Gregor Robertson's critics are feeling the pain of watching the most popular Mayor in Vancouver history continue to gain momentum - in spite of their best efforts.

It is no surprise that this article over the weekend would cause the usual suspects to writhe in agony.

And it is also no surprise that those very critics would immediately follow up with a post attempting to discount the accuracy of the data and lamenting the fact that the media also likes the Mayor – a lot.

And while it may be a grim day for supporters of the heir apparent to Philip Owen-Sam Sullivan-Peter Ladner, Suzanne Anton (hmmm…maybe that isnt’ the kind of lineage she would necessarily want to promote in public), it is a strong endorsement for the current administration’s direction.

The party is a moderate presence.  It has taken on an ambitious social agenda with regards to issues like homelessness and housing as well as environmental sustainability.  It has also pursued economic development and fiscal responsibility as a means to ensure the the city is competitive.

There is a little piece of something for everyone across the spectrum, an approach that Stratcom’s polling confirms as broadly appealing in terms of voter intentions.

People like that investment is pouring into the city.  People like that Vancouver is now rated as Canada’s greenest city.  People like that there is an effort to encourage cycling and reduce residents’ dependence on their car.  People like that homeless shelters have provided a safe overnight haven for over 400 people living on the streets.  People like that City Coucil, School Board and Park Board are willing to stand up to the provincial government to ensure that policy priorities important to Vancouver are advanced.  People like that there are small, tangible measures being taken to improve the city’s environmental sustainability.

And most importantly?  People for the most part are happy with the elected representatives that are running their city.

It is wishful thinking by the City Caucus boys and their brethren to predict a guaranteed recovery for the NPA when it comes to Council presence.  Everything boils down to who the NPA Mayoral candidate will be, and at this point, there are few outside of Anton with the temerity to consider facing off against Robertson with that kind of a partisan anchor hanging around their neck.

Perhaps it is wishful thinking when Mike Klassen muses about those Vision councillors who might be in danger of defeat, in consideration of the possibility of him ultimately running for the NPA.

Regardless, no matter where you stand on the political spectrum in Vancouver, you will be hard pressed to find a political observer, or even a casual voter for that matter, who will deny the Robertson is political gold whose coattails are more than large enough to once again carry a strong majority.

Yes, a year and a half is a long time in the life a political regime, and of course, anything can happen.

But if the first half was any indication, Robertson’s momentum is going to be a huge deterrent to those contemplating a rival run for the top office in the city.

And that does not bode well for the future of either COPE or the NPA and their eventual candidates with either the courage or foolhardiness to put their names down on the ballot.

]]> http://civicscene.ca/robertsons-polling-causing-headaches-for-critics/feed 0 http://civicscene.ca/ladner-sullivan-and-owens-management-of-property-endowment-fund-suspect http://civicscene.ca/ladner-sullivan-and-owens-management-of-property-endowment-fund-suspect#comments Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:41:17 +0000 Jonathan Ross http://civicscene.ca/?p=3109

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.

This is the kind of public reaction that Vision Vancouver critics would have you believe the party is facing after the just-completed budget process. Nothing could be further from the truth, however.

What do you get with:

• The previous NPA dominated council increasing spending by 15.65 per cent (from $771 to $894 million) over three years – 2006-2008
• A salary negotiation achieved under the era of Sam Sullivan’s “leadership” to break a three-month old strike ensured a $26.7 million jump in salaries for the coming fiscal year
• A tax increase to Vancouver homeowners in 2006 of 6.4 per cent, including a tax shift from business to residential of 1 per cent
• A tax increase to Vancouver homeowners in 2007 of 8 per cent, including a tax shift from business to residential of 2 per cent
• A tax increase to Vancouver homeowners in 2008 of 2.13 per cent, including a tax shift from business to residential of 1 per cent (lower due to City Council directing staff in June 2007 “to use savings resulting from the 2007 work stoppage to reduce property taxes for City taxpayers in 2008 on a one-time basis.  An analysis of the 12-week work stoppage identified $11.8 million in savings which translated to a property tax reduction of 2.32 per cent.”  This was a work stoppage that didn’t need to paralyze the city for three months, making the “savings” a reflection of incompetence rather than solid management).
• A drop in development and building permit revenues by about 50 per cent (slide 5) due to the global recession

Well, you get the budget that the City of Vancouver just completed.  And, all in all, you get a pretty reasonable process that took the needs of the collective into consideration above the loud voices of the minority.

