Frances Bula header image 2

“How the media and NPA got it wrong” — Vision pollster

November 23rd, 2011 · 95 Comments

Just because I know this will set off a big argument. And that’s fun + instructive.

Here you go, Bob Penner’s analysis.

 

 

 

Categories: Uncategorized

  • IliveinVancouver

    JC #50
    Excellent post.

  • IliveinVancouver

    thinkbox #49
    … you might step into a big pile of caucau.

    michelle #48
    Hmmm… the beat goes on.

  • Roger Kemble

    IliveinVancouver @ #51 et. al.

    It ended Saturday Nov. 19, 2000 hrs.

    The people have spoken.

    Get over it!

    You will have another chance 2014.

  • IliveinVancouver

    RK #53
    My point exactly, thank you.

  • Dan Cooper

    Everyman (Nov 23, 2011 at 10:21 pm) writes, “Note that Portland’s liberal mayor was not afraid to take firm measures against the Occupiers, and Portland is no worse off than our fair city for it.”

    While the actual clearing of the encampment square in Portland went fairly peacefully, in the following days the downtown was disrupted by protest marches and an often-violent police response. Then there was that photo that went viral, of the black-storm-trooper-armor-police (the Portland Police’s default approach to any protest gathering for years now) pepper spraying one woman directly in the face. The mayor of Portland, Sam Adams, is a goner after this term, although admittedly that may have more to do with his sex-with-underage-person scandal than anything else.

    Oh, and did I mention that one of the captains in the Portland Police, Mark Kruger, is – and has been for over a decade despite city denials and evidence in their possession that they did not disclose until recently – a well-known Nazi admirer, who once even nailed up plaques on a tree in a public park celebrating several specific Nazi soldiers, including (according to the Portland Oregonian newspaper) “SS-Obersturmfuhrer Michael Wittman, a member of the Waffen SS, and Kdr. Harald von Hirschfeld who commanded a regiment that participated in the execution of thousands of prisoners of war on the Greek island of Cephalonia in 1943,” and who I suspect not coincidentally has cost the City of Portland at least $300,000 (plus of course legal expenses) in court damages due to violence toward demonstrators back when he was just a sergeant? The relationship between the police and any kind of protesters in Portland has been absolutely toxic for at least a decade, and is only getting worse from all I can see.

    ( http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/10/portland_police_panel_finds_ca.html )

    Both from watching them in action on several occasions and from what I have read, I have been very impressed with the way the VPD has handled the Occupy Vancouver situation. They have, in the end, gotten what they needed done without causing worse problems, and using the minimum force necessary. Do people really think that sending them in and busting heads is not going to cause any problems, either in brutalizing and enflaming the demonstrators or brutalizing those doing the beating so that they start using the same tactics in all their interactions with civilians? (Look up how many unarmed civilians the Portland Police have shot dead over the last couple years, including one who was walking out of a house backwards with his hands on the head as ordered by the police.) As for the Occupy Vancouver, when it came to a final court order, they obeyed it. Where is the problem here?

  • Roger Kemble

    Dan Cooper @ # 55

    I have been very impressed with the way the VPD has handled the Occupy Vancouver situation.

    Me too . . .

  • Dan Cooper

    Hmm…okay, clarification. On looking back at articles from 2009 when the situation came out, it seems that although Adams started a romantic relationship with an under-18-year-old, and admits lying about the nature of the relationship during his election campaign, they did not actually have sex until the teen was (just barely) 18. So, underage is probably not the right word for the situation from a legal standpoint. The lying still almost got Adams impeached, though!

    http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/susan_nielsen/index.ssf/2009/01/sam_adams_and_the_unshakeable.html

  • Jason

    “be applied to any political party? As Agustin says, all parties have their groupies. It’s not clear how Vision are any more “we know what’s best for you, thankyouverymuch” than the NPA (or any other party, particularly at the provincial and federal levels). ”

    Julian – I respectfully disagree. And don’t get me wrong, I’m certainly not applying the “cult like/moral crusade” personality to voters…the voters saw the options and voted for the party they thought did the best job…and as I stated earlier, the level of political apathy in Vancouver general means people didn’t look very hard (not belittling the votes Vision got…they are no more or less apathetic than when the NPA is voted in). I’m also sure that a lot of people who voted for Vision, liked what they saw and voted intelligently…this actually isn’t about the electorate or the election…this is a general comment on Vision.

    I haven’t seen, nor do I believe it to be true, a group within the NPA that thinks they are on a moral crusade….they want good government, they want to try and make the right choices for the city…but they don’t believe they are re engineering society, or have some sort of “just cause” they are pursuing. Good government to members of the NPA is simply make wise decisions for the city….there are differences of opinion on how to do this, and they consider the options and then make a decision. It’s not right or wrong, it’s the best decisions/direction based on the options before them. They are making a rational decision based on the options.

