• 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.

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.

Park Board Commissioner Constance Barnes asked an important question at last week’s meeting where the vote to end funding took place:

“Why wasn’t bubble one replaced? Why wait to 80? Did they all go at once?”

The answer to that question is obvious.

I have been reading over past Park Board Capital Plan budget allotments, and much like this breakdown from the 2006-2008 plan, the allotment for the Bloedel Conservatory roof panel replacements is most often $0.

Take a look at the allotment for the 2003-2005 Park Board Capital plan budget allotments, where a goal of replacing 10 per cent of the roof inventory over as part of a 30 year re-roofing plan doesn’t mention the conservatory roof at all.

In fact, if you look at the major projects funded by Capital Plans since 1997, the conservatory roof is absent from a very long and extensive list.

Now over this time period, with the exception of 2002 COPE landslide which produced a 5-2 majority on the Park Board, all other Park Board compositions up until last year’s election have been NPA dominated (1996, 1999, 2005).

So, while all must take responsibility, the NPA sure had plenty of opportunity to turn their attention to the conservatory upgrades that could have prevented the current state of disrepair.

Couple this with the fact that attendance and revenues have been going down for some time now (as an example, attendance at the conservatory declined from 119,000 visitors of which 28,000 were tour bus admissions in 2001, to 65,000 visitors of which 940 were tour bus admissions in 2006), and you end up where we are today.

So, the next time you hear lone NPA Councillor Suzanne Anton or lone NPA Park Board Commissioner Ian Robertson or even Park Board Commissioner Loretta Woodcock (all of whom have sat on the Park Board in previous terms) use the conservatory to stir up public furor against the Vision majorities on Council and the Park Board, view their words through the filter that this post is trying to create.

That is, years of neglect is what has got us to the current situation with the Bloedel Conservatory, not the necessary cuts that the Vision Council is making to a bloated budget.

• So BC women are weathering the recession by going into business for themselves.  According to Janine Brunelle of the Kelowna-based Women’s Enterprise Centre, not only have inquiries to her organization risen by 82 per cent from last year, but women “bring a different way of working in the world,” meaning “they often end up with more profitable businesses.”  One wonders if this trend will impact the male-dominated BC Entrepreneur of the Year awards in the future.

• I went to the Federal Liberal BC AGM last weekend in Whistler, a surprisingly jovial and unified affair in spite of the party’s difficult times.  Anyways, spoke to a faithful NPA member who swears to have seen Vancouver’s Penguin – and greeted him/her accordingly with a couple “Waugh, Waugh’s” – at the association’s AGM a few years back.  Much like the pariah that is Oswald Cobblepot, Vancouver’s version couldn’t stop ranting against everyone and everything in their path (which for this individual is usually all-encompassing).  Childhood bitterness translates into a burn-the-world-down type of mindset, which in turn leads to frequent and imbalanced outbursts, tirades and attacks, and eventually fosters complete isolation.  The search for this troubled soul, who has dropped off the map (by design), continues…

• The devil’s in the details, ladies and gentlemen.  I like this Council’s ability to make tweaks when called for by the public – here and here are the latest examples.  But either it is time to tell staff that they need to start submitting reports with recommendations based on more consideration for the stakeholders impacted, or Council itself needs to be able to make the necessary amendments initially so that adjustments don’t need to be made in the future.  Both of these above-linked stories never needed to become sources of consternation in the first place.

• I hope that the fact that the Bloedel Conservatory is losing about $240,000 a year the Stanley Park farmyard is losing $160,000 annually wasn’t a significant part of the Park Board’s decision to cut funding.  Public facilities that add to the community cannot be judged solely from a dollars and cents revenue generation perspective.  That being said, the fact that attendance has been declining in recent years, and the fact that the conservatory needs significant structural repairs – estimated in the $2 million range – most definitely should have been considered.  I find it rich that NPA councillor Ian Robertson can all of a sudden pull mysterious private donors out of the air, but his own party let the Conservatory wallow in deterioration for the entire decade of the 1990s – without the benefit of private or public money.  Convenient short memories, as per usual with either Robertson or lone-NPA councillor Suzanne Anton.

