Way back in 1985, I was fortunate enough to be able to vacation in the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics: I say fortunate enough because I was able to see with my own eyes Russia and the Ukraine still mostly in the”pre-Glasnost” mode.
And as we were shepherded by our Intourist guides through Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev and Yalta … I noticed something. (Actually I noticed a LOT, but with one constant theme wherever we went.)
Virtually EVERYTHING the guides pointed out that was BEAUTIFUL was PRE-Revolution. ( The Kremlin, St. Basil’s, Novodivichy, St. Isaacs, the Moscow Subway, Nevsky Prospect, the Hermitage, Peterhof etc.)
Of course we were well aware of the terrible suffering and destruction the Russian people suffered in the Great Patriotic War (WW II). But nonethless, it was also hard NOT to remark … 40 years after the war ended …. socialism’s march, from 1918 to 1985, had left almost unquantifiable UGLINESS and BLANDNESS in its wake.
The housing projects … thousands of horrible looking unsightly blemishes on the landscape … were standard fare wherever we travelled. Even “modern” ones, built decades after the war, were nothing to look at … or live in.
City transit buses … no matter in which city of the ” Socialist” Union we visited … were drab yellow buckets of bolts, all the same design from the 1950s, never changed, never upgraded, and judging by their leaky roofs, seldom maintained.
Socialist retail was, well, socialist retail! LOL!!!
But the monuments were GREAT … literally: HUGE statues and monuments to Socialist heroes (mostly political and military) and achievements (seemingly ALL space-oriented). And the sports stadiums were GIGANTIC as well.
The kids all went to school; the people were fed (although not well by our standards) and violent crime was much less prevalent than today, thanks to an oppressive police presence.
But there was almost no “Socialist” beauty anywhere.
Aha!
Now you too can understand what apparently motivates the Vision members of the Park Board, and probably City Council as well.
The Vision socialists cannot find in their $100 MILLION annual park budget the $240,000 to save the Bloedel Conservatory and its beautiful blooming tropical plants inside that are enjoyed by the 73,000 people a year, from B.C. and abroad who visit it; but there is money for $600,000 PER UNIT Waterfront Socialist Housing … in fact there’s enough for 250 such units. Nuts!!
And the Vision socialists on the Park Board couldn’t see there way to spending another $140,000 to save the Stanley Park petting zoo or even less, now that a private donor has offered $100,000 over the next four years to help fund the pet zoo.
Why? I suspect they consider the zoo expendable because it attracts too many educated and well-adjusted people … families and kids … many of them working and educated … hooked on life and happiness, instead of suffering from some sort of demons or drug disabilities.
Because I’d bet, if asked, the Vision socialists would all probably support the spending of the $1 MILLION a day that now reportedly goes into all the social programs on the Downtown Eastside … and probably even advocate for more, despite the less than successful results.
And they too love huge monuments … probably losing no sleep over a $600 MILLION bill to put a new roof on BC Place.
What the radical wing socialists forget is that society cannot JUST be focussed on the marginalized: the people who pay the bills and who visit conservatories or farm pet zoos with their kids and grandkids deserve some consideration as well.
Of course, that probably won’t happen: the Vision council next week will likely approve the cuts to these decadent bourgeois things and places of beauty.
And with two years to go until the next park board and civic elections, I expect there will be more Revolutionary anti-middle-class (and above) actions ahead … like banning cars from Stanley Park , closing library branches or cutting hours; reducing community center hours and programs (except the Carnegie Center, of course) … and who knows, maybe even turning at least one pitch n putt golf course in the city into an organic community farm.
Meanwhile, do me a favour: if you attend the Vision socialist council session where the conservatory and pet farm closures will be rubber-stamped (just like at the Politburo!) … let me know if you see Madame Defarge sitting in the public gallery, knitting, and looking around to see if she can spot me in the crowd.
Harv Oberfeld
23 responses so far ↓
1 DMJ // Nov 27, 2009 at 6:24 am
Vancouver continues to be a grade “B” movie.
What hope is there in the city when politicians open bars and night clubs to the early hours of the morning and pretend it is for tourism but close child and family oriented attractions like the petting zoo and the Bloedel Conservatory ?
Vancouver’s Parks Board is an embarrassment and gives me just another reason not to go to town.
Greggy, your Visionistas are fast becoming a regional laughing stock.