    Vision seems different to me….at least the things I hear/see from the mayor, Councillors, supporters, cheerleaders, etc. It’s a moral crusade…it’s a “right and wrong” argument. There is no grey, there is no discussion…it’s “we know what’s best for you…so swallow it”. Do I think that the greening of our city is good? Absolutely….but there are a 100 ways to go about doing that…and each has it’s pros and cons, and require debate and discussion…I don’t get the feeling from Vision that the Vision team views things this way…again, “crusade” is the feeling I get whenever I talk to a person who’s intimately involved in Vision. They are doing the “right thing”….the passion is great, the intent seems noble, but you can be incredibly blinded by reality when you believe that your cause/party/goal is “just”.

    Politicizing the bureaucracy of the city would be another example of this concern…the bureaucracy is supposed to be a neutral body that simply fulfills the decisions of the elected….I see this changing under Vision…they seem to be recruiting only people who agree with their “cause”. Again, this is scary…I don’t want an engineer to be promoted because he’s “on our side”, I want him promoted because he does a good job. It isn’t about building a team who hold the same “vision” for our city, it’s about building a group who are capable of doing their jobs….again, my perception is that the “vision” is overshadowing the ability.

    Let me state again…my views are not far off the majority of Vision decisions….so this isn’t refighting the election…this is my general perspective of Vision. And if I’m right…I think it’s something that the electorate need to watch…because some good decisions can come from a “moral crusade”…but some extremely bad ones can occur as well.

    Again Julian, I’m sure there are members of the Vision team, and certainly a lot of Vision supporters who simply like the direction they are headed, and like the decisions that are being made….but I caution that some of the people at the top may be driving the bus with blinders on, believing that they know the way to the “promised land”…and that they have the potential of driving the bus right off the cliff if they ignore the reality and focus solely on their “vision”.

    I hope I’m wrong.

  • ptak604

    I wonder what Ken Dobell or Judy Rogers would say about the politicization of city staff.

  • Agustin

    I haven’t seen, nor do I believe it to be true, a group within the NPA that thinks they are on a moral crusade….they want good government, they want to try and make the right choices for the city…but they don’t believe they are re engineering society, or have some sort of “just cause” they are pursuing

    Of course the NPA are attempting to engineer society. They just want to engineer it to suit their beliefs and values instead of Vision’s.

    Every decision government makes (or doesn’t make) “engineers” society. If you put in a bike lane, it promotes cycling. If you don’t put in a bike lane, it promotes driving. Maintaining status quo doesn’t mean you are not engineering society, it just means you like the current engineering.

    If you’re looking for a “just cause” on display by NPA supporters, look no further than those who called loudly for a no-holds-barred intervention to get the Occupy movement off public land. It basically boils down to furthering the “just cause” of maintaining the status quo because it’s working for me, thankyouverymuch, and if people protest for too long I’m not going to stand for it.

    Or look to several (most prominent in the SW part of the city, as we’ve seen from polls) whose “just cause” is being able to have a huge house with a huge yard, and being able to drive to work.

    I think you are wrong because you’re looking at this from too biased a position. Both Vision and NPA (and the Greens, and NSV, etc.) are trying to engineer society. And they all have their “just causes” as well.

    I don’t want an engineer to be promoted because he’s “on our side”, I want him promoted because he does a good job.

    I also don’t want the bureaucracy politicized. If Vision is doing this, I would like to hear more (particularly from journalists – Frances did some stories on this subject a few months ago). In fact, I was surprised that the NPA didn’t bring up this subject more during the campaign. One thing I would caution is that it can be difficult to differentiate between having someone “on our side” and having someone follow direction from council. (Though naturally there are clear-cut cases such as was displayed with Statistics Canada a few months ago.)

  • Silly Season

    @Julian Christians @Jason

    Thank you.

    Thank you.

    Thank you.

    Gentlemen—and that is a term I truly can use for both of you—thank you for pesenting your arguments in such a forthright and non-confrontational (i.e. vitriolic name calling, snarkfests, etc.), respectful manner.

    This proves that political discourse can be interesting, engaging and thought provoking without descending into the proverbial mud pit.

    Dare I suggest that thoughtful people aren’t so far apart in what they want for our fair city?

    It is true that execution between parties may differ, or “style points’ may be made made for the benefits of the optics, but I have to say, that the two of you representing two differing parties, have given me hope for future bright conversations—versus confrontations—on this website.

    Statesmanship in Vancouver–what a concept!

    So, maybe, we can conceive of a Vancouver of the future where political banners are not only uneccessary, but uneeded.

    Then, all of the poli staff peeps would have to take their bag ‘o tricks elsewhere. Or, change their evil and expensive ways…

    🙂

  • ThinkOutsideABox

    I’m sure many were satisfied to hear of Vision’s moratorium on Casino expansion during the campaign.

