Community-centre negotiations grinding on slowly but surely, while objectors stay out of the game

B

How refreshing.

I think it’s Sunset that’s out, not Marpole. Not sure how you can check this.

Glissando Remmy

Thought Of The Night

“To Have or to Have Not, That Is The Question,
Whether ‘Tis Nobler for CCA’s in the mind to suffer
The Bullying the Slings and Arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to Take Arms against a Sea of Vision Park Board troubles,
And by opposing end them? To Die: to Sleep;
No More; and by a sleep to say we end the BS,
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, ’tis a Consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d. To Die, to Sleep;
To Sleep: perchance to dream: ay, There’s The Rub;
For in that Sleep of Negotiated Death, what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this Mortal Coil…”

If only Will The Bard had made Hamlet rhyme, actors could learn it in half the time… what I’m saying.
This being the only reason why the Vision Park Board members cannot get into their heads the Fact that their proposal… is not welcome!

“Something is rotten in the City Hall’s state of mind.” – De Genova to Coupar

If Vision Vancouver”s arguments were true, then more of the “Have-Not” CC Associations would have been on board for these “negotiations”, right?
Well, apparently not!
As they say “the manure is only as good as the pallets the donkey is fed”.

Here… all of them (CCAs) in one place:

Community Centres Vancouver

Britannia Community Centre
1661 Napier St Vancouver BC Phone: 604-718-5800

Carnegie Centre Community Centre
401 Main St Vancouver BC Phone: 604-665-2220

Champlain Heights Community Centre
3350 Maquinna Dr Vancouver BC Phone: 604-718-6675

Coal Harbour Community Centre
480 Broughton St Vancouver BC Phone: 604-718-8222

Creekside Community Recreation Centre
1 Athletes Way Vancouver BC Phone: 604-257-3050

Douglas Park Community Centre
801 W 22nd Ave Vancouver BC Phone: 604-257-8130

Dunbar Community Centre
4747 Dunbar St Vancouver BC Phone: 604-222-6060

Evelyne Saller Centre
320 Alexander St Vancouver BC Phone: 604 665 3075

False Creek Community Centre
1318 Cartwright St Vancouver BC Phone: 604-257-8195

Gathering Place Community Centre
609 Helmcken St Vancouver BC Phone: 604-665-2391

Hastings Community Centre
3096 E Hastings St Vancouver BC Phone: 604-718-6222

Hillcrest Centre
4575 Clancy Loranger Way Vancouver BC Phone: 604-257-8680

Kensington Community Centre
5175 Dumfries St Vancouver BC Phone: 604-718-6200

Kerrisdale Community Centre
5851 West Blvd Vancouver BC Phone: 604-257-8100

Killarney Community Centre
6260 Killarney St Vancouver BC Phone: 604-718-8200

Kitsilano War Memorial Community Centre
2690 Larch St Vancouver BC Phone: 604-257-6976

Marpole-Oakridge Community Centre
990 W 59th Ave Vancouver BC Phone: 604-257-8180

Mount Pleasant Community Centre
1 Kingsway Vancouver BC Phone: 604-257-3080

Ray-Cam Co-Operative Center
920 E Hastings St Vancouver BC Phone: 604-257-6949

Renfrew Park Community Centre
2929 E 22nd Ave Vancouver BC Phone: 604-257-8388

Strathcona Community Centre
601 Keefer St Vancouver BC Phone: 604-713-1838

Sunset Community Centre
6810 Main St Vancouver BC Phone: 604-718-6505

The Roundhouse
181 Roundhouse Mews Vancouver BC Phone: 604-713-1800

Thunderbird Community Centre
2311 Cassiar St Vancouver BC Phone: 604-713-1818

Trout Lake Community Centre
3360 Victoria Dr Vancouver BC Phone: 604-257-6955

West End Community Centre
870 Denman St Vancouver BC Phone: 604-257-8333

West Point Grey Community Centre
4397 W 2nd Ave Vancouver BC Phone: 604-257-8140

You ask me, the Pros & Cons, whoever is NOT on board, well… they’ve seen the writing on the wall through the web of Vision Lies. The others, what can I say? Vision probably got to them, who knows, planted their operatives already! Lookie inside Penny’s City Hall!

But that’s me…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWTEcRwfMoM

We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

Paul Tolnai

Oh Frances, how I love thee.

So we start the update with info “that dominated the lists a couple of weeks ago and has since disappeared”. A line intended to discredit the intense outrage at the park board as perhaps just a momentary distraction or an orchestrated event.

In fact a Mustel poll just recently found that people in Vancouver opposed the plan 2:1. It’s tremendously unpopular.

And the lead line? That negotiations are “grinding” on? Ummmm if one more community centre booked out of talks, I’d call that a backwards step not grinding on.

Stuart Mackinnon

News Flash! It was all a misunderstanding. The Park Board didn’t want to grab the cash! They just wanted equity! All a big misunderstanding. Actually the cash grab wasn’t in the election platform. Oops our Bad! Lets negotiate and then we can claim a victory for negotiating something you all agreed to months ago! Let’s blame everybody except the folks who were elected to lead us. Hmmm…those nasty people in the Community Centres who aren’t at the table look like a great group to demonize. Okay folks, nothing to see here…move along…nothing to see.

ThinkOutsideABox

Revision Vancouver – how many fingers am I holding up?

