• This is hilarious, and yet another reason why several local news outlets (according to various sources) will never turn to him for another story ever again.  I shouldn’t bother, but I will bet getting a clarification about these empty claims directly from the source of the interview in short order.

• George voted about an hour ago, and friends on the campaign tell me that a lot of volunteers that they have never seen before have showed up this morning to help, which is an encouraging sign.  Those same sources who hold some pretty high level positions on the campaign tell me that even though they figure Ford might be up 4-5 points, they are relying on the sober second thought that undecided and Joe Pantalone voters might have when they enter the ballot box and consider the implications of a Ford mayoralty.  More updates throughout the day if anything of interest comes my way.

• This is a great story to emerge out of the biking agenda that Vision Vancouver is advancing.  1,000 delegates is nothing to scoff at, and the fact that it is moving outside of Europe for the first time shows that Vancouver – with a little promotion from Tourism Vancouver and the City of Vancouver – is receiving some international recognition for its recent efforts.  Just like Vancouver became a hot spot gay-friendly tourism destination over the past five years, the city has a similar opportunity to tap into the global population of cycling enthusiasts, which could provide a nice new stream of revenue for the struggling tourism sector (this is a little dated, but it gives you an idea of the potential).

• Oh yeah, and the gloves seem to be off…and from what I am hearing, this internal family squabble within the NPA extends much father than the blogosphere.  Sullivan supporters hated Ian Robertson’s speech last week at the fundraiser, just as Robertson supporters could barely lift their hands to offer a single clap for Sullivan.  And then there is of course the Anton factor, who seems to be a unifying force in one sense – in that everyone in the party thinks and agrees that she would be an unmitigated disaster as the NPA’s Mayoral candidate.  These guys don’t ever learn, and the unity that Vision has enjoyed over the past two years (caucus and otherwise) and which will continue to operate within long into the campaign will be a huge boon when fighting against a group of factions trying to assume control of one party banner.

• Kinsella is right – Nenshi’s successful campaign in Calgary, and Ford’s polling domination over the past six months, are not because of Facebook or Twitter.  It is about the style of campaign, the messaging being put out, and most importantly, the volunteer power that each has to draw upon.  I know that Twitter is a very cool way to access people’s mobile devices (although it is still the 35 and under crowd that is predominantly fanatic about the phenomenon), but is it truly a driver to get out and vote?  That is yet to be determined.  I am a traditionalist, and tend to focus in on Nenshi having an army of 700 loyal students (his, not his, past, present, etc.) because of his university background as the key to his victory.  Anyways, the revolution may be here in terms of technology, but it certainly hasn’t given people more of an impetus to get off their asses and vote – particularly when it comes to municipal elections.  Not yet anyway…

• A new bullet to add to Quick Hits each week – the song of the week.  Today’s pick is “Getting Nowhere” by Magnetic Man featuring John Legend.  I am really digging this right now, and it can be found here for your listening pleasure.  This actually might be a great song for the NPA’s future Mayoral candidate to come out on stage to.

• This speech seemed to go over well for the individuals I spoke to who were in attendance.  The business community has done relatively well under Vision Vancouver, in spite of the Hornby and Dunsmuir propaganda.  The business tax shift has been a great step forward to evening the playing field for businesses, and in spite of the fact that it is going to be a tough budget consultation process from the voters that will either return him to office or make another choice, Robertson is sticking to his guns.  It would be nice to have a few more of the businesses that are happy with this initiative to stand up and speak up for this Council, but that his another topic for another day.

• The Sam Sullivan for Mayor rumours are beginning to grow.  Faced with the prospect of two electeds who inspire few, and lacklustre interest from potential candidates outside of the political fold, Sullivan has been approached by several of the higher-ups in the NPA (including some current board members) to step forward and make his candidacy a reality.  From those on the side that will be battling against these folks, all I can say that there are equally as many begging, pleading and praying that this scenario comes to fruition.

Ok, that’s all for this morning.  Back later in the day with a clarification about some spurious claims, and tonight’s Toronto election results.

