teririch @149, you are clearly a Vision hater to your very core and you will by virtue of that fact believe anything negative about them. I have earlier asserted and you have never denied that you have never voted for them and never will. You were a denizen of City Caucus, defenderof all NPA. Fair enough, you are entitled to be ignorantly partisan. (and the neighbourhood snoop to boot).
However, you have no evidence except your own beliefs that make it so.
As I pointed out earlier, Vision ran on a platform of access. They also clearly saw what is obvious to any outside observer: it is unusual to say the least that in a city wide Parks Board system that the system is run by a collection of fiefdoms.
You clearly side with the fiefdoms who are primarily interested in preserving their money and their fief without regard to the interests of the City as a whole. Fair dinkum. But please, don’t pretend that its a cash grab on one side and only truth and justice on the other. If it were the NPA taking these steps, you would believe that the CCA’s were in the wrong.
The PB mishandled it, no question. But to suggest that it is a cash grab is to ignore the duty the PB is saddled with: to look after the interests of the CoV, as a whole, not just Kerrisdale or Hastings Sunrise or whomever. It is also to ignore the mandate the PB has.
You may disagree with how the PB approaches its responsibility for the overall interests, and that too is fair ball. However, just because a highly partisan neighbourhood snoop asserts something does not make it so (actually it makes it less likely to be so), which is what your post #149 suggests.

Morven @150. Clearly if a government acts without authority, then it is acting arbitrarily and the courts could declare that it si doing so and enjoin it from acting.
However, in this case, this is not what is happening. Rather the PB wants to renegotiate the JOA. Even if the JOA does not provide for opening it up, the PB could end it by giving three months notice. Obviously that provides an incentive to the CCA to negotiate.
The recalcitrants chose not to do so and predictably they got notice. The courts will not look at whether it was in the public interest or whethe doing so was wise; they will simply determine whether the PB acted in accordance with the JOA and perhaps the Charter in doing so. I suggest that you have an overbroad view of what courts do.

Higgins –

You are right: here is the story. I work out in a VPB Fitness Centre. A young female in an electric wheelchair would come in with her dad and he would help her with her work out. The fitness staff would work with her on days when her dad was working. She moved out of her family home to a residence near one of the “Rogue” CC’s and went to use the Fitness Centre. She produced the LAC and was told that they did not accept it and to pay the full price. She did not have the resources to pay the full price. So she ended up having her dad drive her twice a week several kilometers back to her old Fitness Centre.
Really hard on him and her. She stopped coming,

Kenji@156 – “In my simple brain, I felt that community centres are like the Vancouver library, i.e. you can go in any one of them and use the facilities with the same card, although each facility has its own character and focus, e.g. some places have a big section of Vietnamese videos and some don’t, some have a lot of toddler activities and some don’t – but I don’t have to pay each library a separate fee or have a separate card.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Blowing up the community centre association concept to achieve accessibility is a pretty extreme form of policy making.
-30-

teririch@158, you have already copped to being the neighbourhood snoop. I am only glad you don’t live in my neighbourhood and photograph people who come and go. That you are an NPA supporter: well look at the hysterical anti-Vision comments, your prior life on City Caucus, that you have not denied it, need I say more. Since you defend anything to do with big oil, it was a reasonable conclusion. For all I know, it’s true.
As for posting “crap” without facts to back it up, well, honey, you got that one completely covered. No-one, and I mean no-one, well maybe jenables, can compete with you in that category. You habitually post “facts” that aren’t facts and continue with them even when it is pointed out that you are wrong.
And vitriol, either you alone or when you and the jenables get going, you give a complete new depth to down in the gutter.
Morven @159, boy have you drunk the Kool Aid. No-one is trying to “blow up the community centre association concept. ” As the PB for the CoV, they are trying to bring some semblance of control to the collection of fiefdoms. According to you that is an extreme form of policy making. Really!?!?!?!?

@Waltsyss 162- Frances appears to have more care of your sensitivities than most others here. Suffice to say having you criticize other posters as “partisan” is laughable.

IanS# 160

No, I do not think the existing system is out of date.

The existing governance arrangements are probably out of date.

Our friends in Toronto have a remarkably similar community centre system with the exception that the governance is clearly spelled out. And they delegate some fee setting powers to the community centres without triggering, as far as I know, a blog civil war.
-30-

I see the 6 CCA’s have filed an injunction to stop them from being evicted.

“Or maybe not. Perhaps the existing system is out of date and no longer works. Perhaps everything should be run by the Parks Board without the involvement of the associations.”