Frances Bula

@Paul. Always a lesson to me that people read things into what I write that I never intended. Some days, I feel like James Joyce. When I said it had dropped from sight, it didn’t occur to me that anyone would interpret that as meaning I was trying to discount public sentiment. I meant that it had dropped off the media agenda.

As for Kensington dropping out, that was widely expected even before mediation started because of the interesting change of presidents.

Susan

Milan Klajic Is the new president at Kensington who does apear to be an interesting choice.

http://www.straight.com/news/ex-bc-conservatives-back-ndp-leader-adrian-dix-mla

Bill McCreery

Further to @ Stuart 4.

I attended the Marpole Oakridge CCA Board meeting this past Wednesday as did Commissioner Jasper. He spoke at length about the CCA/Pk Bd negotiation with some interesting revelations.

Among other things he said that Staff, not Commissioners, were responsible for the 4 February Report that had incorrect financial information and recommended Pk Bd control of programming and their revenues. He said Commissioners had made it clear to Staff during the 4 February Board Meeting that what should be pursued is what they ran for election on: flexi-passes, universal access, etc. I suggested to him that surely Commissioners had given Staff adequate direction beforehand and had reviewed the report before it went public. He had no reply.

In my experience as a Park Commissioner Staff should not be put into such a position. Staff should be given clear direction and limits to work within before, not after the fact, and that the report should be vetted to ensure it was within those directives. Among other reasons this is essential is so Staff are not put in the place where they are publicly disowned, as Commissioner Jasper had just done.

I asked him a few other questions, including:

1) He said that at the 4 February Board meeting the Commissioners had made it clear to Staff that the central control of programming and revenue was off the table. I indicated that that ‘was not clear to me as a member of the audience until 1:20 AM’. I then asked him ‘if Commissioners truly wanted these 2 controversial issues on the table, why they hadn’t amended their motion to approve the 4 Staff recommendations, which essentially were the summary of the Report?’ He had no answer.

2) ‘Based on your comments that revenue sharing is now on the table, does that mean that programme generated funds will not go into the City’s General Revenue?’ He replied: “That money never was intended to go into General Revenue”.

That had not been the overwhelming perception of the CCA Boards and the public, and until last Wednesday Vision Vancouver had made no effort to correct this ‘apparent’ not insignificant misconception.

3) I asked ‘now that control of programming was on the table, what was the status of ‘Core Programmes’?’ ‘Were they also on the table?’ His answer was not clear.

Morven

@Bill McCreery# 8
Good comment.

I am staggered by the lack of credibility in the Parks Board positions as revealed by your questions.

How can the participating and the non-participating CCA’s have any confidence in the process of negotiation and mediation when the PB position keeps changing and resembles a chameleon.
-30-

Eric Harms

@GR #2,
While I’m certain you didn’t mean to confuse, the list provided includes some facilities that (for one reason or another) fall outside of the discussion. So, strike these off for the reasons provided:

Britannia – a different governance model, with two schools and a library, plus not on park land, so reports directly to Council (through Dr. Ballem, of course)
Carnegie – not run through Park Board, no Association
Coal Harbour – along with the Evelyne Saller Centre is run/governed by West End Association
Creekside – totally operated by Park Board, no association
Evelyne Saller Centre – see Coal Harbour
Gathering Place – like Carnegie, run by City Community Services (I think). For sure, not a PB/Association governance model
Ray-Cam – a big social housing partner, subsists totally (or nearly) on grants, has two boards, but an entirely different model

So, of the 27 listed, omit these seven (above). Of the remaining 20, those not willing to negotiate under the strictures laid out by PB staff are: Hastings, Hillcrest, Kensington, Kerrisdale, Killarney, and Sunset. Also not at the table (for reasons of their own) are Roundhouse and Strathcona.

Leaves, by my count, twelve.

@Bill McCreery #8,
I’m hoping to see a lot of people out to speak to Commissioner De Genova’s motion tomorrow evening. It should be interesting to hear whether Commissioner Jasper is willing to repeat what you’ve reported. I’ll make a point of being unwilling to give up our revenue for Park Board to redistribute and hope that he’ll correct me.

waltyss

Mr. Harms:
While readily acknowledging that the Vision commissioners overreached, I am still waiting to hear how the outliers propose to solve this issue and, to the extent it is another question, what suggestion do the outliers have to solve equity issues.

Higgins

Eric, 8 out of 20 is a lot of Community Center Associations! I don’t know how Commissioners Jasper, Blyth, Sharma, Lock, Barnes can sleep at night… having divided … successfully the city in almost half!
And Frances, to follow up on Paul Tolnai’s comment at 3:
“So we start the update with info “that dominated the lists a couple of weeks ago and has since disappeared”. A line intended to discredit the intense outrage at the park board as perhaps just a momentary distraction or an orchestrated event. ”
How can you write something like this? Just because you think people forgot about Vision bullying tactics it doesn’t mean that’s true!
Myself and many people I know have not forgot a single word that punk ranted at Kerrisdale or what the Vision commisioners did at west End CC that Monday night at 3:00 AM!
Glissy #2
That was a perfect introduction, the monologue from Hamlet. Fit for tonight’s meeting.
Cheers

Frances Bula

@Higgins. I guess you didn’t read my previous post in response to Paul. I’m trying to decide what bothers me most — when people put interpretations on what I write that I never intended or when they just don’t read my explanations at all.