• I have already posted my reaction to Michael Geller’s comments in the Globe last week – comments that have now inspired an opinion piece in Saturday’s Vancouver Sun by former Vision City Councillor and Mayoral candidate Jim Green, a rebuttal from Geller, and a number of follow-up reactions.  From my point of view, here is the key message that I want to get across to Mr. Geller:  While your history and personality do not seem of the character of someone who has a prejudice against the poor people, your choice of words to describe your position are offensive – plain and simple:  “If you think of the population as divided into five groups on a social and economic basis –As, Bs, Cs, Ds, Es, – when you start putting together the As and the Es, there is the potential for people to not get along.  If you’re going to mix people, it should be As, Bs and Cs together or Cs, Ds and Es.”  With all due respect Michael, no matter how you might have referred to people at CMHC at one time, the connotations of such classifications are very clear.  How does an “A” on a report card compare to an “E”?  It isn’t your theory that making all of the units market housing might have a positive impact on sales so much as it is how you referred to people – that is what has rubbed so many, including myself, the wrong way.  Furthermore, any of your assertions that the the Ds and Es will include the mentally ill and drug addicted clientele is false and misleading fear mongering, because you are very aware that this has never been a part of the plan for social housing, which has always been directed toward low income families and seniors.  I will be listening to CKNW at 9am this morning to hear Geller and Green have a debate…it should be very interesting.

• Over the weekend I received a call from a friend who said that he had been approached by several within the NPA fold to run for a spot on Council.  This young, South Asian gent has ample previous political experience (including putting his name on a ballot), and had been fed the line that it was important for the party to have some ethnic representation amongst the candidates that come forward.  I asked him if he knew who he was speaking to, and he said no because he hadn’t been following municipal politics that closely.  After explaining how the folks that approached him would likely enjoy stringing me up and lynching me, I also gave him context about the offer.  The NPA is desperate to attract a dynamic, diverse and fresh slate of candidates that hopefully will have a little star power thrown into the mix.  My friend fits the bill in a few respects, but ultimately I told him that as a South Asian male running for Council under the NPA banner, he was going to have a very steep political hill to climb to get elected (spoken from personal experience with my involvement in the last election).  It is funny that certain NPA sources tell me how people are approaching them everyday with regards to candidacy, while others outside of the party’s sphere of spin pass along stories of how they are beating the bushes trying to find those brave souls that are willing to compromise their livelihoods, reputations and sense of hope within politics to be associated with the moribund NPA.

• I found his insight on Suzanne Anton’s flip-flop useful, considering his links to the NPA are obviously far more pronounced than mine, and my sources withing that fold are few and far between.  But the man also detailed how he tried attacking a cyclist with a baseball bat, and how he and his children laughed about running that same cyclist off the road with his car a few days later.  Alex, I get your desire to protect your kids at all costs.  I also understand about being enraged that someone would scare your children and speak that way in front of them.  But I really think that you need help…professional help.  I strongly encourage you to look into it as soon as possible.

• Ian, I’m with you on Montreal being way ahead of us when it comes to biking infrastructure.  And, I also would LOVE to see a similar system to BIXI in this city.  In fact, it looks as though Toronto might be headed in the same direction (although with this wacko about to take the reins at the Mayor’s office, who knows what will happen).  But as someone who was in Montreal just last month, let me also point out that the cost of the program is also a source of controversy for Montreal City Hall (yes, I know that they have more than enough these days).  I am desperately looking for statistics to back this up, but I distinctly remember listening to a radio program which detailed how the BIXI program was millions of dollars in the red on an annual basis.  So, as much as I would love 5000 bikes to line our streets for people to use, I also want it to be cost effective and something that will not be a huge drain on the taxpayer.

• A nice theory about how taking a loss on the Olympic Village is just “business.”  But this isn’t about the city protecting its ass to cover up for politicians, as the Province is describing.  The City stepped in as the lender because it had to – the Olympics were on the way, and there was no room for some New York financier in trouble of its own to be the one who provided the necessary funds for completion.  Thus, if the city is going to give incentives like tax breaks and avoidance of maintenance fees, so be it.  This is about recovering our dollars, and that is the motivation.

• It’s the little label that could, which truly became a global phenomenon at many points over the past 25 years.  I raise a glass to Terry McBride, because Nettwerk is a Vancouver success story with some amazing musical triumphs (Lilith Fair being one).

• I have gone hard at these guys in the past, but I think that their response to the Mayor’s West End Advisory Committee is classy and encouraging.  Like WEN correctly points out, “Much misinformation has been circulating about rezonings in the West End. We hope this Committee will seek out all the key facts, and share everything openly with the public in a timely way.”  I couldn’t agree more.