2 Grant G // Nov 27, 2009 at 6:56 am
Harvey….It`s the olympic athletes village that has put Vancouver behind the 8 ball with it`s budget…That said,Gregor Robertson is really a BC Liberal (IMO) he was a poor speaker in the house, he used the provincial NDP as a stepping stone to pursue his career.
I`m amazed, I never thought anyone could be worse the Sam Sullivan….I was wrong, but…the pressure will mount,they will backtrack and reverse the decision, I suspect they think donations will come from far and wide….Ha Ha…I think they`re wrong.
http://powellriverpersuader.blogspot.com/2009/11/cknw-and-christy-clark-amatuers-exposed.html
Cheers
3 Crankypants // Nov 27, 2009 at 8:08 am
Harvey, the new roof on BC Place may be a monument in the eyes of Vancouver’s council, but they are not footing the bill for it. That will be built courtesy of the taxpayers of BC which I’m sure renders the people living outside the lower mainland extremely proud to help out with the funding.
As for the proposed social housing at the athletes village, I doubt those units will be valued as low as $600k by the time they go on the market. The way real estate is rising it is quite likely they will be worth a hell of a lot more on the open market. It makes much more sense for them to sell these units on the open market and develop another, less pricier site for social housing.
To me it seems that whenever any political group faces budgetary constraints, they tend to choose measures that affect others but never themselves. Did city hall have to spend mega bucks on a makeover this year? Did they have to spend about $400k on olympic tickets? How much did Vancouver fork out in severance pay to complete the changing of the guard?
And I still maintain that there is no justification for Vancouver to have an elected park board because it is not only the elected ones that are a drain on the taxpayer, but their support staff as well.
(Response: I forgot about the renovations and I also wonder if we need a full elected park board and administration … or just a council committee, working with maybe some volunteer or appointed community members. h.o)
4 Lynn // Nov 27, 2009 at 10:16 am
Great point of view, Harvey!
I have said it before and will say it again. Citizens HAVE to get involved in the process. Guide our politicians. Don’t just go out and vote at election time. That is only a quarter of your fulfillment completed. The other three quarters is STAYING involved. We get the government we deserve period.
If people want change than be that change.
If WE don’t like this new capitalist version of communism than stand up and voice your concerns during the process BEFORE the decision(s) are made.
5 frosty // Nov 27, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Harve…You win the “Bruce Allen” award this time.
Wouldn’t it be nice if Jimmy Pattison could step on on this one. He wouldn’t even feel it.
(Response: OMG Bruce Allen? I’d better rethink my opinion!
Actually, I think it’s unfair to expect private citizens to bail out public facilities when the shortfall is relatively so small and the park board has a $100 million budget and could raise the money by just a 50-cent extra charge on so many other things it operates. h.o)
6 Genuine // Nov 27, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Provincial govt. take care of the ultra rich,municipal govt.takes care of the ultra poor,the middle class take care of themselves,and all of the above,and get nothing in return .(did I mention the federal govt.)cheers!!!!
7 Toby F // Nov 27, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Harv, I agree with Grant G. The Olympics is skewing everything in Vancouver. Yes, you are right that the Conservatory and Pet Farm cuts are just the beginning. When the Olympics are over and the bills come due, we will see many more inane cuts and taxes rise.
8 Kim // Nov 27, 2009 at 6:35 pm
How much did they spend propping up the dead tree in Stanley park? The last time I was on the mainland with a group of women we went to the conservatory, it is a jewel. They did the same thing in Victoria with the crystal gardens. Shameful.
(Response: I believe the cost of saving the Hollow tree ran about $250,000 ..but it was totally raised through donations, not park board funds. But you’re absolutely right about Crystal Gardens. h.o.)
9 SharingIsGood // Nov 28, 2009 at 4:56 am
Harvey, I must protest. In your last blog about the Vancouver Vison, you said something to the effect that you would not say “that Vision was Socialist, but they are far left of Gordon Campbell”. Now, here you are comparing Vision’s direction to that of the former Soviet Union (which was less socialist than Canada was at the time – but that’s another argument) and you are calling Vision “Socialist”. I’m sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. Either Vision is or is not Socialist. I put them right of centre. Now, if you want to denigrate Vision for its decisions, that is fine, but please don’t paint them with a socialist brush in an attempt to make that the cause of a poor decision making capacity. Norway and Sweeden are socialist countries and they have beautiful cities and they provide lots of opportunities for their children.