What will that cost us in higher fees or taxes? Since one of the risks of the association’s dissolution due to membership erosion is the loss of a substantial amount of funding these non-profits were receiving, how is that loss going to be made up?

I still think Vision Vancouver commissioners’ vote to allow a Cactus Club on park property at the foot of Denman St to generate revenue was reprehensible. Consequently the restaurant operations are having difficulty managing their supplies overflow at that location and are using part of a change room at the English Bay bathhouse next door for storage, but that isn’t going so well.

Word is that the parks board are now looking to give those who rent storage space in the bathhouse for their kayaks the boot when the lease is up, to make way for storage of Cactus Club’s supplies.

If the word is correct, it’s bizarre to think that the parks board would dispense with park facilities used for recreational purposes, to make way for a restaurant wine closet.

I do not trust this parks board for what they did at English Bay and what is allegedly to take place to accommodate Cactus Club. By extension then, I do not trust them to negotiate how things are to go forward with the community centre associations for what should have gone much smoother. And for what campaign promises they made, they and their fiascos are a text book example for how ends do not justify the means.

teririch: photographing cars in front of someone’s private residence makes you as much a neighbourhood snoop as if you snapped people. Just slightly less obnoxious but obnoxious non the less.
And teri, honey, if as Richard says, the mayor hasn’t moved in yet, then I ask you: who is spreading lies? Either you are indifferent to the truth or will happily tell something you know to be an untruth. Which is it, teri my sweet. Those are the only two choices.

@ Kenji #148

I know Aislie Kwan personally. A past President at Killarney introduced us some years back, and I was immediately struck by her quick grasp of issues and her clear sense of perspective and probity; she is naturally a very capable administrator. While it was our colleague’s idea, I immediately took up his call for Ainslie to put herself forward for an Executive position on Killarney’s board.

Ainslie is a working mother of a young family and our meeting was, I believe, before her youngest was born. She was reluctant then, but has grown into her role very well since. Nobody can question the dedication she brings to her position as Chair of Killarney’s board, but her loyalty to her children and partner is unsurpassed. I think it’s safe to say that she has enough on her plate already, without even considering a jump into the political fray.

It probably is true that a few (from all camps) will use issues like this to raise their profile in order to advance or start a political career. I’d be astonished if one of them turned out to be Ainsile Kwan, though.

Thank you Eric for your fair and measured comment, and informed information.

It’s discouraging reading this thread because so much is being said, repeatedly, and with so little progress in the discussion. For instance, I’ve said that most if not all of the CCA’s recognize the need for an updating of the JOA’s. I can’t think of what the Vision Van Commissioners have done to similarly and meaningfully allow discussions to continue positively, but perhaps some who can can chip in.

Kenji @ 156.

“I count 25 fitness centers on the parks webpage and 21 that accept the LAC.”

Sorry, but it’s not wacky.

I believe the reason there are 4 fitness centres that AT THIS POINT IN TIME who do not accept the LAC/OnePass is because the CCA in those centres paid for, installed and run these centres themselves as they do for other programmes in their centres. The other fitness centres were paid for, installed and run by the Parks Board, as similarly are the rinks and pools.

Out of Box @ 169.

If your suggestions about the Cactus Club are valid, then this adds to an already sad history of this unfortunate concession on pristine park land.

The City has for many years, until recently evidently, had a policy of not allowing development at street-ends so that views of the mountains and the sea are available for all at those critical locations. The Parks Board, and the City via the Development Permit approval process, approved the Cactus Club in perhaps one of the top 3 street-ends in the entire City at the foot of Denman.

The fact that the City has had this policy was never mentioned during the approval process to my knowledge. What was mentioned was that the ‘brilliant glass wall on both sides design was transparent, letting people see through the building’. Please go down there and see for yourself just how transparent this eyesore is. In addition, they stuck the completely opaque toilets at the western end, further lengthening the building and further blocking views when these facilities could easily have been put in the floor below.

This example is a very good illustration of what happens when governments, both politicians and apparently staff, embrace financial opportunism, and discard a reasoned decision-making process whereby quality of life, and community values and priorities are balanced with financial benefits.

Trying to close the Bloedel Conservatory because it had lost money in the previous 12 months (not taking into consideration that the Canada Line and the Little Mountain Reservoir resurfacing over a period of at least 6 years had made access to Bloedel almost impossible) and spot rezonings going once, twice, three times to the highest bidder are other examples along similar lines that demonstrate not just a flawed thinking process, but inappropriate values and priorities as well. In addition, the current CCA JOA standoff can be put in this same camp.

Vancouver needs and deserves better.

teri, you’d be surprised how many ‘Vision voters’ I meet every day who are realizing that they too “don’t have a say in how the city is run”.