    Vision donor PavCo may have solved this in the latest proposal for the BC Place casino by not increasing the size of floor space from what’s at Edgewater, but it might mean an increase in the hotel density.

    So at next Tuesday’s council meeting, we won’t see casino expansion technically per se because there is a moratorium on expanding such things, but we will see approval for a casino here.

  • spartikus

    It seems to be a recurring theme that Vision is a “proper” political party, with a level of organzation typically seen in those at higher levels of government. Then there’s the notion of an underlying philosophy. While I don’t think the phrase “moral crusade” is fitting and I think it’s being overstated (the other criticism is it’s just as much a developer party as the NPA), Jason is on to something when he state VV has – like quite a few political parties – an underlying philosophy (Jason above states he holds climate change as real, so I don’t think this turn of phrase is appropriate – unless he’s feel such belief is a moral choice rather than one based on scientific evidence). This can be positive, this can be negative. He would get bonus marks if he could state explicitly what he thinks it is.
    The federal Conservatives certainly have an underlying philosophy. So do the NDP. The federal Liberals used to have one and are desparately searching for a new one.
    He’s also on to something when he says the NPA doesn’t have much of an underlying philosophy. This has been much noted by others. It too can be positive, it can be negative.
    Here’s my opinion – the NPA survived so long because it has been the willing vessel of Vancouver’s establishment. It adopted and discarded whatever policies as necessary, so long as the establishment’s interests were protected.
    Now along comes VV with it big-tent centrist pitch and Vancouver’s establishment hedged it’s bets (as those in power always do) and backed both horses. And so long as VV doesn’t rock the boat this hedging will continue. The threat to the NPA isn’t that VV has some sort of underlying green philosophy. Tt’s that it has successfully moved in on it’s territory.
    And to echo Agustin: Everything we do is social engineering. Everything.
    If, as you state above, you believe the scientific evidence is overwhelming our climate is being changed by human activity – then rationally we must change our behaviour. And so far in that regard all I see are a lot of carrots being offered, and not a lot of sticks.
    I don’t want an engineer to be promoted because he’s “on our side”
    Without defining what “on our side” means this is substance-less (I’m not trying to insult you here, just trying to have your point filled out more). I would be very curious what facts Jason thinks an engineer would have to ignore to be “on our side”.
    I would also like to know if there is any evidence anyone hasn’t gotten a job with the City of Vancouver because of their political beliefs – which is something Mike Klassen explicitly advocated firing people for.

  • Roger Kemble

    Jason above states he holds climate change as real

    http://reddogreport.com/

    Oh god Frances I hope you are not exposing this twaddling gossip to your journalism students . . .

    What do they report when something real happens?

  • West End Gal

    Jason #58
    “I hope I’m wrong.”

    No. You’re not wrong. That’s the problem.

    “Vision seems different to me….at least the things I hear/see from the mayor, Councillors, supporters, cheerleaders, etc. It’s a moral crusade…it’s a “right and wrong” argument. There is no grey, there is no discussion…it’s “we know what’s best for you…so swallow it”.”

    Right on!

    “Politicizing the bureaucracy of the city would be another example of this concern…the bureaucracy is supposed to be a neutral body that simply fulfills the decisions of the elected….I see this changing under Vision…they seem to be recruiting only people who agree with their “cause”. ”

    Right ON again!

    Vision is a bunch that would not qualify for ‘a Cult” and would not qualify for ‘communists’ because they live in a Capitalist society, in a big city, and most of their leaders are loaded. So in other words they are worst.

    Many posters before you Jason, mentioned the same things on this blog, and they’ve been bullied and laughed at, intimidated, called names yet the facts and/ or Vision actions don’t lie. They can’t argue with that, so they change the subject.

    And BTW Roger #64 how does commenting from Nanaimo re. Vancouver, works for you?
    Cause I sure cannot comment on Nanaimo from Vancouver?

  • Roger Kemble

    West End Gal @ #65

    Cause I sure cannot comment on Nanaimo from Vancouver?

    Sure you can. Try this . . .

    http://nanaimocityhall.com/

  • Roger Kemble

    So much for mena nast Gregor . . .

    http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/11/imperialism-99-solution

  • Roger Kemble

    . . . mean and nasty Gregor . . . stat!

  • Jason

    Perhaps my wording could have been better on Climate Change…let me rephrase – I believe climate change deniers are ignoring 99% of the scientific community. I wasn’t trying to suggest it was an opinion.

    Spartikus and Agustin…you can claim it’s just a philosophy, and that VV just has another philosophy and are absolutely no different than any other party. I politely disagree.