In 2006, as an example, there was a similar deficit situation looming over the Council of the day.  So, instead of looking internally on how to achieve savings, they dumped a 6.4 per cent tax increase on Vancouver homeowners, which funded things like the hiring of 127 new police and city workers and additional spending for programs.

In October 2006, this is what Peter Ladner said about the looming tax increase:

“We can’t have taxes going up by 6.3 per cent. So we’re going to have to find some cuts to make, and we’ll have to make some difficult choices.”

So even then, the NPA thought that cuts needed to be made so that citizens didn’t have to bare the burden of Council’s additional spending decisions.

And in the end, Ladner, Sullivan and crew didn’t have the guts or the personnel (City Manager Judy Rogers was never inclined to chip away at her little fiefdoms throughout City Hall) to make those “difficult choices.”  They just went ahead with the 6.4 per cent tax increase, and called it a day.

On the other hand, what you have from Vision Vancouver is consistency.  Listen to Councillor Raymond Louie from that time frame:

“We’ve already increased taxes substantially. We’re looking at another one. It’s due to their mismanagement.  Taxes did not have to rise over the four per cent range that it did last year.”

So unlike some critics that claim that Vision is trying to out-NPA the NPA, this is far from a reflection of reality.  Vision has advocated for proper fiscal management for several years, and with the economic crisis that was encountered over this past year, something had to give.

Council and the new City Manager decided to look internally – workers, spending, programs – to see where we could reduce.  And, simultaneously, Council gave direction to city staff to limit the tax increase to 1.5% to 2.0% while maintaining all necessary public health & safety standards across all agencies and protecting services to vulnerable populations and funding to arts and culture.

That is what you call making “difficult choices.”

In conclusion, to Paul Faoro, who thinks his membership’s 26.7 per cent wage increase shouldn’t have been touched in addition no workers being laid off , or to Daniel Fontaine, whose selective memory about the regime he presided over in the Mayor’s office is very convenient, I say give up your mock anger.

This is a budget that is reasonable, that maintains the policy priorities of Council’s majority, and that looks to rein in irresponsible spending and services over burdening taxpayers.

No matter how much mud is thrown at the tough and resolute decisions that Council just made, it is something that will be supported by Vancouverites in the long run.

Mark my words.

Civic affairs were front and centre in an interesting and engaging forum hosted this past Saturday.

I really wasn’t sure what to expect when I walked into the “Year In Review” forum hosted by previous NPA candidate Michael Geller, largely because I suspected an overwhelmingly NPA supportive crowd would be the only ones to show up.

And, for the most part, I was correct – former and current NPA board members, elected officials and supporters roamed the room, with few Vision or COPE supporters in tow.  In fact, one of those former NPA elected officials tried to tell me that the morning remained civil and well-behaved because “the right-of-centre” had been behind the organizing, suggesting that had the “left” been at the helm, chaos and hostility would have ruled the day.

This is exactly the type of comment that I have come to expect from your typical NPA, Quadra-type of supporter.  When confronted with the question, I told the individual that having grown up in Marpole/Kerrisdale, I knew first hand that civility was by no means exclusive to her end of the political spectrum.

That bit of nonsense aside, I found the morning to be a fantastic endeavour that could prove to be a model for civic engagement for all parties – assuming, of course, that the pool of interest is widened with future sessions.

First and foremoest, let me say that Michael Geller is an absolute gentleman and a scholar.  His demeanour is completely disarming and welcoming, his intent seems to be without political motivation as its driving motivation, and his genuine interest in improving Vancouver is obvious.  He admitted that my post from last week was a welcome wake-up call for him, and I thanked him for the invite.

