• Today’s editorial in the Vancouver Sun is an endorsement for politicians who pay attention to shifting circumstances while incorporating public input into the process of monitoring decisions.  Subsidizing the Bloedel Conservatory to the tune of $250,000/year was clearly not sustainable with the budgetary cutbacks that all city departments faced this past fall.  But with viable partner like VanDusen Gardens, and a little marketing/business acumen, Bloedel can once again become an attraction with revenues that allow for self sustenance.  As the Sun correctly points, out, taking a position, and then revising it according to reality rather than ideology, is a sign of political strength and confidence, not weakness.

• Can anyone else see this story turning into a good ‘ole Texas BBQ?

• Hmmm…another Vancouver resident (from Dunbar, no less) who doesn’t want anything to do with housing innovation based on “issues ranging from scale, massing and privacy to noise, parking and impact on market values”???  What a shock.  I am getting really sick and tired of these attitudes, and will be writing more about this in the coming weeks.  Come on Vancouver – does anyone care about anything outside of their tunnel-vision neighbourhood purview?

• The Park Board awarded a contract for the refurbishing of the Stanley Park Seawall, and the contract winning bid had a plan to save $45,000 in costs by importing granite in from China instead of locally.  The amount of the entire contract is $3.5 million, with the labour and other materials coming from local providers.  In this kind of situation, the media is going to fault the Board for whatever decision they made – it wouldn’t have mattered if they had chosen the local granite producer, because they would have been taken to task for the extra costs.  Another example of a manufactured story from a media corps in the city that is clearly bored beyond belief.

• Anton’s political attacks have not only been ineffective, but now they are just becoming lazy because she clearly can’t even be bothered to research the parameters and the facts before she goes on the attack.  I am beginning to wonder more and more about whether Anton has a Mayoral run in her…particularly with regards to sustaining interest and effort.

• Enjoy big man.  Me thinks there will also be a lot of tourism in your cell to enjoy.

• Absolutely we should move this date for implementation up for obvious reasons.  Please, however, loosen up on the beers on the beach policies…with the exception of obnoxious drinkers who are making others feel threatened or uncomfortable, a beer in a cup or container should not be a ticketable offense.  But I suppose I am just dreaming in technicolour on this one.

Alright people…have a great day.

Some former NPA affiliated staffers are running extremely low in the memory department.

So, a Freedom of Information request filed by City Caucus’ Daniel Fontaine has discovered that the Property Endowment Fund (PEF) board did not meet during the calendar year of 2009.

Without the time nor the inclination to find out the frequency of meetings in previous council years, however, the magic of the Internet has turned up some interesting facts about the reign over the PEF by former NPA Mayors/mayoral candidates.

In a defensive opinion piece entitled “Are taxpayers at risk? No.  Are Vancouver citizens? Yes.” written last January, former Mayor Sam Sullivan clearly states that:

“What have you heard about this fund over the past 15 years? Probably nothing. No headlines. No press releases. An investment that has been extremely well-managed by our civil service,…”

So, Sam was clearly comfortable with the City Hall’s civil servants managing the fund, making no mention of the “political oversight” that Fontaine is so flabberghasted over.

But what about the political direction received from the former NPA electeds that sat on previous incarnations of the PEF board?

Well, during last year’s election campaign, for example, not only did a disconnect between city staff and NPA mayoral candidate Peter Ladner, but requests for clarification were met with ambiguity and third party comments.

It is no secret that the Property Endowment Fund was used to fund the Olympic Village, as outlined by Ladner in a statement he sent the CBC last January:

“This project will not land on the taxpayers. It is being financed under the property endowment fund, worth $2.7 billion at the peak of the market,”

Now, before I continue, I want to point out that the $3 billion figure that Sullivan claimed was the value of the PEF in his oped, and the $2.7 billion figure that Ladner opines about in his statement, is open to serious questions, as evidenced by the tireless efforts of Robert Renger, who began to question the fund’s legitimate size after the City’s 2007 Financial Statements stated that assets were worth $2.5 billion.

Now back to Ladner.  To the Tyee, Ladner made a campaign claim that:

“the city is investing heavily through the property endowment fund to just get it finished.”

At the time, this assertion left City of Vancouver General Manager of Business Planning and Services Ken Bayne baffled:

“When pressed about whether or not the city has provided additional funds because the project is struggling, Bayne said the mayoral candidate should clarify his own remarks.