    A philosophy is open for challenge and debate…a philosophy, by it’s very nature, is meant to be challenged. A conservative philosophy DOES view the world a certain way, and DOES set out to build the world based on this view. I agree. But what it doesn’t do is claim it’s above reproach…

    Perhaps another example would help.

    David Suzuki is very highly regarded due to his actions on environmental issues….he’s done some terrific things and should be highly regarded. HOWEVER, what he should not be, is beyond reproach because of his previous actions. His organization should be wide open for scrutiny on where his funding is coming from, and if someone questions a stance he takes, or the source of his funding, etc. etc. it should be open for discussion. But it’s general not…if someone questions that the Suzuki foundation may be getting large donations from corporate interests that wants to try and push an environmental issue to benefit their corporate interests….you know what you get? You get a “HOW DARE YOU”…how dare you question this man…his cause is just, it’s moral, it’s above reproach. That’s wrong, and that’s what I’m worried about with Vision.

    Just because a group thinks that what they are doing is just, moral, making the world a better place, doesn’t justify them as pushing forward without debate, discussion, dissection. But I believe, based on what I’ve seen, that there is a lot of this going on within Vision. That’s not justifying a philosophy, that’s stating that your philosophy is better than everyone else’s, and therefore it should not be questioned….huge difference.

    “I would be very curious what facts Jason thinks an engineer would have to ignore to be “on our side”.”

    Spartikus…I think the answer is very simple. If you’re hiring someone BECAUSE they support your team, you’re politicizing the bureaucracy. Yes, they CAN support your team and be hired, it just shouldn’t be the criteria for hiring them. There is a suggestion that Vision is hiring people based largely on their support of Vision and their agenda…THAT’S a problem. I don’t care if you’re Vision, COPE, NPA…your allegiance to the party in power should never be a criteria for hiring, firing or promotion. I would think you’d agree with this, as it undermines the entire notion of an impartial bureaucracy.

    “If, as you state above, you believe the scientific evidence is overwhelming our climate is being changed by human activity – then rationally we must change our behaviour. ”

    I agree Spartikus…but I think almost all the political parties in Vancouver would also agree with that statement. I would hope you’d also agree that there are a wide variety of ways of changing that behavior….there’s not just one option, one priority, one way of doing things.

  • spartikus

    A philosophy is open for challenge and debate

    I would still be curious just what you think this philosophy is.

    That we’ve had an election, are having this discussion – and have discussed “Vision’s agenda” over that few years seems to be to rest the notion it “can’t be challenged”.

    The same principle applies to the Suzuki Foundation – it’s donors are listed in the Annual Reports on it’s website. The same could not be said for, as an example, the Fraser Institute (a registered charity engaged in “trying to change the way people think” – which is their words, not mine)

    I think you mistaking exasperation from Suzuki at what he, and many, feel are spurious charges. Nevertheless they are being raised in the press and the public sphere, and nobody including David Suzuki, suggests they can’t be. Doesn’t mean he has to like it, or be polite about it.

    There is a suggestion that Vision is hiring people based largely on their support of Vision and their agenda

    There’s the suggestion. Where’s the evidence?

  • Bill

    Jason #69

    I think your wording was very accurate – you believe in climate change. Your use of “climate change deniers” rather than skeptics show you are in the Al “the science is settled” Gore camp. No rational person would deny that climate changes – there is overwhelming evidence for that. Most skeptics would acknowledge that man does influence climate change but there is great uncertainty as to how much is attributable to man and how much is due to natural processes.

    The AGW religion is dieing a slow death because of all the vested interests in keeping it alive. However, there is a perceptible shift from preventing to mitigating the effects of climate change and I would expect that will grow as organizations discover ways to make money from it.

  • Higgins

    Spartikus #70
    Cool down. You can live in your Vision world, now that you fooled the electorate a second time, three more years for you to laugh all the way to the bank like…hmm, Penny Ballem, Sandhu Johnston no links to Hollyhock Vision whatsoever, right only the two biggest rip offs in this city’s administration.
    [Edited because tiresome and boring attack on where a commenter works]
    No big deal all your Vision friends are related to this sort of thing.
    No and Vision is not placing their Kurt people in the school system either.
    You know what you are ? Liars.

    And Roger #66… Touche! WEG is right. It’s easy for you to comment on Vancouver politics from Nanaimo, as it doesn’t affect you, not one bit. I could as well comment on Rio de janiero, they might have a web site I could look at LOL!
    So easy on your praise for Vision and their front-punk.
    It’s only going to get worse, just give it a bit of time. Democracy is dead in Vancouver. That’s what a sweep is all about, look at Harper, he couldn’t do enough to screw this country when he was in minority, now that he is in majority is there any wonder that Canada is looking at more war-friendly interventions?
    Occupy, occupy LOL

  • Agustin

    Jason:

    You get a “HOW DARE YOU”…

    I have never witnessed such a response, and I hang out with David Suzuki fans quite a bit.