Like others have said, Vision Vancouver is now in that horribly uneviable position that Montreal found itself in after it hosted its ’76 Olympics. It took Montreal thirty years to crawl out of that hole, and their infrastructure and highway design and maintenance took a big hit in those intervening years. Montreal was fortunate to have had a good couple hundred years of architecture to help its downtown keep its charm.
Just because one has socialism does not mean that one needs to give up beauty, incentive and civility. It has been about 25 years since Mulroney got in and it was shortly after that that the Feds started offloading infrastucture and reducing transfer payments so that it could pay down the federal debt. Now, I like paying down debt, but the Feds and the provinces have been reducing corporate taxes as well. The debt has been payed down on the backs of median and low income workers. The rich have been getting far wealthier, and the weak have been getting far less.
It wasn’t just WWII that was hard on the Soviets, the iron fist of Stalin was equally as hard on them. Stalin was a brutal dictator who killed 10-20 million of his own people in maintaining his power. Between WW II and Stalin, the Russians were thrown into a depressed mini Dark-Ages. We must remember that sharing is good and greed will never be good, whether it be for power or money . Greed is an insatiable deadly sin. We wasteful humans must learn to be satisfied with fewer unnecessary personal things while maintaining a sense of caring, civility, stiving for improvement and beauty in our lives and public spaces. If we do that, we will be happy with what we build and how we build it. Nearly all of these new concrete, steel and glass stuctures that are defining the new Vancouver will be destined for the wrecker’s ball in about 100 years. So yeah, Ozymandias, find a place for our menally ill and homeless to live in relative safety, save the petting zoo, feed the kids lunch and let them play sports. Quit giving away our resources to wealthy foreigners and quit building and doing so much for the elites, they already have more than their share.
(Response: in earlier blogs, I did not believe Vision was socialist … just left of center and I can say, in that belief, I actually voted for some who are now on council. But I sense power is corrupting them … plowing ahead with a left-wing ideological agenda that runs totally contrary to common sense … like insisting on having social housing on the waterfront even at costs of $600,000 per unit or more. The ideological comparison may seem extreme ..but I think the result of a leftist bias triumphing over common sense is the same … in the USSR it was glorification of the farmer and industrial worker as opposed to the entreprenuer, the intelligentia and the rich or even middle class bourgeoisie; I get the impression Vision sees things quite similarly … with an “in your face” attitude to those who are successful … placing homeless shelters right next to False Creek condos, bike lanes spreading along streets everywhere… removing more and more traffic lanes from auto use, voting for on-street parking fees to skyrocket …spending a million dollars for the Burrard Bridge bike lane changes …but having no money for the Conservatory or Pet Farm and doing nothing about the impact on Art Knapps Plantland or Kettle of Fish (result of the new no right turn) … shutting down several commercial streets numerous times each spring/summer, ignoring far too long the objections of local merchants who suffered, imposing no parking ALL day (24 hours!) on Granville Street all the way from 16th to 70th Ave for several weeks for the Olympics … seemingly totally unconcerned that will all but kill small businesses on Granville from 60th to 70th. etc etc. The more I witness the more i feel they are ONLY the party of the downtrodden and the marginalized … not just unsympathetic but almost looking for ways to stick it to business and those who have been successful. And I suspect many voters are now feeling the same. h.o.)
10 SharingIsGood // Nov 28, 2009 at 5:41 am
Hey Harv,
Previously to me on your other thread, “In B.C., It’s To Hell With The Kids …”, you wrote in regards to Vision:
“(Response: I wouldn’t call them socialist, but, in my view, they certainly are a lot further left than Gordon Campbell! h.o”
In regards to the Waterfront condo units, perhaps some of them can be social housing. Perhaps ten years from now it will seem like a bad idea, but let’s see what happens to some of those families. Perhaps it will give some the leg up, and perhaps it won’t If is seems not to be working out, then as the families move out, they can be refurbished and put on the market.
I kind of like the idea of a family getting a one time big leg up verses the CEO of the Ferries voting himself a $1 000 000 annual salary. I have worked my whole life (since age 7) and I have paid my way through Grad school while helping others and raising and educating my own children all the way. My wife and I have a modest home in The Interior worth less than half of one of those Condos; neither of us believes it is bad to let a Vancouver family live in one of those condos for a few years, rubbing elbows with more educated, affluent, and worldly people than they probably grew up with.