Bill McCreery

Well then Frances, you’re dilemma puts you in good company with commenters here on your blog, :).

gman

Sharma on NW this morning spent all her time trying to clown DeGenova,really sad.Starts at 8:50.
http://www.cknw.com/news/audiovault/index.aspx

Terry M

gman… 15
you criticize a “civil servant” like ballem… you get the Vision inquisition.
you are a Vision hack making fun on another collegue … that’s “democracy cubed” or what the commies usedto call apparatchik retribution!
My favorite shawarma is chicken shawarma!
🙂

Eric Harms

@waltyss #11,
I’ll leave it for others to judge whether making up 40% of the total makes us ‘outliers’, and address your second question first, ‘what suggestions do (we) have to solve equity issues’. I’m already on record as assuring all here that my all associations expect that transparent, respectful negotiations will result in a satisfactory outcome for all. Clearly, we are not yet at the table. Even if we were, why in the world would I discuss publicly our negotiating stance? I can’t recall any resposible party (business or Union/Management or ?) that was well served by negotiating in public.

And if, as you acknowledge, the majority of commissioners overreached, why is it my/our responsibility to ‘solve this issue’? Surely it is time for them to admit their mistakes, take control of the situation and demonstrate leadership. There is clear evidence that the public understands the staff proposes to eliminate local control and pool locally generated revenues, and they oppose these ideas by a margin of 2:1. Major public policy should not be left to staff to generate. It is for just such initiatives that we elect a Park Board.

gman

Terry M,
Ahhh yes the foreign funded oh so tolerant and understanding left.Warms my heart.lol

gman

I pity the squirrel who gets caught in the sights of her slingshot.Just the kinda person who should be in charge…..not.
https://twitter.com/sarahblyth

Ned

Eric #17
” Surely it is time for them to admit their mistakes, take control of the situation and demonstrate leadership. ”
My first reaction to that was … they’ll find a cure for ALL CANCER before that happens!
Vision Vancouver is a different kind of cancer unfortunately, however the advances in the medical field (not that of PB) are astounding, so keeping fingers crossed we might just get rid of it in 2014!

waltyss

Mr. Harms @17.
I am starting to suspect (well, more than suspect) politics at play here.
The Vision PB ran on an issue of equity and have a mandate. Foolishly they accepted staff recommendations to address this by essentially taking over the next thing. As I say, foolishly and they are now suffering the blow back. Fair enough.
The point remains that PB has a mandate on the equity issue.
If you are in any way agreeable that equity is an issue, then how do you propose it be addressed. You don’t like the takeover model and you appear to have won on that point. So, what is the alternative.
It is more than a bit ingenuous to say as you essentially do, PB you got us in to this mess; get us out because on anything you don’t like, I am confident you will be sniping from the sidelines.
In my respectful opinion, the outliers are behaving irresponsibly by not taking part in negotiations.
You say that anybody familiar with the negotiating process doesn’t reveal their negotiating stance. Well, not entirely. They do not reveal their strategy or their bottom line but they at least put forward a position. And perhaps most importantly of all, they are at the table.
The only people I know of who refuse to negotiate and basically say they will hold their breath until the other side admits they are wrong are children and petulant spouses.
You say the PB should show leadership. Well, they may be a bit shy about that at the last time they tried, they go blowback. However, if they reach an agreement with the CCA’s at the table, you may find that public opinion, currently on your side, switches quickly and you (the outliers) may find that getting another agreement has little public support and you are faced with a take it or leave it JOA that you had no part in negotiating.
Just sayin’.

Eric Harms

@waltyss #21,
I’m already on record as sayin’ that all public acts (and virtually all private ones, unless one lives the life of a hermit) are political. Whether that means that (partisan) ‘politics (are) at play here’ is another question. Do you have an observation or a question about me, or my politics? Speculation about motives or (shudder) ambition, perhaps?

Just askin’.

“The Vision PB ran on an issue of equity…”
Did they? I attended most (if not all) Park Board all-candidates meetings in the run-up to last civic election, and I really can’t recall that. Can you supply quotes from speeches or campaign literature that mentions the issue?
Also, what is/was meant by the word, assuming they ‘ran on’ it? It’s a mile wide, and a quarter-inch deep, and might mean (depending on your particular partisan analysis) ‘…to each according to their needs.’ or ‘A rising tide floats all boats’. Give examples of where they elaborated on ‘equity’ and how they’d see it enshrined, once elected.

“…and have a mandate.”
True, no one can argue that the majority (by virtue of getting more Xs in the ballot box) have a mandate. But, even without you providing examples of them ‘running on equity’, it doesn’t necessarily follow that their mandate has anything to do with the word or the concept. It might have been the phase of the moon. Or the day of the week, or the Juice King’s coattails. So, to assert (as you have) “that PB has a mandate on the equity issue” is simply unsupportable.

Just sayin’.

Now, as to leadership: You say that “they may be a bit shy about that at (sic) the last time they tried, the go (sic) blowback”. I’m aware that they are currently experiencing ‘blowback’. Will you please tell me the last time that they showed leadership?

