Direct from the desk of what is being called the “Mayor’s blogosphere spinmeisters” (oh how I wish that a paycheque was included in such an exalted distinction!) by those who no longer work within the halls of power, here’s something to consider…
In a land where research is dwarfed by political spin, the motif above costs $239,000. Thankfully, only a few embittered individuals live there.
Does $239,000 for a logo and a slogan sound reasonable? Of course not, making such an assertion the basis for a fantastic and infuriating story that plays to the public’s worst sensibilities about politics and government.
Instead of such a shallow and manipulative interpretation, let’s examine this kind of expenditure in contrast to what was doled out by the last administration in moving the VEDC forward, and then make a judgement on whether Vancouver citizens are getting value for their money.
The fact of the matter is that $662,000 was spent by the NPA controlled City Council to “develop an ED Strategy…over 3 years from 2006 to 2008,” and we didn’t get one.
And now, it is 2009 under a new administration, and Vancouver is finally producing a definitive economic strategy – an endeavour that took months, not years.
Which then leads me to a statement from former City Manager and City Caucus golden girl Judy Rogers in this City staff report from March, 2006:
“Council must determine the City’s economic development priorities, clarify the VEDC’s role, and provide the level of financial support that is appropriate for the activities desired.”
Having worked with the VEDC before, I can tell you that they are a very talented group. Without agenda setting and or support from those that are elected to provide it, however, moving an economic development strategy forward becomes impossible.
Now before members of the Sam Sullivan administration try to blame the VEDC for a lack of progress between 2006-2008, let me reference the powers they could have exercised at the time.
According to the City:
“Council has a policy of contracting with the VEDC for the provision of economic development services through a service contract. The contract is renewable every 3 years at the discretion of Council; provided that any obligation of the City to provide funding for each year of the 3-year contract will be subject to an annual review of the operating and financial results, and audited financial statements for the preceding year; and Council approval of the business plan and operating budget for the upcoming year. Current agreement allows the City to terminate the service contract on 90-day notice.”
That of course didn’t happen.
In the free spending days of Sullivan’s reign as Mayor, money wasn’t the problem. Direction, prioritizing and most importantly, leadership were all lacking, producing little to nothing for $662,000. Oh wait, my mistake…we did get a set of guiding principles “that define how the City and its appointees will make decisions pertaining to the city’s economy.”
Too bad making those decisions wasn’t a priority for the NPA when it came to the VEDC.
Now in regards to the expenditures associated with the Green Capital economic strategy, approximately $150,000 is coming from the budget allotted to the company running LiveCity Yaletown, where Vancouver House is going to be. That includes the creative content for Vancouver House – the design, look, and feel (with the photography and video that comes with it) of the venue where Vancouver businesses and organizations will be showcased during the 2010 Games.
Oh, and the rest of the money? It is a part of the VEDC’s planning for next year, including the production of materials and the laying of infrastructure for international business trips the VEDC has lined up to market Vancouver as a place to do business.
And, as mentioned above, these results will be audited at the end of each fiscal year.
Hopefully this time around, however, we will have an administration that takes more than a passing interest in delivering economic rhetoric when attempting to guide the VEDC ship.
Say what you want about Green Capital, but it is refreshing to have a civic government that sets priorities, develops plans, and implements them based on the overwhelming mandate they received from the people, not what the latest polling results determine.
As a concerned taxpayer, I’m wondering if you might move past the partisan rhetoric and what Sam Sullivan and the NPA did or did not do – and focussing on this specific logo issue, if you could provide the documentation of the above outlined cost breakdown. I haven’t been able to find anything on the internet and would be very curious as to how and what exactly we have paid for.
As a professional graphic artist, I have to comment that this logo is almost immediately revealed as sloppy and amateurish looking. Observe the kerning (space between letters) and off kilter alignment of the “Green Capital” slogan.
Embarrassingly clumsy representation for a supposed “world-class” city.
I suggest you talk to Bob Mackin over at 24 hours, who put the FOI request in.
As mentioned previously, Mackin summarized details of the documents, alleging that $239,000 went solely towards the logo design and naming of the initiative.
If those documents are released in full by Mackin (which I doubt he will do, considering how it would compromise his assertion), then we will see the real details. The details I have above are pieced together from a few trusted sources at City Hall.
Of course, you could always make an FOI yourself.