@Bill Lee #44 – In 2008, the capital plan questions passed by easy margins, with only one question not getting more than 50% in one poll (Q3 – Parks & Rec got 49.75% in poll 89).

This year, Q1 (Public Works) failed to get 50% in 9 polls – the lowest at 45%.
Q2 (Safety and Civic Facilities) failed to get 50% in 1 poll.
Q3 (Parks and Rec) failed to get 50% in 7 polls .

The 9 polls were 60, 61, 69, 70, 81, 82, 83, 89, 97, and 98 – all polls that Suzanne Anton won.

I am one of those Visionistas who is not gloating – I really like Vision, but don’t believe that they had a monopoly on the best candidates (which, in my opinion, included Bickerton, Garossino and McCreery- I think there should be some sort of Peace Prize awarded to those who are endorsed by both the Georgia Straight and Tsakumis). I have no doubt that a wonderful team of volunteers was necessary to achieve last night’s result, but you don’t get thousands of volunteers just because you have good ideas/values. You need money so that potential volunteers hear about you and think you have a shot, you need money to hire savvy people to organise those volunteers, you need money for the phone lines and office space so that volunteers can come in and call for you, you need money for the signs and buttons that your volunteers distribute, and I suspect you need money for more behind-the-scenes strategy stuff I don’t even know about. My point is that you can’t simply compare the numbers of votes for the various parties and use that as an indication of how well their message resonated with voters.

I really think we need some sort of campaign finance reform to level the playing field so that a new party or an independent stands a chance if they have good ideas and are competent. I don’t think this issue could be easily solved by a ward system or even some sort of proportional representation like STV- you need some sort of spending caps.

Julian….i agree with your views.

Also, I believe there will be a variety of civic election reforms in place prior to the next election:
http://www.civicgovernance.ca/resources/1343

@Chris Porter. Interesting. I am not on any civic party’s list, though I’ve occasionally received an e-mail that seems to be based on someone getting access to a list I am part of. So, I am just going by what I get in the mail and newspapers. I’m in an apartment too, a condo to be specific, and Canada Post delivers party fliers.

@ Jason 56 and TOAB 57 – thanks for the links – I will try to follow this further.

@ Frances 58 – I think your point, and TOAB’s link, refer to the total spending, which to me isn’t exactly the problem. I’m concerned about making sure the little guys and gals have a shot without needing enormous donations- if there are lots and lots of independents who each spend “small” amounts, which altogether add up to a big amount, that seems OK. Is that your impression of Seattle?

I agree with those who feel NSV did extremely well. They were a brand new party, with next to no budget, and no provincial/federal tie-in. I’m not sure why some are trying to advance the notion that they performed poorly, given their circumstances.

Chris Porter’s analysis is interesting, but its too bad it doesn’t mention where NSV pulled their votes from. Its plain to see the NPA does well in areas of the city with large concentrations of of single family homes. The problem is the NPA has become somewhat schizophrenic in that it relies on developers for money, but its voting base is becoming more antagonistic to development. I’ll be very curious to see if Vision performs well again in Robertson’s backyard once development pressures spilling off Cambie impact Douglas and Riley Park.

As to ptak604’s racially offensive stereotyping of white NIMBY’s, I hope he noted the analysis showing the Chinese community seemed to indulge far more in unthinking ethnic bloc voting than anyone else.

Tessa, Cambie Corridor Plan is simply Ribbon Development in an urban setting. Thoroughly discredited by planners early LAST century, Mr. Toderian, ignorant and disrespectful as always of history (ie. HAHR, Rize) has revived it on Cambie and proudly branded it “Vancouverism 2.0.” This is a boulevard for automobiles, how livable will it be? And how affordable will a six-story assembly be on 3 million dollar lots?

As for STIR, yes, Frances the increase supply theory sounds logical, but how many units has STIR actually produced? A couple hundred new units every few years won’t put a dent in the rental crisis (if there still is one) any more than it would put a meaningful dent in the homeless crisis. The effect of a STIR tower on the surrounding area’s affordability, however, is profoundly negative due to the precedent they set. This is not good policy, unless you are a developer, and even then it doesn’t always make sense.