Just, um,…wonderin’.

waltyss

Mr. Harms, we can debate these minutiae and I can look up when somebody said something.
However, at the centre is the issue of a new JOA. Is your position and/or the position of the outliers that they are not interested in a new JOA (or at least one that changes the existing funding model) or that you are going to hold your breath until 2014 and hope that the Vision Board is defeated.
Maybe it is both. I certainly sense much more of partisan politics in your response. And I, at least, don’t have a problem with that.
I am just curious what role the outliers are planning to play because it is certainly starting to look like that of spoilers. But time will tell.
As to your comments on a mandate, it appears that your view is that win an election or not, who cares? Unfortunately, that is seemingly a more common attitude. Hardly a helpful one however because, like it or not, imperfect or not, that is how we solve our issues.
As for leadership, as I said before, the change the PB proposed did show leadership. Just because it was ill advised or because you don’t like it, doesn’t make it less so.
Overall, I am finding it interesting how your tone has changed as you are challenged. I am wondering if that is typical of the outliers and why they are not at the table.
Just askin’.

Stuart Mackinnon

My favourite quote from last night’s (Feb 26) Park Board meeting: “We heard, we have to be respectful of when that consultation takes place…” They had to be told to be respectful?

gman

“The concept of a government having a legitimate mandate to govern via the fair winning of a democratic election is a central idea of democracy. New governments who attempt to introduce policies that they did not make public during an election campaign are said to not have a legitimate mandate to implement such policies.”

Thats from wiki and the point is as Eric asked can anyone show that this is what they ran on?If not than they have no “mandate”.

teririch

If I hear the words ‘the election was the mandate’ anymore, I am going to be physcially ill.

After working as a scrutineer at the Carnegie Centre during the ’08 election – I was amazed to see how process can be manipulated – which includes people helping ‘addicts’ complete their ballot forms.

Under the elections act, persons with disabilities are allowed assistance. I found out the hard way (thanks to people from Pivot and COPE) that addicts are considered by some or in certain circumstances as ‘persons with disabilites’. Sorry but if your are tweaking or so high you cannot complete the ballot – tough. It does not put you in the same category as a disabled person – actually makes a mockery of it.

waltyss

teririch: you may have disdain for such people and that is your right, but legally an addict is a disabled person. Sorry, but as usual, you have your facts wrong.
gman, as for your comment apparently quoting wikipedia (that great font of something) that if you didn’t mention it during the campaign, you have no mandate to do it, is, to be kind, hokum. Governments face unforseen matters, and governments of all stripes introduce policies that often they didn’t mention during a campaign. I seem to recall Kim Campbell saying something to the effect that campaigns were not a good time to discuss serious issues. In a time of gotcha politics, that is certainly the case.
It is an interesting issue but certainly a party that wins an election has a broad mandate to implement the policies that it chooses to. Often those are even not in keeping with what its supporters might want (Nixon going to China, being a classic example).
When a government at whatever level gets too far out in front of the citizenry, then it gets blowback (as the PB is getting now) and may lose the next election.
As for your being physically ill, teririch, well, barf on.That is the nature of our democracy. Have you got a better idea?

Mira

teririch, gman, Eric Harms…
Screw the “mandate”, that’s an allegoric term.
This is about Geoff, Gregor and the rest of the Vision gang, feeling good about themselves…
The lure of powwweeeeer!
Remember this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKP-WbTMEac
Waltyss… the Vision troll, you joined them Vision Vancouver losers (even after they won they look like losers) a long time ago, no need to change the repertoire in here. We know where you’re coming from.
Before you embarrass yourself any further if I remember correctly GR threw some numbers and percentages from the past election at you. Does 14% sounds familiar for a “major mandate” ? But I’m sorry, as I also remember correctly you failed to read a simple cheese roll chart (99%+2%=100%) from the brilliancy of the Vdovine Visino exec. LOL (and yes, I like to call it a cheese roll, your Pie-ness!) ha, ha, ha.
You take good care now.

teririch

@Waltyss #27:

Drug addicts are no more disabled than you or I.

To measure an addict and their behaviour against a person with a physical or mental disability is inuslting to people with true disabilites.

Being high on heroin and not being able to compelte a ballot is not a ‘disability’.

One is by choice – the other, not so much.

Funny, certain groups of persons such as the deaf, don’t want to be looked at as disabled.

As for your ‘disdain’ comment – I laugh at this. I have spent hundreds of hours over periods of years vounteering in the DTES.

So don’t even go there.

Go back to fluffing up your Vision pals.

waltyss

teri the rich:
You may have spent hundreds of hours “vounteering” in the DTES. Your comments make clear that you have complete disdain, even contempt, for those you purport to help. The two are not necessarily iincompatible although it may seem a bit strange that as you hand out food, you express disdain for its recipients.
As for drug addicts being disabled, given a choice between the Supreme Court of Canada and someone like you, I know who I choose and sorry, it ain’t you.
You may not like the Pivot Legal Society or the BCCLA but the work they do with the marginalized is what protects the ability of people like you to exist in a free society and to spout the crap you do. That the mining and oil companies you are so fond of have the money to dominate the press and the airwaves is no measure of a democracy.
“Go back to fluffing up your Vision pals.” Was that a sexual reference? If I were you, I wouldn’t go there.
More importantly, it is rather sad that in your (and Mira Breckenridge’s) narrow, dessicated view, you either have a hatred of Vision bordering on the irrational (I pause for a shout out to my beloved NPA troll) or you are a fluffer for Vision. Sadly for you, the world is significantly more complex than that.
I happen to believe the PB has majorly blown the CCA issue. I also believe however that the PB majority raised a legitimate issue particularly considering that the City owns the community centres and the land it sits on. Making sure there is equitable access is something the PB should concern themselves with. Yesterday I received my catalogue from Kerrisdale community centre with a highly partisan message on the back which clearly sets out an “eat what you kill” approach which completely ignores the mandate of the PB (you may hate that word but it most usefully describes the job the PB, regardless of party) is set up to perform) to run a system that benefits ALL the citizens of the city.
While the PB has majorly screwed up, that does not mean that the outlier CCA’s are correct particularly if and when they espouse an eat what you kill approach (which Kerrisdale, the richest and most powerful CCA clearly does).
That is what I am attempting to articulate. If that makes me a Vision fluffer, well, whatever. I only have to consider the source of that comment.

