Quick links to news today.
- The lenders for Millennium Development’s Evelyn Drive project have gone to court to start foreclosure proceedings, according to the CBC. A real blow for Millennium, even more than the village receivership in a way. It came the morning after Bob Rennie praised them for all the work they’d done on the village at the annual Urban Development Institute awards dinner on Wednesday.
- The first of the city’s extra four emergency winter shelters opened yesterday, within 48 hours of the announcement by Housing Minister Rich Coleman that he would provide funding after all.
- Park board commissioner Ian Robertson, with Green Party commission Stuart Mackinnon (hmm, looks like an alliance forming there) blasts the Visionista parkies for their willingness to accept more big cuts.
Here’s the news release
VISION VANCOUVER’S CUTS TO PARK BOARD BUDGET HIT HISTORIC HIGH
Reductions to Park Board operating budget four times higher under Vision Vancouver’s watch
Vancouver, BC – Vancouver Park Board Commissioners Ian Robertson and Stuart Mackinnon are calling on Vision Vancouver to return the park board’s operating budget to historic levels. Since being elected in 2008 the Vision Vancouver park board caucus has slashed the Board’s operating budget more than four times more than the previous three boards combined.
“This is another example of the Vision Vancouver park board caucus not advocating for the protection and adequate funding of the park board. Clearly they are getting their marching orders from the Mayor’s office on how to vote. It’s time they stand up and say no more cuts”, says Park Board Commissioner Ian Robertson. “It’s clear that the Mayor and his colleagues have decided that chicken coops and bike lanes are more important than community centre programs for children and the elderly. This shouldn’t be about politics, it should be about supporting families and the aged.”
“The Vision Vancouver commissioners have the opportunity this year to finally stand up to their city council comrades and say enough is enough. It is now time to start re-investing in our parks; time to encourage recreation”, adds Commissioner Mackinnon. “Times are tough—I know that. But when the economy is hardest hit is when people need their neighbourhood parks and recreational services the most”.
The board’s operating budget has been reduced by $5.3 million since 2009 versus $1.2 million in the previous eight years combined. Recreation services has seen the biggest reduction within the board’s operating budget since Vision Vancouver took power with over $2 million being cut which has resulted in valuable children’s summer programs being eliminated.
71 responses so far ↓
1 Jason King // Nov 26, 2010 at 10:07 am
I guess Parks aren’t “green” enough for Vision’s “green agenda”.
Dying to hear the SPIN on this one…..
2 JamieLee // Nov 26, 2010 at 11:49 am
What I don’t understand about Commissioner Robertson’s stance is that he voted with Vision to cut free programs to children under 6 years of age. Plus for Commissioner MacKinnon to align with Mr Robertson when he Mr MacKinnon voted against Mr Robertson on this critical issue seems odd. While I understand that Commissioner MacKinnon is part of an electoral alliance with Vision and COPE, it seems strange that Mr MacKinnon would not have chosen perhaps to a joint release with the 3rd party in the Alliance which is COPE Commissioner Loretta Woodcock who actually voted against the Vision cuts.
3 Joe Just Joe // Nov 26, 2010 at 1:40 pm
I won’t get into the politics about the budget process. I recommend reading the following document, some of the cuts being proposed are mind boggling to me. Closing washrooms, not cleaning them, not cutting the grass. I’m awed.
http://vancouver.ca/parks/board/2010/101129/2011BudgetInitiatives.pdf
4 Westender1 // Nov 26, 2010 at 5:11 pm
I’m confused as to why I was hearing Raymond Louie on the radio this morning saying “We’ve resolved the budget deficit through service-adjustments (is that different than cuts?) and have limited the property tax increase to 2%. ”
If the Park Board doesn’t yet know what its budget is, how can the City have resolved how much money it doesn’t have to give to the Park Board?
5 Bobbie Bees // Nov 26, 2010 at 11:19 pm
After having worked on Aaron Jasper’s campaigns I can tell everyone here. That was the first time I ever worked with a politician and that will be the last time as well.
I’ve never felt so dirty in my life.
If I knew then what I know know about the direction Aaron was going to steer the park board I would have told him to kiss my a$$ when he asked me for my assistance.
In fact, both him and Raj and kiss my a$$ until hell freezes over.
6 Bill McCreery // Nov 27, 2010 at 12:10 am
This is more of the same old. Last year @ this time it was, among other things: Bloedel, Farmyard, CC hours, programmes & staff jobs slashed. There is NO PARK BOARD PRESENCE in the communities around the City advocating for parks & recreation facilities. The list goes on.
7 Deacon Blue // Nov 27, 2010 at 2:07 am
It is always difficult to know how closely linked financing is for major projects in any given region. The worst case scenario for the OV woes is that it sets off a chain reaction.
8 Tak // Nov 27, 2010 at 11:23 am
Not cleaning washrooms. or closing them? That’s disgusting. Some of the money wasted on bike lanes should have gone towards this.
9 Tessa // Nov 27, 2010 at 1:56 pm
@Tak: Can we cut the bike lane capital funding should have been spent on operational funding impossibility already? It’s not allowed, and even if it were, the money is a one time pot and next year they would face the same problem.
The problem is the tax shift to business means that residents get a four per cent tax increase, businesses get no tax increase (the equivilant of a tax break), and Vision has locked themselves into that plan without caring for the impacts on residents and the city. Raise some extra money from businesses and let’s fund these services already.
10 Tessa // Nov 27, 2010 at 1:59 pm
…by the way, if there’s any possibility (and I don’t know the answer to this) to raise money only from chain stores, or bigger businesses, etc., rather than small business, that would be even better.
11 Todd // Nov 27, 2010 at 5:08 pm
We have to close washrooms, not clean them, and not cut the grass?
