I would like to offer some general reactions to the just released Justason Market Intelligence poll.

First of all, you have got to be kidding me with this:

If Frances Bula is correct and the NPA is indeed “looking to prove, desperately these days,” that “potential NPA candidates,…have a fighting chance to beat Vision Vancouver,” then I think that by all means they should continue to use these results, and this question in particular, as their enticement.

Never mind the general public – there is a significant number of NPA supporters and members that don’t consider Suzanne Anton a viable candidate.

Furthermore, I just made a call to a few members of the Vision executive who have assured me that the internal polling that they are seeing tells a far different story.

I am no pollster, so I am in position to decipher whether the Justason poll is more accurate than any other.

But I do know this – Vision brass and decision makers are salivating at the chance to run Gregor Robertson head to head against Suzanne Anton.

If this “statistical tie” that is described by Justason and breathlessly promoted by City Caucus is the star that the NPA landscape is pinning their hopes on, then the next election will be a fun one for those working to secure another Vision Vancouver victory.

With regards to some of the other Justason findings, there are few points that need to be made for context.

The poll states that “disapproval now stands at 57% for the municipal government’s handling of Olympic Village (up 14 points from 43% since August).  More than one-in three (37%) now “strongly” disapprove.”

But this poll was taken between November 12-18, which does not fully take into account the fact that the OV has now been put into receivership through Ernst & Young – a move that was roundly seen as positive across the city.

Couple this new sense of control and stability with a new strategy from master real  estate marketer Bob Rennie, and things are looking up.

Furthermore, if the NPA thinks that fighting the election the Olympic Village is a good strategy, once again, then I fully support them going down that path.

The origins of the Olympic Village fiasco goes back to how the developer was selected and how the parameters for completion were structured – two factors that are directly attributable to the NPA reign of error under former Mayor Sam Sullivan and former City Manager Judy Rogers.

The Olympic Village is a tough issue, but I would be interested in seeing what the chattering classes are saying come next summer, where the landscape of real estate purchasing and the ability for the City to recover all of its money could have improved exponentially.

Once again, Suzanne Anton as a Mayoral candidate, criticizing the Vision Council for decisions she and her colleagues made when her party was in power, is a dream scenario for Gregor Robertson and his team.

I think that polls like this one, or the one released over the weekend by Christy Clark supporters, need to be taken for what they are – a political tool designed to achieve a particular outcome.  In the case of Christy, showing that she is the only person who can win an election for the BC Liberals, and in the case of Justason, showing that the NPA is really in the game when it comes to political viability.

This isn’t to say that the poll is without merit.  It is only to suggest that different polls done by different pollsters are telling a very different story with very similar questions.

Maybe someone can explain exactly how that works within the realm of “random” samples.

So as I try and get a lesson about the ins and outs of proper polling, I am not going to pay too much attention to a poll that has produced results that seem to have come straight out of the wish list of Vision Vancouver’s top strategic minds.

Neither will they as they try to contain their expressions of glee, I suspect.

The writing is on the wall when it comes to Vancouver's reaction to the ever-emerging biking infrastructure, prompting a new strategy from the City Caucus boys.

The reactions to the Hornby bike lane as well as the other pieces of Vancouver’s biking infrastructure has been overwhelmingl positive save for those with a political axe to grind against the current Council.

Yesterday as an example, I was introduced to a gentleman who is an investment banker and a true power broker in the city, who after being challenged to get going by his kids, hopped on a bike last year for the first time in decades and hasn’t looked back.  He has become an advocate amongst his kin within the business community, and has taken out a Vision Vancouver membership because of the initiatives that are being undertaken by the party.

The so-called controversial t-shirts are selling like hotcakes, people are really starting to reconsider their transportation options around town, and there is a new sense of peace between drivers and bikers who are no longer in each others faces to some extent.

So seeing this, and seeing that the NPA has actually come out and embraced bike lanes as a concept, the City Caucus boys changed their tactics of attack.

Remember posts like this?  Or this?  Or even this?

