Laments about New Year's Eve celebrations were bound to be negative regardless of what direction the City of Vancouver decided to move towards.

Happy New Year to everyone.  The site experienced some technical difficulties to start the year, but is now back and functional, with a site redesign in the works.

This story referred to in this letter made the rounds on several newscasts, blogs and publications around the city to end the year.  “Vancouver is a no-fun city…Vancouver isn’t world class…Vancouver is not capitalizing on the party spirit left over from the Olympics…City Hall has shown no leadership in getting people excited”…and on it went.

The fact of the matter is that it really didn’t matter what the City of Vancouver decided to do on New Year’s Eve…because it was inevitable that criticism would follow.

Let’s look at the alternative scenario, where tens of thousands of dollars (or more) were laid out for a big public event.  Now in spite of the fact that Vancouver seemed to grow up during the Olympics with regards to our public displays of celebration, I also think that New Year’s is a mixed bag, and that without the benefit of a big name headlining act, a public gathering would be hard pressed to attract even 5000 people.

If that had happened, the City would have been crucified for spending money on an event that a) we can’t afford due to the budget process we just went through b) didn’t have nearly enough people show up to and c) would have been classified as a way for the current Vision administration to buy people’s votes.

Yes, I am absolutely speculating on the storylines that might have played out, but I am also getting a sense that this coming election year will be an 11 month opportunity (up until the next election) for the local media, commentators and political opponents to heave criticism and scorn onto Gregor Robertson et. al, regardless of what they do.

The latest example of this previous to the manufactured stories about Vancouver’s New Year’s Eve celebrations was the latest post about poor little Stuart Mackinnon by the Georgia Straight’s Charlie Smith.

Anyone who has watch Mackinnon in action knows that he is a passive aggressive character that espouses an air of superiority, particularly when it comes to his fellow Park Board colleagues.

The fact that Mackinnon was cooperating with Ian Robertson when it is clear that their ideology about parks and recreation around the city are completely different on so many major issues has never been questioned as it should be – namely that it is a partnership borne out of political convenience rather than conviction.

But once again, the slant is that the Vision Vancouver Commissioners are trying to intimidate and bully the poor, defenseless Green party representative who has a passion for the work and a heart of gold about his intentions.

Excuse me while I gag.

These kinds of stories seem like a precursor to what is about to come over the next year.  Vision Vancouver began as a juggernaut, and has had a relatively successful couple of years in office.  The local media don’t seem to like that – Sam Sullivan was an easy whipping boy for them, but Robertson isn’t in the same category, further angering a group of journalists that feeds off of false controversy and manufactured outrage.

Has the Vision administration been perfect in its strategies with regards to the media and some of its initiatives?  Far from it.  There are number of political decisions and subsequent actions for which they have had to pay for.

But to have a group of reporters that seem hell bent on finding those chinks in the armour of Robertson and his team seems completely out of line.

A new slate has been established for many in this year of 2011…maybe the the powers that be within the local media should wipe each of theirs clean and take a different approach in their coverage of the civic political scene in Vancouver.

• Apparently Suzanne Anton’s motion from yesterday became a non-issue that got her pretty riled up as a result of a) Councillor Geoff Meggs speaking to the motion and voicing Vision Vancouver caucus support for the release of any and all documents related to the Mayor’s office expenses b) the fact that Anton’s own scrutiny for disclosure both with regards to her own donor list as well as the practices of former Mayor Sam Sullivan’s office is both suspect and selective and c) the requests calling for an investigation into a private contract that has absolutely nothing to do with the City of Vancouver is ridiculous, and was greeted as such.  I certainly hope for the NPA’s sake that future Anton motions have a little more to do with the ideas and policies that the party will try to promote in the lead-up to the next election.

• No more attacks Charlie.  You do what you do, and I am going to continue to do what I do.  But, I would be very interested to sit down one day soon, clear the air, and find out the logic and motivation behind these two blog entries.  Because sincerely, maybe my radar is clearly unaware of what constitutes journalistic quality when it comes to standards, practices and content these days.  A chat over a coffee is definitely something I am open to.

