• This is a deceptive story at first glance, because street parking (both in terms of rates and hours of payment) seems to dwarf cities like Toronto and Montreal.  This story represents a huge success for the Mayor and his Greenest City Action plan.  Take a read of this quote from Julian Jones, vice-president of business development for Impark, who “attributes the slowdown to three things: an increase in taxes on parking from 12 to 35.5 per cent, the opening of the Canada Line and that people discovered transit during the Olympics and continued to use it.”  And I don’t care what the usual suspects say – this website and this video is in particular are both awesome.  It is the kind of approach that really has a legitimate shot at getting people engaged and interested in being a part of the initiative.

• From what I have heard, last night’s Vancouver Park Board meeting was quite respectful, all things considered – definitely no throat slashing gestures or middle fingers off camera as was perpetrated by some of the West End residents with City Council a couple of weeks back.  The vote was 5-2 against Stuart Mackinnon’s motion, and while it got a little heated (the anti-captivity crowed were chanting for the Vision Commissioners to resign at one point), it was a healthy debate.  What bothers me is this “woe is me” type of commentary that is now coming out of Mackinnon’s mouth – “I’m very saddened that the chair (Jasper) chose to personalize the debate.  I don’t think it’s good for any politician to stray from the debate.”  Hmmm…here’s a question Stuart:  how is Aaron Jasper’s claims that you were initiating “political mischief with this motion” any different from this:  “Green party commissioner Stuart Mackinnon, on the other hand, told the Straight by phone that he questions the motivate behind the motion. “I think it’s more about government-bashing than altruism,” he said. “I think it’s put forward by people who have political ambitions for themselves. They’re claiming it’s because the HST is going to increase fees for people, yet this board voted unanimously for a four-percent increase [to recreational-services fees] across the board last November. If people were genuinely concerned about people’s ability to pay, then why did they vote for a four-percent increase in our fees?“  Another pot calling the kettle black, me thinks.

• After reading this and this and unfortunately actually having the fortitude to sit through this, I can’t help but be reminded by one of my favourite Ozzy tunes.

• I read Jeff Lee’s column in the Vancouver Sun yesterday, and regardless of whether it is Sam Sullivan or Gregor Robertson that neighbourhoods are rallying against, I was left puzzled.  Is Vancouver a city of neighbourhoods – buroughs, if you will – that have absolutely no interest in anything outside of their vicinity?  Are grand visions for the city – major initiatives that are looking to improve the city, regardless of whether they involve density or increasing rental stock – impossible in Vancouver?  At one time I was a huge fan of the CityPlan and community visions process.  Now, I am not so sure anymore.

• I absolutely love this addition to this year’s fireworks competition.  Once again, I truly believe that it is an extension of what we witnessed during the Olympics.  In spite of a lifetime of tepid civic pride and involvement, Vancouver really has come alive, as witnessed during the World Cup and Canada Day in recent weeks.  I am very happy that this city is finally becoming as active as the lifestyle that this “outdoor paradise” tends to emphasize in its branding.  And no, I am not going to be hanging around downtown Granville Street to document the enthusiasm as some with what must be classified as an active social life might be inclined to try (see above).

• I really want to try and attempt to get courtside seats for this game.  Yes, it is preseason, and yes, the Raptors no longer have any name recognition with Chris Bosh gone, but damn it, I miss basketball in this city and Steve Nash is a Canadian sports legend.  Like I did with UFC 115, I think I might be willing to dole out a little cash to make my second and probably only appearance next to the rich, famous and beautiful.  OK…so I’ll probably be the odd one out with regards to that criteria.

• From where I stand, no need to “improve compliance” with this aspect of policing, boys and girls.  Quotas rather than road safety are the cause of most of the infractions doled out, in my humble opinion.

Alright, that’s it for now folks.  Have a fantastic day.

Mike Klassen seems to have no memory of his partisan past, now that he has "reinvented" himself as a "non-partisan" blogger.