I’ve seen the graphs and I know that there has been much transfer of wealth from our resource-based Interior community to pay for things that happen in Vancouver. Our tax-dollars are helping pay for those condos too (one way or another) and we don’t mind seeing them being put to use by people who will appreciate them and may be able to learn to have a better life through virtue of being there. Not everyone is as smart nor as emotionally strong as you, Harvey. You were born with that intelligence and strength, and it has helped you make decisions and investments that support you now in retirement. Not everyone has the smarts to know how to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Sometimes you have to show them how.
French emmersion is the best way to learn French; cultural emmersion is the best way to learn culture.
(Response: Two BIG problems with your reasoning. First, we all know the need for more social housing is great ..so why spend double or triple the per unit cost when two to three times the number iof units could be bought/built elsewhere. Living on the waterfront would be great for the 250 famiies who luck out … but I believe totally unfair to the 500 other families who could have been accomodated in new clean safe housing if the money was spent elsewhere more efficiently. Secondly, this housing is ALL being paid for by working taxpayers. I think it’s just downright unfair to ask people who, after working solidfy for 20 or even 30 years, and still cannot afford to live in waterfront housing themselves to pay their taxes to house people there who maybe haven’t worked at all over the past 20 years. Only far left radical ideologues could see nothing wrong with that kind of fiscal waste and improper use of public taxes ..especially in light of hardpressed real needs elsewhere. I’d be quite impressed if Vision saw the light in all this ..but frankly, I believe they are now blinded by power and ideology. h.o.)
11 A. G. Tsakumis // Nov 28, 2009 at 7:39 am
Harv, this is one of your BEST posts ever. Absolutely right on the money.
Hey Frosty, how ’bout we get Jimmy to bring you back and let me go head-to-head with Bill Boring, right after you show? How fast do you think Till and Good would be retired?
Here’s some more perspective on Vision’s socialism. In retrospect, it’s exactly what I should have called it!
Mazel tov, Harv!
http://alexgtsakumis.com/2009/11/26/vision-vancouver-the-proof-of-the-pudding-is-in-the-lying/
12 Tony M // Nov 28, 2009 at 2:05 pm
This is about the silliest argument I’ve ever read. Gordon Campbell’s government just made sweeping cuts to the arts, using the same logic that Vision made. Does that mean they’re a bunch of dour socialists too?
Seriously, Harvey. This is just dumb.
(Response: Of course not. Just because governments cut spending doesn’t make them socialists. The Liberals have clearly favored big money interests and cut a lot of social programs, community project funding, school funding, the arts … all kinds of programs left of spectrum… so I consider them right wingers. Vision is actually doing the opposite … millions and millions for left wing programs and causes (in the case of the athlete’s village social housing, literally throwing money out the window!) …but determined to cut “bourgeoisie” projects like the conservatory and pet farm. Too bad the conservatory and pet farm weren’t closer to the Downtwon East side. h.o.)
13 A Dave // Nov 28, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Funny, but the first thing I thought of when I biked past the athelete’s village last summer and saw the three 8 storey high sales banners on the front of one building was: this looks like the giant banners of Lenin in Red Square (I went there in ’89). Remember the “wedding cake” buildings built by the USSR in all the satelite states (Warsaw, Budapest, etc.) for polit admin? They are built with the same wide base podiums grading up to towers, like so many boring Yaletown condos. Eerie similarities, maybe, but I think the extreme socialist tag may still be a little heavy handed for Vision.
If you think Vision is pouring money into the DTES, look again. There are condos just completing or going up on every major street within 3 blocks of Main and Hastings. The whole area has been hollowed out and numerous questionable businesses and hotels closed and boarded up, creating a revolving door of displacement. It is becoming inhospitable to the usual suspects, and I suspect this is an effort to clear the way for the “Gastown is the new Yaletown” mindset.
Personally, I agree with other posters: Vision is looking less socialist, and more like the Provincial Liberals, every passing day.