Well, don’t expect to see them anytime soon, for a number of reasons:

1. The NPA is now stating publicly that they support bike lanes, and will in fact build more if elected next term (both current Mayoral candidate hopefuls Suzanne Anton and Ian Robertson were both publicly offering favourable comments at last night’s dinner)
2. Mike Klassen is still rumoured to be interested in an NPA City Council nomination, meaning that if that scenario happens, he will soon be forced to defend the concept of bike lanes
3. Bike lanes are far more popular than the City Caucus boys would have you believe, and now they are beginning to understand that

So, what do we get instead now that some gears have been switched? (pun intended)

These kinds of City Caucus tweets from yesterday:

“In 2007 NPA planned to add more KMs of official bike routes than previous eight years combined http://bit.ly/dC8gxI – Van Sun”

“Vancouver Area Cycling coalition once praised NPA for supporting cycling infrastructure including bike lanes http://bit.ly/dC8gxI

Funny how now the NPA’s history of support for bike lanes (with no action when in office, I might add) is now a feather in their electoral caps.

For context on these claims, however, I reference these three articles from 2005

“NPA promises not to close lanes on Burrard Bridge: Council’s plan to convert two lanes into bike lanes is folly, Sullivan says
Vancouver Sun
Tue Nov 8  2005
Page: B5
Section: Westcoast News
Byline: Jeff Lee
Source: Vancouver Sun

The Non-Partisan Association pledged Monday to kill a controversial plan to turn two of six lanes on Burrard Bridge into bicycle lanes.

During the morning rush hour, about 50 supporters of the NPA congregated at the south end of the bridge and in the median to draw attention to the plan, which they said would dramatically increase congestion.

NPA mayoral candidate Sam Sullivan said that if his party gains power on Nov. 19, it would cancel council’s plans to temporarily close the lanes while city engineers develop two alternative plans for extra pedestrian and cycling lanes.

One of those plans calls for “wings” to be built on the outside of the bridge decks to give pedestrians and cyclists more room. The plan, estimated to cost $13 million, has raised concerns from heritage buffs, as Burrard Bridge is one of the few art-deco design bridges left in North America.

The other plan, to build another deck slung under the bridge, is estimated to cost $15 million. However, it might not be approved by Transport Canada because of the impact on boat traffic.

In late July, council voted 10-1, with Sullivan opposed, to experimentally close the two lanes for cyclists for one year starting next April.

The closure would give engineers time to develop the alternative plans.

But council agreed if the lane closures didn’t overly interfere with traffic, the city could abandon the other plans and save taxpayers millions of dollars.

Peter Ladner, an NPA councillor, initially supported the temporary closure, but later changed his mind in the face of heavy criticism from drivers.

On Monday, Sullivan said it would be folly to narrow the six-lane bridge to four lanes for cars.

“The people who will suffer won’t really be the drivers. They’ll just find another bridge to cross over. The people who will suffer will be the bus riders who will find themselves stuck in traffic,” Sullivan said.

A six-day trial closure of just one lane in 1996 was a disaster, he said, resulting in traffic headed downtown being backed up along Point Grey Road and up to 16th Avenue.

Sullivan said he favours building walkways on the outside of the bridge, and an NPA council would proceed with that without any closures.

But Jim Green, the Vision Vancouver mayoral candidate, said that would be a waste of money and also destroy the bridge’s heritage value.

He said he favours a pedestrian deck slung under the main deck, but pledged a Vision-powered council would hold full public hearings into any plans to modify the bridge.”

Councillor changes mind on bridge bike lanes: Peter Ladner says public opposition led him to oppose Burrard plan

Vancouver Sun
Wed Aug 10  2005
Page: B1 / FRONT
Section: Westcoast News
Byline: Kim Bolan
Dateline: VANCOUVER
Source: Vancouver Sun

VANCOUVER – Vancouver City Councillor Peter Ladner is back-pedalling on his support for experimental bike lanes on the Burrard Bridge.

Less than a month after voting in favour of the experiment to convert car lanes into two bike lanes for a trial period, Ladner issued a news release Tuesday reversing his position. (EDITOR’S NOTE: Sound familiar?)

Ladner, of the Non-Partisan Association, said his change of heart was prompted by widespread public opposition to the idea. He accused councillors from the Coalition of Progressive Electors of “pitting environmentalists and cyclists against the car-driving public.”

Ladner told The Vancouver Sun July 20 that the bike lane experiment was “an exercise in fiscal prudence” because it could save the estimated $13.5 million cost of widening the bridge sidewalks for bikes.