Andrea, TOAB pretty much summarized what I think of your Helton voting analysis. But how did the other NSV candidates, who got 5x as many votes as he did, do in the West End? I don’t disagree that they are, so far, a one-trick pony. But their council candidates were hardly one-dimensional people, and given some time to develop a fuller platform and more money to get the word out, who knows? Even as a single-issue party, they still got 40+% the number of votes as the long-established and moneyed NPA candidates or the strongest COPE candidate. I think it’s pretty impressive all things considered.

Don’t get me wrong, folks, I’m happy that the least worst party won. I just don’t take a whole lot of comfort in that when I think of the future of Vancouver.

On the COPE/Vision alliance issue. I think the alliance resulted in the vision/cope get-out-the-vote machine using a lot of union volunteers. I saw Jim Sinclair himself door knocking in the 1800 block of Charles St. (between Commercial Dr. and Victoria Dr.). And this ultimately benefited Vision more than COPE. For example, the Drive neighbourhood, where they put in a lot of get-out-the-vote effort, is less “pro-union” than it used to be (more “green” than “left,” as Frances and I discussed on Twitter election night), but also not strong NPA voters–a happy vote-hunting ground for Vision in other words.

Gliss #67
Wow and double wow… After that outpouring I’m now convinced you must be AT’s doppelgänger. Good luck with that.

Everyman @ #73

May I respectfully point out that you and your mates do not understand the dynamics of global politico/economics.

Vancouver gave all its productive, import substituting prerogatives away years ago.

Or were they deliberately taken away?

NAFTA: all that is left is is finance, insurance and real estate.

I suppose you can blame Mulroney for that but he was merely the weakest character mesmerized by a position he had no right to hold.

By all means Everyman enjoy the gossip but it will take a bigger upheaval than this blog to to help Vancouver.

Usually, history tells us time and time again, it is not good intentions or talk that brings about change.

The kettle boils and boils sometimes for decades.

Then, whooops, change we get: more and more of the same in a different package.

Pay your bills and shut up. That’s democracy . . .

Excuse the lecture but the excitement bubble needs a pin.

But hey, have fun . . .

“The NPA has been essentially a candidate-nominating committee and they are trying to compete with a well-funded, full-time party machine,” said Rob Macdonald, a prominent developer.

MacDonald is right here.

MacDonald, however, needs to take a lot of the blame too. Mike Klassen is taking a lot of pummeling for the tone of the campaign, but it starts at the top. I base this not on the V.Sun interview cited in #73, but this Straight interview.

One of the keys (duh) to a campaign is to accurately assess your opponent’s strength and weaknesses and if this interview is accurate reflection of his thinking, MacDonald fooled himself. I would hypothesize he thought his own personal rage with the Dunsmuir bike lane was shared broadly.

But the Justasen polls showed the bike lanes were not a major issue. Nor the chickens. Nor the wheat fields.

As someone here pointed out, all the neighbourhoods that the separated bike lanes went through voted VV.

I’m not surprised. Rob MacDonald is a man who seems to truly believe Trotskyists and Maoists run things in “the Left”. When your campaign head has beliefs similar to General Ripper from Dr. Strangelove, you’re in trouble.

I like the suggestion that NPA changes its colour scheme. Because that’s the problem.

The Thought of The Day

“I’ll take a big mouthed, opinionated leader that follow through and delivers anytime, to that of a nice, combed-over, all smiles, mellow talking that will screw you from behind!”

Roger #69
“I cannot believe your tunnel vision. You may as well be talking NPA: 1937!
For god’s sake man you know bluddy well nine tenths of your gripe is out of the local ballpark.”

I will write this down, and I’ll read it back to you in about one year! Deal?

callmecrazy #72
IliveinVancouver #75

I will write down what you said, and I’ll read it back to you both in about one year! Deal?