OK, off to listen to Geller and Green go at it.  I might check back in after if there is anything of significance to comment on.

Lone NPA Councillor Suzanne Anton is going to be changing her footwear for the remainder of her term.

I have always said that changing your mind in politics shouldn’t be as big a deal as it is usually portrayed – if, that is, it is handled correctly.

And that is why I am not inclined to immediately jump down Suzanne Anton’s throat when I read this about her changing her mind on supporting the Hornby bike lane.  Rather, I am open to listening to her reasoning and then assessing whether it is politics or principle that has motivated her decision.

Well, after reading her release from yesterday, it is clear that she has changed her mind because of the shit kicking she has received from opponents of the bike lane and her core constituencies rather than the reasons she so desperately tried to get across in her release.

Let’s break down the statement in detail.

“FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 6, 2010

STATEMENT FROM NPA CITY COUNCILLOR SUZANNE ANTON

“No one who spoke to council on Tuesday expected to be a part of a Kangeroo council,” says Coun. Anton

A very awkward quote clearly written by her young staffer, although I understand what she is trying to say.

“On Tuesday night at 11:38pm city council once again held a vote at the end of a marathon meeting that suited the agenda of the Mayor and his caucus more than it did Vancouver citizens, small business owners, or City staff.

“When the meeting concluded I was satisfied that two of my biggest concerns about the Hornby Street bike lane project were met. First, I was assured by the City’s Engineering Department that the design of the separated bike lane was the absolute best of all available options for Downtown Vancouver. Second, thanks to my amendment of the motion I understood that every best effort would be taken by the City to mitigate the impacts of this development upon Hornby Street residents, businesses and their customers.

This is interesting, because her acknowledgment that a) the design of the bike lane is sound and b) the interests of Hornby residents and businesses were absolutely being taken into account seem to appease the majority of the criticisms and concerns that were raised by speakers in Council chambers on Tuesday evening.

“However, earlier today I discovered that a critical requirement of my support has not been met. I’ve learned that at 7:30am on the morning after council’s decision, crews and equipment began immediate work on the new Hornby Street bike lane.

Ok, and your issue is…?  First of all, according to the City’s Director of Transportation Jerry Dobrovolny, construction will take 10 weeks, and they are hoping to have everything finished “before the Christmas shopping season.”  That math doesn’t exactly add up, by the way, because 10 weeks of work would put us to about one week before Christmas, while the Christmas shopping season begins in about six weeks.

Anyways, let’s let Anton continue:

It’s clear to me from prepared signage and work plans that logistics for this project were not done overnight, and that staff was given direction to undertake this work weeks ago. Furthermore, I’ve learned that the road had already been marked in preparation for the work as early as Monday, a full day before the public meeting took place.

Here is where my alarm bells went off.  Are you telling me Suzanne that with such tight timelines to get everything done, you are suggesting that absolutely no planning and/or preparation was supposed to begin before the decision?  Because if that is what you are arguing, you are either ill-informed or have developed a convenient case of political memory loss.

City staff are well aware of Council directives long before a vote is taken – that is how it has always worked at City Hall.  City Council and the Mayor’s office indicate a direction to staff and generally ask for a feasibility report and a set of recommendations.

Let’s give you an example that you should remember from your past as part of the ruling NPA Council from 2005-2008.  EcoDensity was an idea of former Mayor Sam Sullivan’s that was first introduced to City staff in July, 2006 (you can read the staff report here – check the bottom of page 3) with a mandate to create a Charter, Toolkit and Forum on EcoDensity.  Yet as you can see from that report, the presentation to Council by at the time newly minted Director of Planning Brent Toderian was made on November 14, 2006 – a full five months later.

Now here is the key point – Sam Sullivan launched his EcoDensity initiative in advance of the World Urban Forum in June, 2006 – BEFORE STAFF WERE DIRECTED TO BEGIN THEIR WORK – via a press conference flanked by “a number of environmentalists, community activists and academics…” At that very press conference, there were glossy brochures and materials that had already been printed with the City of Vancouver’s logo on them.

Let me note that this initiative had not even been discussed with Council at this point (there were 5 opposition Councillors), never mind work by staff or an official vote in Council chambers.

So, for Anton to cry foul about work being undertaken the morning after an affirmative vote is completely disingenuous and politically transparent.