Speaking of the illustrious bike lanes… during the latest snowfall the downtown bike lanes had special snow-removal equipment keeping them clear of snow all day long – and nobody was riding their bikes! LOL
Either CTV News or Global News carried that item. The visuals were silly. And the city
engineer’s response to same was even more bizarre.
Nix that idiocy, shut down the bike lanes during a snowfall and place those funds to keep washrooms open, cleaned and the grass cut as well. Sigh.
12 Bill McCreery // Nov 27, 2010 at 6:59 pm
An interesting idea Todd, could Chris Keam & co let us what they think about this tradeoff. Here’s the choices:
1] clean bike lanes but, a lot of un-snow cleared bike lane & no bike lane streets in a cyclist’s commute, in considerably more hazardous riding conditions &, with a very small user group who could use other transportation modes considerably more safely;
2] don’t clean bike lanes but, keep washrooms open, & clean, and cut the grass & cyclists take alternate transit more safely.
What do you think Chris?
13 spartikus // Nov 27, 2010 at 7:07 pm
and nobody was riding their bikes!
I didn’t ride, but I did count 11 cyclists on 7th Ave / Cambie Bridge that day (this is both morning and evening commute). And one jogger. Pedestrians down approximately 50%
FWIW
14 Richard // Nov 27, 2010 at 7:10 pm
@Bill McCreery
Rather a false choice Bill, we can afford to clear bike lanes and keep washrooms open and clean.
In cities like Copenhagen and Boulder Co., they clear the bike lanes before they clear the roads. In Copenhagen, 40% of cyclists continue to ride through the winter.
Even in Montreal, the snowiest major city in the world, they are starting to keep bike paths open in the winter by clearing the snow.
During the cold snap, there were still lots of people cycling on Dunsmuir Street. Sure, there are a few days when cycling is a big iffy due to snow and ice but the same can be said for driving.
15 Todd // Nov 27, 2010 at 7:49 pm
I don’t believe that anyone here “gets it” yet.
Vancouver has a large cycling network. That non-dedicated cycling network was not plowed during the recent snow storm.
The ONLY bike lanes that were plowed – with special snow removal equipment (has that been purchased recently?) were the “dedicated” Hornby and Dunsmuir bike lanes! LOL
Not even the dedicated Burrard St. bridge bike lane was plowed. Not even any other non-dedicated bike lanes within the City of Vancouver was plowed.
Just the dedicated downtown bike lanes were plowed! LOL
Hmmmmm…. how is anybody able to reach the plowed dedicated downtown bike lanes through snowed covered bike lanes outside that realm?
The television news camera was on site that snowy day and it was one of the silliest/goofiest optics that I’ve ever seen! Seriously.
Certainly Saturday Night Live/Jay Leno material.
16 landlord // Nov 27, 2010 at 8:49 pm
@Tessa: the old “make someone else pay for the services I want” argument.
Never mind that the business rate is 5 times the residential rate. If you owned a business (or worked for one) you would know that , whatever the balance between business and residential rates, businesses don’t pay any taxes. None whatsoever. Taxes are overhead, like rent and salaries and insurance and heat. YOU pay the overhead through increased prices on all the things business sells to you.
Business doesn’t have a secret bag of money we can loot to continue the City’s out-of-control spending spree, any more than you or I do.
Look at Iceland or Ireland or Spain or Portugal. When governments bribe voters with borrowed money (in the case of Olympic Village $750 Million), the loans eventually have to be paid back. There are only 2 ways governments can do this: cutting spending on the things you need and raising taxes, increasing your cost of living. Both policies kill businesses and take services away from the poor old taxpayer and hand control of the City’s operating budget over to a bank.
Closed washrooms and higher community centre fees? That’s nothing. Thanks to Vision’s incompetence you’ll pay more and get less.
You’re going to see every City department cut way back on everything: garbage pick-up, policing, road repairs, fewer staff processing permits and licences, in short everything (what Coun.Louie likes to call “service adjustments”). No-one has suggested rolling back the salary and expenses of the Mayor and Council, but they will. Starting with me: if this Council wants to show real leadership and a willingness to share the voter’s pain, they should reduce their salaries by 10% at once and commit to a further 10% reduction in every year in which the property tax increases more than 2%.
Don’t hold your breath. When time are tough the peasants have to tighten their belts but the Visionaries do not.
17 Mark Allerton // Nov 27, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Perhaps we could take Bill’s logic even further, and only clear the bus lanes – which would be a huge cost saving – and tell car drivers to take transit.
I mean, have you seen Vancouver drivers in the snow? That’s definitely a group that could use other modes of transport considerably more safely.
Right on Bill! I like the way you think!
18 Richard // Nov 27, 2010 at 9:42 pm
@Todd
The dedicated lane on Burrard Bridge was cleared. Agreed that the bikeways should be cleared as well.
@Bill
The whole snow clearing budget is around $700,000 per year I believe. The cost of clearing bike routes is going to be a small portion of that. Not doing it will not save that much money.
19 Glissando Remmy // Nov 28, 2010 at 2:04 am
The Thought of The Night
“To use a snowplough to clear a bike lane…it’s like they do in some Middle Eastern countries, where some, chauffeur their Goats to the nearby grass patch.”
Richard, darling,
Your arguments are so weak that they could be mistaken for a corpse. Bikes do not deliver goods, do not carry more than one nitwit at a time, and do not respond to accidents, fires or police matters.
That’s why you clear the ‘car lanes’ in a CITY!
You ‘critically massed ‘all over you!
To waste public monies, and add to the already polluted city by allowing a truck or more to serve a handful of bicycling crazies is simply wasteful and hypocritical. That’s why we have public transit.
And by the way, I haven’t heard of bicycle snow tires ‘on sale’ anywhere in the city. The irony is, that by the time that day was over, the rain took care of ALL the LANES regardless…
You ask me about those lanes again, next snow fall? Sure, useless work on union wages during a financial restrained time.