And now, please amuse me and delete from the following list (copy/paste of the previous #67) all that is made up, it’s not true or exaggerated. OK?

“1 – They spent your monies as if there was no tomorrow.
2 – They called you f#$%ing hacks.
3 – They silenced and intimidated their own city employees.
4 – Put a gag order on media.
5 – Build a “trial” bike lane mere hours after “approval”
6 – Laughed at you democratically cubed.
7 – Traveled across the world on your dime for no apparent reason.
8 – Sent you pictures of red steaming lobsters and donated yellow hats to shelters.
9 – Solved Homelessness by changing its name to Street Homelessness.
10 – Eradicated Housing Affordability faster than the Planet Earth solved the Dinosaur problem.
11 – Closed children amenities for lack of funds but found enough dough to sponsor a hockey game and a bit of occupation.
12 – Brought the city the second sport related Riot.
13 – Banned the words: accountability, responsibility, fiscal prudence from any form of media.
14 – Lost hundreds of millions of dollars of your money on a pathetic exercise called Olympic Village.
15 – Looked away from the raping of Little Mountain Coop, still bruised and forgotten.
16 – Nepotism, Cronyism, Arrogance, Corruption are the most popular Baby Vision names.”

‘callmecrazy’… no, good luck with that! 🙂
And because ‘Iliveinvancouver’ insists… 🙂

We live in Vancouver and this keeps us stupid.

IliveinVancouver:
Now that GR can’t post his endless rants at City Caucus anymore, his only consolation is to go crazy here.
His fans on FB will soon have much, much more GR content to groove to. He’s only getting warmed up!

The Thought of The Day

“Money Talks, Bullshit Walks !”

Again…
“I live in Vancouver” #81… You do, eh?
Andrea C #82… and you are…? BTW , FYI I started posting here at Fabula, waay before CityCaucus was ‘CityCaucus’ … so, bite me!
To you both and ‘callmecrazy’… common do it for me, get that 10%er list and trash it any way you see fit, common, let’s debate it, factually … yap… my point exactly!

We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

Aw Glissy you seem to be the one with the need to stay unhinged and bitter. Your list says more about you then it does Vision. You’d find a way to blame Vision for galaxies colliding across the universe if you could. But please do keep unraveling, I mean posting.

Meanwhile I see David Cadman agrees that Tim Louis dragged down the rest of COPE ticket.

The Thought Of The Night

“Vision Vancouver Voter, the forever Patron of the Art of Fonzie!”

Andy #86,
I know. Your Buoys won. Good for them. bad for the remaining 80% of Vancouverites that did not vote or vote for them, ok?

That list I’ve posted, reads like a Rap Sheet, indicates all the Vision’s sexy videos, lies and other misdemeanours.
How does that list reflects bad or says more about me is beyond my understanding.
Like one Defendant saying to his lawyer that the Discovery Files on Him, put together by the Prosecution, are reflecting bad on the Investigators.

I did not expect anything less from such an arrogant and patronizing bunch. like yours.

Futile.

We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

@ThinkOutsideABox #59: Yes, I think the Rize is a poorly planned project. I have no concerns with density at that site, and communicated that specifically to city staff, but the design and the height and the way the project fit was poorly planned. You don’t need height to build dense buildings, and that especially should be true outside of downtown.

You should also note, however, that I wrote in support of the 11-storey building of supportive housing at Kingsway and Fraser, which at the time was a three-block walk from where I was renting. I also wrote harshly of council’s decision to cut two storeys off the top of that building. Please, when contemplating my writing record on this blog, take a full account rather than pick and choose what suits your argument.

STIR requires an incentive to build because it not competitive vis a vis condo construction, despite there being a market for it. Condos provide a quick buck and a high rate of return on much lower risk and with much less work than rental, and so renovictions end up serving that need. The demand for rental in this city should be obvious to anyone who has ever had to actually try to rent a place. As a renter myself, it’s a nightmare: one bedroom basement suites go for $1,000+. STIR isn’t much, but it’s all the city has any control over.