(Response: Very interesting perspective… I saw those Glory to the Workers banners everywhere too. Re is Vision actually right or left? When I was studying political science in university, we actually discussed a “circle” theory of ideologies ..if you start at the centre and move left or right ..eventually you get to the extreme where the two almost come full circle and meld together … dictatorially extreme left, for example, will act like fascists. I am not saying Vision has progressed to that extreme … but I do believe they have abandoned the middle class, who put them in office… just like the BC Liberals have: but a lot of what you see in Yaletown etc predates Vision. However Vision is in favor of cramming them in … search my earlier blog on Coolie Towers (that were eventually approved) … that will be full of tiny little workers suites. (Or second homes for out of towners who spend a lot of time in Vancouver!). But add the coolie towers to the policy of turning luxury suites over to welfare recipients, whatever the cost, and then taxing the bourgeoisie/wealthy at higher rates to pay for it all, and you get the current philosophy at City Hall. What they forget is that the voter turnout among the bourgeoisie/wealthy is higher than the marginalized. h.o.)
14 Kim // Nov 28, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Stimulating debate here, everyone has made good points. I like your response HO. with the circle theory of ideologies, the question is, if the goalposts are not constants, where the hell is centre?
(Response: The center exists … but interestingly, each person may have a different version of where it is … that’s why you often hear people referring someone as being a right winger …while others to the right of them see them as left wingers. But in each society, there is a point regarded as fairly central by MOST … and it’s from that point that we pigeon hole people and their ideas. h.o.)
15 the dude // Nov 29, 2009 at 5:52 am
Harv you forgot to admit you live stone trow distance from there. Like all people downtown you cry when poor people move into your neighbourhood?
(Response: Clearly you have not been paying attention .. I’ve said several times I’m in favor of more social housing, just not at a cost of $600,000 to $800,000 per unit. Are you??? In fact, I have no objection to units in my neighbourhood … because I’m blocks away from any waterfront and they could get TWICE as many apts here for the same buck. In fact, why don’t they buy a couple of the lowest price units in every apt block being built in the city ..and they’d then get THREE times as many units as they are shelling out on their shoreline spending spree. h.o)
16 DMJ // Nov 29, 2009 at 4:08 pm
There are two issues here: 1) Social housing and 2) Kid friendly parks or lack there of.
You are dead on about prime property social housing and certainly one can get a bigger bang for their buck elsewhere. I would wager that the politicos and bureaucrats think that being close to the nearly $3 billion RAV/Canada Line is a major consideration in the decision.
To be successful social housing must be spread evenly throughout the city and on tries to avoid the high-rise instant slums that were so popular from the 50′s to 80′s.
Vancouver just lacks children friendly venues, you can do Science World only so many times. Stanley Park used to be a fun place, but now it seems it is now the private reserve of the West End types, who by the nature of residents, have few children.
This is sheer folly.
If one wants to visit a truly child friendly zoo & park, Portland’s Washington Zoo is wonderful and is a full day of family enjoyment. The miniature train ride is spectacular, with miniature trains winding around large canyons! The bonus with Portland’s Washington Park Zoo is that you can get their by MAX (LRT), which means daddy doesn’t have to drive and try to find and pay for parking!
The decision to close both attractions by the Parks Board, I believe, is part of a secret agenda, which we will find out about when it is too late.
(Response: i believe there’s an easy, cost effective way to providing more social housing for the buck: everyone knows whenever a new building goes up in the city ..the lowest price units aee those on the first/second floors maybe facing the lane or side of the building. If they’re good enough for working/saving residents, they would be almost a luxury change to many social housing resident families ..and at a much more reasonably lower cost than $600,000 per unit!!!. The city could buy a few such units in every new building going up (or already existing) for MUCH less than building their own …or setting aside 250 units on the woaterfront (geez!). And that would better spread social housing throughout the city ..instead of clumping them in a certain area. And almost no one would even know who/which units are occupied by social housing tenants .. better integrating them into mainstream housing and the community. h.o.)
17 SharingIsGood // Nov 29, 2009 at 10:27 pm
DMJ wrote:
“To be successful social housing must be spread evenly throughout the city and on tries to avoid the high-rise instant slums that were so popular from the 50’s to 80’s.
“Vancouver just lacks children friendly venues, you can do Science World only so many times. Stanley Park used to be a fun place, but now it seems it is now the private reserve of the West End types, who by the nature of residents, have few children.”
