I’m heartened to hear that we will be taught how to engage each other by the a city council that prides itself on ignoring its citizens and the democratic process.

Or maybe the city had the bejeezes scared out of them by the Rize debacle where a grass roots community group got together and made them look pretty bad.They sure dont want that to happen again so they want to have someone in there to help guide the process.

IanS,

I’m not following what you mean. The only options for what?

I was being somewhat sarcastic as there are those here who’s initial reaction is derision regardless of the topic or its merit. It’s not either or, that’s not what I meant.

I was thinking of brilliant as I was writing, who’s initial reaction was ‘blah blah city hall bad’ but when asked point blank said it’s not a bad idea (assuming it’s legit which is very valid).

My question was just worded poorly–you could not have that vitriolic reaction to anything from city hall and still think this is a bad idea. Or think whatever else you want. As I’ve said a number of times, perspective is important and dramatically lacking.

People might want to look at the last sentence in my first comment or this from my second comment.
” .I am in no way against grass roots community groups as that is what we as communities draw our strength from.But I am suspicious of a government organizing these groups. “

I would also invite people go back and read my previous comments.Nowhere will you find any name calling or derogatory comments all you will find is direct quotes and links to other member cities that for what ever reason have chosen to remove themselves from ICLEI.The other thing you will see is my attempt to answer questions that were posed to me in a civil manner.I leave it to the reader to decide if these things I say have any merit or not and if they dont they can move on.Instead Im confronted with name calling and hand waving in order to discredit even the thought that it could even be possible,and frankly its done with no evidence that it isnt happening.Im the first to admit its like trying to nail jello to a wall but I believe the weight of evidence falls on the side that there is some outside influence on the city.

I mean, ask yourself. How did it come about that SO MANY cities in North America are jamming bike lanes right through the middle of town. Did they ALL just happen to realize what a wondrous idea they are? Do they ALL suddenly have overwhelming traffic problems that MUST be solved NOW all at the same point in time?
Or.. could it just be… that the deep environmental left has given up trying to work through the Federal or even state/provincial level of government and found that it is very much easier to stack municipal councils ( as has been done in Vancouver ) and thereby move a lot faster on the Green script? Oh.. “what script?” you ask. Good, because it seemed awfully fishy to me that you could look at the website of any sizeable city in North America and find that, all in the last few years, they were full of ‘sustainable’ this and ‘sustainable that’ and bike lanes. For that, you probably need a script. That script is Agenda 21.

You can get trained on A21 at any of our universities now, our children of all ages are being indoctrinated in schools with it, it is never named explicitly, but it is there and at Vision Vancouver, it is their script.

That is why Andrea Reimer is striking a so called task force on lonliness and engagement. It isnt about lonliness but it IS about engaging people to join in implementing the A21 script. Normally, you would expect a political party to spend its own donations on membership drives and policy indoctrination of its members. This so called task force, appearing out of the blue, is nothing more than a way to get the taxpayers to fund their own indoctrination.

If you think Vision Vancouver is about anything else at all, then you are wrong. They are zealots, and Agenda 21 is their script.

Well Andy, here is an old quote from the Vancouver Observer where Olivia Fermi was interviewing Andrea Reimer.
====
“I asked Reimer how will her government’s Greenest City by 2020 promise be realized if Vision Vancouver were to be swept out of office.

Reimer asserted that the project would continue even without Vision Vancouver in power. “From the outset, we built it to last,” she said. “Greenest City is a like a tree with good, deep roots … at a political level, we’ve made sure it would be painful and hard to rip out. ”
====
Note the outlook choice of words.
‘Painful and hard to rip out’, (even if the democracy gives Andrea and her party a big thumbs down for what they have done). They really dont care and are PLANNING to be sure nobody in the future can undo what the ‘chosen’ have wrought.
If it quacks like a duck, it’s a zealot if you asked me.

Sorry this is a better link http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

Ah, hasheater, welcome to the insanity indeed. Now it appears that there are three apostles of looney conspiracy theories.
Personally, I have always been a greater fan of the view that sustainability is the ideology of space aliens who landed in the New Mexico desert.
But then maybe those space aliens were caught up and brainwashed by A21, ICLEI and anyone who happens to be, dare I utter the obscenity, “progressive”. Yeah, that’s it.
I don’t know if Andrea Reimer is a shrew; she may be for all I know. I do know that the idiot who called her that is, well, an idiot.

