Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Vision fundraiser draws developer crowd, dogged West Enders, and others

June 18th, 2010 · 17 Comments

Dropped by the Vision Vancouver fundraiser Wednesday night, held at the Coast Plaza — just down the street from the St. John’s church site whose proposed redevelopment is causing such an uproar. There’s going into the heart of the dragon’s den or something.

West End Neighbours, the new impromptu group that has sprung up to oppose Vision’s rental incentives for developers and, along the way, a lot of other things, was outside waving placards and letting anyone who didn’t know already about their general dissatisfaction.

But the group went a bit further than others I’ve seen in my many years at city hall, by having a couple of them buy the $150 tickets (unless they got them free from Vision) and go in to mingle with the crowd. When I passed the mayor at one point in between the two tables of shrimp dumplings, deep-fried prawns and spring rolls, he was embroiled in a deep conversation with WEN’s persistent Randy Helten.

The event, a cocktail-party type thing that mercifully allowed people to move out to the outdoor patio/garden, was not as big a do as the Wall Centre fundraiser last fall, but still drew the faithful. Among people from the development crowd I saw there: Peter and Shahram Malek of Millennium (Olympic village, current Maxine’s project in the West End that is on the WEN hit list), Andrew Grant from PCI (Marine Gateway), architects Richard Henriquez (art gallery planning), Stuart Lyon (social housing projects all over the city), and Walter Francl (Bob Rennie’s Chinatown gallery makeover, Olympic village community centre) and James Hancock (two residential towers bordering BC Place).

Also present: David Cuan from the First Shaughnessy residents association, Dr. Peter Wong, who’s been doing a lot of work in Chinatown, Shirley Chan, working with BOB in the Downtown Eastside. I’m told there were any number of government-relations-type people, but I don’t run in those circles so couldn’t ID them.

Congratulations should go to the mayor’s speechwriter for keeping things short, unlike previous events where Gregor Robertson went on forever over what was usually a din similar to what I’m hearing during the World Cup soccer matches that I wake up to every morning in our house these days.

The successes the mayor listed: the Olympics; progress on dealing with homelessness; progress on dealing with homelessness; progress on becoming the “coolest city in the world by 2020” with various green initiatives like bike lanes and curbside composting. He did acknowledge that neighbourhood groups have their concerns about affordable housing and praised them for their “engagement,” adding that that “we’ve got lots of tension and lots of struggles to get through these decisions.”

Gregor also noted that “city hall is a different place than it was 18 months ago” (something many city hall staffers would agree with) and that it’s a lot more confident and ambitious.

School board chair Patti Bacchus got the main cheers of the night, when the mayor praised “our school board for standing up for our kids.”

And that was it. Another few thousand for the election-account kitty, which the mayor reminded everyone is going to be needed in only another 17 months.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • landlord

    @ Frances : “…Shirley Chan, working with BOB in the Downtown Eastside…”. Would that be the same Shirley Chan who recently was awarded the 2010 YWCA Women of Distinction Award in the Non-Profit and Public Service category?

  • landlord

    http://www.ywcavan.org/content/2010%20Women%20of%20Distinction%20Recipients/1234

  • Tim Latanville

    I was at the event and it was totally awesome. The NPA is toast and COPE should just be run over next time. Vision had labour, business, non profits…pretty much everyone you would want in a political party. and now they have loads of money to boot. and gregor rocked!

  • Westender

    They have “loads of money” – you mean they’ve paid off their debt?!? Are they going to share that information with the public and release the donor information as is required by the Vancouver Charter?! That would be “totally awesome”!

  • mary

    It certainly does appear to be a jugernaut, but the City Hall I see is not confident, except perhaps in the doctor’s office. What I see is more bureaucratic behavious as managers try to figure out how to please the doc, or how to be effective in spite of the doc, or how to stay out of the doc’s way. Lot’s of heat but not much light.

  • Tim Latanville

    I have no idea whether they have a debt or not. But I know the Charter and it doesn’t say any such thing, that’s a bunch of hogwash.

  • Living in the West End

    Tim, the following blog from City Caucus may help you out.