teririch

So how does this remotely make sense? Public consultation AFTER agreements have been negotiated???? What???

From CKNW
****

There could be more public consultations over a new joint operating agreement between the Park Board and some Vancouver Community Centres.

NPA Commissioner Melissa de Genova saw her motion passed after it was amended to include public consultations after a successful agreement is negotiated, “This is the last hope to let the public come and speak with Commissioners and I am hopeful staff will bring something back to the March 11th Board meeting that I hopefully will be able to support.”

De Genova says the Vision members on the Park Board blinked due to the public outcry.

“Well I think my colleagues are finally coming around to see it is not just me it is the polls out there. 70-percent of the public oppose what they are doing with the community centres.”

However Vision Commissioner Niki Sharma says the Park Board was moving to get more public feedback anyway

“We are already moving forward on this now this did give us an actual date for when staff will bring forward a plan for us to ..and develop it respectfully with the community centre associations in negotiations.”

But what about the six community centres who have left the table?

Sharma: “Well, we are hopeful they will participate in the development of the plan or the negotiations at the table and, as you heard today, there have been really positive meetings in the last two weeks and we are making progress.”

Sharma says talks, with absolutely everything on the table, will continue with the 12 community centres in negotiations.

The move hasn’t changed any minds with at least one hold out Community Centre.

President of the Kensington Community Centre Milan Kljajic says he is not rethinking a decision his board made to pull out of talks with the city.

“As of right now I think our stand point is to stay with ‘My Vancouver CC’ they are a transparent group. They are preparing a proposal right now and hopefully we can actually sit down at the table in the near future.”

The hold out Community Centres have also gone out and retained a lawyer to help in the fight against a new Joint Operating Agreement, currently being negotiated.

gman

Waltyss,
You said “considering that the City owns the community centres and the land it sits on. ”
Wrong again Mr Marx,the city doesn’t own anything the citizens own it and although Vision seems to think they own it they don’t.They are only there to manage as we see fit,no more no less.And it is very clear what the citizens feel about this latest power grab that Vision is trying to pull off.So the right thing for the PB to do is to ask the CCs if there is anything they need, not here is what we decided and you have three weeks to comply or get the hell out.
And as far as a mandate is concerned you have no idea what it even means,you only use the word to spin the vindictive behavior of those you fluff.

teririch

@Waltyss # 30:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

It is not ‘disdain’ you detect – it is the realization that the enabling that has become the norm for the social beeding hearts are hurting more than they are helping. Patying little Johnny and Jane on the head and telling them that their life choice of doing drugs is all okay and that society just has to suck it up, has no right to say or judge, should shut up, fork over dollars and stand back – is wrong.

And I choose to no longer participate in the enabling game.

At the end of the day – those addicts that everyone is fighting over, are the ones suffering. They are the ones geting sick from HIV, Hep C, Aids etc.

How about this; the next time you spend time or help an addict that has shot up in every vein, every spare space they could fit a needle, to the point their body is so scarred it looks like it has been through a war – then you can come to me and tell me ‘how I have disdain or contempt’.

The only disdian and contempt I have, are for those fighting hard to keep things the same.

So you hold tight to your thoughts.

You are either part of the problem or part of the solution.

Guess where I stand.

teririch

Vision’s idea of public input: (re: Beach Towers)

This Tweet speaks volumes:

Coun. Tim Stevenson — people who ran against more housing in the West End lost in the last election.

***

Democracy cubed!

waltyss

@gman, there is usually little point interacting with ignorance but here goes. The city is a corporation governed by the Vancouver Charter. The city acts through its council. It can and does own property including the community centres. Is that communist (I assume that led to the remarkably stupid “Marx” comment) well, it was not a communist government that passed the charter.
Tell me, gman, why are rightwingers so ignorant? Or is it just you?
“They are only there to manage as we see fit”. Well, the “we” is the people who get out to vote every 3 years. And under the rules, while you clearly don’t like the outcome, we gave the right to do what they want to a Vision majority on council. So long as they stay within their charter (the Vancouver Charter) they can make the decisions they want. IN 2014, you will have an opportunity to tell them what you see fit. Who knows, this time you may even be right.
In the meantime, feel free to sound off and I will feel free to correct your ignorance.

gman

Waltyss,see you at the next shareholders meeting.

Morven

Waltyss # 35

How depressing.

“we gave the right to do what they want to a Vision majority on council””

Dead wrong.

