Good ? Michael.

My comment #12 was an attempt to discuss the rational, as Morven says above, “…..about how the priorities are set…..” &, on the process of basing “budget decisions on a coherent assessment of costs, benefits and risks and when it makes a decision on [whatever the budget item], it is doing so on good and sound policy reasoning.

As Michael says: “it is oftentimes extremely difficult to determine which budgets should be maintained, which could be cut, and which should be increased, when dealing with a limited amount of money”. That’s what elected people have to do. So, when we’re criticizing them we need to put ourselves in their chair.

Chris I must reject your suggestion that I “demand[ed] individuals without a party affiliation answer for the decisions of [my] opponents”. I, as a regular commenter on this blog & a cycling supporter, simply asked you a ? as an also regular commenter on this blog & a keen cycling advocate. I genuinely want to know what your thoughts would be about the ‘why’ you have arrived @ your stance on bike lanes if you were in a position of having to make those choices. And, evidently those choices are being made now by our elected representatives. And, to be clear if you were referring to me in #47, I @ was not attacking you personally.

[I’d like to get past bikes also, but it keeps coming up [#s 8, 9, 11 & then 13, 14, 15, 17, 18…]

With respect to your placing emphasis on me being a candidate, that that somehow prohibits my participation in such discussions, I find a bit strange. However, I do intend to try to limit my involvement in the future. It’s unfortunate because, aside from the digressions from time to time, I find the discussions on this & other blogs stimulating & more so when participating.

Two Saturdays ago I saw four (4) cops riding their bikes together in the Dunsmuir bike lanes, doing their bike patrol thing.

There was snow on the road.

Just an observation that came to mind with the heated comments above.

Bill:

If you want genuinely my opinion, then I’m easy to contact and happy (as you can tell) to offer my perspective.

If you genuinely want a discussion of the available options, then I think you should offer up your solutions before asking others (who aren’t even a part of the discussion at that point I might add) to provide answers.

I absolutely have no problem with you participating in the discussion. I would encourage you to do so, and to be clear and candid as to the cost-cutting measures you will be proposing if elected. I would be especially keen to know if you are proposing moving monies from the roads budget to the parks budget, and what other, similar initiatives you feel are warranted.

I do have a problem with a political candidate calling out private citizens who haven’t demonstrated a desire to be part of the discussion. Not only did you single out Vancouver cyclists as the people who must justify spending on their behalf, you did not extend that expectation to any other group, and you made a point of mentioning me personally. Both those actions strike me as something other than seeking out dialogue.

And no I wasn’t referring to you when I mentioned personal attacks.

The Green Party of Vancouver has no allegiance to anyone. They have no accountability within their own party and is a true political opportunist. he has no conscience in my opinion. Body language tells you a lot and he is super super cozy to the NPA…to much to my liking.

@Michael Geller, who writes, “All that being said, why cut back on the cleaning of washrooms!”

It seems to me you’ve answered your own question, earlier in the same post. Presumably, they feel its the least bad of many bad options. I’m reminded of the current discussion around school closures. No one wants their own school closed, and many of those who are facing the possibility express horror at the idea of having to move to the next school over, even though the parents and students THERE think that it is the perfect school. And, maybe each is great for different kids in different ways. Unfortunately, the only factual alternative to closing SOME schools – barring a complete and miraculous change in BC Liberal thinking around funding – is to cut district-wide programs. And no one wants those cut either. What’s more, the board can’t build new schools in areas that need them without closing some in areas with “excess” seats. So…decisions must be made.

@Bill McCreery. I am also glad you have posted here, because it has given me the clear knowledge that you are a serious, aggressive anger case (as am I not infrequently, though I’m not sure you’re aware you are), and so made my voting decision easier in the next election. Would that all candidates put themselves on the record in this way! For some, aggression is what they want in a politician, or at least in those who share their views, while for others (including myself) it is not. One of the many reasons I’m not a politician myself.

And speaking of politicians, @Stuart Mackinnon who writes, “Elected Greens vote according to their conscience and adherence to Green principals.”

Sadly, those principles as interpreted do not seem to meaningfully distinguish your party. I was a member of the Green party in the US, donated money, and voted for our candidates when we had them. Here, though, after doing some research, I can’t really see why I would bother. The Canadian and BC Greens – unlike the quite left-wing ones in the US – seem to align closely to whatever other party or parties are most firmly middle-of-the-road-capitalist at the government level in question. As such, they are practically indistinguishable from the Liberals federally and provincially and either Vision or the NPA in Vancouver. *shrug*

@Morven:

Dang, you’re right. I never complain about anything, and slavishly follow the directions of anyone who speaks from a position of authority. Glad you pointed that out!

