Frances Bula header image 2

With civic election just over a year away, NPA, COPE, TEAM, Cedar gear up to take votes from Vision Vancouver

November 6th, 2013 · 84 Comments

The civic election isn’t until Nov. 15, 2014. But you’d never know it from the jostling going on among parties hoping to harness the resentment they believe Vision Vancouver is sowing. A sign of the times — I wrote an article for Vancouver magazine about the energy people are putting into campaigns early — especially NPA president Peter Armstrong, who has already hired three people and installed two of them in his fantastic office on the 30th floor of the TD bank tower.

At the time, a mere four or so weeks ago, TEAM spokesman Bill McCreery was talking about the triumvirate that had founded this revival of the successful party of the 1970s — himself, Dave Pasin, and former councillor Jonathan Baker. At 5:16 a.m. today, I got a news release from the NPA (Natasha, that is some early hours you’re putting in) saying that Baker has joined the NPA, with various paragraphs outlining his history.

There’s a sign that Mr. Armstrong and company are going to go to the mat over even the littlest things — and that they consider TEAM a threat.

And TEAM, which I understand held a successful fundraising dinner last night (I meant to go but have been laid low with some version of the plague), is a threat. It could strip away the few thousand votes that the NPA desperately needs to win in a tight election. While more sophisticated voters, who understand the overall chess game, will be wary of throwing a vote away on a small party that seems likely to split the anti-Vision centre-right vote, others will not be. I know there are people out there who want to vote against Vision, don’t see the NPA as being any less in bed with developers, and who won’t want to express their discontent by voting COPE.

More of this to come. My opening chapter, in this issue of Vancouver magazine, is here.

By the way, after I had finished writing this story, I did get a face-to-face meeting with Peter in his stunning office, which seems to be a hive of political activity. As I arrived, former NPA council candidate Michael Geller was leaving and former NPA park-board commission Al de Genova was also leaving. The two full-time staffers for the NPA, KellyReichert. the former executive director of the B.C. Liberal Party, and Natasha Westover, former constituency assistant to one-time cabinet minister Kevin Falcon, were hard at work in their offices. Peter appears to be interviewing everyone in town about civic politics, from former mayors to me, where I got a light grilling about my political views. He has even attended a COPE public meeting, where, he says, there are people doing some fine work. Indeed.

Friends and associates are still mystified as to why he has taken this crusade on with such passion. Peter keeps saying it’s because he cares about the city, but I can’t help thinking there’s more. One person suggested it’s because he really didn’t like the fact that Vision councillors passed some kind of negative motion about Rocky Mountaineer during the lockout. Could that be it? Who knows?

At any rate, he is driving this boat full steam ahead.

 

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Waltyss

    The old adage is true. Birds of a feather stick together. Terry M prefers the crack smoking gang, booze swilling, gangster moll and buffoon, Rob Ford . Why am I not surprised.
    Except for the fact that I don’t want to collect in coke stained bills, and would worry about hit men if I tried to collect, I would be prepared to bet you on the outcome of the next CoV mayoral election.

  • gman

    Lets see now,Fords numbers are going up despite his misgivings and Moonbeam is losing ground.What does that say about how people feel about the loony lefts agenda? The vision PB is toast,neighborhood associations are pissed, small businesses are getting killed by city hall and all these people are the very demographic that show up to vote.I think we may just get a big boost in voter turnout….thanks Vision keep it up.We might even see Vision throw the bike lobby under the bus out of desperation.If you’re real quiet you can hear the chattering classes heads exploding all the way from Toronto.

  • Everyman

    I was just rereading this post and comments and its struck me as strange that there is no mention of the Greens. Councillor Carr has been front and centre in listening to neighbourhood concerns and bringing forward motions to reflect them. Given that they now have a presence on Council I can easily see them being a big factor in the next election if they field a decent roster of candidates.