You want to find out more about this, directly from the source, oops, you can’t, that’s what the Ballem’s gag order is for. You ask your Water Boy about it, he’ll say the question is too direct. The content is too ideological.
Of course, for him it is.
I understand that after VISION implanted all their friends and sucker upperis, in top managerial positions at the Hall, hence finding ways to enrich their brethren, now that their future is assured, I’m asking, what about Vancouver taxpayers’ future? But, that might be too ideological!
Mea Culpa.
BTW, Vancouver is no Copenhagen. Stop hyperventilating. Here’s your average Vancouver biker, portrayed by the master, Jacques…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emSnZvoSfeE&playnext=1&list=PL319632F2215C4E34&index=42
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
20 IanS // Nov 28, 2010 at 6:15 am
@Bill #12,
That’s a bit of a false choice Bill. As I’m sure you know better than I, there are many aspects to the City’s budget for various different items. I don’t think a zero sum dollars for bike lanes vs. dollars for washrooms is a fair characterization.
Having said that, viewed as a whole, I think it’s fair to say that Vision has made separated bike lanes one of its major priorities and, rightly or wrongly, has allocated a good deal of resources for that project. Naturally, when you allocate resources for one thing, there are less for others.
In my opinion, that money does not seem to have been well spent and Vision’s insistence in proceeding with the Hornby Bike lane in the face of the available data is one of the reasons I will not be voting for Vision candidates again. No doubt, others feel differently.
21 Chris Keam // Nov 28, 2010 at 9:51 am
“To waste public monies, and add to the already polluted city by allowing a truck or more to serve a handful of bicycling crazies is simply wasteful and hypocritical. ”
The equipment used for the bike lanes isn’t a truck. It’s a small snow-blower type machine… and it’s also used for the Seawall, as is mentioned in most of the news reports on the topic I read. But facts are inconvenient when they don’t fit the narrative.
Bill:
What do I think? I think bike lanes and chickens are the talking points the NPA is using to demonize its rival for control of Council. As a strategy I think it will end up having the staying power of the ill-chosen Vancouver First moniker that was bandied about. Oh, and community gardens. The horror, the horror. People growing food. Small potatoes IMO and it would be great to see the NPA tackle more substantive issues. That’s what I think.
There are such a thing as studded snow tires for sale, but it’s possible to get by with knobby mountain bike tires to ride in snow.
22 Chris Keam // Nov 28, 2010 at 9:53 am
“Bikes do not deliver goods, do not carry more than one nitwit at a time, and do not respond to accidents, fires or police matters.”
Just like the majority of Vancouver automobiles.
23 Bill // Nov 28, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Chris, you have done an amazing job in convincing a surprising number of people that something that is now relegated to a form of recreation – the bicycle – is actually a meaningful solution to our transportation issues. Similarly, chickens and urban gardens are hobbies and should not be confused with being an important source of our food supply. Before taking too much satisfaction with your success, I suggest reading Margaret Wente in the Saturday’s globe where she talks about the disservice the climate alarmists have done to the environmental movement by taking away attention from immediate environmental concerns and losing all credibility with the “science is settled” mentality. There is a parallel between the focus on segregated bicycle lanes taking away from the real issue of offering meaningful transportation alternatives.
24 Bill McCreery // Nov 28, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Mostly great comment from both solitudes. As you know I favour a safe bike lane system downtown. My ? was intended to suggest the City needs to prioritize the entire budget decision-making process so that it is fine tuned to a point it is sensible, cost effective & accepted by all stakeholders. Because of Vision’s ram it mentality that isn’t happening.
Evidently we can’t “afford to clear bike lanes and keep washrooms open and clean” or other Park Board services. LOL, even Aaron Jasper is finally starting to make noises about how far the cuts are going into the Pk Bd budget & their ability to deliver even their so called ‘core services’.
“The whole snow clearing budget is around $700,000 per year I believe. The cost of clearing bike routes is going to be a small portion of that. Not doing it will not save that much money.”
This is a Ms Ballem attitude Richard – whatever the cost, it doesn’t amount to hill of beans. Well, in addition to dealing with Pk Bd budgets I’ve run my practice for 38 years & know from experience the little costs do matter. They have a scary way of adding up & then biting you were it hurts.
25 Bill McCreery // Nov 28, 2010 at 1:18 pm
I should add; in addition to the solitudes, there are some stimulating observations from those who I gather may be offended @ being in a solitude.
26 West End Gal // Nov 28, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Glissy,
you were bang on, when you said “You ask me about those lanes again, next snow fall? Sure, useless work on union wages during a financial restrained time.”
That’s how Vision keep some departments happy. Oh, yes Chris K, that’s wise!
Bill McCreery,
“This is a Ms Ballem attitude”
Absolutely! Someone needs to tell this not so lady, to bend over put her head between her legs and try to kiss her ass good bye, because she needs to go. Like, yesterday…
27 Chris Keam // Nov 28, 2010 at 1:58 pm
@Bill
I think you should take your premise that bikes aren’t viable for transportation and run with it.
How you would fund and prioritize the additional road and bus capacity necessary to re-introduce the tens of thousands of current bike commuters into the bus and automobile transportation network?
28 West End Gal // Nov 28, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Chris,
“tens of thousands of current bike commuters” LOL
It’s a pity you can’t claim you have 14 fingers at your left hand, three toes a foot and one mile long Dingy. But you could always try!
29 Chris Keam // Nov 28, 2010 at 2:14 pm
West End Gal:
Feel free to disprove the statistic.
