• The CityCaucus are up in arms about “keeping the Mayor’s office website distinct from the City’s.”  They claim that “city’s website has been used to continually shill for Mayor Robertson.”  But similar links from other cities’ websites do the exact same thing – Calgary, being just one of many examples.  There is not one mention of anything political on that website – mention Vision Vancouver doesn’t appear anywhere.  So to accused such a site of being used to “politick” is ridiculous, and just another empty allegation from a potential future City Council candidate and possibly his future campaign manager.

• Alex Tsakumis stated this about George Chow at the end of one of his most recent blog posts: “Nice thing, being able to count on your ethnic vote every three years, eh Georgie?”  This statement seems to imply that the ethnic vote is is all the George relies on to get elected every term, which is not only completely false, but also quite offensive.  In spite of Alex’s taunts about George’s intelligence, sarcastically referring to him as a “MENSA candidate” and calling him a “useless nit,” they don’t at all match up with a man who is an engineer by profession and one of the most pragmatic, level-headed individuals elected to Council in recent memory.  Tsakumis’ continuing trend of making culturally insensitive remarks is piling up, giving people a deeper window into the man behind the bluster.

• Speaking of Tsakumis, I stumbled on the following comment from Frances Bula’s blog, and I thought it to be quite funny in light of recent developments: “24hrs. is a FIRST CLASS operation and I’m sure I speak for my highly respected colleague, Bill, when I say that it’s a pleasure to work there. On behalf of our editor and publisher, thanks for the employment suggestions, but neither of us is going to be fired and the reason we have two of the most popular and most read columns in the city is precisely because we are impartial and fair. 24hrs has almost a quarter of a million readers per day and ranks in B.C. only behind the Sun and Province in daily readership…and our trendline has always been on the up…”  I wonder if he still has the same opinions today about his former employer today…

• The NIMBY’s in the west end who are up in arms about the proposed STIR development in their neighbourhood might have a lot of names on a petition, but by no means are united in the reasons behind their opposition.  Some hate the developers and development in general, some feel that the height is too much, even though it would be on par with other buildings in the area, some feel attached to the church, and some just don’t think that the element that would be coming into the area would be desirable (a silly perception of what kind of renters would be attracted to such a building, but that is how myths turn into reality in a neighbourhood war like this).  Anyways, this is yet another example of how the few mobilize, and turn a program that has real benefit to the city and demonizes it.  City Council had better be prepared to have some open and honest consultations with this group, but hopefully won’t abandon a very worthwhile program for a city of Vancouver’s expense.

• This if probably worthy of a larger post, but where is COPE on City Council these days?  Ellen Woodsworth and David Cadman are nowhere on the public radar, as opposed to Jane Bouey on the School Board and Loretta Woodcock on the Park Board, who have both been excellent in their roles.  Woodsworth and Cadman (when he bothers to show up) have been silent in terms of advancing any causes, and yet I hear that COPE administrators are trying to demand more than 2 spots if a deal with Vision Vancouver can be agreed to.  So you have two under-performing Councillors who will have a very hard time getting elected next time around (particularly with the sorry state the party is in these days, both financially and organizationally), and now you want more guaranteed spots in an electoral arrangement?  These guys are delusional, and possibly heading the way of the NPA if they don’t get their act together.

• The Montreal hockey fans really disappointed me amidst my utter elation at the fact that my beloved Habs are moving into the third round of the playoffs.  Although, as was pointed out by CBC’s Mark Kelley yesterday, Montreal has a history or riots over politics, culture or sports, so it wasn’t entirely a surprise (they had Rejean Houle come on with a recorded statement in the Bell Centre asking people to show class and respect in their celebrations).  But what I found even more upsetting was the site of Minister of Heritage James “I”m eating crow now” Moore wearing a Habs jersey.  After labeling the Canucks “Canada’s Team” a few weeks back in a ill-thought out tweet, I get no joy in seeing that XXL sized jersey being worn by someone who clearly has no context about hockey history.  Let’s hope he hasn’t jinxed what can now be officially classified as “Canada’s Team” in the next series.

That’s it for today folks.  Enjoy the beautiful weather out there.

COPE and Vision Vancouver sang and danced together in 2008, but will their tryst continue in the 2011 electoral campaign?

The recent utterings of hypocrisy by Councillor Ellen Woodsworth and Councillor David Cadman have got me thinking about the electoral cooperation that COPE and Vision Vancouver successfully exercised in the 2008 civic election.

(On a side note, I will be very interested to see how many events Councillor Woodsworth actually attended during the Olympics, as the rumour is that she was frantically asking for tickets to any event she could possibly insert herself into – regardless of comments by her colleague Councillor Cadman about said tickets being “a perk of position.”)

The deal between COPE and Vision currently remains in limbo, as both sides seem to be content to let things be ironed out at the last minute, as was the case in 2008.

Here are the strategic considerations for both sides to consider in a conversation that would be wise to have sooner rather than later.

The most obvious difference between then and now is the fact that there isn’t a united opposition – namely the NPA – that both parties can rally together to attack and attempt to defeat.

Vision Vancouver must now defend its record in office, while COPE will try and hitch its electoral fortunes on the Gregor Robertson bandwagon (which, when considering current polling, is an enviable mode of transportation these days).

Vision Vancouver had monumental success in the last election by securing 8 of 11 seats on City Council, 4 members on the Park Board and 4 members on the School Board.

Yet regardless of how well any administration is doing, maintaining such a majority is always a difficult task.

I would venture to say that the Robertson is relatively safe should he decide to run again, to the point where other parties will likely be hard pressed in their search for an opposing candidate.

