Alena

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.

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.

“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)

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.)

(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)

(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.)