  • brilliant

    Maybe there is something in Robertson running for the federal.Liberals. After all Trudeau seems to have picked up hizzoner’s fuddleduddle on admiring Chinese dictators. A moonbeam mindmeld of sorts.

  • Bill McCreery

    Norman 49.

    It’s great to hear you say that you “will work day and night” to support “who has the best chance of unseating Vision”. I know from interacting with many people from across the City that they share your view.

    This next election promises to offer voters some fresh ideas and approaches and clear choices.

    Another way for you and others to make it more likely for that change to be successful is to get involved sooner than later with a political organization that represents your values and priorities.

    One of those organizations is TEAM. We are a grassroots Vancouver political party that offers voters a clear choice in the November 15, 2014 Civic Election. TEAM supports a City of Vancouver government that represents everyone, and not special interests.

    To ensure this TEAM does not take donations from corporations or unions and limits donations to $1200 / person / year. TEAM supports an open and accessible City Hall, strong, independent community centre associations, and meaningful, active citizen involvement in neighbourhood and city planning.

    TEAM welcomes your participation and your ideas. People of like minds working together can make meaningful change for the better in Vancouver.

    I hope you and others will consider getting on board sooner than later to help shape our policies and then to continue working together to successfully cross the finish line next November, ensuring that all citizens can work together cooperatively with City Hall to allow Vancouver to continue to realize its potential as one of the best liveable, sustainable great places to live, work and play.

  • boohoo

    It’s great to hear you say that you “will work day and night” to support “who has the best chance of unseating Vision”.

    I think that attitude is disgusting and is exactly what’s wrong with politics in this City. You should fight day and night for what you believe in not against what you don’t like.

    I know that’s not how politics work, but for a ‘grassroots’ (excuse me while i laugh/gag) organization to promote this kind of thinking is depressing. If you’re grassroots you should have a platform, a mission, a vision, something other than ‘we hate those guys’.

  • Roger Kemble

    Here here boohoo @ #56

  • boohoo

    That first quote should be in “quotations” of course…

  • Kenji

    The runner-up political party in the 2011 election was the Non Partisan Association.

    I do not think that voting for the NPA will result in a council that is less interested in development and rezoning. I think that instead of a development party with a veneer of green amenities, we’ll just have a development party.

  • Bill McCreery

    Boo and Roger, aren’t:

    “TEAM supports a City of Vancouver government that represents everyone, and not special interests.” and

    “TEAM supports an open and accessible City Hall, strong, independent community centre associations, and meaningful, active citizen involvement in neighbourhood and city planning.”

    positive statements for ‘what TEAM believes in’?

    We are “grassroots” and do have “a mission, a vision” as I clearly stated:

    “… ensuring that all citizens can work together cooperatively with City Hall to allow Vancouver to continue to realize its potential as one of the best liveable, sustainable great places to live, work and play.”

    Political parties ‘platforms’, as I’m sure you well know Boo, are not released until the election period. In addition, we wouldn’t be very grassroots would we if we came on with all the top down answers? Don’t you think it more inclusive, democratic and bottom up to welcome participation in policy formulation?

    There are lots of commenters here, who from what they say again and again, want exactly that opportunity. That’s why TEAM has been created, to give citizens opportunities to be included in the decision-making processes at both the political party and civic governance levels.

  • boohoo

    Bill,

    I could find similar motherhood statements on any political parties website.

    No, I don’t want you to have all the answers but I want more than the utterly vague nonsense you’ve stated. And please stop using the word ‘grassroots’. Any party that has to identify itself like that gives me the shivers.

  • boohoo

    I’m not trying to be difficult or anything. Just that my generation, and those younger know nothing of your parties past performance and only know the current political situations. We’re jaded for good or bad, right or wrong. When, and don’t take this the wrong way, ‘old white men’ say trust us, we don’t. That’s what you’re up against.

    I’d be happy to be proven wrong, but words are cheap.

  • teririch

    @boohoo:

    Vision was once a ‘grassroots’ party. Just sayin’.