“I’d suggest you’d need to talk to Councillor Ladner about what his reference was,” he said.”

When asked for clarification by the reporter, however, Ladner ducked the incoming shrapnel and got Non-Partisan Association spokesman Michael Meneer to comment about the source of Ladner’s claim:

“Well, he’s probably not going to tell you because it would be an in-camera reference,” Meneer told The Tyee.

“For those comments?” The Tyee asked.

“Right,” Meneer said.

Ladner’s mistake was further confirmed by a Frances Bula article (the original link no longer works) that stated the following:

“Vancouver didn’t raid the city’s much-valued Property Endowment Fund as a source for a potential $100-million loan to the builder of the city’s Olympic athletes village.

That’s because the fund’s almost $200-million in cash reserves have already been depleted to pay for what the city has to build on the site.”

So, is this the kind of political oversight that Fontaine is referring to?  Because if that is the case, I’d rather let those within City Hall more attuned to the real estate market to do their work uninhibited.

COPE Councillor Ellen Woodsworth went one step further when she proposed:

“a public process that could include an independent commissioner, or panel, to develop guidelines and policies around the use of the Fund. The process would involve thorough consultation with the public, with the financial community, with academics and with community organizations in developing guidelines.”

This came as a result of concerns about whether decisions around the fund were “open and transparent” and “determined by clearly defined guidelines.”

Going back a little further to the NPA’s previous record with regards to the PEF, it seems as though the “political oversight” mentioned by Fontaine has in the past hampered the ability of the public and even fellow councillors from receiving basic facts about the PEF board and its decision making.

This motion notice from November 6, 2001 details of the NPA’s secrecy and heavy-handedness regarding the PEF board meetings:

“WHEREAS, the Property Endowment Fund Board (PEFB) is comprised of Mayor Philip Owen, Councillor Jennifer Clarke, Councillor George Puil, the City Manager, and the Director of Finance;

AND WHEREAS, the PEFB was established by resolution of Council on June 17, 1975 for the purpose of managing the Property Endowment Fund (PEF);

· to develop a program to accomplish the conversion of non-strategic holdings to strategic ones;

AND WHEREAS, all Councillors are elected to ensure the public’s assets are prudently and wisely invested;

· to support the City’s public objectives; and

AND WHEREAS, Mayor Philip Owen stated to Councillor Tim Louis in July 2001 that Councillors who are not on the PEFB are not legally permitted to attend meetings of the board;

· to buy and sell lands in order to assemble a land inventory that offers the best possible opportunity to preserve and where possible increase the real value of the PEF’s assets;

AND WHEREAS, Section 164.1 to 165.7 of the Vancouver Charter requires that the public be informed of the PEFB meetings;

· to manage and develop the Fund’s holdings in order to generate a reasonable economic return;

AND WHEREAS, all Councillors not appointed to the PEFB are not given notice of PEFB meeting;

AND WHEREAS, the objectives of this fund are:

AND WHEREAS, despite requests to City staff, Councillor Tim Louis has not been given access to minutes of previous PEFB meetings;

AND WHEREAS, Section 168 of the Vancouver Charter requires that a bona fide request for the inspection of any record or document of the city, subject to reasonableregulations as to the time and manner of such inspection, or for a copy thereof, shall be complied with, unless for good cause the Director of Finance otherwise directs;

AND WHEREAS, a Vancouver citizen recently applied under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and won access to the agendas and minutes of the last four PEFB meetings;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, Vancouver City Council:

(a) give public notice of the agenda and date of meetings of the Property Endowment Fund Board;
(b) make the Property Endowment Fund Board open to all Councillors; and
(c) make the minutes of Property Endowment Fund Board meetings public, except where it is appropriate to keep minutes In Camera.”

Perhaps this is the kind of “political oversight” that Fontaine is referring to?

If this is what Fontaine classifies as “activism,” I’ll take the Vision Vancouver style of activism (like providing shelter for the homeless in the face of thick NIMBY anger and resentment) any day.

I made a boo boo. I took Bowser to get his pedicure, grabbed a latte, and then sent the email from my new blackberry. But then, I like totally forgot what date it was.

This is the kind of tripe that is flooding City Hall at the moment:

From: _______ ______ [mailto:______@_____.__]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 8:06 PM
To: Correspondence Group, City Clerk’s Office
Subject: Homeless Shelters on Howe and Granville Streets