    But setting that aside, if you are getting that response, it reflects on the person giving the response, not on David Suzuki or his foundation – right?

    Ditto for Vision. And ditto for any other political party. There are plenty of died-in-the-wool NPA supporters out there who resort to calling people names because they don’t have a response to criticism of their party. But it would be wrong to judge the whole of the NPA by the actions of a few of its fans.

    Just because a group thinks that what they are doing is just, moral, making the world a better place, doesn’t justify them as pushing forward without debate, discussion, dissection. But I believe, based on what I’ve seen, that there is a lot of this going on within Vision. That’s not justifying a philosophy, that’s stating that your philosophy is better than everyone else’s, and therefore it should not be questioned….huge difference.

    This is a different subject. Now you’re talking about stakeholder consultation, not moral superiority.

  • Michael Geller

    Vision won, NPA lost. A lot of the polling was very inaccurate, in no doubt due to the methods selected. Three years ago, we were told by pollsters that the Olympic Village had no impact on the outcome. This time, we are being told that another OV had little impact. It’s hard to believe, but it probably doesn’t matter.

    A number of councillors who I wanted to see re-elected/elected were. A number of good candidates who should have been on Council are not.

    While it is fun to speculate on what might have been, now it’s time to get back to work.

    I do hope that three years from now we have made better progress in terms of the quality of life in the DTES. This can be achieved with a broader mix of housing, including some very basic, supportive housing projects. (The social housing projects currently underway are too expensive, in my opinion.)

    I hope we’ll talk much more about the need for more facilities for those with mental illness and addictions, since to my mind, this is at the root of the problem for far too many people.

    I’m pleased that Minister Coleman is not funding more emergency shelters. They are too expensive for what they offer. I’m encouraged by his words that some more innovative solutions are coming.

    Three years ago, after losing the 10th slot to Ellen Woodsworth, I was quite disappointed. But life went on. Ironically, this time the hardworking and dedicated Ellen lost her spot to Adriane Carr by the narrowest of margins.

    I’m looking forward to seeing what Adriane Carr brings to Council deliberations. I’m hoping we will all be pleasantly surprised.

    I’m also keen to see how NSV operates over the coming years. I have a feeling it isn’t going away. Will it take the place of CityCaucus.com which sadly is going away.

    On a final note, I too didn’t like the negative tone of the NPA campaign. However, I was repeatly told that this was necessary since the NPA was so far behind.

    Ironcially, after the election I started to read a 22 page glossy brochure the NPA put out in the last month of the election: I found it on a table. Putting Taxpayers First. It sets out a very comprehensive set of actions related to Neighbourhoods, Prosperity and Accountability and Leadership.

    It’s well written and very positive. However, most of us never saw it. We never had the opportunity to discuss what was being proposed, due in large part to Occupy Vancouver.

    Now that the election is over,hopefully others will review this report too, including those in power, and incorporate some of the better ideas into future policies and plans.

  • Julian Christians

    Thanks for the clarification, Jason (and thanks Silly Season 61!). I think “moral crusade” is overstating things a bit, but I think I see where you’re coming from- there are a few issues (e.g., Hornby bike lane, STIR, homeless shelters), where opponents are characterized as not just misguided, but some type of evil. I’m not convinced that is a general Vision trait (or that it is unique to Vision), but I’ll have to take a closer look. The grey areas in between the black and white can get seriously complicated, though. For example, I was of the opinion that “only Rob Ford-types are against the Hornby bike lane” until I read some of Paul T’s (I think it was Paul T) comments on this blog a few weeks (months?) ago. I started to get a better understanding that things could have been done better. It wasn’t a simple two sentence argument, though- you needed a lot of detail to appreciate how complex it was.

    But just to clarify- it’s not Kool Aid, and they’re not drinking it…
    http://twitter.com/#!/MayorGregor/status/139908426410102785

  • Roger Kemble

    True I am no longer a Vancouver voter Higgins @ #72.

    However money . . .
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUjBLLzYPGg&feature=youtu.be . . . knows no civic, or indeed national boundaries. While we, on the west coast, gossip the juggernaut creeps into everything.

    I lived and practiced in Vancouver for over forty years in a NPA induced political environment with a brief TEAM interlude. Believe me it was no different: there is so little a civic party can do, in view of MONEY, other than keep the drains clear and the drug lords in Abbottsford. (BC Bud/developers: the only game in town!)

    As for global warming, GW, AGW, HCGW, CC carbon credits et. al. The Sun comes up. The Sun goes down! Will the saga never end?

    While we architects wrestle with LEED platinum, gold, lead (click on my name for clarification) shoppers beat up on each other for that 48” flat screen, gas-guzzling tanks roll for oil, F-35’s bomb the shit out of everyone who cannot shoot back and Glissie waxes poetic when Gregor goes to Cortez.