[ uproarious laughter, again ]

As for the rest, well, so you stand firmly for mother, maple syrup, Hockey Night in Canada, public input, and flexibility in politicians. Don’t we all? Some people, though, are able to decide that the process and explanations were sufficient in some cases (while in other cases deciding they weren’t), regardless of whether the decisions were quite what they wanted. Others? Well, they’re just never happy unless it all comes out their way, every time, regardless of how thorough the process and explanation. *cough cough* Myself, I lean toward COPE though I’m not a member, but it wasn’t the end of the world when the NPA was in power, and it isn’t the end of the world now with Vision. As for the Greens, I’m sure they would get by okay too, if and when; I just don’t think their policies would be appreciably different than either the past or present crowds, so I’m not going to get all excited about them. The one thing I would really have difficulty with was a council dominated by people who publicly and intentionally demean those who would make different decisions (and I could name people in several parties, but let’s skip that for now) as opposed to those who wouldn’t (e.g. M. Cadman, M. Geller, M. Meggs, among many others).

You are wrong Dan, I am not a “serious, aggressive anger case” IMO. I suggest that is a bit to personal as well as unfounded.

It is my objective to try my best in a limited time context to state my points clearly here & to having opinion which is for the most part based on some appreciation of or experience with the subject @ hand.

Because of my own life experience & understanding of how to accomplish your objectives, @ this time I have decided to again get involved directly in the electoral political process. As such, I do state my position & I do take issue with those I differ with, specifically on blogs such as this 1, whether they are associated with a political party or not. In the process of doing this I sometimes challenge people to get them to clarify their thinking so that I can better understand the why as well as the what of what they’re saying. If that intent is sometimes not apparent, it is unintentional.

As I said, I intend to be less loquacious, perhaps that will help.

We should be grateful to Ian Robertson for alerting us to this item of material, public information.

The optics of turning youth access to our public open spaces in to a profit centre sends a chill down my spine.

Somewhere, somehow, the proponents of this scheme at the staff and Commissioner level at the Parks Board have lost their sense of public purpose.
-30-

It’s unfortunate that Ian Robertson would be so selective with the facts regarding the Park Board’s proposed Youth Field Fees.

The $2 per hour is not per child but rather per team. That works out to $5 per child per season. Our survey of surrounding municipalities found that this type of fee is applied in Richmond, North Vancouver, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody and Abbotsford. In fact, those municipalities charge more than our $2 per hour proposal.

Furthermore, our survey of Vancouver youth user groups revealed that more than 50% supported the proposed fee. And yes, this will bring in $100,000 to the Park Board.

It’s interesting that while Ian Robertson thinks “it’s a sad day when we have to start charging kids to use our open spaces” just 2 weeks ago, he voted in favour of lowering the age of free swimming and skating from children 5 years and younger to children 2 years and younger.

To quote a recent Georgia Straight story, “NPA park commissioner Ian Robertson, who has been a vocal critic of service cuts, said that there is no way to avoid changes to the fee structure because of increasing operating costs. “It’s an unfortunate step that we need to take,” Robertson told the Straight by phone.”

I hope this helps clarify the issue.

Aaron Jasper
Chair
Vancouver Park Board

@Bill68. Nice to see you at the Bloedel Conservatory yesterday.

You may not be able to speak for Ian Robertson but he definitely speaks for you and the NPA on Park Board issues. The NPA supported fee increases for swimming and skating.

Bill, I respect the fact that you served as a Park Board Commissioner. But when you were elected, NASA was still landing men on the moon. Your constant comparisons are the equivalent to comparing today’s real estate market to the market in December 1972.

The past two years have represented the toughest budgetary cuts in the history of the City of Vancouver due to the second worst recession in the past century. That said, under Vision’s watch (and the Mayor’s support) the Park Board received over $15 million from the Federal Infrastructure Program. That money has allowed the Park Board to:
• Finish the new visitor centre at VanDusen Botanical Garden
• Repair the Seawall in Stanley Park and on English Bay
• Build four artificial playing fields at three locations
• Redevelop three East Vancouver neighborhood parks

Bill, I find your “advocacy” for youth quite disingenuous. Last December, you were very adamant that the Park Board should shut down a community centre to keep the Bloedel Conservatory open. That was an option the Vision Commissioners had never considered. Such a move would’ve undoubtedly added more costs to young families looking for recreation opportunities.

@ Aaron 69. Nice to see you @ Bloedel as well. It’s revitalization is proceeding well.

As I said in 68: “I know @ a certain point in the budget pruning process it is necessary to say enough is enough.” & if I were in Ian’s shoes I might have voted similarly. @ a certain point 1 must draw the line on adding user fees, especially to families.

While the real estate market numbers have changed, the principles have not, although I’m not sure what the real estate market is like on the moon.

I take issue with your suggestion that the Park Board was forced to make the: “toughest budgetary cuts in the history of the City of Vancouver due to the second worst recession in the past century”. I suggest the cuts were necessary because of Vision’s mismanagement of the city’s finances & misplaced priorities. I also note that Vancouver was the only Metro city to have a crisis budget. Why?

Please don’t try to take credit for $15 m in federal infrastructure money. You would have had to be completely inept not to have filled out the application forms. That said, the capital improvements are welcome in general.

Who is “disingenuous”? I responded to a simplistic either or alternative which you insisted were the only 2 options relative to Vision’s proposed demise of Bloedel. Fortunately for all Vancouverites, as it turned out there was a 3rd option & we still have that important facility. May I suggest that the Bloedel also serves families. Also, there were still cuts to library & community centre hours & programmes due to your skewed priorities. Now you’re down to cutting washrooms…….