  • Terry M

    Platform are what they are. Complete BS. To lure you in, big white lies and future “caviar dreams champagne wishes”.

    Here,s what Stuart Mackinnon wrote on his personal blog more than two years ago:
    http://betterparks.blogspot.ca/2011/07/silly-season.html

    “Summer is often called the silly season in politics. Not enough news so news has to be manufactured. The summer before a fall election seems to be the silliest. Here in Vancouver we have an abundance of announcements coming out of city hall, with politicians all over the radio and TV. Letters flying decrying this or that, accusing each other of what not. It seems to me that a lot of people need a vacation.

    As the election approaches I wanted to share with my readers something that was posted on another blog. An anonymous blogger who calls himself Glissando Remmy said that if he ever ran for anything this would be his platform:
    ‘I’ll do the best I can, with the resources at hand, for all the people of Vancouver. Period.’

    Now that’s a platform I think we could all support. I’m checking out for much of August. For the first part I’ll be attending a mindfulness retreat with Thich Nhat Hanh called ‘Awakening the Heart’, and then hopefully heading out of town for a well earned rest. When I return I’ll let you all know my plans for the autumn.

    In the meantime try to get outside and enjoy the sunshine.”
    I can live with that too. Frankly, in one short sentence, Glissando Remmy captured the essence of good democratic governance.
    What do you think, Bill!?
    Just to preempt the troll, please spare us your contribution on this item. You know who you are…

  • teririch

    @Bill McCreery:

    Ahhh ‘old white men’..

    Don’t you just love a term that is not only ageist but somewhat racist?

    I also find that statement amusing when a good portion as boohoo refers to as ‘my generation’ and ‘younger’ can’t get their asses off the couch once every 3 years to go and vote – unlike the ‘older’ generations.

    I love these generations that are coming up you know – the self entitled, self important, jaded ones.

  • Bill McCreery

    Boo, quite right, words can be “cheap” or they can be a ‘bond’. I have not mentioned the earlier TEAM, but since you have, you will remember that TEAM’s words were its ‘bond’. We meant what we said.

    That TEAM allowed our city to develop and change to become the liveable place it is. In +/-1970 Vancouver’s NPA Council and staff governance was top down, autocratic and secretive. Vancouver faced similar major decisions – poor planning, inappropriate spot rezonings, no neighbourhood planning, no citizen involvement in decision-making, and major decisions were required with respect to transportation.

    Then it was freeways, today it’s the kind of transit system that will best serve Vancouver. It’s uncanny how similar the issues of the day were then and are today as noted above.

    As kenji has pointed out:

    “… voting for the NPA will result in a council that is less interested in development and rezoning. …instead of a development party with a veneer of green amenities, we’ll just have a development party.”

    Vancouver needs development, but that development should be in a form and scale that ‘fits’ and reflects the values and priorities of those affected by it. The present 12.5, 17 and 22 FSR spot rezonings and other off the chart excesses will negatively impact the liveability of their neighbours. This has been recognized by an increasing number of thoughtful Vancouverites as well as planners from Australia and the eastern US (actually, one of them, Gary Hack from the U of Penn. got his 1st degree from the University of Manitoba).

    We’ve seen what skewed priorities result from developer donations. I’ve seen the pressure to tow the developer line from the inside as well. That tow the line pressure whether from Vision Van or the NPA is clearly not going to allow elected representatives to make unbiased decisions is it?

    Today’s TEAM, like the former, means what it says. We also are organized in a similar way so that we are democratic, inclusive, and we do welcome citizen participation. I believe that’s part of what “grassroots’ is all about.

  • boohoo

    “Vision was once a ‘grassroots’ party. Just sayin’.”

    Welcome to my point.

  • boohoo

    @65

    Take all the pot shots you want, I’m just pointing out how I and my generation, or at least those I know feel about politics. We aren’t just the lazy 18 year olds anymore, we’re growing up, getting mortgages, having kids, etc… and starting to vote.