    It’s up to the mandarins over in Victoria to decide what to do about Vision

    We’ve written here at CityCaucus.com since early last year about our concerns relating to Vision Vancouver’s cavalier disregard for the Vancouver Charter with respect to their 2008 $241,000 campaign debt. We’ve asked continually that Vision abides by the requirements of the Charter to identify within 30 days any new financial donations to the party.

    Despite the fact that Vision argued loudly in favour of continuous campaign disclosure while in opposition, their response to our concerns to date has been utter silence.

    The rules of Vancouver Charter pertaining to elections are enforced by the Provincial government. Specifically, the Ministry of Rural and Community Development is responsible for maintaining the integrity of our civic electoral system, and ensuring that we all play by the rules. When a municipal party goes deeply into debt to cover costs for an election, the lack of any tax deductions for campaign donations makes it even more of a struggle to pay it back.

    A quarter million dollar debt is not chump change – just ask Coun. Raymond Louie, who spent that much alone in his unsuccessful Mayoral nomination campaign. Parties may resort to measures to reduce their debt such as reducing costs, but Vision Vancouver has abandoned that approach. They’ve hired several staff including an on-salary Executive Director. Money, it would seem, is no object to Vision.

    To allay any concerns that may exist around campaign fundraising and spending, CityCaucus.com has decided to write to the Hon. Bill Bennett, Minister of Community and Rural Development to review Vision Vancouver’s alleged violation of the rules of the Vancouver Charter. We submitted the letter yesterday and look forward to a response from the Minister’s office in the weeks to come.

    Here below is the text of that letter…

    The Hon. Bill Bennett
    Minister of Community and Rural Development
    Province of British Columbia
    Room 301, Parliament Buildings
    Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

    Dear Minister Bennett,

    I respectfully request the attention of your Ministry with respect to the non-compliance of Section 62 of the Vancouver Charter by the elector organization “Vision Vancouver”.

    Section 62, titled “Duty to file disclosure statement” of the Vancouver Charter details the regulations with regard any declarations of campaign expenses and donations. Sub-section 62.1 (“Duty to file supplementary reports”) outlines the requirement to report to the City Clerk within 30 days “any new information” with respect to the original disclosure statement.

    On March 16, 2009 Vision Vancouver disclosed all campaign donations and the total expenses of their 2008 election campaign to the City Clerk’s office. The disclosure indicated a negative balance of $241,666.61. Payments toward this campaign debt trigger the Charter’s requirement for a supplementary report within 30 days of the receipt of any new funding.

    In October 2009 Vision Vancouver held a widely publicized fundraiser. There has been no supplementary report delivered to the City Clerk’s office in the nearly eight months that have passed since that event, nor any attempt to explain how their debt is being managed – if interest payments are being made for example, which would also constitute a 2008 campaign expense.

    It is my hope that your office will seek to find out from the Board of Directors of Vision Vancouver why they have not complied with the Charter requirements, and request that they make an immediate and full disclosure of their financial status in regard to the 2008 campaign debt to the City Clerk’s office.

    Section 64.1 (“Disqualification of elector organization or campaign organizer for failure to file”) indicates that by failing to comply with disclosure rules under the Charter, Vision Vancouver may be subject to penalties including being prohibited to raise or spend money in relation to future elections. I leave it to your Ministry to rule on this matter.

    Your consideration of these matters is most appreciated.

    Will Vision respond by becoming more transparent? Will the BC government give them a pass? We’ll be sure to notify our readers of any formal response from the Minister’s office here at CityCaucus.com.

    – post by Mike

  • Tim Latanville

    As I said, anything coming from the NPA’s citycaucus thingy is simply hogwash. If they’re so disturbed about disclosure what about asking for Sullivans donors, which have never been disclosed from the referendum? Or Anton’s full disclosure of all donors, which she never has come clean on? Regardless, they aren’t out of compliance with the Charter either. Just more wet noodle attacks from Klassen and his ilk.

  • Higgins

    Tim, help me out here. How do you spell “Woof” in Vision?