Mike Klassen posted this on Friday evening, clearly settling in for a fun-filled weekend of blogging.  One supposes that he was trying to “out” me.

Well, not only does his post represent the height of hypocrisy when considering the author’s past, but it also doesn’t offer a stitch of information that is groundbreaking.

Let’s clear a couple of things up.

First, it is absolutely no secret that I am favourable towards Vision Vancouver, and for anyone who has read my writings over the past 10 months, that fact has never been hidden.

I managed the campaigns of both Council candidate Kashmir Dhaliwal, who missed out on victory by about 1,000 votes (the closest any South Asian candidate has come to becoming a Councillor since Setty Pendakur), and Raj Hundal, who now sits as a Park Board commissioner.

In fact (and I am extremely happy that Geoff Meggs is now a councillor, as he can back up this version of events from when he served as Larry Campbell’s Chief of Staff), it was my suggestions for the new party that served as the basis for the eventual Vision Vancouver name (check out the proposed speech that I wrote for Campbell).

So, labelling me as someone involved with Vision Vancouver was not in any way breaking news.

That being said, I write what I want, when I want, and how I want.  I don’t have an editor, I don’t have anyone who dictates what stories I can and cannot pursue, and I certainly am not beholden to anyone.

My attack on Stuart Mackinnon was legitimately something that I chose to pursue.

Mackinnon wrote the following in a post on the website of his new political ally:

“Aaron Jasper, the Vision Vancouver Chair of the Park Board, in a press release last week called into question the legalities of holding a plebiscite, claiming that I am “putting the Park Board at risk of a potential lawsuit, in spite of his prior knowledge of a legally binding agreement with the Vancouver Aquarium.” Commissioner Jasper does not state what this ‘legal binding’ agreement is, nor the basis of a potential lawsuit.”

Well Stuart, since you seem to be completely unaware of the agreement signed with the Aquarium, let me direct you back to the minutes from a Park Board meeting held in November, 2006.

More specifically, let me point out the following:

“2006 Aquarium Expansion Proposal

Board members received a copy of a staff report dated November 20, 2006 recommending that the Board approve recommendations A and B.

Moved by Commissioner Zlotnik,

A. THAT the Board approve the attached Vancouver Aquarium
expansion plan subject to the mitigation and compensation
measures outlined in this report;

B. THAT the Board amend the term of the current Stanley Park
Aquarium Agreement to extend the license to 20 years from the start of construction of this proposed project on the basis that no legal rights are hereby created and non shall arise until an agreement to extend has been executed to the satisfaction of the Director of Legal Services and the General Manager.”

Furthermore:

“Moved by Commissioner De Genova,

I. THAT it is the Board’s intention that in 2015 the board review
the Parks Control By-law relating to captive cetaceans.
- Carried.
(Commissioners Herbert and Woodcock contrary)

So, that is what “legally binding agreement” Jasper was referring to.

Make no mistake about it – Mackinnon is well aware of this agreement, and in spite of his utterances within the media that he thinks a lawsuit is unlikely, he also knows that it is a distinct possibility.

Mackinnon states that:

“The plebiscite I am calling for is non-binding, and would be done in order for the Park Board to collect information for the review.”

Fair enough.  But as part of the motion that was unanimously passed by the previous Park Board is this clause:

“THAT it is the Board’s intention that in 2015 the board review the Parks Control By-law relating to captive cetaceans.”

A plebiscite would constitute a review before 2015 (a review in the sense that it would be a plebiscite initiated by the Park Board), which would in turn put the Board in breach of a contract.

Now, did I assist in editing a press release that was sent to me for review?  Yes.

To suggest that the final words or sentiments in the document were not attributable to Park Board Chair Aaron Jasper, however, is without basis and completely ridiculous.

Here’s where the hypocrisy comes in, folks.

Mike Klassen used to do contract work for former Mayor Sam Sullivan.  In fact, I am pretty sure that these contracts were doled out through the City of Vancouver – although I don’t have the proof for that at the moment.

