The dynamic duo is at it again, and this time, they are using gender politics as their latest form of attack.

This story went up in this morning’s Vancouver Courier, with the spin being that Aaron Jasper was undemocratic, and that a female should be in the chair.

But like usual, the Ian Robertson/Stuart Mackinnon alliance has become more concerned with cheap politics than substance.

First of all, where are Robertson’s examples of how Jasper was undemocratic?  I know for a fact after speaking to several of the Commissioners that on a range of issues – from the budget, to the negotiations with Van Dusen Gardens to take over control the Bloedel Conservatory, to the – Robertson was brought into the discussions from the very beginning. Mackinnon was also asked to be a part of the selection committee to select the Park Board’s new General Manager.

It is easy to throw out a label, but until Robertson can back up his claims, his rhetoric does not match up with the way in which he has been treated by the Chair of the Vision Vancouver majority.

The second tactic that Mackinnon and Robertson tried on Monday was to nominate the three women on the board for the position of chair.

Each and every Commissioner nominated by the pair refused.  Sarah Blyth has a young child and a full time job, Constance Barnes has a full time job and a full slate of committee and portfolio responsibilities, and Loretta Woodcock was also not interested.

In each and every case, Mackinnon and Robertson acted unilaterally, nominating for the purpose of political gamesmanship rather than in the name of equality.

Woodcock’s comments about Robertson’s and his party’s conduct on previous incarnations of the Board are also very telling about their views on women:

“Woodcock said she got a laugh out of Robertson’s bid to have a woman elected as chair. Woodcock explained that when the NPA was in power, she brought forward an unsuccessful motion asking the board to support International Woman’s Day.

“The NPA said if they did that, they’d have to support International Dog Day too,” said Woodcock, laughing. “It looks like Ian Robertson has become very enlightened.”

“I am happy to report Aaron Jasper was elected as Chair last night and Constance Barnes Vice Chair.

Aaron has done an outstanding job as chair this year and we are really excited about the coming year.

The only odd part of the election was when Commissioner Mackinnon supported my nomination for chair last night.

For 2 years he has rolled his eyes at me heaved sighs and talked down to me. He has been anything but supportive.

With out consulting me he decided to be my champion.

I found it very patronizing.”

Mackinnon was on the horn last night, while Robertson didn't even bother to show up - much like this picture from the Kerrisdale Community Centre.

An inch deep and a mile wide…that seems to be the best description of the opposition when it comes to budgetary issues regarding the Vancouver Park Board.

Political observers might remember the joint press release sent out by Green Park Board Commissioner Stuart Mackinnon and NPA Park Board Commissioner Ian Robertson.

Yet in spite of that precursor, yesterday’s Council meeting (which had in excess of 30 speakers interested in offering their opinions on the budget) offered performances (or a lack thereof) that didn’t exactly live up to the bluster.

First, Robertson didn’t even bother to show up, in spite of being on the list of scheduled speakers.

Furthermore, Mackinnon made his speech, and literally bolted out of the room after refusing to take questions about his presentation from Council.  From the way I heard it, Mackinnon’s dust was still in the air by the time the next speaker came up to the podium.  Why he was in such a rush to leave is still a mystery.

Similarly, after crying foul about the cuts to the Park Board on Tuesday, NPA Councillor Suzanne Anton had little to talk about after Park Board Chair Aaron Jasper finished his presentation.  She took issue with the fact that Jasper was speaking solely on behalf of the Vision Vancouver caucus rather than the whole Board.  He explained that he could not speak for the other Commissioners from different parties, as his position as Chair did not give him license to present their positions.

And then, Anton was quiet, having nothing else to ask about the proposed budget cuts and the case that was made by Jasper.

In all cases, the opposition that tried so desperately to achieve a news hit in their objections to the budget cuts to the Park Board, didn’t follow through with anything of substance.

Political grandstanding doesn’t only reside with Mackinnon anymore, as his new alliance with the NPA seems to have caused that particular tactic to be passed on.

Meanwhile, it seems as though Jasper’s presentation was a hit, and maybe…just maybe…there will be some kind of concession offered as a result of a strong working relationship between the finance chair (Raymond Louie) and the Vision Park Board caucus.

When I called Jasper to find out whether he thought that there might be adjustments made to their proposed cuts, he was non-committal and had little to say.  He did, however, tell me that he was “very positive about the way the presentation was received” and was “optimistic” that something could be worked out.

The next week of negotiating should be interesting.

• 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.