The council acts in the public interest first and foremost. Not act to do what they want which is not always the same as the public interest.

We have different views of electoral democracy. Alas.
-30–

waltyss

No, Morven, we don’t have different views of electoral democracy. Any elected person at whatever level is supposed to act in the public interest.
The difficulty is that your view, my view or a Councillors view of what the public interest differ.
Were the federal Conservatives acting in the public interest when they closed the Kitsilano Coast Guard station?
Were the provincial Liberals acting in the public interest when they decided to sell off what they term surplus property?
Was Vision acting in the public interest when they chose to pursue the policy of taking over much of the functions of the CCA’s?
In each case, with the possible exception of the provincial Liberals, I suggest that they believed they were. You or I or anyone else may believe the decision is wrong headed but that does not negate the decision being in the public interest, in the view of the person making the decision.
Unless of course, you believe, like many of the people in the blogosphere that either all politicians, or at least those they disagree with, are venal, dishonest and only do things for no good reason.
I don’t subscribe that that view, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary am prepared to ascribe good faith to politicians. Evidence to the contrary, for example, are the provincial Liberal propaganda ads posing as government information ads. There the evidence is, in my view, indisputable that the Liberals are doing so cynically and not in good faith.
Put someone differently, how do we determine what is in the public interest or not, unless we have good evidence that it was in bad faith (seldom the case, the inquiry in Montreal at present might be an example). Usually we determine it at the ballot box when the public votes on a party’s overall record.

Morven

Waltyss # 38

I am glad that you added the phrase in the public interest.

Most politicians are convinced or convince themselves that they are acting in the public interest. We have many vivid examples (some of which you referred to ) where the political groupthink totally eclipsed the public interest.

My philosophy is for open, transparent and accountable governance. That is, before making any decision, the elected officials identify the evidence, identify which recommendations they favour, and seek citizen advice. At least when they made a decision, we would know why they favoured a specific action.

What we now have in Canada (especially at the federal level) is a scenario where a partisan decision is made without revealing the evidence and options. Then it is presented to the huddled masses. That is not consultation, it is communication for token approval.

At least in the evidence based process, there is a constant calibration of the partisan view of public interest and the citizen view. Instead, with the alternate view, we have to wait through an electoral cycle for any significant impact.

No wonder citizens become cynical about the process.

And, to add fuel to this rhetorical fire, had the Parks Board adopted an open, iterative consultation model, some of the partisan rhetoric from both sides might have been less strident.

In their wisdom, the Parks Board devolved community centre operations into a hybrid of self regulation and co-regulation some 30-40 years ago. Now the city wants to reverse that devolved model. That may be a legitimate public policy option. But had the Parks Board communicated the evidence and the options before either negotiating a solution (behind closed doors) or acting a seeming arbitrary fashion, then some of the angst might have been avoided.

The CCA’s are not monolithic and there are several different organization models. Had there been some recognition of the diversity before the conflict started, there might have been a reasonable prospect for the public interest in the widest sense to have been addressed.

Not too late, I hope.
-30-

Bill McCreery

@ Morven & Waltys.

Perhaps your discussion is circular. Motivation in decision making varies.

Except in extreme situations what counts more is the quality of the decision. In architectural design what distinguishes good from ordinary and bad buildings is the quality of the decisions that are made while creating the design. The same applies to political decisions.

Vision Van Commissioners were congratulating themselves after hearing a staff presentation of the what, why and a bit about hows of Art Phillips and TEAM, saying they (VV) ‘must be on the right track’ because they had similar goals.

However, what they don’t understand is that Art and TEAM generally made far better decisions than this gang are. In fact Vision Van is step by step destroying every good thing initiated by TEAM and that has stood the test of time.

Waltyss

However, what they don’t understand is that Art and TEAM generally made far better decisions than this gang are. In fact Vision Van is step by step destroying every good thing initiated by TEAM and that has stood the test of time.
We can ignore the hyperbole, you are after all an NPA hack.
What to me is more interesting is that you illustrate the point I was trying to make to Morven. You clearly believe that Vision is awful in anything they do; I believe that while often boneheaded, they are better than the NPA regime.
But nothing you or I have said detracts from the fact that the NPA mayor and his council were no less sincere in their beliefs that they were acting in the public interest than Vision does.
Your belief that they are awful is just that, your belief. The only honest referee is the ballot box. The rest is just opinion.

Bill McCreery

Waltyss, perhaps this exchange may get you to understand a few facts and a bit of history, which by your comments you are ignorant of.

Firstly, I am not an NPA hack. I was a TEAM hack. I served on the Park Board with May Brown, Bill Dumoulin and Art Cowie. Art Phillips was our mayor.

May was Chair of the Recreation Committee. I was Chair of the Planning and Development Committee and among other responsibilities served as the Park Board rep with Walter Hardwick, Darlene Marzari and Geoff Massey on the False Creek Planning Committee of Council (the only time a non-Council member has ever been a voting member of a committee of Council) and was the interim chair of the Jericho Park Citizens Advisory Committee that we encouraged to get citizen participation in the planning of what has become one of the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation system’s jewels.

One of May’s initiatives was the template for the ’40 year old’ CCA agreements now under review. We worked successfully and cooperatively with the CCAs to bring some sense of order to what had been a patchwork of handshake agreements. We believed that the partnership model was far and away the best way to deliver recreation services, and still do.