Klassen is also active within the NPA, showing up to meetings and actively pontificating on how the party/association/political entity can become relevant once again.

Yet, when he goes on Global TV, he is identified as a “concerned parent” when referring to Vancouver School Board issues, or a “urban affairs blogger” when talking about City Hall.

Nonetheless, his writings over the past year and a half (which have represented complete and utter disdain for Vision Vancouver and the way in which this administration has run the city) and/or his previous paid employment with Sullivan remains mysteriously absent from the tagline of his media appearances.

So, before Klassen and his holier than thou, high on his horse attitude towards political involvement attempts to tag me, he and others should take a long look the man’s pedigree.  Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t be throwing stones.

And about that proof that I don’t have in my hands quite yet?  Patience, my friends.

Mackinnon is using politics to cloud the issues, as per usual.

I have documented before how Park Board Commissioner Stuart Mackinnon is prone to political grandstanding.

Mackinnon’s upcoming motion on forcing a plebiscite on cetaceans in captivity onto the 2011 ballot is just the latest example of this tendency.

Here is the text of the motion:

“WHEREAS at a special board meeting dated November 27, 2006 the Vancouver Park Board passed a motion to review the Parks Control By-Law relating to captive cetaceans in 2015;

AND WHEREAS the residents of Vancouver value the ability to express their views on relevant issues of the day;

AND WHEREAS a plebiscite is a non binding democratic tool to survey the public sentiment;

THEREFORE be it resolved that a plebiscite be held during the 2011 Vancouver civic election asking the public if they are in favour of ending the containment of cetaceans in Vancouver parks, including the phase out of existing cetacean exhibits which are located on land leased by the Park Board. “

Seems reasonable, considering the death of baby beluga Nala last month.  Right?

Wrong.

A press release from Park Board Chair Aaron Jasper gives a little more context.  Here are some excerpts:

“On Monday, November 26, 2006, the previous NPA majority Vancouver Park Board voted to “amend the term of the current Stanley Park Aquarium Agreement to extend the license to 20 years.”  As part of that amendment, it was also decided that “it is the Board’s intention that in 2015 the board review the Parks Control By-law relating to captive cetaceans” (a decision that passed with 4 votes from the NPA in favour, and 2 votes against from the opposition).

“The fact is that under these terms, the issue of cetaceans in captivity is moot until 2015, and bringing forth such a motion puts the taxpayers of Vancouver at considerable risk from a lawsuit.”

“Regardless of our personal feelings on the matter, we as elected representatives have a responsibility to put the interests of our constituents ahead of petty politics.”

A debate on having whales in captivity is reasonable and even appropriate in light of recent events.

Accordingly, Stuart jumped on this in interviews with Rick Cluff on CBC and Bill Good on CKNW, saying that there was a contradiction between Vision Vancouver’s desire for consultation with the public and Aaron Jasper non-support for the proposed plebiscite.

What a load of crap.

First, it was the former NPA Park Board that locked the current Commissioners into the deal that they are currently dealing with.  No bylaw changes can be considered, as per the contract signed with the Vancouver Aquarium, until 2015.

Which of course means that a Park Board initiated plebiscite constitutes a breach of this agreement, which in turn is grounds for a substantial lawsuit against Vancouver’s taxpayers.

Furthermore, Mackinnon’s line that this is the last opportunity to seek out the public’s position on this issue before 2015 without spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a stand-alone plebiscite is ridiculous.  Why would you use polling from 2011 to make a decision in 2015?  And if the ability for the Park Board to change the parameters of their policy on whales in captivity comes into play again 2015, why wouldn’t you just attach the question onto the 2015 electoral ballot instead?

The logic of Mackinnon’s arguments are deeply flawed.

No one is doubting that he truly believes that whales should not be kept in captivity.  That is an issue that he seems to be legitimately passionate about.  And, there are no doubt others on the Park Board who share his sentiments.

However, with the knowledge that nothing can truly be done until 2015, and that initiating such a plebiscite would place great financial risk atop the shoulders of the Vancouver electorate, his motion turns into nothing more than political posturing to gain a little attention.