• I think that Jon Ferry makes some very valid points about the conduct of cyclists in Vancouver and the lack of enforcement when it comes to the way in which they conduct themselves on the road.  And as you can see from the column, you aren’t going to get much argument on that front from Councillor Geoff Meggs, who I would say is one of the galvanizing forces when it comes to planning out the biking infrastructure being constructed across the city.  But there is little doubt that giving cyclists safer and less obstructive options when it comes to encountering traffic does indeed lessen tensions between drivers and their two-wheeled counterparts.  And to create and subsequently maintain the kind of peace that this experiment aims to create, cyclists need to understand that they must uphold their end of the bargain.  Because at the end of the day, success for the bike lane trials and the other initiatives designed to make cycling easier and safer for people, will largely hinge upon the way in which people view those that accommodations are being made for.  Now, if the yahoos behind this monthly monstrocity are the people that the public view as the ones we are giving up our streets for, then any hopes for positive public support should be tossed out the window now.

• So the Bloedel Conservatory is saved, while the Stanley Park Farmyard/Petting Zoo is getting axed.  This is strictly a business decision, as the Bloedel has some strong partners with a defined business plan in the form of the Friends of the Bloedel Association and the VanDusen Botanical Garden Association.  It is about time that this attraction gets the proper planning/marketing expertise that it deserves – the kind of support that would make it a self-sustaining entity.   The farmyard, on the other hand, had no expressions of interest come forward from the private sectorto transform the attraction into one that isn’t such a drain on the taxpayer – $250,000 a year.  Although beloved, that kind of a subsidy for the petting zoo could go to some food security programs or community centre improvements that would have much more of a beneficial impact to the community as a whole.

• Rob Ford’s plans for finding savings at City Hall are finally starting to be revealed – albeit reluctantly.  Here’s the question from the above-linked article that struck me the most: ”
  Asked yes or no on several planned projects, including further waterfront redevelopment, his answer was blunt: “We don’t have the money.” That’s refreshing, and it’s true. But is that what Torontonians really want, or do they just like the idea of kicking David Miller in the rear end?”  Because from the budget process that the City of Vancouver went through last year, it can be determined that regardless of who you are, and where you stand in terms of polling and personal popularity, these kinds of cuts to staff, services and programs is not easy to initiate and carry through for a Mayor the size of these two cities.  There are many questions about Rob Ford’s “charm” that will rear their ugly heads quickly as the realities of the job hit him square in the gut after what is looking like an inevitable election win.

• I got some pretty passionate and at time venomous emails from some COPE members over yesterday’s post, which as I read it over again seems pretty innocuous to me.  Their beef?  The fact that I would suggest that the only way their electeds would have a shot next time around would be to maintain an electoral deal with Vision Vancouver – leading me to conclude that they were Tim Louis diehards that are still smarting over the 2004 splitting of the parties.  To those that sent along their messages, let me say that there was no venom intended against your party.  Rather, I was only offering an observation and dare I say a hope that COPE and Vision Vancouver can continue to cooperate, if for nothing else to maintain a progressive majority (and I include the COPE and Green caucuses in that description) at City Hall.

• Yes, we have heard of the internal documents at City Hall that seemed to indicate dissatisfaction with the working environment and the overall morale of city employees.  So, to see that this kind of a survey is now being conducted seems like a really strong step forward, and the fact that the city unions are supportive makes the process even more legitimate in terms of content and potential corrective actions.  There has been great change at City Hall over the past two years – that is a statement that no one is going to argue with.  And, with significant organizational change comes blowback of varying degrees – this is something that is quite normal.  But moving forward, the sentiment behind reaching out to employees to seek out opinions shows not only a willingness to listen, but more realistically, an understanding that widespread malcontent can lead to gridlock when it comes to advancing an agenda.  City Manager Penny Ballem is a smart woman, and is not going to let frustrations and grievances bubble to the surface of her organization so that policy and administrative paralysis can occur.

Ok folks, that’s it for now.  If you can enjoy the sunshine on this, the first day of fall, then go out and live it up – it is beautiful out there.

• 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.