Frances Bula header image 2

Mayor promised to do things differently. Now what about everyone else?

December 2nd, 2014 · 16 Comments

We are all on pins and needles, awaiting word any day now from the mayor’s office about the radical changes in communication, accessibility, and general user-friendliness about to take place as a result of the mayor’s pre-election apology and post-election promise to do better.

I ran into an old city-hall fellow traveller recently, who reminded me of how Mayor Philip Owen used to reserve a block of time Friday afternoons, where 15-minute appointments could be scheduled by random members of the public to talk about their city problems. Tea was served, she recalled.

Perhaps that could be a start, if there were some way to ensure the appointments weren’t taken up exclusively by people determined to waterboard a confession out of the mayor about the latest CD-1 rezoning.

In the meantime, I’m wondering what other city players are going to take away from this election and whether they’ll be similarly inspired to change their communication style and accessibility.

I’m talking, of course, about the various resident groups, cityhall watchdogs, mysterious Twitter entities, and political parties that sprang into being the last few years whose main function appeared to be to oppose, always and everywhere, the latest development project or bylaw or proposal  or comment from a (Vision) city councillor.

I guess some of them may decide that, overall, the opposition forces gained in numbers, even if not in council seats, and so they should continue to maintain sustained opposition, in the hopes that they’ll prevail in four years when the 80,000 Vision voters (finally) come to their senses.

They could try that, although it’s hard to imagine how the combined roar of their Twitter presence, news releases, suggestions of improper dealings, complaints that the city is being overtaken by condo-loving foreign investors who have bought off the mayor and council, etc., etc. could get any more traction than they already achieved.

Or some of them might want to look at the way they themselves have spoken to the public and ask whether more residents  might have been persuaded by their arguments if those arguments hadn’t been so virulent and over the top and if the groups they created hadn’t been so resolutely closed to anyone not sharing their opinions.

There are some excellent community groups in this city, where the people involved and those who’ve taken on the thankless job of leadership make their best efforts to listen to everyone in the neighbourhood.

But there’s been a wave in recent years of others that seem to be composed of a very tiny nucleus of people, where the point is not to listen to all the points of view in the community, but to rally together only the most dedicated opponents.

I suspect that one of the reasons that Vision eked out its win on council is not so much that a lot of voters were wholeheartedly enthusiastic about the way Vision has gone about its business, but because those voters didn’t see a lot of other options. The activist groups that were trying to marshall support for change were so black and white, so hostile to moderates, that those middle-of-the-road voters felt like they didn’t belong.

Those same groups also need to think about whether they want to represent a broader set of residents. It was clear, looking at the neighbourhood results in various areas that had seen protests, that Vision lost a small percentage of votes but nothing like the thousands that opponents hoped for.

In the end, it looks as though a lot of people weren’t secretly siding with the opposition groups. They were secretly girding themselves to vote Vision, because it was the only place that felt sort of like home — complete with all the problems. Maybe because, as renters, as condo-dwellers, as young people quietly wondering about their place in the city, they weren’t quite as alarmed at the city’s changes as those who spoke the loudest.

Whatever happens, I hope that some group emerges as an effective opposition, whether it’s a party or a community organization. I don’t think there’s anyone in the city who thinks that isn’t needed. I’ve seen the Vision team tack this way and that when they think they have to, when some effective public group has indeed made a strong case about what they’re doing wrong or what needs to be done right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Kirk

    Agree with all of it, Frances. The city seems so divisive nowadays. Everyone is angry and ranting, “My way or the highway”. So, defensive too. I don’t know if we can blame Vision for turning the city culture into an Us vs Them mentality. It feels like that’s just the way everything in world works now, starting with Internet trolls.

    Did it get worse here with the bike lanes? That seemed to really polarize parts of the electorate. And, then it carried over with residential development? I do think the city has changed a lot more under Vision than any other recent government, mainly due to the crazy housing prices. That’s given a lot of people, including me, reasons to be upset with how things are rapidly playing out and changing.

    In terms of governance, Mayor Robertson seems to like Mayor Nenshi. Maybe we’ll see some of that government openness in Vancouver.

  • Dan Cooper

    I suspect that what everyone else does is dependent on whether Robertson’s words were any more than just a last minute, desperation based, meaningless “campaign promise” that immediately disappears down the memory hole. The reason many (though yes, not all) of the other groups you refer to sprung up and/or became annoyed enough to sound really angry and aggressive, is that Vision has been for years as absolutist, dismissive and abusive as some (though not all) of them ever became later. If Vision itself changes then other things may change as well. Robertson said he apologized for something or other, but not what. So, we shall see where Vision goes with it, and then the other parties and organizations will be able to respond appropriately.