Now here  is another key point to consider about Anton’s flip flop:   She was apparently OK with the bike lane on the evening of Tuesday, when she voted in favour of it in spite of many speakers who voiced their concerns in person, yet now she has a change of heart because construction crews begin work AFTER the vote had carried – to get work and the project completed as quickly and as efficiently as possible (NOTE: Isn’t that approach the opposite of what is so often a complain with City Hall – that bureaucracy and red tape create destructive and obtrusive delays?).

That to me rings completely false.  But please, Suzanne, go on:

“Regardless of your views on the Hornby Street separated bike lane, no one who spoke to council on Tuesday expected to be a part of a Kangeroo council. It is a fundamental trust between citizens and their elected representatives that when we meet in council chambers that we are there to listen, deliberate and debate, and finally decide based upon the inputs we have received.

Well, as I have pointed out above, I call Bullshit on that statement.

“It is crystal clear to me now that Tuesday’s council meeting was a mere formality, and pure political theatre. Businesses on Hornby Street cannot have faith that their concerns will be properly considered, nor can they have faith that this is a ‘trial’ project.

So let me get this straight – on Tuesday you “understood that every best effort would be taken by the City to mitigate the impacts of this development upon Hornby Street residents, businesses and their customers,” and now that you see work starting the morning after, you have a different opinion?

Once again, I call bullshit.  Anton’s decision has to do with the absolute shit kicking she took after her vote alongside Vision Vancouver, which caused many of her supporters and those who were looking for her to take a stand to be shocked and angered after the vote.

Let’s just use a few examles from former NPA supporter Alex Tsakumis, who on Wednesday morning stated that:

“Suzanna Anton has really sunk her party, the NPA.”

“[she] has undermined a significant platform her party could have used in the nest election against Vision Vancouver.”

“Do not vote for Suzanne Anton in the next election (or Vision Vancouver) if you want a sane agenda to return to City Hall. I will now make it my personal mission to see that Suzanne Anton loses as many votes as possible–her vote in support of this lunacy last night was the last straw for me. She should be defeated and is of absolutely no value to any of you as citizens of this city.”

Let me assure you that many of her NPA core of support felt the same way.  As an example, last night there was an NPA board meeting, and I can tell you that my sources tell me that it wasn’t pretty in terms of the utterances made about Anton’s performance the evening before.

That, my dear readers, is why Anton is now doing this:

“I am therefore submitting a motion to rescind to the City Clerk, and withdrawing my support of this project. I will also request a full report from staff that explains how these preparations had been completed in time to stage work the morning after our vote.

“Thanks to the STIR projects, HEAT Shelters, and now this bike lane, Mayor Robertson and his colleagues have a well-earned reputation for being autocratic. With my decision I am hoping to send a clear message to council that we must listen to the people who elected us.”

– 30 -

Media inquiries to Suzanne Anton

Funny how she never spoke about autocratic politics when Sam Sullivan pushed forward with EcoDensity in spite of neighbourhood protests.

Now let me make one point very clear – I am in full support of an elected majority on City Council being able to push forth with an idea that they campaigned on (and I will back up Sullivan here, because it was in his inauguration speech where he first spoke about increasing density within the city), regardless of the protests of Vancouver’s NIMBY neighbourhoods, who tend to oppose any change that threatens their fiefdoms.

Anton has been a part of an administration that is determined to advance an agenda in spite of vocal opposition, which only confirms that today she is simply playing politics with issues like the bike lanes, the HEAT shelters or the STIR program

Which is fine – that is a part of the game.

But don’t come out with a flip flop statement on changing your vote and expect people to believe the line that you are doing it based on the fact that “crews and equipment began immediate work on the new Hornby bike lane” the morning after approval.

Because I, and many others including your own base of supporters, will call bullshit on that cockamamie story.

• Charlie Smith selectively posts an excerpt from a post I wrote in response to his disgusting speculation about former Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s possible death, and cries foul.  He quotes me pontificating about what might happen if he gets hit by a bus, which was a direct and sardonic way of showing how truly off Smith’s “journalistic” instincts were on his story.  Yet of course he completely ignores his own conduct, as Smith in his bubble of self-righteousness often does.  Hey Charlie, if we are going to have a debate about appropriate content, why don’t you include your own exploits into the mix?  I doubt that will ever happen…because self-examination isn’t something that Smith and his holier-than-thou attitude tends to engage in.