Yes indeed Waltyss, I voted for Constance Barnes in 2008 and then again for her and also Trevor Loke in 2011. What of it?

You could put any brand restaurant with a patio at that location and it will draw crowds. So what?The popularity of the Cactus Club at that location does not justify the blocking of Denman’s street end view, a breach in this city planning’s long standing planning tradition to not block street end views.

The design of the location has also led to conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists at street level, but that doesn’t justify your ridiculous defence of its obvious popularity. All of which points to a lack of wisdom, and a shortsightedness in the decision making process, it is no wonder you challenge those who question it.

Two things Waltyss, you’re a bore. And two, spellcheck?

@Toab 184-Yes, it’s a shame Frances doesn’t ban posters for boring others to death. Waltie’s obsession with teririch and her camera is as tedious as it is pathological.

“I speak as one who has been a volunteer, worked with volunteers, and recruited volunteers in a number of different communities.. In my experience, which is obviously different from yours, most volunteers gave their time and in some cases their resources, freely and without conditions.”

This is my experience as well, but it is quite a contradiction from what many in this thread have said regarding volunteers at community centres–that they will stop volunteering if certain conditions aren’t met.

boohoo # 187

There is one caveat. I was referring to informal volunteers where there was a shared vision of the community and trust in the organization.

If a CCA is evicted, it is an open question whether the shared vision and trust elements will remain with the volunteers.
-30-

Think out @ 184. Sometimes the truth is boring and I apologize for not spell checking. So here is a spell checked version, if it doesn’t bore you too much>
Teriisn’titrich@178 why is it no surprise that you missed the point. To spell it out for you, when you are so clearly a partisan, not to mention a neighbourhood snoop, your views are examined for what the are: partisan mewling. For you, and Think Outside, Visions very existence is offensive. Anything they do, good or bad, will be twisted into the most awful, malicious mala fides action. The fact that you in the last two elections never considered, let alone, did vote for any Visionista simply confirmed that. And teri honey, nowhere did I say or imply that you or others of your ilk should not have a say on city politics. Just your typical crap, which I fully support for you to disgorge.
Morven, do you always miss the point? How did I disparage volunteers? @174. Geebee’s comment was a criticism of the system being promoted by the renegade CCAs, not the PB. How you twisted that into being the fault of the PB is truly a mystery.”
I hope you feel better now.
brilliant not @ 186, as usual you got it wrong, I am not obsessed with teri’s camera; I am disgusted by her snooping and willingness to spread malicious untruths without any regard as to whether they are true. Quite a difference, n’est-ce pas?
And teriisn’titrich @ 187, I am sure we already know your verdict. What was interesting was a discussion on Bill Good this morning where it would appear that CoV is a johnny come lately to this technology, at least compared to neighbouring municipalities like Surrey, Delta and Port Moody.

@173

Hey, Eric, if Ms Kwan is a capable administrator, and as shown by recent events ready and willing to organize and lead the good fight against city hall, then it would be great to have her running for office, doncha think? Don’t confuse my positing the obvious (that she has a public profile now) with a slam against the person herself.

@175

Bill, I’m with you in principle, if you are saying that if Group X builds a clubhouse, pays the workers, and establishes membership criteria, that it should darn well be entitled to admit or exclude whoever it likes, subject to the law of course.

I belonged to a private gym until recently. They had silly rules like “must wear shirt” and “no yelling” which I found inconvenient, but, it’s their gym, they don’t have to allow shirtless yelling people if they don’t want us.

The conceptual difficulty I have with the CCAs that are not doing the same stuff like honouring LACs or negotiating the new agreement in conjunction with the rest, is that they seem to be getting City money, seem to be operating with the City, are on a City website, and so on.

I expect, from publically funded bodies, to have a very high if not perfect degree of consistency of rules, procedure, and service, albeit tailored to the immediate needs of the users.

If this isn’t what those CCAs want to do, well, we have this situation.

Bring on the brown shirts and the full body scanners.Are they armed with tasers or will they dart dissenters?
I witnessed a take down in Stanley Park a couple years ago…they busted my 4 year old gran-daughter for eating blackberries….boy I tell you that was a little awkward….lol

@jenables #196,

I’m not certain of the response to which you’re referring. However, given that we don’t know the outcome of the negotiations and litigation, I expect it would be difficult, if not impossible, to make such a prediction.

Jenables # 196′
Is this the action that Carr tried to put forward that was stepped on by the City Manager?
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Refusal+allow+motion+park+board+reorganization+called+illegal/7953370/story.html