The first panel session involved former NPA Councillor Gordon Price, former Vision Vancouver mayoral candidate Jim Green, and Geller, and was moderated by architect Joost Bakker.  14 topics were brought forward for discussion, including the Burrard Bridge bike lane trial, the Woodsward’s development, the Olympic Village, the STIR program, laneway housing, the HEAT shelters, parking and the Green agenda.

The banter between the three participants was amusing, for the simple fact that positions held true in time of election didn’t necessarily fall in line within this particular debate.  Green was passionately advocating for increased density in the city, Geller was singing the praises of how Vision Vancouver had handled the Olympic Village, and Price was strongly backing the maintenance of the social housing compoent of the Olympic Village regardless of costs.

This is what I enjoyed most about this first panel – the urban experts that were willing to advance viewpoints that had little adherence to their former partisan posts or the current state of their former political homes.

Geller was angry with the province for their lack of interest in his modular housing proposals directed towards lower income families and the homeless.  Price was fascinating in his views on the concept of “motordom,” where from the 1950s onward, cities were built according to the facilitation of the the seamless use of automobiles.  And Jim Green beamed about the Woodward’s development, which he used as a model of mixed use and composition that the Olympic Village should be patterned after.

All in all, a fantastic session that only scratched the surface of some of the most pressing issues of the day.

The second panel was lacklustre for me, as what was to be a discussion on the budget and the merits of the Green Capital economic development plan turned into a generic discussion on the city’s economic prowess.  Moderated by former NPA mayoral candidate Peter Ladner, the panel included John Tylee from the Vancouver Economic Development Commission (VEDC), James Fletcher of ThinkCity, and once again Gordon Price.

Tylee was interesting in his emphatic endorsement of the way in which the current Mayor and Council have backed the VEDC like no other administration in recent memory.  He emphasized the forthcoming economic development strategy as the first in two decades, and stated that he was enabled by the political support and involvement from Gregor Robertson in particular.

Fletcher spoke about the surveys that ThinkCity had received back on the budget process, speaking about the short time frame and the lack of public involvement in the process as if the City and its methods were solely to blame for this problem.  Of course, a lack of interest from the general public plays huge into this lack of participation, and no matter what the city does to extend deadlines or engage the public, the same 100 individuals are going to show up.  Ladner asked a loaded question of what ThinkCity’s respondents thought of service fees (hidden, as Ladner described) in lieu of more substantial tax hikes, to which Fletcher was clearly unprepared to answer.

Price dismissed the Greenest City Action Team ten-year plan as litte more than policies that broke little new ground.  He spoke about how there has been a global urban paradigm shift that had achieved “consensus” on these kinds of measures, making the document more of a game of catch-up rather than an earth-shattering initiative.  I had never heard of the Clouds of Change report from the early 90s (found here and here), but Price called the GCAT report simply a “child” of it.

The final panel is the one that I took part in, where I joined Monte Paulsen from the Tyee, Miro Cernetig of the Vancouver Sun, and Mike Klassen, who prophesized about his style of editorialized news coverage.  The proceedings were moderated by freelance reporter and regular contributor to the Globe and Mail and Vancouver Magazine Frances Bula.

The topics surrounding Vision’s performance were interesting.  Cernetig admitted that he had previously underestimated Gregor Robertson, who he now thinks of as very politically sharp after seeing him in action after a year.  Whereas once Robertson was more “GQ than IQ,” Cernetig said that he though that the advisors he had assembled around him were a politically shrewd bunch that were guiding the Mayor into hallowed territory when it comes to political favour.  He was frustrated, however, by the lack of access to the Mayor, whom he said is much more elusive with the media than even Sam Sullivan.