Am I upset with what this ignorant gang of buffoons is doing to the recreation system and to the City as a whole? You’re damn tight I am!

You jump to conclusions about other peoples motives and allegiances, not just with me. You seem to need to see everything as black or white, NPA or Vision Van. Well Waltyss, life is not that simplistic.

I became upset with Vision Van starting with the Bloedel fiasco, then the horrifically over dense spot rezonings, and down hill from there. I’m not a socialist, and the NPA say they nominate qualified candidates and let them vote their conscience. They nominated me. I ran because I care about this City not because I’m an NPA hack. Get over it. There have been many other NPA candidates over the years that do not fit your NPA hack slur as well. I am no longer associated with the NPA but I continue to oppose the bad decisions Vision Van seem to be addicted to making.

Speaking of questioning credibilities, it would be very interesting to know who you really are, and for that matter Andrew Browne, who has also recently appeared on the scene. I’d put money on Andrew being Trevor Loke. Did you know that ‘Brown’ complained that a video of Loke’s tirade posted on UTube was not shoot at Killarney so UTube took it down. The silencing of Councillor Carr has a similar smell. This Vision Van triad is not a nice lot, so forgive me if I am persistent in opposing them in their destructive and malevolent ways.

waltyss

Mr. McCreery, you appear to have overreacted to be called an NPA hack. You may have started for Team, who I supported but drifted to the right with the NPA.
The part about voting your conscience, well, the NPA when in the majority ran a caucus as tight as anything Harper runs,
To get back to the point I was trying to make to Morven, we all have different opinions, as do the politicians we elect. Each of those politicians (well, at the moment, I would exclude the provincial Liberals from this statement) behave in what they believe is the public interest. As I am sure you wished you would have been able to do if you had been elected.
Your disagreement has become extreme (“destructive and malevolent”) but so what. You are clearly not an objective observer (which is the point I was trying to make, if with more inflammatory language).
In fact, I would suggest that your hatred of Vision has become so extreme that everything Vision does is put through that filter. Same as the troll and others on this site.
One can disagree without being disagreeable, as the cliche goes. For example, I agree with the City administration when they decided not to spend more taxpayer money on the Bloedel money drain.
The model of the CCA’s is basically a good one but I agree with Vision that it needed tweaking (well, more accurately, it needs tweeking rather than the sledgehammer Vision attempted to take to it). You seem to suggest that what May Brown did in the ’70’s should be preserved exactly as is, like a bug in amber. Well, no. Equity has to be a consideration in a city park board system. The eat what you kill positions being taken by CCA’s like Kerrisdale or Killarney is not acceptable in my view. To that extent the JOA s should be amended. Just not in a way that puts the utility of the CCA’s at risk.
Back in the early ’70’s, I studied the civic parties and their supporters and found that the Team supporters were an amalgam of sort of right wing NDPer’s (what you in archaic language call socialists) like Mike Harcourt and Darlene Marzari and federal Liberals like Art Phillips and May Brown. The NPAers had some federal Liberals but mostly were federal (then) PC’s and provincial Socreds (now provincial Liberals). I’m not sure of my point, but I found it interesting.
At the end of the day, we all make choices and we all have views. Unfortunately (and yes, I am guilty) on the internet, we use extreme language like hack or destructive and malevolent or ignorant gang of buffoons. The language suggests (in fact says) that your opponent is malevolent which is almost never true (current provincial Liberals in their death throes excepted) and is little more than childish name calling. Although I would be the first to admit that it often feels good.

Morven

When a political party advances a policy position that it claims is in the public interest, we, the voters should be entitled to know that this position was based on a thorough review of the options.

We may not like the eventual policy but we should be entitled to know they canvassed the options.

What really irritates me about the VISION Parks Board process, is that there is scant evidence of any thorough scrutiny of the options before they decided a policy position.

For example, across many municipal bodies in North America and Europe, there js a movement towards decentralization of recreation and sport. The model being sought is co-regulation, self regulation and use of flexible community associations to make up funding shortfalls. Those not going the co-regulation route are privatizing community recreation.

How ironic that where just about everyone else is moving towards decentralization, Vancouver wants to go in the reverse route.

Where is the evidence that centralization is a cost effective route ?

The balance of the evidence in the public policy literature shows that decentralization provides cost and policy efficiency.

Perhaps TEAM had it right all along in decades past.
-30-

Bill McCreery

@ Waltyss 43.

I simply stated that your misplaced suggestion was inaccurate and insulting. How do you know I’ve “drifted to the right”? In your simplistic world view do you see VV as being left? I, as I’ve said, see them as often being wrong headed. Left and right have nothing to do with it.

Objective, to be or not to be? The expression of my opinions here are formed from a reasonable ability to objectively assess a given set of circumstances, especially where I have some experience and knowledge. In order to do this I have gone to some considerable effort to try to clearly articulate my arguments and perspectives. This is not dissimilar to many other here and the exchanges are often provocative and interesting.

With respect to your reference to “destructive and malevolent”, I believe Insider Doug was suggesting that my activities have been “destructive and malevolent” towards planning staff in carrying out their ‘duties’. I asked him/her to think about who planners were serving and to think also about those who live in glass houses. Very unfortunately in the present politicized environment it has become difficult to know when staff are the messenger or part of the message. Please refer to my earlier comment where when Commissioner Jasper threw staff under his bus, blaming them for the erroneous and controversial report, I suggested that if the Commissioners had properly instructed staff before not after the fact such situations can be avoided. I was defending staff in this case, while he was blaming them to cover his own backside.