This then leaves the Vision incumbents, who like most candidates or incumbents from Vancouver’s electoral past, will still be largely dependent on the coattails of the Mayor.

When you break down the numbers, however, maintaining their dominance is still going to be challenging, even with Robertson as an anchor.

Examining the results from 2008 indicates the strength of candidates like Michael Geller as a first-timer.  If you assume that the NPA gets organized enough to capture even a smidgen of its past glory (a very tough leap of faith to make these days after the decimation of the party and the subsequent lack of effort since), the association could conceivably provide company for Ian Robertson on the Park Board add even add another Councillor or two to join Suzanne Anton.

So to counteract this potential resurrection, Vision Vancouver has two options.

The first is to maintain electoral cooperation, which would once again ensure two Council spots and no mayoral candidate for COPE.

The second is to go it alone, run 10 candidates under the Vision banner, and likely face a three-way mayoral race.

As much as I hate to admit it, my previous inclination towards going it alone doesn’t make strategic sense for either party.

Serving as the top dog for three years inevitably places a big “X” on the forehead of every single Vision candidate come next election.  COPE’s performances, on the other hand, have embodied the word obscurity thus far.

So for this reason, Vision would be well placed to avoid attacks from COPE candidates, while COPE would be very happy to leech the spotlight as a result of their association with Vision.

Now while this kind of a deal might lead to peace within the context of an election campaign, it is going to present huge internal problems for both sides.

COPE and its hardliners (which from what I can tell still dominate the party) will rally against political pragmatism in favour of representing full slates of candidates, regardless of whether that translates into success or not.

Vision, on the other hand, will be overwhelmed by the kind of interest it receives from new potential candidates who are intrigued by the prospect of running under one of the most successful political brands in Vancouver’s civic history.

This then brings forth the question of whether incumbents will be protected internally when it comes to nomination battles.

Assuming that this is the case (because forcing electeds to go through the destructive and all consuming process of the Vision nomination races would be sheer idiocy), a deal with COPE would ensure that only one spot would be open for new blood.

With the exception of George Chow, who has indicated in the past that he might consider leaving politics to relax and work on his roof, I can’t see any of the Councillors even contemplating leaving the political realm.  The Park Board for all of its challenges in the first year is likely in limbo, and so there might be some open spots there.  And as for the School Board, Patti Bacchus and her caucus are so tight and involved in the issues that I can’t see anyone going anywhere.

So can Vision Vancouver risk limiting the choices of its membership and alienating those looking for open nomination battles in favour of campaign peace?  That is very hard to say at this point, although is likely to be discussed more heavily in the weeks before the upcoming AGM.

To a certain extent, the same dilemma can be attributed to COPE, although in consideration of the performances of Woodsworth and Cadman on Council to this point, a house cleaning might be the best thing that the party could do for its future (Loretta Woodcock on the Park Board has been fantastic and should go nowhere).

The new Vision executive will inevitably be forced to out their opinions on the proposed cooperation long in advance of the AGM, and thus we might very well get a clear indication of where the party is headed long before their names become official.

It seems as though some very interesting consideration and negotiations are ahead for both Vision and COPE.

And for the NPA?  Let’s just say they have a long road ahead.

Anton is tackling the important issues at City Hall

It is so refreshing to finally have a City Councillor tackling the tough issues at City Hall.

Kerry Jang? Well he has been tied up with petty issues like finding shelter for the homeless and negotiating with the provincial government to secure funding for affordable housing. Geoff Meggs? He is the point person for Council on the Olympics, filling his time with trivial matters like renegotiating the financing for the Olympic Village so that taxpayers save $90 million. Andrea Reimer? She is tasked with shepherding the implementation of the Greenest City Action Team’s detailed 10-year plan entitled Vancouver 2020: A Bright Green Future, which in this administration is clearly an unimportant set of responsibilities that will have little to no impact on the City of Vancouver.

Thank God for lone NPA Councillor Suzanne Anton, who is clearly on a roll and continuing her string of superstar performances with this motion, which will be brought forward at today’s Council meeting.

Finally someone is taking a stand against City Hall’s community garden, which is currently attracting unsavoury figures performing illicit acts like:

• A grade 4/5 class from Simon Fraser elementary using a plot to grow wheat so they can bake their own bread
• The Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House growing food on their plot which is then donated to their seniors’ lunch program
• First Nations elders gardening for recreation on their plot
  
• People that use wheelchairs or have limited mobility taking up six plots to keep active within their community

And why should we as taxpayers pay a one-time cost of $25,000 to create a community garden that will benefit a number of community groups and organizations for decades to come? We should not be fooled by the arrangement the City has struck with Evergreen, a not-for-profit organization that aims to make cities more livable, which has offered to manage the community garden for free, in perpetuity. Somewhere down the line, this nearly 20-year charity with “a mandate to bring nature to our cities through naturalization projects” is bound to try and milk the arrangement by demanding funds by way of extortion.

And Anton is absolutely correct…why should we as taxpayers pay for such a community benefit when the Mayor can take it out of his own budget?

Come to think of it, the same should apply to Councillors like George Chow every time he fights to make investments in Chinatown to preserve its historic heritage. George should be taking those kind of expenses out of his own office budget. You can have a desk and an administrative assistant, or you can make improvements to the community where you grew up, but you cannot have both, Mr. Chow.

Quotes like this from Chow:

“City Hall should be the facilitator to bring long-lasting policy to help this community to sustain itself”

are just ridiculous. We as taxpayers should not be paying for things to sustain our community.

So let me again offer my sincere praise for the vision and conviction of Suzanne Anton.

Let me join in with Anton in advising the kids, the senior citizens and the wheelchair bound citizens to go and grow their food elsewhere.

For $25,000, you’re just not worth it.