30 Bill // Nov 28, 2010 at 2:23 pm
@Chris,
Solar and wind power are not realistic sources of energy because there will be times when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow so you still need to build alternative capacity for those occasions and the subsidies they require can devastate an economy (see Spain). So why not skip a very expensive step and build the alternative capacity. Similarly bicycles are limited due to weather and not very practical for picking up your Billy bookcases from Ikea or visiting the relatives in Cloverdale or taking Grandma to see the doctor. I’m all in favour of spending tax dollars for bicycle pathways suitable for recreation such as on the seawalls but not for segregated bicycle paths. As for the “tens of thousands of current bike commuters”, would they not continue commute whether there are segregated bicycle lanes or not?
31 TVK // Nov 28, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Let’s all just relax & accept that we as a city and as a nation are too damned ignorant, inbred & inept to govern ourselves.
Welcome to New Philippinea. Enjoy the show.
32 landlord // Nov 28, 2010 at 5:47 pm
@CK: tens of thousands of current bike commuters? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Is there any evidence to support your assertion? It suggests at least 20,000 bike commuters. Is that per day in Vancouver, or BC, or worldwide, or just in Copenhagen? Who did the counting, when and where?
33 Chris Keam // Nov 28, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Nothing extraordinary about the claim landlord. Take a look at cycling statistics for Vancouver.
Bill:
Absolutism when it comes to transport mode makes no sense. Drive if you have to go to Cloverdale or need to buy a bookcase. Nobody expects the typical driver to always drive everywhere. Why is that even a part of the debate when it comes to cycling?
Weather isn’t as big a factor as you might think. Cycling infrastructure is a good investment. That’s why Vancouver is just one of many cities embarking on similar programs.
34 Richard // Nov 28, 2010 at 6:23 pm
@Bill McCreery
Ironically you seem to be concerned about rising expenses yet at least in past comments, you have called for costly business impact studies for bike lanes without producing any evidence from the hundreds of cities that have implemented separated bike lane that there are negative impacts on businesses. Nor have you bothered to produce an example of such a study. It would not seem like a wise use of tens or even hundreds dollars of taxpayers for studies that would likely not even be able to quantify what the impacts would be with any degree of accurately.
Yes, I understand the temptation to undertake endless studies to avoid making politically challenging decisions, but in the end, these decisions still have to be made and delaying the inevitable on serves to cost taxpayers money in the end. Burrard Bridge, for example, took 18 years and millions of dollars of studies, including $2 million to figure out that widening the bridge was twice expensive as expected. The trial was actually less expensive than the planning work for the widening.
You also might be interested in the planned separated bike lanes in Ottawa. They have had a much lengthier process yet neither the businesses nor the cyclists are particularly pleased with the result of all that studying. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/travel/Bank+Street+business+association+fight+plan+Laurier+bike+lanes/3894002/story.html
You state “As you know I favour a safe bike lane system downtown.” yet you don’t think that money should be spent in the winter to keep them safe and instead the money should be spent for cutting grass. Might want to reexamine your priorities.
35 landlord // Nov 28, 2010 at 9:34 pm
@CK: the “cycling statistics for Vancouver” were compiled to help sell a decision which was made in advance and without consulting the public, and thus have no credibility. As I often say, consider the source.
@Richard & Chris: it’s good to have a hobby and riding a bike is indisputably good for the health of the rider and the planet. But it’s just a hobby, not a religion. You over-sell compulsively. You want McCreery to re-examine his priorities, but you only have one priority, repeated ad nauseum. At least McCreery can discuss more than one topic.
Good ideas have a way of spreading under their own steam (so to speak) without obsessive promotion or advertising. Leaping to the defence of the bike at the slightest hint of criticism is a bit defensive and, I’m sorry to say, boring and bit tedious. By now everyone knows your posts always come down to “Two wheels good, four wheels bad”. Repeat it often enough with slight variations and questionable stats and you’re just beating a dead horse (to coin yet another transportation phrase).
BTW, holding Ottawa up as an example to be followed might work in Toronto, but this is Vancouver where everyone knows that the only reason people ride a bike is because they can’t afford a car and are too anti-social to take the bus.
36 Richard // Nov 28, 2010 at 10:02 pm
@landlord
Just trying to counter all the misinformation being spread around.
This statement is ridiculous, insulting and not true, “…Vancouver where everyone knows that the only reason people ride a bike is because they can’t afford a car and are too anti-social to take the bus.” Funny, other commenters accuse cyclists of being rich elitists taking money away from the homeless. Talk about flailing away.
You who the people who cycle in Vancouver a big apology.
37 landlord // Nov 28, 2010 at 10:58 pm
@Richard: If you could take a joke people might have more time for your unrelentingly sanctimonious and resolutely dull and earnest velo-evangelism. Besides, it’s members of this Council who are the rich elitists taking money away from the homeless and instead giving it to some bank.
Cyclists are like everybody else, if some desperate politician is willing to close public toilets or gouge infants so cyclists can indulge in their outdated and inefficient method of travel, they’ll take it. Particularly if someone else picks up the tab or suffers the unpleasant side-effects.
Personally I have reached the point where I’d be willing to give you guys the Cambie bridge for your exclusive use if you’d just let it drop. There are so many more important issues facing the citizens of Vancouver. Bicycles and the people who ride them should be way, way down the list.
38 Todd // Nov 29, 2010 at 5:27 am
Chris Keam said:
“Weather isn’t as big a factor as you might think.”
——————————————–
Hmmmm…. so it’s apparent that you are actually corroborating what someone posted elsewhere:
“BTW it’s snowing hard outside. Just saw Chris Keam crossing Burrard Bridge on his bike. He’s on a Burrard-Hornby-Dunsmuir loop marathon, one man show. He does it for the good of the Party. Back wheel is adjusted with an improvised ski. If that’s not a Vision I don’t know what is!”
39 Chris Keam // Nov 29, 2010 at 7:11 am
It’s funny how fast the anti-cycling brigade jumps to “Geez, can’t you take a joke.” when they called out for bigotry and the weakness of their arguments. Classic.