  • Kenji

    Vision was grassroots? I thought Vision was Larry “DaVinci” Campbell, taking with him the parts of COPE that did not have a reflexive over-the-top hostility to capitalism.

    Since I paid attention to neither COPE nor the NPA in those years, I am fuzzy on the details and for that matter the broad strokes, but this is how I view it.

    As for TEAM, you know I wish everyone the best and while I don’t have much experience with multiple competing parties, I suppose they all may have something to contribute by way of making submissions and arguments, or conceivably making up coalitions and such.

  • teririch

    boohoo #68

    It wasn’t a ‘shot’ – it was an observation.

    But you backed my statement with your

    ‘…..and starting to vote’

    I put that right into practice when I hit 18 and had the privledge of voting.

  • boohoo

    Yeah, calling me agist and racist is a shot. ‘Old white men’ is a generalization for those in power–I mean do you disagree with it?

    But I’ve got tough skin, it’s ok.

    I’m not disagreeing with you that a lot of 18 year olds and younger adults don’t vote. My point, should you choose to acknowledge it and not nitpick my phrasing, is that this new party, whatever their platform or warm fuzzy let’s all work together statements are, is in for a lot of work given the current state of politics at all levels. We just don’t trust the government, and when parties and party leaders like we have here are happy (!?) to hear people ‘fight day and night to get rid of the other guy’, that’s a big reason why. It’s just more of the say old politicking.

  • Bill

    @boohoo #71

    “‘Old white men’ is a generalization for those in power”

    I don’t believe that you are an ageist or a racist but your comment would certainly qualify as both in our current age of PC. Try substituting another race/gender/religion and you might find yourself before the Human Rights Commission. Your comment doesn’t offend me but I do object to the double standard.

    And don’t get your knickers in a twist. No political party is going to announce a detailed platform a year before the election.

  • boohoo

    I don’t expect a detailed platform. I’d be happy to not talk about political parties at all and in fact ban them all together…I’m just waiting for the next topic here!

  • Kenji

    I think The Twisted Knickers would be a pretty good band name.

  • ThinkOutsideABox

    boohoo 67,

    “Vision was once a ‘grassroots’ party. Just sayin’.”

    Welcome to my point.

    and just to underscore it, Vision Vancouver ED Stepan Vdovine says:

    http://www.straight.com/news/528096/vision-vancouver-operatives-are-just-party-members

    “What Vancouver has in Vision Vancouver is a grassroots, membership-driven civic political party with supporters in every part of the city.”

  • Bill McCreery

    It’s interesting, both Vision Van and the NPA have suddenly found “grassroots” and “community engagement”. Are these new found truths on the part of these two political rivals genuine? History and experience tell us the answer is no.

    It’s interesting that Mr. Dvovine and Vision Van School Trustee, Ms. Baccus attended our successful and over- subscribed TEAM Gala Fundraiser Dinner at the Italian Cultural Centre last week. They know that TEAM supports neighbourhoods and no doubt wanted to see first hand what we are all about. Evidently they’re worried because subsequent to that Stepan has let it be known that:

    “Vision Vancouver is a grassroots, membership-driven civic political party with supporters in every part of the city.”

    Stepan’s claims that Vision Van ‘organized public forums’ in the West End and West Broadway on affordable rental housing and transit are not credible. The crowd at both events was overwhelmingly against these Vision Van initiatives. Did they listen to this “grassroots” feedback? No.

    And then we have the NPA also getting in on the act. They are holding a news conference tomorrow morning while the “community” is at work to:

    “… announce a new program for community engagement, and an opportunity for Vancouver residents to have a real say in City Hall decision-making.”

    It will be interesting indeed to hear what their solutions are. As an NPA Council candidate in 2011 I, with the support of some of the other Council candidates, tried to put forward a neighbourhood policy. Unfortunately we were ignored.

    It will be interesting to see how receptive voters will be to these two rivals new found grassroots religion.

