Interesting the Green Party doesn’t even register on the radar. I guess they are somewhere in the 7%.

I wish Angus Reid would show undecidedin provincial polls – that would be insightful.

Unlike federal or provincial politics, municipal politics is a different animal – typically municipal politicians have relatively high approval ratings as most people do not follow municipal politics ver closely.

That said, here are some more observations:

1. May Stratcom Poll:

Mayor – 78% Approval
Council – 69% would vote for Vision Vancouver

2. August, JMI Poll

Mayor – 49% Approval (17% strongly approve)
Council – 52% would vote for Vision Vancouver

That’s definitely a big drop in approval over May’s poll.

Two more important points in the JMI poll:

1. 55% of voters are undecided;

2. NPA support increases with age and actually leads the 65+ age group by a margin of 37% to 33%. (the age groups most likley to vote)

To put things into further perspective, 6 months prior to the November, 2005 election an Ipsos poll showed:

1. Mayor Larry Campbell – 72% approval ratng (23% higher than the current mayor);

2. COPE council – 63% approval;

http://web.archive.org/web/20051016075707/www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2629

Nevertheless, during the 2005 election, the NPA won a 6-5 majority on council and also won majorities on both school and parks boards.

A direct quote from Madam Bula (from 2006):

“Sullivan’s Chief f Staff Daniel Fontaine claims the Mayor is at a mid-sixties approval rating…that’s seems low for someone who just three months ago took a swirl in Turin”

And yet Robertson, just a few months post-Olympics is at 49% approval rating, but Ms. Bula considers this “high”??????

There are no limits are there?

Pathetic.

The NPA, rudderless, with no leader and apparently lost in space according to other Vision cheerleaders (not just Ferris Bueller) are still holding on to a third of the electorate with a 50% swing vote and there is anyone out there that sees this as a positive sing for Vision Vancouver?

It is to laugh.

@Agustin # 4

Just a non-scientific view.

My impression is that voters are favourable (or at least non-objecting) to the general issue of bike lanes but are quite irritated at the ham fisted approach to the Hornby lanes, where the city seems to have got the planning and consultation the wrong way round (plus doing it all through city hall itself).

No contradictions – it is not all or nothing.
-30-

@Frances

I reviewed the poll and the press release. It shows significant support for the Hornby Bike Lane “About half of residents support plans for a separated bike lane on Hornby Street (48%). However, one-third (34%) oppose, including over one-in-five (22%) who “strongly” oppose. ” Further, it shows that 29% strongly support.

Nowhere does it state or indicate that they are vulnerable over bike lanes. Please change your title to reflect the poll results.

@ Morven: I have heard others say that they are disappointed about the way the consultation for the Hornby bike lanes has gone. Can you explain in more detail what you mean? How should consultation have been conducted, in your opinion?

AGT.

I find it odd that you come on this blog and others, insult and belittle the author with no regard. Yet when I was on your blog asking you to verify your source for your comment re: traffic and bike lanes. You told me to get lost and stopped ‘approving’ any of my posts.

Cowardly hypocritical much? At least Frances and citycaucus have the sack to have a discussion even if it doesn’t jive with their message.

“My thing is to try to empower Penny [Ballem] as much as possible,” says Magee. “But we’re very insistent that the bureaucracy take direction from the politicians.” Mike Magee.
What is odd about this to City Hall old-timers is that the bureaucracy has virtually always taken direction from politicians. The times when this has not been so have been for good reason: conflicting direction from politicians, lack of willingness to drop other priorities or to set priorities (too often a problem with this council too), or a conflict with the Charter or jurisdiction, etc.

Even more ironic, is that some “green” and social initiatives already underway and/or supported by policy are being undermined by this administration as they heavy-handedly insist on putting their brand on everything. This is not a problem unique to Vancouver – it seems that every level of government in Canada and what little I know of the US, seems to have this disease. It is so unfortunate because it is counter-productive and inefficient.

Think back a moment to Phillip Owen who swung the attitudes and opinions of the majority of Vancouverites around to the view that we had to do something to stop the spread of disease and early deaths and other collateral damage from the War on Drugs. And he did it without alienating the bureaucracy. Indeed it could be said that he effectively turned attitudes at The Hall around in the process. He went from being Phillip the Dim to an admired and respected leader serving 3 terms. Harcourt was effective too.

The worst thing about this administration is that it has created chaotic indecisiveness at every level below the City Manager. At the CM level it may not be indecisive, but it is certainly nearly chaotic as the nano-managing becomes increasingly impossible and the blow-back from the communities such as the West End creates turbulence at the upper levels.