40 landlord // Nov 29, 2010 at 7:42 am
Anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot? Like I said, it’s a hobby, not a religion. Get over yourself.
41 Chris Keam // Nov 29, 2010 at 7:53 am
Anyone who bores you isn’t allowed to speak their mind? Get over yourself.
Yes, you are a bigot. Reread your posts. You ridicule and marginalize people because they don’t share your worldview. Textbook example.
42 spartikus // Nov 29, 2010 at 8:06 am
The City of Vancouver estimates 60,000 trips a day are made by bicycle in the city, with more than 3,500 cyclists commuting to work downtown. If all those people took transit, they would fill 65 to 75 transit buses.
Today’s Sun. If someone wants to call these numbers in to question, go for it. But you’ll also be calling in to question the professional ethics of the engineers who calculated them. It’s not something I would want to do without tangible evidence.
43 George // Nov 29, 2010 at 8:08 am
Landlord you rock!!!
CK, your words are lost in your rabid responses…
Every time I try to read your vicious sanctimonious posts, I run out to my car and run the engine for 1/2 hour…just to spite you.
44 Mark Allerton // Nov 29, 2010 at 8:31 am
If the City were able to levy a tax on trolling internet forums, their money troubles would be over. This thread alone could have seismically upgraded a school, let alone kept a washroom open.
In the meantime, until we can tax them, I’d recommend not feeding them.
45 landlord // Nov 29, 2010 at 8:47 am
“marginalize”? Is that even a word? What does it mean? Is it the same thing as disagreeing?
Facts are immune to ridicule. Single-issue, self-absorbed conversation-miners invite it.
On the one hand it’s tens of thousands of current bike commuters and on the other hand it’s 3500.
Which is it? Those ethical engineers look at what happened to Dave Rudberg (and quite a few others) then tell Council what it wants to hear.
46 Michael Geller // Nov 29, 2010 at 8:51 am
News today: Foreclosure on Millennium’s West Van development; shelter opens; the other Robertson blasts park board…
An increasing number of people read this blog because they enjoy the informed conversation on a variety of civic issues. Many of us are greatful to Frances for keeping it going. Indeed, when the site was down a while ago, one regular reader emailed me with a desperate plea to track down Frances and get her blog fixed since, as she put it “I’m so addicted to her blog, I can’t get through the day without it!”
However, I am concerned that streams such as the one that has developed here over the past 30 postings, with the incessant debate over bicycles, is becoming a turn-off for many regular readers. It certainly is for me.
So to the topics…. It is not surprising to see the receivers coming in on Evelyn Drive. It was a very bold undertaking by Millennium; approximately 58 lots assembled and rezoned at considerable cost. One day it should be a good addition to the housing choices in West Vancouver. It might be noted that Millennium had carried out ‘Water’s Edge, another large and very successful project nearby (It’s the one you see on your right as you head west into West Van from the Lionsgate Bridge). Millennium also built one of West Vancouver’s most exclusive and successful waterfront towers. It’s a shame that they will lose this one, but someone will ultimately pick it up and build it out.
I’m pleased to see another shelter open, but must note that shelters can be surprisingly expensive to operate. As set out in a previous posting, and on my blog, IMO there are many other ideas that should be explored to address the needs of the homeless and destitute. They include housing people in existing apartments; helping people to access suitable clothing and personal hygiene; helping people to find employment; and family/friend reunification.
As for the Park Board ‘cut backs’, I am disappointed by the judgement of some Commissioners.
Perhaps I don’t understand the issues properly, but to cut back on the cleaning of washrooms does not strike me as a very sensible thing to do. Just as one can judge a restaurant by the cleanliness of its washrooms, I think the cleanliness of public washrooms is an important reflection of a city. Just check out the public washrooms next to the Dundarave Festival of Lights at the foot of 25th Street.
47 Morven // Nov 29, 2010 at 8:51 am
We assume (hopefully) that the city bases it’s budget decisions on a coherent assessment of costs, benefits and risks and when it makes a decision on separated bike lanes, it is doing so on good and sound policy reasoning.
We assume, evidence to the contrary, that it does not base the policy on artificial subterfuges such as beating the federal infrastructure grant deadlines, jumping the gun on upcoming budget restrictions or catering (heaven forbid) to a special interest group.
Absent any documents that show just how the city sets it’s criteria for balancing the competing demands on our resources within a budget, we are entitled to believe that the criteria are ad hoc and generated to suit specific circumstances.
It is not cycling versus anti-cycling believe it or not. It is just about how the priorities are set by VISION.
Just sceptical
-30-
48 Chris Keam // Nov 29, 2010 at 10:00 am
Michael:
Agreed that it would be nice to talk about something else for a change. One way to facilitate that might be for people with significant influence in the city’s political sphere to take a stand on things such as publicly-declared candidates for civic office expecting private citizens to choose either/or false dichotomies. (Please see comment #12) I don’t think an individual’s choice to support one policy should be inferred to mean a blanket support for all decisions, nor should it be right for a candidate to demand individuals without a party affiliation answer for the decisions of his opponents. If we curbed the politicking and personal attacks going on around bike lanes there would be little to talk about.
cheers,
CK
49 Michael Geller // Nov 29, 2010 at 10:55 am
Chris, I think this is a fair comment! The either/or questions can often be misleading. In this regard, I would urge people to review the recent ThinkCity budgetary questionnaire/survey. While the survey process may be over, I think that anyone who cares about budgetary matters should try and fill it out. I would venture to say it is oftentimes extremely difficult to determine which budgets should be maintained, which could be cut, and which should be increased, when dealing with a limited amount of money. I was constantly stumped in terms of what I considered priorities…policing, firefighting, infrastructure, community grants, etc.
All that being said, why cut back on the cleaning of washrooms!
50 IanS // Nov 29, 2010 at 11:56 am
@Chris #47,
I agree with your points re creation of false dichotomies, though I would characterize your post #27 as a pretty good example of one.