  • Internet made me obsolete

    “a very tiny nucleus of people, where the point is not to listen to all
    the points of view in the community, but to rally together only the most
    dedicated opponents.”
    Like the pipeline protesters.
    The only way to get anyone’s attention while they drink from the firehose of the Net is to set one’s hair on fire. Pollution is not simply bad for human health but about to destroy all life on the planet unless we do as they advise. The more extreme the prediction the better. If we don’t build freeways the economy will collapse, if we do build them the climate will collapse. Melting polar ice-caps, extreme weather events, earthquakes and floods. New pandemics. Mass shootings and bombings become routine and boring, requiring ever more brutal and barbaric acts to make the news. Sounds like the End of Days. Perfect headline fodder and click-bait.
    What Gregor Robertson and his friends think or do is pretty insignificant compared to events on that scale. Not that it matters. From wht I hear Dr. Ballem is making all the important decisions and informing Council after the fact.

  • spartikus

    The activist groups that were trying to marshall support for change were so black and white, so hostile to moderates, that those middle-of-the-road voters felt like they didn’t belong.

    Here here.

    You will never gain allies if you assume people, if they aren’t already on-board with your program, must therefore be enemies. And if find people are not being convinced by your arguments…maybe it’s your arguments and not them.

  • Chris Keam

    “Did it get worse here with the bike lanes?”

    I don’t think there has been a change in the way people act or think. We just have a greater opportunity to display our prejudices, snark and ill-thought-out positions, thanks to various communications modes being more available. Not just the Internet, but radio call-in shows, 24 hour news channels, etc.

    The converse is true also. Good ideas do get spread. Good things continue to happen. But the belief that there was once a greater preponderance of convivial public dialogue that’s gone down the tubes seems naive and erroneous.

  • jenables

    “It is noteworthy that Vision had significant help from a posse of environmental activists. “Voter turnout increased in six out of seven key municipalities where Dogwood (Initiative) volunteers knocked on doors and telephoned supporters,” boasted a postelection press release issued by the Dogwood Initiative.”

    Pretty odd for a non partisan non profit to be doing that, no? Although it does explain the SIX times a friend’s door was knocked on during election day to get her to vote. The woman in front of me in line to scan our ballots told me a vision ad was slipped under her apartment door on election day. 1800 “volunteers” calling and knocking on doors election day, granting them the bottom six spots for council is hardly a clear message from the people. It’s more a very, very well funded Herculean effort aided by fear tactics (the npa will close insite! Kirk lapointe is a secret Steven Harper operative!) and made fully possible by the support of their generous donors over the last three years. Oh, and let’s not forget the intentional gap in advance polls and late stage campaigning in neighbourhoods like mine.

    Also, if there are 80,000 vision supporters it is clear that that they didn’t all vote the slate!

    So, no, until Robertson actually follows through with his campaign promises and stops the sleight of hand, makes information accessible without having to file FOIs and actually publishes proper budget information, I won’t be apologizing for pointing out that the way they operate is not right. It’s not a personal smear campaign, it’s disgusting behaviour no matter who perpetrates it.

  • Dan Cooper

    My comment from a previous thread (first quoting Frances): “A big question re who will be chair now. All depends on how Green Party Janet Fraser votes. Greens might want to show they could work collaboratively with Vision. Or they might want to keep the Vision group and Bacchus out of the limelight.”

    Or they might just do whatever is best for the kids, whichever way that
    makes them go, regardless of the political calculation. Or is that crazy
    talk? *sigh*

    —–

    My new comment: Well, so much for that hope. *sigh again* According to Fraser’s statement, she is – to coin a U.S. term – a Yellow Dog Anti-Bacchus-ite. That is, while claiming that she respects Bacchus and has nothing against Bacchus (the usual, “everything is always absolutely fine no matter what” blarney for purely obfuscatory PR purposes), she openly stated and acted on the position that her first priority was to vote for ANYONE other than Bacchus as Chair, even if it was a yellow dog, regardless of their positions on issues or any other considerations, not excluding the guy who got the very lowest number of votes while still making it onto the Board compared with Bacchus’s very highest number of votes – if that was whom the NPA chose to toss in the ring. Sadly, although I tried to maintain hope, I am not surprised; as I have commented before, my view of the Green Party (local, provincial and federal) is that they do not stand for anything particular, but in general are just one more centre-right party whose only defining/differentiating characteristic is a cool name.

    Incidentally, I continue to be extremely disappointed that Ken Clement did not win re-election, first of all as an Aboriginal voice on council, second as an effective member of the Board, and third to keep this kind of baloney from being the order of things. I really hope he will run again in four years – assuming of course our provincial lords and masters do not simply keep extending the terms ad infinitum. (Yes, friends, until 1973 we were able to choose our representatives annually…then until 1990 no MORE than biannually…then to “save money” [what a noble and overriding purpose!] and “increase turnout” [gee, how has that worked out?(*)] only every three years…and now every four, supposedly again for the same reasons. Yes, the term of office has increased three hundred percent in forty years – all, of course, supposedly for our benefit. One wonders – why not under the same logic make it ten years, or twenty?