I believe it is a mark of immaturity. If they get another chance at governing, and/or convince the CM to seek another position, things will improve. If they don’t get another chance, it’s probably more chaos for the foreseeable future.

We all deserve better.

@boohoo–you lie. I tossed you because you were abusive. I told oyu that Ballem had sent a memo around essentially kiboshing any and all reports unless they met the Vision agenda (translated). That wasn’t good enough for you. I then pointed out that it was made public by two other bloggers and two reporters, still not good enough for you, so after your little rant, I tossed you. Tough twiddle.

@enlightened–not much in your comment expect that yet another Vision sycophant hiding behind a contrived name. Nice work. LOL! Oh wait, I hear the phone ringing…og look it’s Glenn Beck LOL!

@Chris–there are not limits to the twisting in the wind of people like you with a radical, hurtful green agenda that wants the planet to stall so that you can profit. And clearly you have no idea how to read polls. But my point was the difference in Ms. Bueller’s read. You missed that. I understand. It’s okay….maybe next time. And maybe I should send you my daughter’s number line for help. The NPA are on a upward trend from numbers significantly lower from the election. But I’ll spare you the embarrassment (although I’d argue you’re doing a good job on your lonesome). Even if we took your number of a quarter of the electorate as being solidly sitting with the NPA, and factored in the 50% swing vote, your green demi-gods are on a downward trend. But you keep bumping for those useless gardens and pie-in-the-sky. The peopl eof the city have awoken and they are at least unsure they like what they see in your Greggy.

Here it is for your viewing pleasure 🙂

me:

“Do you have a source for your figures?

Why do you assume ‘inordinate gridlock and traffic chaos’ will ensue? What evidence do you have that would indicate that is likely?”

you:

‘Let’s work this backwards for you since you’re so challenged by logic and reason.

Where do you propose all the parking for the courthouse and St. Paul’s will go? Stop there and don’t go any further and see if this makes your rattling pee work any more efficiently.

And let’s not even talk about the fact it’s the number one entry into the core of the city by business traffic, couriers, etc.’

me:

‘AGT,

I’m not sure why you feel the need to insult me because I asked you to provide a source for your numbers.

Do you have one?’

you:

‘Yoshiro…go away. My numbers on the am it will cost come directly form the belly of City Hall and the gridlock taking place on EVERY SINGLE BIKE LANE in this city is well known by commuters and residents, whose side streets are now much less safe.

You’ve had your fifteen minutes.’

Who’s lying?

The only poll that counts is on election day.

Let those who make it their business to spin either gold or a web of discontent froth at the mouth till the next poll of hundreds to come… blip.

Good summary Morven, 24. Parts of the process you describe have been used but, can expensive. A middle ground solution might better, especially if it is more affordable &, therefore, lasting.

The process the planning & engineering departments are currently using are clearly not working. Some is due to the processes themselves but, some of the disconnect is political.

Unfortunately, some groups that should know better like CFIB, instead of informing businesses what the costs and benefits of bike lanes are for businesses and work with the city to ensure the concerns are addressed, took an confrontational approach, spread misinformation and undertook a very flawed survey

So, in other words, par for the course from a graduate of the Fraser Institute.

@Agustin, # 28

I think it would be fair to say that among my concerns, the timing and the process are high on the list.

Anytime you turn a policy into reality, you have to start consultation early. And, more importantly, have the consultation , whether an abbreviated or a full process, run by an independent consultant.

Why?

For one, the credibility of the process and the information is vital if there is any hope of consensus.

If the consultation is run by the same people who developed the policy and provide advice to decision makers (as well as take political direction), there is, for many otherwise reasonable citizens a real or perceived conflict of interest. There is simply too great a risk of institutional bias skewing the results.

Note, I am not suggesting any malfeasance. But even in the best run organizations, there is a phenomenon known as optimism bias. Quite simply put, when the organization has a vested interest in a politically advantageous outcome, it is extremely difficult not to err on the side of optimism.

(optimism bias is not confined to engineers, I may add).

Now, Vancouver probably has one of the highest concentration of impact assessors, urban planners and transport planners anywhere in North America so outsourcing some consultation functions is not a resource problem (the financial aspect is another matter).

In case you asked, I am not involved in local consultation initiatives. But at one time I was involved in issues like radioactive oil field waste management and oil rig construction siting, – issues that generate strong reaction to put it mildly.

I recently read the Request for Proposal for the Toronto Bloor Street/Danforth Class Environmental Study of the Danforth Bikeway. I have to admit that Toronto is way ahead of us in Vancouver in independent and integrated bikeway assessment. They take this seriously in Toronto at both the political and administrative level and no reason why we could not adapt some of the Toronto bikeway lessons to our issues.
-30-