• I have some huge issues with this letter from wife of a city employee “Jennifer” as posted on Frances’ blog.  This is in no way to diminish the stress that her husband are experiencing, as with a young child, I sympathize with their situation.  On the other hand, here are a few comments/questions for this letter writer:

1. If you chose to take off work to raise your child (an honourable thing to do, don’t get me wrong), then there is obviously going to be less financial stability with your family’s situation.  That is a choice you and your husband made, for which there are always going to be good and bad consequences for.
2. You never thought that this could happen to you?  Your husband works in the public sector, which means that his salary is paid for by taxpayers.  As such, these jobs are always potentially at risk depending on the economic climate, the city’s revenues, the government-in-power’s policies, etc.  Thus this statement is completely naive to me (and in consideration of what has happened to the global economy over the past year, how is the possibility of losing one’s job something that you “never thought…could happen to you?”)
3. To say that the cuts being made in the city could be “responsible for the destruction of my family” is absolutely ludicrous.  Where does self-responsibility come into play?  Like for example, your decision not to work.  This is a statement that is beyond comprehension to me.
4. “Most people over 55 can retire and should retire.”  Well, tell that to my Mom who is 64 and determined to go until 70, or to the 57-year old who just lost half of their savings in the markets over the past year.  This is a self-serving type of determination that goes completely against the trends that say that mandatory retirement in Canada is becoming a thing of the past.
5. You are now suggesting that the City adopt a four-day work week, representing a 20 per cent pay cut across the board.  Were you advocating for that when you and your husband considered your situation “very fortune” and “stable”?  I highly doubt it.

That’s it for now.  Out for a bunch of meetings, but will have something up later in the day.

The petting zoo is on its way out, and in consideration of what could have been cut, it makes complete sense.

As most readers are well aware, yesterday the Park Board decided by way of a 4-3 split vote to end subsidies to the Stanley Park petting zoo and the Bloedel Conservatory in Queen Elizabeth Park.

As I was told, there were 30 impassioned speakers last week when the vote was deferred, and a contingent of close to 50 for last night’s proceedings.

There is no doubt that these people were sincere in their efforts.  For some, both are “iconic” institutions that will be greatly missed.

But in public office, when you are dealing with taxpayers money, and of course an obligation to balance the books year in and year out, tough decisions inevitably need to be made.  And quite frankly, the fact that these two institutions are on the chopping block as opposed to other essential core services is a sound decision.

The economic downturn has presented the city with the challenge of a $61.7 million shortfall for this coming fiscal year.

And like I mentioned last week, the Park Board should not be able to expect an exemption from the city-wide cuts that are going to have to be made.

The Park Board chose not to cut lifeguards on duty, community centre hours, or community programs geared towards seniors and youth.

They have targeted their cuts to attractions that for 99 per cent of the population, might – and I want to stress the word MIGHT – be a once-a-year visit.

I called Raj Hundal, Chair of the Park Board, for a comment on how the Vision Board members came to their conclusions.

“The fact is that we are facing budgets cuts like everyone else, and our caucus felt that it was important to protect the core services like community centres which represent some of the highest usage rates of any of the programs and services the Park Board currently offers” Hundal said.

Makes sense to me.  Protect the services with the highest rate of penetration amongst the public, and do away with those that are more specialized with less numbers to back up their cases for funding.

Quite frankly, I am shocked by the hyperbole and gut-wrenching (much of it feigned within the media and pundit classes as far as I am concerned) that has occurred in the past week.

No, I do not have children, and so I cannot relate to the supposed heartbreak that kids across the city are feeling.  But I challenge those parents in the media and the political fray to tell me how many times they have taken their young ones to the petting zoo (and I don’t mean an outing to Stanley Park, where you just happened to visit the animals amidst many other activities).

Bottom line?  If this is the worst of the cuts to Park Board services in this time of restraint, then I commend the Vision Commissioners for minimizing the pain.

This is no controversy.  This is a job well done.