@Michael #48,
Your comments about the difficulties in setting budget priorities are a much better way of expressing what I was trying to state in my post #20. As a member of the voting public, I’ll never have access to all of the factors going into those priorities. Hence, as I suggested, the best one can do is assess what appear to be the party’s significant priorities and vote accordingly.
51 Bill McCreery // Nov 29, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Good ? Michael.
My comment #12 was an attempt to discuss the rational, as Morven says above, “…..about how the priorities are set…..” &, on the process of basing “budget decisions on a coherent assessment of costs, benefits and risks and when it makes a decision on [whatever the budget item], it is doing so on good and sound policy reasoning.
As Michael says: “it is oftentimes extremely difficult to determine which budgets should be maintained, which could be cut, and which should be increased, when dealing with a limited amount of money”. That’s what elected people have to do. So, when we’re criticizing them we need to put ourselves in their chair.
Chris I must reject your suggestion that I “demand[ed] individuals without a party affiliation answer for the decisions of [my] opponents”. I, as a regular commenter on this blog & a cycling supporter, simply asked you a ? as an also regular commenter on this blog & a keen cycling advocate. I genuinely want to know what your thoughts would be about the ‘why’ you have arrived @ your stance on bike lanes if you were in a position of having to make those choices. And, evidently those choices are being made now by our elected representatives. And, to be clear if you were referring to me in #47, I @ was not attacking you personally.
[I'd like to get past bikes also, but it keeps coming up [#s 8, 9, 11 & then 13, 14, 15, 17, 18...]
With respect to your placing emphasis on me being a candidate, that that somehow prohibits my participation in such discussions, I find a bit strange. However, I do intend to try to limit my involvement in the future. It’s unfortunate because, aside from the digressions from time to time, I find the discussions on this & other blogs stimulating & more so when participating.
52 Morven // Nov 29, 2010 at 12:48 pm
@ Bill McCreery
I would miss your contributions to this blog. You have never hidden the disclosure that you are a candidate.
I am far less interested in what a party line is than I am how issues should be framed and analysed in the public interest.
The element missing from our politics, especially at the provincial level, is a disclosure of how reasoning as distinct from pure intuition led to certain decisions.
That said, the thought process that led to a city proposal to can the can cleaning would be of some interest not to say mirth.
I trust the Parks Board will come clean (sic) on this proposal.
-30-
53 MB // Nov 29, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Two Saturdays ago I saw four (4) cops riding their bikes together in the Dunsmuir bike lanes, doing their bike patrol thing.
There was snow on the road.
Just an observation that came to mind with the heated comments above.
54 Chris Keam // Nov 29, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Ian:
In comment #27 I was simply responding to another poster’s contention that bikes are unsuitable as a means of transportation and asking how that person would prioritize the required increases in road and transit capacity such a situation (no bikes being used for transportation) would require.
55 Chris Keam // Nov 29, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Bill:
If you want genuinely my opinion, then I’m easy to contact and happy (as you can tell) to offer my perspective.
If you genuinely want a discussion of the available options, then I think you should offer up your solutions before asking others (who aren’t even a part of the discussion at that point I might add) to provide answers.
I absolutely have no problem with you participating in the discussion. I would encourage you to do so, and to be clear and candid as to the cost-cutting measures you will be proposing if elected. I would be especially keen to know if you are proposing moving monies from the roads budget to the parks budget, and what other, similar initiatives you feel are warranted.
I do have a problem with a political candidate calling out private citizens who haven’t demonstrated a desire to be part of the discussion. Not only did you single out Vancouver cyclists as the people who must justify spending on their behalf, you did not extend that expectation to any other group, and you made a point of mentioning me personally. Both those actions strike me as something other than seeking out dialogue.
And no I wasn’t referring to you when I mentioned personal attacks.
56 Stuart Mackinnon // Nov 29, 2010 at 2:46 pm
re. #2: Why would I work with Cmr. Robertson? I work with any other member of the Board who I am in agreement with. Sometimes this is COPE (as in the fees), sometimes with Vision (as in the Smoking by-law), and sometimes with the NPA (as in the Bloedel Conservatory and the budget). The great thing about being Green is that we are not tied down by ideology or directed by the party or a whip. Elected Greens vote according to their conscience and adherence to Green principals.
57 Mike Blanchard // Nov 29, 2010 at 3:21 pm
The Green Party of Vancouver has no allegiance to anyone. They have no accountability within their own party and is a true political opportunist. he has no conscience in my opinion. Body language tells you a lot and he is super super cozy to the NPA…to much to my liking.
58 George // Nov 29, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Bill McC
We would miss your comments..
59 Dan Cooper // Nov 29, 2010 at 11:58 pm
@Michael Geller, who writes, “All that being said, why cut back on the cleaning of washrooms!”
It seems to me you’ve answered your own question, earlier in the same post. Presumably, they feel its the least bad of many bad options. I’m reminded of the current discussion around school closures. No one wants their own school closed, and many of those who are facing the possibility express horror at the idea of having to move to the next school over, even though the parents and students THERE think that it is the perfect school. And, maybe each is great for different kids in different ways. Unfortunately, the only factual alternative to closing SOME schools – barring a complete and miraculous change in BC Liberal thinking around funding – is to cut district-wide programs. And no one wants those cut either. What’s more, the board can’t build new schools in areas that need them without closing some in areas with “excess” seats. So…decisions must be made.
@Bill McCreery. I am also glad you have posted here, because it has given me the clear knowledge that you are a serious, aggressive anger case (as am I not infrequently, though I’m not sure you’re aware you are), and so made my voting decision easier in the next election. Would that all candidates put themselves on the record in this way! For some, aggression is what they want in a politician, or at least in those who share their views, while for others (including myself) it is not. One of the many reasons I’m not a politician myself.