I do not ‘hate’ VV. They are doing a great deal of damage to our City IMO and I do want to see them gone sooner than later.

You and I disagree re: Bloedel. It was a money drain because various political administrations had neglected it for too long. The Pk Bd administrative structure made that neglect worse as did the construction of the Canada Line and the resurfacing of the reservoir. To inform myself about this matter I’ve met with specialist engineers and architects to get an understanding of the built form aspects, I’ve taken the former head of Winnipeg Parks horticulture and the Assiniboine Park Conservatory on a tour of the Bloedel to get an understanding of where it stands with respect to the plant and visitor experience management. Her conclusion was that the facility has a great deal of unrealized potential. I’ve also supported and worked with the Friends of Bloedel who have made many much needed improvements and will continue to do so working with staff and the Board. So you see Waltyss I don’t just sit back and criticize, I inform myself and then do something constructive.

We agree that the CCA model is good and I’ve also said on earlier posts that I support improved accessibility measures. In the interest of brevity earlier in this post I mentioned that the 70’s template was a good one. That does not automatically mean that it cannot be improved as I’ve very clearly supported. Again, I’ve taken the time to speak with Board members from Killarney, Hastings and Kerrisdale and I think if you do some reading of your own you’ll find that they too want to realize improvements such as these.

My “socialist” language is accurate even in today’s context. I was not referring to the NDP, a provincial and federal party, rather COPE, as far I know are a civic party, and that was the context.

Your analysis is incomplete once more. TEAM also included conservatives such as Jack Volrich and Brian Calder. Your understanding is also wanting. We got together to create a better Vancouver. It had nothing to do with right or left politics. I know I was there, in the room.

I try, imperfectly, to not use extreme language personally towards an individual, but do take that liberty when criticizing the actions and motives of some groups, in particular here, often Vision Van. Facts and feelings are both legitimate part of human discourse.

Bill McCreery

Apology, I was confusing 2 threads. The “destructive and malevolent” reference were my own words in describing Vision Vancouver. Insider Doug did not say that in #45 above. That reference is inappropriate in this discussion, and so I withdraw the paragraph.

Mira

Reading at how Waltyss attacks Bill on a Vision Vancouver lost cause, brought back memories of when people asked for some on this blog to give up their “pseudonyms” and introduce themselves so they could get some … “credibility”
There you go. This is what happens. Bill McCreary has experience and was/ is involved in this matters for a long time, NPA candidate or not.
What you get, when you speak against the current City hall slumlords is character assasinations. Yes, that would bring out, Insider Doug, brilliant, gman, Glissy, MB, Morven, or myself… even Waltyss! 🙂

waltyss

mr. McCreary, thanks for reviving those names from yore.
There are always exceptions to the rule but Team was mostly centrist. Both Volrich and Calder came onboard briefly from the right but did not stay. Volrich ran for reelection as an independent and lost. Calder ran with the NPA, switched to Team and then did not run for re-election.
Just about any party considers that they are starting for the better good. That was my earlier point about the fact that most people who become politicians do it because they want to contribute something positive.
I’m glad to see that you agree that the JOA model can be improved. I still fail to see why, if as you say the Hastings, Killarney and Kerrisdale CCA’s are also interested in a better model, they are staying away from the tabel. Eric Harms in a post on this thread (he’s from Hastings, I understand) said they were not prepared to reveal their position, which strikes me as foolish. The back of the Kerrisdale spring catalogue contained a highly partisan message and it was most clearly, an eat what you kill message.
The Vision PB screwed up, majorly. I agree with you that Jasper blaming his staff is unacceptable (even if the staff may be at fault). However it is also time for everyone to move on; if VV PB has not learned its lesson, we will soon know. If it has, then maybe we are enroute for a better JOA. However, the outliers are not contributing anything to this. If you talked to them, and found something different, I am dying to hear.
Anyway, the only point I was trying to make earlier was that, while we all do it, we can discuss rationally without ascribing bad motives to each other. I have never suggested that you were operating from malevolent motives. We just disagree on some things, and agree on others.
Mira Breckenridge, God only knows what you are trying to say but I am confident of one thing: whatever it is, it is not worth the effort to find out.

Bill McCreery

@ Waltyss 48.

Volrich stayed in TEAM as an alderman until he ran for mayor and in 78 as I recall. Calder did only serve 1 term as an alderman, but he did remain active in the party for some time after. Which brings up the point that although you and I are mentioning the names of elected people, political parties are more than just those people. Another name, but not then elected, on your right spectrum was Gordon Campbell, Art Phillips executive assistant, and there were others. The point being is that TEAM was not a right/left organization, it’s purpose and activities were to do what was best for the City of Vancouver not special interest groups.

City Plumber – Ask a Question

City Plumber

Is Vancouver exaggerating the low vacancy rate by only looking at statistics for purpose-built apartments

Who absorbs the cost of CACs when a whole strata sells to a developer?

Does a developer going through a rezoning also have to go through the development-permit process?

What is happening with the new Vancouver chief planner job?

Why did the value of my building go up when I made no improvements?

Categories

Post Archives