This is where I was coming from. I didn’t realize that 250 of the condos were slated to be used as public housing. I do, believe, however that it might be nice to hold a bit of a draw for a few of the condos to go to some families requiring social housing. If they win the raffle, they get to live in one of those condos for a couple of years. Part of the agreement could have the people living in the condo taking care of it and keeping it clean. If the experiment shows that these people become more employable and better employed than their peers after their stay, then this information could be useful in our improving life for our grandchildren. If four able-bodied executives can collect a cool $2,000,000/annum maintaining a few km of track and no trains (the OMNI-TRAX consolation prize of BC Rail), then I believe that we can afford to house some truly needy people at a much lower per year rate. The same is true for all of the money being spent on the Olympics – a billion dollars on security – 32 million (and counting) on just getting the torch from Victoria to Vancouver/Whistler, what’s with that? If they had just eliminated the torch run, they would have saved enough to buy 60 of those units.
I am curious, wasn’t it part of the Sullivan Government’s design to make many of the Olympic village condos available to homeless people? Wasn’t that part of the original deal presented to Vancouverites?
Harv said:
“When I was studying political science in university, we actually discussed a “circle” theory of ideologies ..if you start at the centre and move left or right ..eventually you get to the extreme where the two almost come full circle and meld together … dictatorially extreme left, for example, will act like fascists.”
Presently, we have the hard-right ideologues are running this country and this province: for that we have them taking our province ever closer to that dictatorially extreme fascist melding-point. The left will have to undo a good deal of what has been done for the last 25 years before the right can begin to say that BC, Canada is a left-wing province. Vancouver will only be able to go so far to the left, as the real power is now wielded by Campbell and his crew. The provincial government will begin not granting funds if Vision moves too far.
(Response: I believe the original idea to include social housing in Olympic Village came from the earlier Cope/Vision council; the NPA reduced the number of units; but the original costs were nothing like those now being considered by the current Vision council. h.o)
18 BC Mary // Nov 30, 2009 at 3:48 am
Harvey,
Picture me stomping off … black cloud over my head … bursts of lightning coming out of the black cloud … short sharp words in a dialogue bubble … because it’s beyond disappointing …
it’s demeaning, dispiriting, disgusting
that you would use these politically inept
tactics to set up one group of citizens against another group of citizens.
I’m with Sharing is Good on this topic.
19 Otis K // Nov 30, 2009 at 5:21 am
Harv,
Some points:
– Park Board staff – not the Vision commissioners who voted in favour of it – wrote the report on which ‘efficiencies’ would make up the mandatory shortfall. True, they could have voted to cut $2.8 M without accepting the details (including the conservatory and the petting zoo) and worked with the public to identify where cuts would come from. They didn’t. Instead, they voted to accept the cuts AND the staff report that outlined where the cuts would come from. Blame PB staff for axing the conservatory and petting zoo. The Vision commissioners have neither the time nor the imagination to come up with that. They just went along with the bureaucrats.
– Just what the HELL is the connection between the loss of the conservatory and zoo and SE False Creek, which the Vision coucil inherited from the NPA, lock, stock and enormous debt? Do I take your point about making a greater impact with social housing sited somewhere less exclusive? Of course. But, let’s be honest. It’s Sam’s legacy which they’ve bought into, not left-wing bias.
– If Vision is to be faulted, it is for not publicizing its bias. For instance, were they at ALL ‘socialists’, they would suspend the continued down-loading of the tax burden from business to property owners. They’re NPA in sheep’s clothing.
– Who but the most naive or paranoid would assert that council had anything to do with VANOC-mandated traffic restrictions? I didn’t vote Vision, but surely one can’t believe either that they wanted to make Granville a No Stopping zone for fifty-four blocks or that doing so was motivated by ideological zeal.
Keep it real, please.
(Response: Yes..let’s keep it real. It was not Sam’s council that originally approved social housing in False Creek ..it was the Vision Cope council eld by Larry Campbell that first approved it. Sam’s council reduced the number of units set aside for social housing … but did not cancel it. That’s keeping it real. And the connection to the conservatory and pet zoo is very easy: if they cancelled just ONE social housing waterfront unit and sold it for market value (about $600,000 oir more) they could save BOTH and still have $100,000 left over to spend on really worthwhile causes. h.o.)
20 Ruraidh // Nov 30, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Interesting comments.
The Parks Board could have covered the shortfall and saved the zoo and conservatory by merely postponing one of their artificial turf playing field proposals (each about $ 2.8 million).
The main difference is that the sports field lobbying is intense, focussed and political while parents of children at the petting zoo are not a political pressure group, even if they lived in Vancouver. Plus, the VPB probably have their eyes on the federal recreational infrastructure stimulus funds that apply to sports fields but not petting zoos or conservatories.