    (*)Actually, of course, we know how that has turned out! Immediately after the three year terms were implemented, turnout plunged from between 42 and 49% in the four previous elections to 32 to 35 percent in the next eight except that 2002 at 50% soared all the way up…to the same level as the previous ones. In other words, by all the evidence longer terms stink in bringing out voters – and note, the measly 40% this year is still well below the turnout of the biannual election years. http://spacing.ca/vancouver/2014/11/11/cov-graphic-vancouvers-historical-voter-turnout/

  • macb423

    Good points, Frances. I appreciate it. I too have noticed that the NIMBYs seem only able to say no to everything, and when they don’t get their way, they complain there wasn’t enough consultation from those mean autocratic Vision guys, no matter how many community meetings and open houses there were.

  • jenables

    Enough with your rhetoric. I live in Grandview woodland. We aren’t NIMBYs. There was a meeting for a homeless shelter a block away from where I live. No one had a problem with it, not one person. We do have a problem being gentrified out of our homes and driven out of our neighbourhood though, wouldn’t you? I am so tired of people trying to shame us for trying to keep where we live. The planner admitted the plan would cause displacement. By the way, community meetings and open houses are meaningless if the suggestions are ultimately cast aside. You are probably unlikely to stop kissing the corporate ass, but there’s some perspective for you.

  • macb423

    Just sharing my own observations. No need for you to be insulting. I want to keep my West End neighbourhood too but noticed many people here who objected to any and all change. That’s what I, and I think Frances, was trying to address. The corporate ass comment was uncalled for.

  • Dan Cooper

    If you don’t want people to be insulting, maybe you shouldn’t insult them first by calling them NIMBYs. To put it the other way round, if you start off by addressing people with insults, you don’t have any basis to complain when others respond in kind. Just sayin’. (And yes, yes, I know that yours was not really an insult like his because yargle blargle and many pious words, adding up to “because I did it it’s right.”)

  • macb423

    I think accusing someone of kissing corporate ass is worse than calling someone a NIMBY, but it’s all yargle barge here in blog land, and that’s just my little opinion.

  • jenables

    I suppose my response was coloured by my own frustration (who’d have thought), I can admit that I was a little harsh and I apologize. however, I am very tired of this NIMBY trope. When it is applied to people who celebrate diversity, who are okay with halfway houses, addiction supports and shelters and who merely want to be able to keep living in their neighbourhood it is an insult. People aren’t upset because they feel like picking on poor old vision; they have a multitude of very legitimate reasons and have been treated very poorly. Here’s one example:

    http://francesbula.com/uncategorized/former-city-planner-talks-for-first-time-about-how-grandview-woodlands-towers-got-shoved-into-plan/

    They had lots of “consultation” and “open houses” for this too but unfortunately it was all a sham. Follow the money. Do you think your average citizen is the one benefiting from all this garbage being shoved down our throats 24/7?? As for your neighbourhood it is already extremely dense, and functions well, but hey, they want to make it more “saleable” and it probably won’t benefit you, but you’ll pay for it. If you think that’s okay, then fine, but don’t pretend those who aren’t on board are the problem.

  • macb423

    Thank you jenables for this thoughtful response. I too went a bit over the top due to frustration and my own experience. Here in the West End, the City came up with a thoughtful proposal for the property at 1401 Comox st, a block from my condo. (Yes I am lucky enough to own a small property here, bought in 2001 when the prices were rock bottom and nothing was moving; could never afford it now.).

    Anyway, the proposal was a good one, I thought. It replaced a broken down little used United Church that was three blocks from another United Church. The building was a complete wreck with heat, wiring and mold. The proposal was a 21 storey rental only building! spot zoning, that would also provide 6 units of social housing plus a new LBGTQ community centre. Our NIMBYS, or I should say Cmmunity Action Groups, circulated petitions against it. Historical value of the old building, they said. Too tall for the neighbourhood, they said. We’re turning into Yaletown. The developers would make fantastic profits, they said. None of these thing sere remotely true. The result of all this activism was they knocked it down to 19 storeys, made the foot smaller, and no LGBTQ community centre. A lose lose result. Plus one of the “activists” accused a city councillor of being “on the take.”

  • macb423

    Damn I Pad. Can’t complete the post.

    Anyway jenables, I appreciate your point of view too, so let’s learn form this and continue constructive dialogue.

  • jenables

    If we surround ourselves only with those who think the same way, we can’t ever test why we think what we think; critical thinking taught me at least that much. I do have a question, though. If council had secured a community centre, how did they lose it over two stories? You would think the cost of a new community centre would far exceed two floors, so are you sure your info is correct? To me, it looks like an easy way to vilify NIMBYS, when they were not doing the negotiating. Unfortunately it is difficult the access the information regarding CACs from development, but something seems off about this arrangement, big time.