And that is an irresponsible and quite frankly selfish position to take as a public servant.

Now that he has heard the staff’s opinion that a lawsuit is likely if his motion passes, Mackinnon would be wise to pull the motion in the name of protecting the public coffers.

But for a guy whose party has absolutely no profile, and who will be fighting for his political life in the next election, this kind of politics makes perfect sense.

Just not for those who care about fiscal responsibility.

Some are arguing that clouds like this pose no harm to bystanders if it is found outside, which is clearly against a growing body of scientific evidence to the contrary.

Take a listen to an interview (it begins at 6:11) conducted this past Tuesday by CKNW’s Christy Clark and the chair of the Park Board Aaron Jasper.  It is clear from her very first question, Clark is just itching to pick a fight and agitate Jasper.

Clark first launches into a question of why the Park Board isn’t taking notice of pot smoking outside:

“It’s not your concern that people are smoking an illegal product in public when you want to…I mean, aren’t you concerned about second-hand smoke?”

Clearly a loaded question that has little to do with the jurisdiction of the park board, as pointed out by Jasper.  But she kept on with the same line of questioning for several minutes.

Then she moved onto this tactic:

“But one of the unintended consequences – and the research seems to support this – of what you’re doing is going to be to drive people to smoke indoors.  It seems to me as a public official you should be vitally concerned about unintended consequences of your actions.”

Clark might have studies that do conclude this.  However, it is a huge stretch to suggest that if people can no longer smoke specifically in Vancouver’s parks, beaches and trails that they are immediately going to head indoors.  Believe it or not, there are still places for people for people to smoke outdoors, and even if the argument is made that the Park Board’s decision is simply pushing the harmful effects elsewhere, the fact still remains that the Park Board is doing all that it can do within it’s jurisdictional purview.

Finally, Clark launches into what has to be the pearl of her twisted logic in this statement:

“So how does put people in harm’s way to have a cigarette out in a perfectly open area?  I haven’t seen, um…I mean, the evidence that I’ve seen about second hand smoke is almost exclusively focused on smoking in confined spaces.”

Hmmm…well, Clark has clearly not done her research, because one google search on “second-hand smoke outdoors impact,” for example, produces a number of articles and studies that state the contrary.

You want context Christy?  Take a read of this excerpt regarding the Stanford University study:

“In the study, the researchers used portable electronic monitors to make precise measurements of toxic airborne particles emitted from cigarettes at 10 sites near the Stanford campus. “We wanted to quantify the potential level of exposure to outdoor tobacco smoke that could occur in everyday settings.  To do this, we used five different, state-of-the-art instruments to measure secondhand smoke at parks, open-air cafes, sidewalks and outdoor pubs where smokers were present.”

Each instrument was calibrated to measure an airborne pollutant known as particulate matter-2.5 (PM2.5), which consists of thousands of microscopic particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in width–about 30 times narrower than a human hair.”

“A typical cigarette lasts about 10 minutes.  We found that if you’re within two feet downwind of a smoker, you may be exposed to pollutant concentrations that exceed 500 micrograms of PM2.5 over that 10-minute period. If you’re exposed multiple times to multiple cigarettes over several hours in an outdoor pub, it would be possible to get a daily average of 35 micrograms or more, which exceeds the current EPA outdoor standard.

Outdoor tobacco smoke consists of brief plumes that sometimes exceed 1,000 micrograms.  On the other hand, clean air typically contains less than 20 micrograms of PM2.5. Therefore, a person near an outdoor smoker might inhale a breath with 50 times more toxic material than in the surrounding unpolluted air.“

Unsurprisingly, cigar enthusiast Alex Tsakumis uses almost the exact same talking points as Christy in a post from yesterday.

Unfortunately for both, the science doesn’t back up their positions.

Once again, this is a bold and groundbreaking decision by the Park Board that deserves praise, not feeble attempts at diversion.