- After reviewing the City of Vancouver’s Budget and Financial Statement Information, the property tax increases under the Sam Sullivan regime were as follows: 2.99 per cent in 2008 (achieved through savings from the municipal strike), 3.98 per cent in 2007, and 4.04 per cent in 2006, making the outcries from the City Caucus boys over a 1-2 per cent increase in 2010 – IN SPITE OF A $61 MILLION BUDGET SHORTFALL – ridiculous
- This is a smart move by Mayor Gregor Robertson, as people on the streets of Vancouver are completely unclear about the parameters of the bylaw, and are also very uneasy with what they perceive to be an infringement on their rights to voice dissent (myself included). Make it about the prevention of commercial interests trying to usurp official Olympic sponsors and clear up any misconceptions with those planning on putting up pictures like this in their windows. People also need to be aware that bylaw enforcement will not come in the form of kicking doors down.
- The Mayor is off to Olympia, Greece this week for the official Lighting Ceremony that will mark the beginning of the journey of the Olympic Flame back to Canada. It will be interesting to see what kind of coverage Gregor gets. One can only hope that the Mayor is able to make half as good an impression as Sam Sullivan did back in 2006 when he traveled to Turin to wave the Olympic flag. Now while it is hard to compete with Sullivan’s inspirational story to get to that point, Gregor has an opportunity here to introduce himself to the world and he should take full advantage of it – however difficult that might be with glory hog Premier Gordon Campbell in the mix.
- Politics at City Hall is not something that should be hidden. Namely, when an administration gets to office, it has had its policies and views supported by the voting public, and with particular reference to Vision Vancouver, that endorsement was premised on a hunger for change. Accordingly, if these changes are made with regard to the financing of the Olympic village, the managerial level of the city’s staff or with the abovementioned Olympic bylaw, I want the Councillors or the Mayor or even the City Manager to have to publicly account for them – and thus far, this is exactly what is happening. This is far more preferable than city staff who are quietly partisan or a Mayor and Council who make backroom deals that severely put taxpayers at risk.
- Still no call back from Anita Ho at the Vancouver Park Board regarding Ian Robertson’s unauthorized use of the Park Board logo on his website. I will try again this morning and keep reporting back as things progress.
- Gregor’s green branding is starting to get some international traction – word is that the Mayor just received an invitation to be a keynote speaker at a major conference on global cities and their responses to climate change in New York. He is also poised to do a big blitz in London for a number of high level meetings and speaking engagements to direct business and sustainability interest upon Vancouver, and of course meet with Boris to energize synergies beteween the next two Olympic host cities. Sustainability, both in terms of the 2012 Summer Games and the City of London, is huge over in the UK, and with the depressed economic climate of the country right now, there might be opportunities for Gregor to try and capitalize on.
- One more note from the disaster that is the NPA – an email from a former member of the board indicates that the party is once again trying to engage Carole Taylor to make a run for office. In fact, I have information from several individuals closely associated with the NPA and Taylor that some high level requests for a meeting have gone out, although nothing has materialized as of yet. As far as I am concerned, Taylor would be foolhardy to tarnish her reputation and political batting record with the NPA brand (whatever is left of it). That does not preclude the possibility of a new party emerging with her at the helm, however…
- I agree with this sentiment about the need to control spending at the municipal level, as evidenced in my opinion piece in the Vancouver Sun last week. However, as per usual, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation simplifies things down to a level that does not take into account the parameters with which municipal budgets are constructed. Services at the municipal level should not determine access based on who can pay and who cannot. Community centres, as an example, are the lifeblood of many communities that do not have a high income average, and the services provided to residents that cannot afford user fees are invaluable. Secondly, if a cap is going to be legislated by the provincial government, it should come with more revenue generating options for municipalities, who at the moment are extremely limited in where they can draw resources from.
- I had a huge debate with a friend who was very close to the previous Sam Sullivan administration last week. His view was that social housing at the Olympic village is a huge mistake, and that subsidizing those who cannot afford to pay for waterfront property is an affront to taxpayers. The individual also believed that $600,000 for one unit of social housing is ludicrous considering that the money could achieve far more bang for the buck at a different site.
My view is as follows. First, if the Sam Sullivan administration was so opposed to social housing, it should have taken it completely off the table instead of doing a half-measure of still maintaining the ratio of one third. Secondly, social housing should be a part of the Olympic Village as a model of sustainability – and that refers to the sustainability of mixed development and integration rather than solely relating to environmental measures.
Are there more economical sites to put social housing on? Absolutely. However, with the City as the owner of the land and now the financier, I believe in advocating for the Olympic Village to become a legacy of how Vancouver should not fall into the trap of being a city that is premised on haves and the have-nots. Social housing should not be a concept that is ghettoized, and waterfront property such as the Southeast False Creek area that has been developed as a result of this country’s largest publicly funded event should not be exclusive for a select few.
I would be fascinated on people’s thoughts on any of the above points, particularly the last one.