@gman,
do your lips get sore when you type. Is that why you need to regurgitate You tube videos to get out your insults.
Or is your “mind” so preoccupied with conspiracy theories and ICLEI that you just have no time to develop your own.

And you have absolutely no sense of humour.

Waltyss,I rest my case.Nanu Nanu,man your so weak.

ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha…
Frances is leashing and muzzling the most vicious ones, I see…
Down boy! 🙂

Nelson100 #80.
“To answer your question, I think the task force will be pre-programmed to recommend exactly whatever Vision wants to do in the first place (like WEMAC) and is therefore a waste of money. ”

Absolutely right, I’ll second that!
Cheers

To Boohoo #82. For the record I support the bike lanes and the bike sharing program. I’m in favour of the thin streets strategy. But I continue to believe that Vision has an obvious problem with democratic engagement of the citizens of Vancouver. Believe me, I’m not alone in that viewpoint, far from it.

When my kids were little, they constantly accused me of not listening to them. What it meant was that I didn’t agree to let them do what they wanted. By their logic, I only listened to them when I let them do what they wanted.
It seems some of this complaining that the current administration doesn’t listen is just a wider version of the same sentiment. We elect politicians to make decisions on our behalf and pray that they make them in our best interests. We know when we elect them that they come with preconceived notions that either agree with us or they are a mix of things we agree with and others we don’t and that on balance we see as preferable to their opponents.
If we hate them from day 1 or they make enough decisions that go contrary to our views, we vote against them in the next election.
When it comes to public hearings, the best one can really hope for is that we or others will say something sufficiently persuasive or new, that it will sway their opinion. This does not happen all that often as most public hearings are mostly a kibuki play where the usual suspects play out their predictable roles. Is this not listening? I guess it is but in that theatre, does anyone really even expect to be listened to? And can someone name me one political party that “listens” in that sense other than a political party you agree with.

To waltyss #85 – I appreciate that the Vision perspective on public hearings is as you describe. Attendees at public hearings are basically children complaining that they don’t get what they want. Politicians are elected to make decision on our behalf so what is the point of public hearings?

Where I believe Vision is very different from other political entities is this complete lack of understanding of the democratic process. Compare our city council to the federal government. Government bills are debated first in committees. They utlimatley make it into the House of Commons. During the course of these debates the bills are significantly, sometimes radically changed. Some bills pass, some don’t. Fierce debates sometimes rage in the press and in the public. But the debates matter. This is good and healthy. To believe in democracy means believing deeply that society as a whole make better decisions than individuals, even if the democratic process sometimes gets loud and messy.

What worries me most about Vision is that public hearings (even attended by armies of angry citizens) NEVER make them change. Not one iota. Whatever this small group of individuals has proposed is considered by them so perfect that it needs no feedback, refinement or improvement from the outside world (well, perhaps except for the development community but I won’t go there).

To the Vision bloggers on this site primed to go on a defensive attack whenever criticized, take a bit of advice. Don’t send me a series of blistering responses. Just for once try to listen to these comments and do a little reflection. It’s called listening. Try it.

Also your nod to the Harper government. LOL. Omnibus bill much?

In response to Boohoo 88. My comment on WEMAC was not intended to imply corruption. Rather it was simply meant to imply the Vision had clearly already made up their minds on related issues in advance and were not genuinely seeking public input. WEMAC was a quasi democratic performance using hand picked unelected candidates in weak attempt to validate some highly unpopular decisions in the West End.

To your comment 89 I’m not a supporter of the Harper Omnibus bill. It shows the same disrespect for democracy I’ve spoken of. For Vision supporters unhappy about the Omnibus bill, I’d suggest using the perspective of the bill to understand better why the democratic processes need to be respected. Even in circumstances when one believes a political decision is being rammed through for all the right reasons (as I’m sure Harper does).

If a politican’s viewpoint is so narrow that one automatically classifies all opponents as either professional lobbyists, fat civil servants, environmental crackpots (Harper) or whiners, f*cking hacks, condo owners, NIMBY’s (Vision), the point of democracy is equally missed.