@ Tessa, you said that STIR buildings are not “affordable”.

The kicker: for a development to waive the development cost charges or levies (DCLs) under STIR, and to restrict the tenure to rental only, the city manager is required to determine the building is “affordable”.

If that isn’t relatively ambiguous (and legally unenforceable) enough, all that was required to waive the DCL on the STIR project at 1142 Granville was for the city manager to determine a “measure of affordability”.

I sympathize with the concerns of renting, having been a renter for 20 years prior to owning, and having been renovicted once myself, but you are defending the indefensible.

And I don’t have to consider the total sum of the “writing record” to see the NIMBY attitude comes through clearly in comment #50. You are quick to discount West End zoning district by-laws and specific site design and FSR concerns there because “Come on. It’s the West End” but are ready to argue that “you don’t need height to build dense buildings” along with poorly planned height and fit, when it’s in your backyard.

Take a guess at who made the following statement…

We have continually raised issues here around the development cost charges. These will only exacerbate the fiscal imbalance that we see for local government.

Local government does not have the resources to address the critical need to reduce carbon footprint and greenhouse gas emissions.

By pulling away the development cost charges from local governments, it will only make things worse in many situations as local governments are starved out. Clearly they’re unable to escape the costs associated with development and those costs that are typically covered by DCCs. However, with DCCs being exempted or excluded from local government revenue, that means a shortage of funding.

One has to wonder what the purpose is. There’s a noble intention in ensuring that development is greener and that there is a provision for smaller, self-contained residential housing units.

However, if all of these good intentions conflict with the ability for local government to actually implement and survive on the scrawny budgets that only property taxes and the charges and levies which they are empowered to collect provide, then we’re going to have problems down the road here.

We’re not going to achieve the targets that have been set and that by this bill are being imposed on local governments

Sounds like Randy Helten maybe, arguing against waiving DCLs?

No, that would be NDP MLA Gregor Robertson in the Legislative Assembly Tuesday, May 13, 2008.

6 months following he becomes mayor. 7 months after that, he brings us STIR.

Why the flip flop?

That’s Division 13. There was only a 60 vote difference in the mayoral race, and similar in 2008, but you’re right – in 2011 the vote for council was (by my math) 3596 NPA v. 2733 VV/COPE

ptak604 wrote: “note to Randy Helten: Vision had a lot more volunteers than paid people knocking on doors and making phone calls.”
I have a sincere question: How do you know that? Do you have evidence? Honestly, what proportion of 1,600 people were paid versus pure volunteers? In every case, when I or others asked Vision people on the street (with survey on weeks ahead clipboard, or big placards on election day) or phone callers, the answer was “paid.” Even if a party declares numbers of “volunteers,” there is no way for the public to verify them independently. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Randy Helten and Glissando Remmy! LOL
Guys, get out of Frances blog and fast, the Vision posse is in full swing, ha, ha, ha…
Vision… Vancouver, ta da !

@ThinkingOutsideABox: #92

Apparently you think supporting an 11-storey building three blocks away from their house in a single-family residential zone with absolutely no precedent for such a building is what a NIMBY person would do.

Apparently you also think it’s unfair to support a high-rise tower surrounded by high-rise towers and a different form of building elsewhere where there are no high-rise towers (i.e. mid-rise?). To me, that should be obvious.

To meet the classification of not being a NIMBY does not require someone defend any and every project that could ever possibly get proposed. Mount Pleasant is ready for change in the neighbourhood – people have said that. There’s support for increased density. The West End, however, has been one of the most static, unchanging neighbourhoods in the city for years – at least a decade. One tower amid a sea of towers makes sense.

As for affordability:
I would bet I’m using a different definition of affordable than the city is in this case, clearly. STIR buildings aren’t affordable to me. But it wouldn’t make sense to have luxury buildings go up – there has to be some limit on rents or the stated goals wouldn’t be achieved. They are still pretty well within market range, however. That is hardly a disputed fact.