March 9, 2010 - 9:06 am |
Posted by Jonathan Ross
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.
Read the rest of this entry »
December 3, 2009 - 12:31 pm |
Posted by Jonathan Ross
A magnificent structure on the Vancouver landscape that has been badly neglected for many successive incarnations of the Park Board.
In observing the opposition to the Park Board’s decision to cut subsidies to the Stanley Park petting zoo and the Bloedel Conservatory in Queen Elizabeth Park, it seems as though the loss of the latter is a lot more painful for those interested parties.
And why not. The historic Bloedel Conservatory was constructed in 1969 as a result of Seattle-based lumber magnate and avid art collector Prentice Bloedel, who made a substantial contribution that transformed an abandoned basalt quarry into a magnificently sculpted public-use plaza with an intriguing, futuristic (at the time) centrepiece. The conservatory came together through a 1967 City of Vancouver Canadian Centennial project that evolved and took on a life of its own.
The plexiglass paneled geodesic dome is home to hundreds of varieties of tropical trees, shrubs and flowers as well as pathways, water features and animals, including over 100 species of birds who call the dome home.
But with a crack in the famed dome, this structure is not only in need of a new marketing plan as some have suggested.
On top of this dramatic structural damage, 80 plexiglass bubbles on the roof are also in desperate need of replacement.
A new roof for the heritage-protected building is expected to cost an astounding $1.5 to $2-million.
But if we look into the past, it is easy to understand how we have ended up with the conservatory’s current sorry state.
Read the rest of this entry »
December 2, 2009 - 9:33 am |
Posted by Jonathan Ross
Jerry Maguire still has the key line for Suzanne Anton and Ian Robertson.
So, two comments took me to task yesterday for my post about the Anton/Robertson claims about donors who have stepped forward for the Stanley Park petting zoo and the Bloedel Conservatory, but have allegedly been refused.
The always vulgar and imbalanced John Hinckley (sound familiar, civic watchers?) won’t get any play on this website…maybe he should try the likes of other sites that emanate from crazy town (and provide a soundtrack about the journey to go along with it). But cw brought forth the name Josef Wosk of the philanthropic Wosk family, as one individual who has offered $100,000 over four years, a detail that I was aware of but failed to put in the post.
So, point taken.
But let’s take a second to go over the math and the timelines.
Read the rest of this entry »
December 1, 2009 - 2:40 pm |
Posted by Jonathan Ross
Show me the money!
I scoff at lone NPA councillor Suzanne Anton and lone NPA Park Board Commissioner Ian Robertson talking about”offers from concerned citizens” or “private donor…offer[ing] $100,000” with regards to the decision to stop subsidies to the Stanley Park petting zoo and the Bloedel Conservatory.
Where are these mysterious donors? Why not bring them forward, or at least the cash for someone who wishes to remain anonymous, and back up your words?
Oh yeah…and one more question:
Why would either institution turn such a contribution down if the money was being offered?
These are the kinds of empty attacks that ring false.
Read the rest of this entry »