  • teririch

    @Bill McCreery #76:

    I’ve heard rumour Baccus may run for City Council in 2014 versus School Board.

  • Frank Ducote

    Bill McC@66: “Vancouver needs development, but that development should be in a form and scale that ‘fits’ and reflects the values and priorities of those affected by it. The present 12.5, 17 and 22 FSR spot rezonings and other off the chart excesses will negatively impact the liveability of their neighbours. This has been recognized by an increasing number of thoughtful Vancouverites as well as planners from Australia and the eastern US (actually, one of them, Gary Hack from the U of Penn. got his 1st degree from the University of Manitoba).”

    Quite right. The density numbers are ratcheting upwards at an alarming rate, from along era of rather stable levels (1.5 FSR in Fairview Slopes, 2.5 FSR for most mixed use devcelopments on shopping streets, 3.0 in the business district of Central Broadway, 5.0 in Downtown South, etc.). These largely single-digit FSR levels have shaped much of the City as we know it and are now seemingly passe’ in Council’s thinking.

    Unfortunately, most folks can only wrap their heads around building height, and tend to have a knee jerk reaction to it.

    Altogether it’d be preferable if people paid a lot more attention to the underlying FSRs since that is what drives the resulting built form, development profit as well as CACs and, as you note, potentially adverse neighbourhood impacts.

  • West End Gal

    Bill #76:
    “Vision Vancouver is a grassroots, membership-driven civic political party with supporters in every part of the city.”
    I laughed, and I laughed… 🙂
    Vision Vancouver have painted themselves into a corner, and considering that they turned out to be graffiti hooligans, that’s good!
    They are not a “grassroots”, they never were, they are a gang of self serving individuals, opportunists just like Vdovine, Quinlan, Magee, Robertson, Ballem, Meggs… busy in scheming new ways of acquiring more control over the city’s finances, jobs, political influence, etc.
    The real administration of the city comes as an afterthought to them.
    They need to go back to their Cortes island…
    Terry M #64
    ‘I’ll do the best I can, with the resources at hand, for all the people of Vancouver. Period.”
    I know. Glissy… awwww 🙁

  • boohoo

    @78

    Most people don’t know what FSR is. That’s a problem with the whole planning field and the way the city presents information. It’s too complicated for joe average to get. What they get is a big building is big, so they go for that.

  • Frank Ducote

    Boohoo – you’re sorta right. All cities, not just Vancouver, present plans in terms of density and frequently height. More and more, however, the density part is being left off of the discussion in local area plans whereas I am saying it is fundamental. In other words, if you don’t like big buildings, confront the density that drives them.

  • Westender1

    Thank you Frank Ducote.
    It’s been a shame to see the consultation process on the soon to be adopted West End Plan and the lack of discussion regarding development densities. The plan as proposed includes densities of 8.75 FSR on lower Robson Street and 7.0 FSR on lower Davie. The consultation tools have been so vague that most residents have no idea what’s to come and the resulting developments are likely to create the building forms and impacts that most residents didn’t want to see.

  • Bill McCreery

    WE1, Frank’s:

    “Altogether it’d be preferable if people paid a lot more attention to the underlying FSRs since that is what drives the resulting built form, development profit as well as CACs and, as you note, potentially adverse neighbourhood impacts.”

    and particularly the “… adverse neighbourhood impacts” are what is so depressingly frightening about what the current Vision van regime is trying to get away with. Unfortunately the general public will not appreciate these negative impacts until after a few of them are up. And, even then the full impact will not be evident until a few grouped together start to create dark and dreary wet canyons in Vancouver’s once walkable streets.

    This thoughtless nonsense will make Vancouver’s recently increasingly vibrant street life into a series of no-mans ‘corridors’ where people will be uncomfortable just trying to get from A to B much less try to live in their streets.

    Good bye liveable city.

  • teririch

    @Bill McCreery, Westender1 and Frank Ducote:

    This type of ‘building’ model, the density, is very reminicent of what I saw in Hong Kong.