But in an interview Tuesday Ladner said he has not had much luck in swaying public opinion his way on the bike lane proposal, so he decided to change sides.

“I made what I thought was a pretty determined attempt to get people to understand it, but the public understanding was not at all in tune with what I was thinking when I made the decision,” he said.

Councillor Jim Green, of Vision Vancouver, said the waffling is typical of Ladner, who claims he wants to save the city money and then opts for the most expensive plan.

“It is unfortunate that he does these things quite often,” Green said. “He got a couple of e-mails, so now he is going to change his position. So I guess now he is in favour of spending $13.5 million. He is the one who is always complaining about the money that is being spent.”

Practically speaking, Ladner’s new position won’t do anything to stop the trial because he does not have enough support to get a vote of reconsideration. The vote for the bike paths last month was 9-1, with Ladner splitting from his NPA colleague Sam Sullivan. But if the composition of council changes after November’s civic election, the trial, due to begin in April, could be abandoned, which worries Richard Campbell, of the group Better Environmentally Sound Transport.

Campbell said the whole point of the experiment is to end the debate between motorists and cyclists by seeing if the bike lane proposal could work.

“We think it was a really bold, visionary decision in the first place and it is worth giving the trial an opportunity to work. It is really the only way to settle the debate,” Campbell said. “Until we actually see what is going to happen, nobody knows who is right.”

Ladner said he has not done any polling to get data on the numbers who oppose the experiment, but he senses most people don’t want it to go ahead.

“That was the point of having a trial, but it is quite clear that there are a whole lot of people who don’t have any appetite for that trial and cannot get their heads around any possible outcome from the trial,” Ladner said.

Council kills Burrard bike-lanes trial  Fear of traffic tie-ups leads to scrapping of controversial plan for Vancouver bridge
The Globe And Mail
Wed Dec 21  2005
Page: S4
Section: British Columbia News
Byline: Rod Mickleburgh
Dateline: VANCOUVER

VANCOUVER  – Mayor Sam Sullivan and his slim majority of newly elected city councillors began dismantling past council decisions yesterday by killing the planned trial of bike lanes on the Burrard Bridge.

Despite objections that the reversal was being rammed through just before Christmas without further public consultation, council voted 6-4 to halt the controversial experiment, which was to be launched next April.

With that out of the way, after nearly six hours of delegations and debate, council moved immediately to reconsider another key past decision: the mix of social housing in the landmark southeast False Creek development, destined to be the athletes’ village for the 2010 Winter Olympics.

Mr. Sullivan wants to reduce the number of social-housing units in the ambitious megaproject on the shores of False Creek, hailed as a model of sustainable “green” development and public use of space.

The mayor campaigned against the previous council’s decision to earmark one- third of the proposed units for low-income earners, one-third for those in the middle-income bracket, and one-third for market housing. Such a mix is not economical, Mr. Sullivan argued.

Many speakers urged council not to tamper with the original vision.

John Irwin, co-ordinator of the Southeast False Creek Working Group since 1999, noted that the number of homeless in the city has doubled in just a few years.

“This project is an investment in the future,” he said. “Is there some sense that homelessness is a cheap way of dealing with social housing, when actually it costs less money to house people than allow them to live on the street?

“Please, do not cut that one-third for social housing,” Mr. Irwin said of the last land available for housing on the city’s inner harbour.

Debate on the contentious issue continued late into the evening.

Earlier, there was no budging on council’s determination to choke off the plan to turn two lanes of the busy Burrard Bridge over to cyclists.

Mr. Sullivan and his conservative NPA party, which secured a one-seat majority on city council, strongly opposed the idea during the recent election campaign.

Critics contended that the move — even for a one-year trial — would cause economically damaging traffic tie-ups.

Nearly 30 proponents, however, spoke in favour of the idea at the lengthy council meeting, countering that the move would have been a brave, visionary decision in the spirit of the Kyoto Protocol on the environment.

One began singing Joni Mitchell’s well-known song  Big Yellow Taxi . “They paved paradise and they put up . . . something,” she sang.

Charles Gautier of the Downtown Businessmen’s Association was the only speaker in favour of keeping all six lanes for motorists. “This is a major artery and we need to be able to move goods efficiently to and from downtown.”

If the trial had worked, it would have saved the city $13.5-million, which will now be needed to widen the sidewalks of the 73-year-old bridge to make them safer for cyclists.

