learned nothing from this except neither sides trusts the other. How can we move past that?

  • Mira

    boo #233
    ” For me it’s the bigger picture issues that this type of thing draws out.”
    Do you agree that one has to go through hours of arithmetic homework in elementary school before dreaming of becoming a rocket scientists?
    Vision, Ballem, Robertson they all are pretend rocket scientists with no formal education, inside their own spaceship… circumventing the globe, and having no understanding on how they got there. Aliens kidnapping?
    The troubling part … there is no spaceship. It’s all in their minds!
    Ha.

  • boohoo

    Mira,

    I don’t even…?

  • rf

    Really boohoo?
    So here’s the scenario:

    You’re a volunteer at the Art Gallery.
    A new city council is elected and they decide “forget what the Art Gallery board things” and that the Vancouver Art Gallery will now only specialize in Art involving Genitals.

    The new goal of City Council is to make the Vancouver Art Gallery the world’s greatest exhibition of art exclusively dedicated to Animal and Human genitals.

    No more Emily Carr, No more Fred Herzog, bye bye Ian Wallace. If it features more than genitals, it won’t be displayed.

    Do you still want to volunteer? Or are you going to volunteer at a different art gallery, where the board of that gallery decides what to do, since they know the patrons best?

  • boohoo

    rf,

    That’s a great scenario. When the Parks Board decides to ban all swimming, gymnastics and other activities supported by the centers and replace them with all abstract genital painting, then your scenario might be relevant.

    This is exactly the kind of ridiculous exaggeration and over the top kind of thing I’m talking about. It gets the discussion nowhere. Just pits us vs them. I guess some people like the fight.

  • rf

    “forget what the art gallery board “thinks” ” – freudian…

  • waltyss

    @235. Don’t even bother. The incorrect assumption would be that there is logic in the comment. There isn’t.
    On the volunteering thing, people volunteer for different reasons and with different aims. When I go to a Dunbar Little League baseball game and somebody attempts to sell me a raffle ticket for Dunbar Little League, then I will feel more than a little ripped off if I suddenly find out the raffle ticket if for Vancouver Little League.
    It will almost certainly be the case that people will volunteer at community centres even with centralized control. However, in my view, it will almost certainly be less than what it is now. What particularly burns me about this decision (whatever it may be as we have the unfortunate Ms. Sharma saying that it is something different than the words in the proposal voted on) is that without having any evidence of what the effect would be on the present volunteers, the Vision PB Commissioners blithely voted to centralize.
    There were real issues with passes but those appear to have been solved.
    With regard to the equity issue, and it is a real issue, the correct approach would have been to look at how to remedy it, rather than upend the entire system without regard to what effect it will have on volunteerism and the ability of CCA’s to run programmes responsive to their own neighbourhoods.
    Anyway, I am now waiting to see how negotiations go and remain cautiously optimistic in light of what even a tone deaf PB must realize is a significant outcry.

  • rf

    What’s ridiculous is your little hollier than thou, world’s most passive volunteer “angle”.

    It honestly seems contrived.
    It’s like your slipping on this thread…and you’ve been pretty good for a while at doing nothing more than posting neutral wishy washy statements for whatever reason ever since your Civic Scene site got shut down.

    Check your seal…..green might be leaking out.

  • rf

    @239
    nice pun on “blithely” !

  • boohoo

    Civic scene?

    I don’t know who you think I am, but I’m not the boogey man you (and others…) make me out to be.

    But can you not at least admit this whole thing is poisoned with fault for that falling on both sides?

  • rf

    I’m not sure I can fault the volunteers that have taken issue with this thing. The entire system just got changed and they had about a week to react.
    And now it’s done.

    How can you fault having concerns and frustrations with that?

    If Vision PB ran on a platform to do this…..I can live with it.
    But they didn’t.

    I agree with the HST..100%…..but I can understand why people went nuts when it came in without pre-election mention.

    People didn’t care about the details and why, nor did they want to trust that it would just work out.

    But that’s what Vision is asking everyone to do…yet they, and you, seem to expect people to react differently.

    Same shoe. Different foot.

  • boohoo

    rf,

    Again, I’m talking big picture. Whether it is this or development x, y or z. It’s always a fight. It doesn’t need to be that way and it’s the fault of both sides for letting it get that way.

  • rf

    oh Yawn……’ it doesn’t need to be this way…’, ‘Don’t worry, be happy’, “hakuna matata”, “hasa diba egowai”. Good work on getting back to neutral wishy washy.

    The only places left on this planet where there are no public political fights are Cuba and North Korea dude.
    Of course it’s all a fight. It’s call democracy.

    If you are quiet, no one listens and you get run over. “First they came…” etc..

    Like I said at the beginning of this thread. The only thing I like about it is it may actually be a tide turning issue where democracy will make the final decision.

  • boohoo

    Ok, sure.

    You, as always, take the extreme position to make a straw man and then dismiss my actual point.

    Good job.

  • jenables

    when there is an issue I am interested in, when I am asking myself whose side do I listen to, I tend to look at who is imposing their will on who. ( please don’t retort with ridiculous examples where police who are imposing their will on criminals must be wrong, just think about it)

  • thegeebee

    A question:
    Killarney Bingo Hall that was on Pender near Nanaimo Street. I understand that is was sold. Who owned the building and what was the final sale price?

  • lac member

    wow this is crazy. All I would like is to use my lac at every cc fitness center.(even those cc fitness centers who currently do not accept the LAC ) I understand the idea is complex but why cant a universal card work for streamlined similar cc fitness facilities in Vancouver?

    The local cc gets the membership fee, the fitness center gets the monthly fee/or divided portion thereof. Why does everything else need to change ?

    One portion of fitness center money would go back into a general revenues of parks board that enables other cc fitness centers acquire more equipment(or whatever they deem necessary to do).

    The other portion, (Each cc fitness center can negotiate a revenue sharing agreement based upon that individual cc involvement with the fitness facility) would remain at the local cc.

    ie one cc association fitness center entirely stocked the center with equipment then perhaps 60+ % of generated income stays within that local cc general revenues to provide local programs deemed worthy by the local volunteer elected cc board.

    If in another cc the parks board funded the entire fitness center then most 60%+ revenue generated would flow back to park board general revenue for fitness centers in other communities.

    Thus no control of cc by parks board is necessary, the local cc gets their share (whatever that maybe), and parks board gets their share to fund other cc fitness centers properly and expand.

    The result; the community is happy that the cc remains based in their own community and are not politicized(at least not more than it is already). In addition, local individual cc involvement is recognised by revenue sharing from fitness centers. Furthermore, local programs stay local. Not to mention parks board get their cut to finance other facilities. FINALLY, MOST IMPORTANTLY, MY LAC CARD WILL BE ACCEPTED THROUGHOUT THE CITY YEAH!

    now call me stupid but why cant something like this work or something similar?