• Since it doesn’t seem that any of the local media are too interested in doing any kind of due diligence in their reporting these days – particularly when it comes to stories about City Hall – let me toss out a question that should have been asked from the very beginning: what are the most immediate motivations of the anonymous source that spoke to both Alex Tsakumis and Global television?  That single query might have provided the offending media organization some context and subsequently a pause for concern before giving him a platform void of scrutiny.

• Excuse me while I am dismissive of these statements by former Vision Vancouver Mayoral candidate Allan De Genova.  For a man that was rumoured (but by no means confirmed) to have spent in excess of $300,000 on a campaign that ended with a final total of about 1000 votes cast in his favour, I can understand his frustration.  His daughter of course returned to the NPA to run as a Park Board candidate just weeks after her father’s failed bid, and Allan himself had little to nothing to do with the party since his campaign.  Those two facts seem to confirm my opinion that Vision Vancouver represented little more than a convenient vehicle for De Genova to get back at Sam Sullivan and the NPA, and also to realize the next step in his civic political aspirations after serving for 15 years on the Park Board.  So, to hear De Genova talk about how Vision Vancouver is “about themselves” is kind of ironic.

• An interesting take on the reinvention of George Smitherman in the Toronto Mayoral race, who could be about 6-11 points behind Rob Ford depending on who you listen to.  Talking to Smitherman campaign manager Bruce Davis last week, however, gave me some insight into what the campaign is going up against.  They are looking directly across at a man that is prepared to dismantle the city and make it as bare bones an operation as possible, all on the backs of latent anger against a former Mayor who never quite convinced people that they were getting value for their tax money.  But while Ford has tapped into dissatisfaction, he is also someone that by no stretch of the imagination can be considered a builder with ideas that he wants to bring forward.  Let’s give my old friend Warren Kinsella some credit with his new involvement in the campaign of Rocco Rossi – a man who in recent weeks has released so many press releases articulating policies and ideas, the media can barely keep up.  That being said, Smitherman is truly the only candidate who has the potential to deliver a message based on where he sees the city going and what he wants to bring to the table – and in the process enamour the minds and imaginations of the public.  Time to think big George, and take a shot at making people dream about their city again.  That, as I see it, is the only way you are going to overcome the Rob Ford juggernaut.

• Yesterday’s post was not an attempt to “change the channel” or even to go on the attack to deflect attention away.  Rather, it was a sincere opinion about what the media have devolved into with regards to a whole lot of blind acceptance of political attacks dressed up a as legitimate news.  Journalists like Jeff Lee, Frances Bula and even Gary Mason understand what I am talking about based on their latest commentaries regarding the situation.  There are those, however, who are determined to build their career by throwing as many bombs as they can towards City Hall, without any concern for context, motivations or depth – just as long as it is sexy and scandalous enough to create a scent.  Lazy journalism is lazy journalism, and if the reporter in question thinks that her work is above reproach, good for her.  I and others (including many of her own colleagues) don’t tend to agree.

• The Evergreen line finally seems to have some political will get built.  The bad part about this new urgency is that cash-strapped municipalities are going to have to raise taxes or create new sources of revenue to pay Translink.  I really like the idea of transportation commissioner Martin Crilly to resort to road pricing, though.  High gas prices and new transporation options are having only moderate success in getting people out of their cars.  But if we took real steps to make people pay more to simply be on the road, and then on top of that we attached additional fees based on the amount of people they had in the car (single drivers in empty cars would obviously get dinged more), then we might just see some dramatic behavioural changes as a result.  Because at the end of the day, relying on municipalities, which as I have detailed many times can barely pay for basic services for their own citizens, is not a sustainable solution – unless, of course, the province allows for some more revenue-raising mechanisms for cities.  The likelihood of that happening?  I wouldn’t be holding my breath…at least not under this current provincial government.

• I just got back from Vegas, where the attire of female waitresses would make any Vancouver server blush.  Nonetheless, I think that this case could very well change the industry in this province.  Now, I will say that I believe that free will has a lot to do with where someone works – they choose to apply, the find out the parameters of the job, and then they make an informed decision as to whether they want to stay.  However, it is most definitely discrimination in my opinion if someone is denied shifts or even employment if they choose not to wear a revealing top or short skirt as part of their job.  If the job is serving, and their conduct with customers is top notch, then the amount of skin they show should not have any bearing on their suitability to work at a particular establishment.