Among those agreeing to quash the bike lane experiment was NPA councillor Peter Ladner, who originally supported the idea last summer, calling it “fiscal prudence” to try to save the $13.5-million. Three weeks later, Mr. Ladner changed his mind, saying he believed that there was too much opposition for the plan to proceed.

Councillor Tim Stevenson of the rival Vision Vancouver party called for more public consultation before locking council in to an “irreversible” decision to never give the bike lanes a shot and possibly save millions of dollars.

“I don’t think it serves democracy to ram this thing through.”

But Councillor Suzanne Anton of the NPA said there had just been an election on the issue.

“The point is: there was public discussion. People voted for us because of that [opposing the bike lanes],” Ms. Anton said.

“It’s not pig-headedness. A lot of energy has gone into this process and we should make a decision now.”

So let’s recap:

• Suzanne Anton voted in favour of the Hornby bike lane, only to withdraw that support a day later
• Suzanne Anton is now telling her NPA membership that an NPA council in 2011 would proceed on building more bike lanes
• In 2005, the NPA campaigned on and eventually proceeded to kill the Burrard Bridge bike lane trial
• Peter Ladner, who broke ranks with his party, also decided to reverse his vote due to pressure from drivers
• Sam Sullivan admits that drivers would not be negatively impacted by the bike lane, yet still whips his majority on Council to kill the trial
• Media reports classify the manner in which the NPA’s made the decision to kill the Burrard Street bike lane as being “rammed through just before Christmas without further public consultation,” yet now they now claim that Vision is pushing through a bike lane without consultation and that is the reason they have a problem with the initiative

I guess in conclusion, I have one piece of advice for the NPA, who seem to be confused if I am being generous with my description:

Make up your damn minds.

Frances Bula's piece on Mike Magee is certainly garnering reactions across the spectrum.

Yesterday I wrote about how Frances Bula’s piece on Mike Magee, Gregor Robertson’s Chief of Staff, provided broader context on a group of individuals and their beliefs that those of just one man.  Namely, that those that have surrounded the Mayor in his journey into the political realm are grounded in a foundational desire to initiate positive change to their community.

And today, two further reactions to Bula’s piece.

The first is a predictable damnation of Magee and what he represents by the self-appointed leader of the opposition, and potential City Council contender for the NPA, Mike Klassen.   Klassen seems to have written the piece in defense of his website partner Daniel Fontaine, who was once former Mayor Sam Sullivan’s Chief of Staff.  He angrily mentions Vancouver Magazine’s Power 50 and Magee’s placement on the list at #17, forwarding his ridiculous belief that “list was created with Magee’s help.”

This is of course a lash out for the fact that Fontaine while in the same position never once made the list.  Ironically enough, he likens Magee’s decision to give Bula access a “Citizen Sam-esque miscalculation,” in spite of the fact that that miscalculation occurred around the time that Fontaine was guiding Sullivan’s political ship and Klassen himself was a consultant for the former Mayor.

Klassen desperately tries to point out the flaws in the man, when in essence he is only able to do so after Magee hid nothing from Bula when providing that access.  He is who he is, and does the job he does, without attempting to hold back on any of the warts in the landscape of his persona.  Exactly what an expose is supposed to do.

It is a desperate attempt at trying to create negative traction over a man who is more respected and liked by a variety of disparate communities across the city than any other Mayoral Chief of Staff in recent memory.

On the other end of the spectrum is a short and sweet writeup by former Vision Vancouver Campaign Manager Ian Reid, who is obiviously a lot more favourable.

Ian’s piece doesn’t have a lot of depth par se, nor is it surprising that it is so favourable by contrast.  However, it does ring true to anyone who knows Magee.  He is kind, yet tough, brilliant yet open to suggestions, and laid back and calm in the height of tension.

Bula’s piece isn’t about Magee guiding the Vision agenda.  Rather, it is a window into a man who acts as the ultimate facilitator for an ambitious slate of ideas and initiatives and has the skills, temerity and know-how to give it a real shot of becoming public policy.

Petty politics aside, someone who gives a shit about what they are doing based on belief and altruism, and who also has the capabilities to thrive in the role, is a Chief of Staff that is intriguing.  That is why Bula’s piece is such an entertaining read.

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.