    Isn’t there a sort of lack of perspective here somewhere? Doesn’t it make a mockery out of “concrete is the new marble”.

    I used to live in El Montruo: now that’s a fun city!

  • F.H.Leghorn

    Vancouver Sun: On Thursday night, Robertson posted a message on the social net-working website Twitter: “Good to see 4 Vancouver ex-mayors calling for end of cannabis prohibition. I agree, we need to be smart and tax/regulate.”

    Organically grown, naturally. Between the rows of front-yard wheat, presumably.

  • Michell

    Jesus, it feels like in a newly Vision Elected for three more years in here, at “Frances Bully” Blog. Everything that’s not laudatory of Vision, Mayor, their lunacies, is punched into a corner kicked in the head and left for dead. Even Roger has got the virus. Now I see comments are edited, LOL, as if we don’t know who Spartikus really is and who he works for, he said it himself including his real name again LMAO!
    Dark outside darker in here. Three more years, enjoy it as it last, just don’t kill this city please!

  • Roger Kemble

    Michelle @ #78

    Even Roger has got the virus.

    Hey, Michelle, I wish Vision good luck for two reasons among many:

    1. Against all the mean gossip (Geller was apoplectic) they have stood by the social at OV.

    2. They kept their cool over the riots” and OCCUPY while everyone was playing “Frances’ Bullies”, calling for blood.

    Having said that money to alleviate homelessness and affordable housing is out of local control for reasons, (thu banksters’ ponzi), OCCUPY is trying to bring to world attention.

    And I expect a flood of hate mail for saying that . . .

  • Paul T.

    Thanks Julian…. Perhaps it was my comments, however there have been several thoughtful comments about the issues with the Hornby Bike Lane.

  • Silly Season

    @spartikus. #63

    Pretty sure that Vision tent is very much open to the old guard.

    Witness this Tuesday’s council session, when Paragon/PAVCO come back for next round of the casino wars.

    “NO expanded gambling!” stated the mayor at a press conference and on his Courier wrap. It was something they kept using to define themselves against Anton’s “flip-flop” on the subject.

    Now, they can dress it up any way they like, and once this issue re-opens it will be a semantic battle over “expansion” versus “re-location”. Someone may state that the place is “same size” as it is now. But that may refer only to actual floorplate size.

    But if that casino opens, mark my words—it won’t be long before extra slots et al are moved into whatever floorplate they decide on.

    Which will make the whole argument during the election, moot. As well as dishonest.

    And I would hope that anyone who disapproved of the relocation of the casino in the first place—NPA, COPE and Vision supporters— to give ‘er back to that council.

  • Bill McCreery

    @ Agustin 37.

    I agree the NPA did not offer enough for enough voters to want to vote for them. But, one must also look at the all important process of getting out the vote. Vision had at least a 6 year advantage because the NPA is a group of people who get together 6 months before an election and recommend candidates who they think will well serve Vancouver. I said that needed to change if the NPA was to compete with VV at the 2010 NPA agm, but our motions to change the NPA to political party were defeated. Unfortunately after the fact, others are now coming to the same conclusions.

    Vision had a 60k voter ID list assembled over at least 6 years, the NPA, 30k assembled in 6 months. VV also had the advantage of having access to all voter communication with the City, so they could easily identify supporters or not and add them to their lists.

    Superior voter ID and better volunteer organization won VV the election, not their platform vs. the NPA’s.

    I did call for a moratorium on laneway housing, not because I’m against them nor “because [I] don’t like change”, but because it is the responsible thing to do. As I’ve previously said, when there are obvious shortcomings in a programme such laneways, particularly because some adversely affect their neighbours, elected representatives of ‘all the people’ need to step back, reassess and improve. I’m not sure of your idea of how an elected representative should conduct themselves, but that is mine.

    Apparently for your own reasons you’ve decided I don’t like change. Well, your wrong. However, I do like to get things right, and I’m prepared to take a little longer to do so.

    On a related note, why do you and others make comments such as “(maybe you used to like change, but not anymore)”? What is that adding to this discussion? By so doing you not only discredit yourself, but also make your own biases obvious.

    By the way, in case you didn’t notice I was not successful in my efforts to secure a Council seat, so you can relax, I’m no longer a threat.

  • Julia

    wondering if all those people who signed up for the city newsletter were added to the Vision voter ID list.

  • Roger Kemble

    Interesting: we have segued from analyzing the election to a casino to surreptitiously accusing Vision of bootlegging the city newsletter mailing list (huh, is it confidential?) all in one swoop.

    I remember when Spartikus would have blown a fuse at such a riotous ride.

    Despite illusive public objections, despite valiant Sandy Garossino unless we find massive gold deposits on Grouse Mountain it’s casino’s all the way down because in a FIRE economy that’s all there is . . .
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGkmgnprrIU&feature=player_embedded#!