And speaking of politicians, @Stuart Mackinnon who writes, “Elected Greens vote according to their conscience and adherence to Green principals.”
Sadly, those principles as interpreted do not seem to meaningfully distinguish your party. I was a member of the Green party in the US, donated money, and voted for our candidates when we had them. Here, though, after doing some research, I can’t really see why I would bother. The Canadian and BC Greens – unlike the quite left-wing ones in the US – seem to align closely to whatever other party or parties are most firmly middle-of-the-road-capitalist at the government level in question. As such, they are practically indistinguishable from the Liberals federally and provincially and either Vision or the NPA in Vancouver. *shrug*
60 Morven // Nov 30, 2010 at 8:55 am
@Dan Cooper:
You are of course entitled to your viewpoint. As far as I can tell, that viewpoint is that the decision makers know what is good for us so do not complain, just accept. I am sure that is incorrect but that is how your comments can be (mis)construed.
From my viewpoint I expect the decision makers to make some effort to lay out the criteria why they are forced to make certain decisions in the public interest. Washroom sanitation does not appear to be a strategic element yet is seriously considered (it appears) but with no cogent explanation.
Closing schools, now that is a serious matter and if communities are imbued with a sense of place and choose to strenuously object to closure, whatever it’s origin, then we are entitled to know how the decision makers arrived at the decision, not to know that it is good for us all.
From time to time I have observed the Parks Board in action. I am not a member of any municipal party but have observed that both COPE and the GREEN party have an ability to ask questions and base their support on credible analysis, not toe a party line.
At this level of citizen engagement, switching support is not a measure of intransigence but of addressing issues in the public interest as they see it.
I see nothing wrong with not acting as a machine politician.
-30-
61 Dan Cooper // Nov 30, 2010 at 12:16 pm
@Morven:
Dang, you’re right. I never complain about anything, and slavishly follow the directions of anyone who speaks from a position of authority. Glad you pointed that out!
[ uproarious laughter, again ]
As for the rest, well, so you stand firmly for mother, maple syrup, Hockey Night in Canada, public input, and flexibility in politicians. Don’t we all? Some people, though, are able to decide that the process and explanations were sufficient in some cases (while in other cases deciding they weren’t), regardless of whether the decisions were quite what they wanted. Others? Well, they’re just never happy unless it all comes out their way, every time, regardless of how thorough the process and explanation. *cough cough* Myself, I lean toward COPE though I’m not a member, but it wasn’t the end of the world when the NPA was in power, and it isn’t the end of the world now with Vision. As for the Greens, I’m sure they would get by okay too, if and when; I just don’t think their policies would be appreciably different than either the past or present crowds, so I’m not going to get all excited about them. The one thing I would really have difficulty with was a council dominated by people who publicly and intentionally demean those who would make different decisions (and I could name people in several parties, but let’s skip that for now) as opposed to those who wouldn’t (e.g. M. Cadman, M. Geller, M. Meggs, among many others).
62 Morven // Nov 30, 2010 at 1:08 pm
@ Dan Cooper
Thank you for that thoughtful excoriation.
Each citizen in their own mind can decide if they want politicians and their advisers to base decisions on instinct rather than cogent analysis.
I quite accept that many citizens do prefer intuitive politics. My preference is for the advisers to the politicians to at least have a modicum of analytical skills otherwise our political system becomes dominated by special interests not the public interest.
Group think of the left or the right is the antithesis of democracy.
My personal opinion, and it is just that, is that I would not vote for a candidate who was unable to grasp the use of information to develop a policy or process (which does, I admit, shorten the field somewhat).
You are of course quite entitled to disagree with my view. But I do agree with you that the political habit of mercilessly slanging opponents with arguable sophistry is a habit we could dispense with at least at the municipal level.
-30-
63 Bill McCreery // Nov 30, 2010 at 3:40 pm
You are wrong Dan, I am not a “serious, aggressive anger case” IMO. I suggest that is a bit to personal as well as unfounded.
It is my objective to try my best in a limited time context to state my points clearly here & to having opinion which is for the most part based on some appreciation of or experience with the subject @ hand.
Because of my own life experience & understanding of how to accomplish your objectives, @ this time I have decided to again get involved directly in the electoral political process. As such, I do state my position & I do take issue with those I differ with, specifically on blogs such as this 1, whether they are associated with a political party or not. In the process of doing this I sometimes challenge people to get them to clarify their thinking so that I can better understand the why as well as the what of what they’re saying. If that intent is sometimes not apparent, it is unintentional.
As I said, I intend to be less loquacious, perhaps that will help.
64 Ian Robertson // Nov 30, 2010 at 5:17 pm
What’s getting lost in the Park Board budget discussion is the proposed introduction of user fees for children and youth leagues to play organized sports on soccer fields and ball diamonds.
It is being proposed that $2 per hour be charged for games. That may not seem like a lot of money but to one league president who contacted me today and shared some numbers, that means they are going to have to find $3,792. This is money that would normally be spent on equipment, uniforms and skill development.
It’s a sad day when we have to start charging kids to use our open spaces. Oh by the way, this will bring in $100,000 to the Park Board.
Ian Robertson
Commissioner
Vancouver Park Board
65 Morven // Dec 1, 2010 at 6:07 am
We should be grateful to Ian Robertson for alerting us to this item of material, public information.
The optics of turning youth access to our public open spaces in to a profit centre sends a chill down my spine.
Somewhere, somehow, the proponents of this scheme at the staff and Commissioner level at the Parks Board have lost their sense of public purpose.
-30-
66 Dan Cooper // Dec 1, 2010 at 9:59 am
@Morven, who writes, “You are of course quite entitled to disagree with my view.”