  • Bill McCreery

    “mayor …..embroiled in a deep conversation with WEN’s persistent Randy Helten”.

    WEN is an intelligent,knowledgeable, effective group who do their homework. The mayor had best listen, they’ve got a huge constituency.

    It’s interesting that you lump architects in with developers. I’m not sure all architects would appreciate your view in that regard. Richard Henriquez is also the architect for the 2 controversial STIR projects, the St. John’s one is curiously far below the office’s usual design standard. As well, he is the architect for 1 of the Bloedel proposals with the decision pending.

    The ‘developers you mention all have projects before this Council pending approval. One would think you might question where were the other ‘developers’? And, why were these there? You might also queery why the bun toss was being held @ the CoastPlaza which just happens to have a rezoning application before Council as well. And then, you might ask how much net rent [including rent $s – donations back directly & indirectly] did Vision pay Coast PLaza?

    “….successes the mayor listed: the Olympics; progress on….. homelessness; ….. bike lanes and curbside composting”.

    Vision had virtually nothing to do with the success of the Olympics. Previous Councils, the Province & Vanoc take the credit. Likewise “homelessness”, the previous Council & the Province did the 20 odd site deal, the temporary shelter was botched. Bike lanes were started by TEAM back in 1974 & expanded by the NPA. I wouldn’t take to much credit for what the current crowd is ramming through. We haven’t seen the end of this story yet.
    “curbside composting” is happening all over the region not just Vancouver & has been in the works before Vision.

    All in all, not impressive. How many warm bodies? You didn’t mention that. Don’t forget to deduct the 2 WEN delegates.

  • Glissando Remmy

    The Thought of The Evening

    “Third time’s the charm.”

    Timmy! Timmy! timmy!
    There you are. Again.You are such a charming character. And your delusions seem to be stronger than ever. You are simply made to be portrayed in verse.

    Noblesse oblige.

    “I saw you in the City Park, the other day,
    You’re sniffing butt; the Hall bitch, stood still.
    ‘Name, breed’ I asked the Mayor of the day,
    ‘We call him Tim and he’s a Vision Latanville!’”

    We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

  • We Are Amused

    OK, Glissy…WIN!!!!!!

    This reminds me of the good work of widely syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage, who brought into the politicla and social lexicons an alternative definition for “santorum”, a word invented after anti-gay remarks made by then US Senator Rick Santorum.

    Since this is a family column, I shall refrain from giving you the exact quoted definition, but let me assure you it was both apt and hilarious, given the subject, the subjectee and the subjector. Hint: go look it up on Wikipedia.

    In the spirit of cleverness and political lampooning everywhere, I believe Glissy has captured perfectly the combination of “political cheerleeading, lapdog sycophancy, and cheesy partisanship” of this new breed of canine vulgaris.

    “What a latanville!” is how I shall now be referring to political suck-ups everywhere, regardless of political party. A high bar to set, I know.

    I woiuld also like at this time to nominate Glissy for Poet Laureate of Vancouver Bloggers.

    (Cheers and trebles all round).

  • A. G. Tsakumis

    Hey Latanville, I’m surprised you were off your knees pads long enough to post about Vision’s “totally awesome” experience.

    Gregor rocked?

    You know, I just can’t wait to see what you and YOUR ILK will do when it al starts to unravel and there’s a real dogfight for council and possibly Mayor.

    You have no clue what’s coming.

  • MB

    Careful Alex. Too much spittle on that cigar will render it as effective as, well … a wet noodle.

  • Jesse

    Glissando is a ‘rara avis’, not merely a writer of inimitable style but also a winner of many unsung awards…
    I would very much like to second ‘WeAreAmused’.
    Thanks GR

  • david hadaway

    This latanvillish enthusiasm for one party government combined with the latanvillainous list of special interest donors leaves me with a latanvillious feeling in my stomach.

    Let’s hope this neologism takes off, but they rarely last long. Who now says “doing a Greg” for omitting to pay full fare or “doing a Jasp” for chiselling the entry charge at a charity event?

  • A. G. Tsakumis

    @MB

    Wet noodles are your department sweetheart, you just gave yourself away.