What it all points to is that the VPB is quite prepared to make decisions without the basis of the decision being either transparent or, seemingly, proportional or balanced. Or even being simply a good decision.
Sad.
(Response” You’re so right! Clearly it’s a political decision… and a bad one in terms of protecting the city’s beauty, uniqueness and kids’ fun. h.o.)
21 Glen H // Dec 7, 2009 at 5:02 pm
For those posters who “claim” Vision is right of center or looking more and more like the Provincial Liberals, you are getting mean-spirited politics confused with leftist-ideology.
Vision is horribly mean spirited, in much the same way Gordon Campbell is provincially. That does not make them conservative, republican, or any where near center. All Vision has done is copy what’s worked provincially for the Liberals in terms of political strategy.
Those in the center or on the right would not install a bike lane for 1000 bike nuts, nor would they rip up the lawns at city hall for vegetable plots.
They would also not allow chickens within city limits, let alone grant them more square feet of living area – then the recent secondary suites approved within the already tiny condos being sold in this city.
Those on the center and on the right that understand working families, would also not plunk shelters and drug addicts in the middle of decent neighborhoods as Vision did last year, nor would they close FAMILY amenities in the city and divert said money for the purchase of worthless carbon credits.
So, for those of you claiming that Vision is looking more like the Liberals, drop it already, they have enough apologists trolling the blogosphere already – insulting anyone who doesn’t disagree with them.
As for Otis and your impassioned defense of Vision. You stick to their talking points like you’re part of the team. Why not ‘out’ yourself already and tell everyone how much you are involved with Vision.
They didn’t need to go ahead with such expense social housing in the Olympic Village. It could be sold at market rates and any money leftover used to building social housing where it’s more cost effective – you know what’s more important the location or more housing? That’s rhetorical – don’t bother answering with your usual diatribe.
In the past 12 months, they’ve spent $1.5 million on a bike lane and increased the cycling infrastructure budget by 100% for another $1.5 milllion. That’s $3 million for amenities only a very small fraction of overall voters will use – but about 25% of the lunatics that they need for another majority in the next civic election.
That $3 million would be more than enough for the parks budget, which grossly more people in the city will utilize, than the GD bike lans on or off the Burrard Bridge.
So forget this b*llsh#t that Vision is looking more like the Liberals and are right of center. The only similarity is in their style of mean-spirited politics and taking care of their friends. Pols do that on either end of the scale, it’s not a bastion of the right.
Vision Vancouver are nothing but suit and tie wearing socialists – the modern day wolf in sheep’s clothing.
(Response: Wow! Great points. Speaking of the Burrard Bridge ..I was stuck on it for over 20 minutes couple of weeks ago: crews had blocked and were working on two lanes northbound …making ALL northbound traffic mid morning …. hundreds of vehicles (cars, buses, trucks) squeeze into one lane…. spewing fumes and pollution. In the past, they would have taken one of the three southbound lanes and conveerted it to northbound to ease the flow …or lack of it ..but with a southbound lane taken up by (an almost EMPTY) southbound lane ..they couldn’t do that anymore. So we had traffic chaos. And I watched as only about 10-12 bikes used the bike lanes. Crazy! Clearly pushed only by ideology. h.o.)
22 Glen H // Dec 7, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Thanks Harv.
I believe hidden in all of this civic budget nonsense is the amount Gregor and his “salon socialists” (as Alex Tsakumis calls them), is the amount they are going to spend on carbon credits in their efforts to ‘carbon neutral’ the city.
Already, he’s committed to purchasing carbon credits to make the 2 city Olympic sites carbon neutral. They’ve completely hidden the amount for this during this budget process while talk goes on about shutting down the petting zoo and the conservatory.
I doubt very much that the MAJORITY of Vancouverites would accept amenities being closed for the purchase of a bunch of credits which mean nothing in the whole scheme of things.
If you want to see see how much pollution the Burrard Bridge bike lane has already caused, check out this link I found on Alex’s site:
http://www.vancouverpollutes.com
I doubt they include times like you’ve described above as well. But now to hear them talk it was never about getting people on their bikes, it was about safety for those on the sidewalks.
Of course without any stats to back up their claims.
23 Alena // Jan 23, 2010 at 7:44 am
I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Alena
Leave a Comment
CAPTCHA Code is needed.