    . . . Interesting, though, that for all the chatter, we ignore the corrupted banking system, (reason we must reluctantly consider casino jobs in the first place), the essential cause of the city’s affordability/jobs failure, we bad mouth VISION: hey, someone voted for them . . .

    I’ll bet Frances did: the slate!

  • Silly Season

    @ Prof. Kemble #85

    But in fact, we do not ignore the banking system. I certainly agree with the premise of the economist in your BBC clip (who is not against capitalis, but points out that the banking system has “parasytic’ practices in issuing so much unsupportable debt (those who can’t pay their debts)—and the bundling of that debt into iinstrument after instrument that is re-sold and resold and resold. And of course, all that paper = nothing. Debt that should never have been issued in the first place.

    Now, in relation to my casino comment–I see a local government who is panicking about their ability to help create the conditions needed to add new revenues to the city coffers.

    They are happy to create instead, a bigger business based on predatory practices: the gulling of the middle class and lower middle class, who they hope can be parted from own after tax money by pullling the arm of the “one armed” bandit.

    Oh, well. Better than pulling our legs, yes?
    In a city with few new business, fewer new jobs, we will create the conditions of more debt and then find that those who cannot pay their other debts.

    How does this city mindset differ from the parasitic banking model?

  • Silly Season

    PS: Agree with Keen’s commments about the system as “ponzi scheme” under the “deluded majority!”.

  • Everyman

    @Bill McCreery 82
    I agree, the NPA can no longer fight Vision Vancouver by remaining an every-three-years organization. And COPE can no longer remain relevant by beign subservient to Vision both organizations will have to spend the next few months soul-searching and then get on with the business of rebuilding.

    As to the NPA campiagn, I don’t belive it was anything close to a disaster some claim. Reading back on the blogs just a fe wmoths ago, everyone had them finishing much farther back, with Anton not having name recognition with the public. They battled back, but the old model of doing things will not get them any further next time. On the other hand in three years Robertson and his administration will be getting long in the tooth, and its hard to imagine all councillors will wish to remain at the municipal level.

  • Agustin

    On a related note, why do you and others make comments such as “(maybe you used to like change, but not anymore)”? What is that adding to this discussion? By so doing you not only discredit yourself, but also make your own biases obvious.

    I said that because in the past when we’ve talked about moving forward with the Hornby bike lanes you’ve referred to how you worked on getting the lanes put in at Stanley Park. Your evidence of how you are open to change seems to stem from at least a couple of decades ago, hence my parenthetic remark. I don’t see how that statement discredits me or makes my biases obvious. (Aside: I have several biases. Which ones are you referring to in particular?)

    If you have heard that feedback from several people, perhaps you are unwittingly portraying an image of yourself that does not truly represent you.

    By the way, in case you didn’t notice I was not successful in my efforts to secure a Council seat, so you can relax, I’m no longer a threat.

    Bill, I don’t now, nor have I ever, considered you a threat. I have considered you a politician – one who has put his policy planks out there for discussion (much to your credit) and followed up by answering questions (much to your credit). I just happen to disagree with your views so I engage in debate. If you feel personally attacked then I apologise because that was not my intention.

  • Higgins

    Ha!
    Interesting how Frances CAN Edit posts that are sensitive to her own brethren … see Higgins #72. Yet a few weeks ago when the individual in question provided names and accusatory statements re. several people Frances was only hugs and kisses. Not a post or name was removed including email addresses.
    All that was cut from the above post were fair questions. One was: Is this guy posting during working hours on taxpayer money? Oops, I did it again.

  • Michael Geller

    Roger Kemble #79: “Against all the mean gossip (Geller was apoplectic) they have stood by the social at OV”

    Roger, you’re so sweet!

    Yes, I did argue for a couple of years that given the significant financial losses I expected the city to incur, it should sell the social housing units and use the proceeds including some profits to reduce its losses, knowing that more cost effective social housing could be built on adjacent sites one day.

    I suggested that this appeared to be the primary way that the city could cut its losses a bit.

    But no, the city kept the units, subsidizing them to the tune of $64 million plus, only to then occupy half of them as ‘market rentals’. (The estimate of profits was up to $68 million according to the staff report at the time.)

    Moreover, after deciding to keep the units, it couldn’t find one non-profit organization in the city to take them over, since the non-profits were rightly worried about all the liabilities associated with these units… from having to replace the Swiss yellow exterior glass panels….to the maintenance costs of the highly innovative and uncertain energy features.

    In the end the very capable Thom Armstrong agreed to take ownershipof some units as a coop, and manage the others until an operator could be found.

    So what has happened?

    The losses now appear to be even greater than what I expected and reported at the time.