Hmmm. I don’t disagree with what you wrote in the preceding paragraph, though I appreciate being offered the option. Really! I do think that different people can come to different decisions based on the same information and using different criteria, and that more than one of those decisions could be reasonable and workable – or unreasonable and unworkable for that matter. I wouldn’t call that, “intuitive politics,” but perhaps we are talking past each other here!
67 Aaron Jasper // Dec 1, 2010 at 12:49 pm
It’s unfortunate that Ian Robertson would be so selective with the facts regarding the Park Board’s proposed Youth Field Fees.
The $2 per hour is not per child but rather per team. That works out to $5 per child per season. Our survey of surrounding municipalities found that this type of fee is applied in Richmond, North Vancouver, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody and Abbotsford. In fact, those municipalities charge more than our $2 per hour proposal.
Furthermore, our survey of Vancouver youth user groups revealed that more than 50% supported the proposed fee. And yes, this will bring in $100,000 to the Park Board.
It’s interesting that while Ian Robertson thinks “it’s a sad day when we have to start charging kids to use our open spaces” just 2 weeks ago, he voted in favour of lowering the age of free swimming and skating from children 5 years and younger to children 2 years and younger.
To quote a recent Georgia Straight story, “NPA park commissioner Ian Robertson, who has been a vocal critic of service cuts, said that there is no way to avoid changes to the fee structure because of increasing operating costs. “It’s an unfortunate step that we need to take,” Robertson told the Straight by phone.”
I hope this helps clarify the issue.
Aaron Jasper
Chair
Vancouver Park Board
68 Bill McCreery // Dec 3, 2010 at 10:51 am
@ Aaron 67.
I cannot speak for Commissioner Robertson but, having sat in your chairs, I know @ a certain point in the budget pruning process it is necessary to say enough is enough. Has the Vancouver Park Board after 124 years fallen to this, charging a 7 year old 5 bucks to play in a public park & not clean his washrooms? And, I’d certainly be losing sleep if I was reduced to voting “in favour of lowering the age of free swimming and skating from children 5 years and younger to children 2 years and younger”.
At that point in the budget process you have to look @ the bigger picture & re-examine your priorities there. It’s time to draw a line in the sand & say it is inappropriate to be adding more user fee costs to young families. IMO it is a false economy to charge for these activities because it discourages families from using the facilities & if they don’t start young they won’t continue. Then we all lose, the families in particular.
As a former Park Commissioner I am shocked @ the lack of intestinal fortitude of this Vision Park Board. They have 2 jobs -
1] to look after the care & custody of Vancouver parks & recreation facilities, &
2] to advocate for parks & recreation facilities to senior governments [including Council] & private donors.
Under your watch Commissioner Jasper, you have done an abysmal job of 2] as the above statistics prove &, they are also doing an equally abysmal job of 1] because of not doing 2]. We are witnessing the Vision dismantling of our exceptional, world renowned parks system which is a key ingredient to the quality of life Vancouverites enjoy.
It’s pretty pathetic when Vision choses to clean snow from unused bike lanes instead of cleaning washrooms [see the excellent Van Sun, letter to the editor yesterday].
69 Aaron Jasper // Dec 6, 2010 at 11:27 am
@Bill68. Nice to see you at the Bloedel Conservatory yesterday.
You may not be able to speak for Ian Robertson but he definitely speaks for you and the NPA on Park Board issues. The NPA supported fee increases for swimming and skating.
Bill, I respect the fact that you served as a Park Board Commissioner. But when you were elected, NASA was still landing men on the moon. Your constant comparisons are the equivalent to comparing today’s real estate market to the market in December 1972.
The past two years have represented the toughest budgetary cuts in the history of the City of Vancouver due to the second worst recession in the past century. That said, under Vision’s watch (and the Mayor’s support) the Park Board received over $15 million from the Federal Infrastructure Program. That money has allowed the Park Board to:
• Finish the new visitor centre at VanDusen Botanical Garden
• Repair the Seawall in Stanley Park and on English Bay
• Build four artificial playing fields at three locations
• Redevelop three East Vancouver neighborhood parks
Bill, I find your “advocacy” for youth quite disingenuous. Last December, you were very adamant that the Park Board should shut down a community centre to keep the Bloedel Conservatory open. That was an option the Vision Commissioners had never considered. Such a move would’ve undoubtedly added more costs to young families looking for recreation opportunities.
70 Man, oh man // Dec 7, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Aaron Jasper @ 69.
The 69th post is so suitable to your character Aaron. And BTW you should have signed ‘Bench – instead of Chair to the Vancouver Park Board’
More like it. You are a joke .
71 Bill McCreery // Dec 8, 2010 at 12:39 pm
@ Aaron 69. Nice to see you @ Bloedel as well. It’s revitalization is proceeding well.
As I said in 68: “I know @ a certain point in the budget pruning process it is necessary to say enough is enough.” & if I were in Ian’s shoes I might have voted similarly. @ a certain point 1 must draw the line on adding user fees, especially to families.
While the real estate market numbers have changed, the principles have not, although I’m not sure what the real estate market is like on the moon.
I take issue with your suggestion that the Park Board was forced to make the: “toughest budgetary cuts in the history of the City of Vancouver due to the second worst recession in the past century”. I suggest the cuts were necessary because of Vision’s mismanagement of the city’s finances & misplaced priorities. I also note that Vancouver was the only Metro city to have a crisis budget. Why?
Please don’t try to take credit for $15 m in federal infrastructure money. You would have had to be completely inept not to have filled out the application forms. That said, the capital improvements are welcome in general.
Who is “disingenuous”? I responded to a simplistic either or alternative which you insisted were the only 2 options relative to Vision’s proposed demise of Bloedel. Fortunately for all Vancouverites, as it turned out there was a 3rd option & we still have that important facility. May I suggest that the Bloedel also serves families. Also, there were still cuts to library & community centre hours & programmes due to your skewed priorities. Now you’re down to cutting washrooms…….
Leave a Comment