    Both the city and Coop are having to deal with increasingly disgruntled residents who, rather than be grateful for their homes….are complaining about many things…today it’s the ventilation. Yesterday it was the heating bills are too high. They can’t afford to live there….and on and on and on.

    Moreover, at a Sustainabild conference last Wednesday, Roger Bayley, who was the overall design manager with the architects and a major player in the project announced to a large audience his frustration that and I’m going to put this in capitals…THE ENERGY BILLS OF PEOPLE IN THE SOCIAL HOUSING UNITS ARE THREE TIMES THOSE OF THE CONDO UNITS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DON’T CARE HOW MUCH ENERGY THEY USE SINCE THE CITY IS PAYING FOR IT. In other words, they are not at all sympathetic to the environmental goals of the community.

    So Mr Roger Kemble. You may think the city did the right thing, but I think it made a terrible decision keeping these units, and I’m not saying this because I want the NPA to win the 2011 election.

    These social housing units will be an albatross for all Vancouver taxpayers.

    Finally, although the city was so insistent that there had to be social housing at Olympic Village to maintain social diversity, it backed off requiring social housing in a recent phase of North Shore of False Creek, and a 1114 unit development at Kingsway and Boundary. Instead there will be an amenity space for a community organization.

    Go figure!

    ps If I sound a bit pissed off in writing this to you I am. Quite frankly, I generally refrain from responding to your oftentimes inane accusations, but this time I think you deserve a thoughtful response.

  • Bill

    Michael Geller #90

    “In other words, they are not at all sympathetic to the environmental goals of the community.”

    I think this says more about human nature than what the residents in the social housing units feel about the environmental goals of the community. What is the more rationale action – buy a sweater out of your own money or turn up the heat in your unit that someone else is paying for. It is a factor that is conveniently overlooked in setting social policy – people will value what they pay for. You can’t waste something that is free – (water usage, medical services, education).

  • Chris Keam

    “In other words, they are not at all sympathetic to the environmental goals of the community.”

    Yep, them and about three-quarters of the rest of the population. I doubt even Vision has the stones to make people in need of social housing sign some kind of enviro-pledge to reduce their emissions. Such a document could have a significant impact if required of the ‘Alphas’ and ‘Betas’ before they booked a trans-oceanic pleasure flight however, so the idea isn’t completely silly.

  • Chris Keam

    @IanS

    “Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/how-much-does-smoking-cos_n_184554.html

  • Chris Keam

    oops wrong thread

  • Bill McCreery

    @Agustin 88.

    The campaign was not the place, unfortunately, to propose detailed solutions to the emotionally charged bike lanes controversy. I no longer have those constraints, and at the risk of attracting the wrath of some, I’ll outline now, and I emphasize, ONE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION, at least parts of which have been previously considered (another reason why I did not want to bring this up mid-campaign because careful and detailed review of this history and staff consultation are essential) that I’d like to see serious consideration of.

    My premises are:
    1) to see a separated bike system through Downtown that works for bikers, drivers and businesses; and
    2) to incorporate the transportation planning principle of ‘mode separation’ as much as is realistically possible in the solution.

    There are something like 64 street-front businesses I counted on Hornby Street while there are +/-27 in the same distance on Howe. On the other hand Howe is a designated Provincial highway through Downtown. Based on experience working with DoH, they will not want a designated bike lane on their highway. I have not been able to talk with staff about this, but, again from past political experience, when there is sufficient political will, a way can be found.

    So, consideration should nevertheless be given to using Howe rather than Hornby or Granville (the latter can’t work due to serious pedestrian and bus conflicts). There are some refinements as to how Howe can be made to work for DoH, bikers and buses that I won’t get into here.

    Now getting across False Creek. The Burrard Bridge solution works for several reasons from a biker and relative least cost perspective. However, it has it’s shortcomings, particularly at both ends. Since these pros and cons of separated bike lanes on the Bridge have been argued ad nauseam I will not get into that aspect of this discussion.

    If one can look at this matter rationally it is clear that 1 and 2 above can better be achieved by a series of dedicated and not False Creek ferries that have pick up locations at a number of locations on the south side starting at the Maritime Museum on the west, Burrard Civic Marina, Granville Island, Heather Street Marina and eventually just east of the Cambie bridge. These can land at the present foot of Hornby and Davie Streets and possibly at the Burrard Yacht Club.

    Two concerns for such a plan are: who pays for the cost, and depending on frequency, bikers might have to wait +/- 5 minutes or so. With patience and understanding on all sides, these are not deal breakers.

    On the plus side the rider experience would be safer, more hassle-free, less onerous grades, more access points from the south = greater accessibility to more riders from different parts of the City = encourages more riders. Also, on the north side, it distributes bike traffic around Downtown and allows greater use of the Seawall to allow bikers to get safely closer to their destinations in an east/west direction.