Paulsen examined four broad campaign promises from the Vision Vancouver platform – tackling homelessness, building safe and inclusive communities, fostering creative capital, and building an sustainable and green agenda for the city – and reviewed them.  He determined that the homelessness file had been the most active for Vision, but that while there had been an immediate rush of activity with the HEAT shelters right after assuming office, there has been far less progress since that early spell.  He talked about how building safe and inclusive communities was one of those campaign promises that was hard to pin down, and he was unsure of how that had been achieved thus far.  With regards to fostering creative capital, he commended some of the work done by Heather Deal in opening up smaller venues for live music and entertainment, but acknowledged that the city did not have enough infrastructure and affordability to truly foster a cultural revolution.  And finally, he spoke about the GCAT 10-year plan and the Green Capital branding, which he stated was attractive for public consumption but suspect in terms of the kind of uptake it will garner amongst Vancouver residents.

Mike Klassen said that Gregor Robertson “didn’t have the intellectual capacity” to serve as Mayor, but did commend him for working with the province on issues such as finding shelter for the homeless.  I found that he was far less boisterous and aggressive in person than he is behind a keyboard, but to no one’s surprise, his reviews on Vision Vancouver and Gregor Robertson were less than favourable, to say the least.  As an example, the Burrard Bridge, which he had prepared for with his grossly imappropriately named “Gregor’s Gridlock” website, was now apparently “window dressing,” an opinion that I assume has been shaped by the trial’s overwhelming success.

I emphasized that Vision Vancouver had shifted the political landscape precisely because they do not have a natural constituency of voters to call their own.  I spoke of my early hesitations with the Vision Vancouver movement due to the NPD, closed-shop mentality that originally infiltrated the organization.  But I also stated that what I had seen through the nominations of both the Mayor and his group of candidates was a diversity of support that is unparalleled in Vancouver municipal history.

The most interesting discussion to arise out of the final panel was a debate about how blogs were changing the landscape when it comes to political coverage.

Frances spoke of a hesitation to use blogs as a driver of news, largely because of the political bias that drove the coverage being offered.  She really took Klassen to task with the kind of stories that he was able to drive “lazy” media into covering, likening CityCaucus’ big exclusives to the kinds of headlines that the Province newspaper runs.  In other words, a lowest common denominator approach that appeals to newsrooms without the staff and or resources to cover municipal affairs properly.

I took Klassen to task, speaking about how his website claims to offer civic coverage with respectful debate, but in my opinion, took personal attacks and fervent opposition to the current Vision Vancouver government.  I apparently misspoke about Klassen and Daniel Fontaine being non-partisan, because I was corrected in the audience by Michael Davis, the former NPA president (he just recently resigned), who stated that it was no mystery as to where the two authors and their loyalties lay.

Paulsen had an interesting point of view on the major changes going on in the mainstream media.  He stated that newspapers in this city – the major dailies – were on a downward slide, and the form in which they would take in a year is a huge unknown at this point.  He pointed to blogs and alternative media like the Tyee as a revolution, although he also stated that everyone wants a revolution until they immersed in one (or something to that effect).

At the end of the day, my take on blogs and the notion that authors like myself are pseudo-media is realistic and I think pretty reasonable.  I realize that the 600 or so visitors I get on a daily basis are a tiny fraction of the electorate.  I know that I am offering a mix of opinion (a healthy dose) and some breaking stories that largely have a political bent to them.  I understand that my political positioning, experience and involvement is what sells this website rather than “news coverage” par se.

One thing I do know, however, is that I will not hide behind the guise of being a presence in the world of commentating that is there for the public good.  I am a partisan that supports a political administration.  Now that does not preclude the fact that sometimes I might indeed offer criticism or words of advice for those in office.  It does, however, allow me to put aside any complaints about pandering or campaigning to get at what I am trying to accomplish – and that is, to simply offer another voice in this municipal political landscape.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Blogging, particularly when it comes to poliitcs and influencing public opinion, is a revolution in a sense.  But those who take themselves too seriously are bound to find themselves disappointed by the ineffectiveness of their efforts to change the course of the political landscape.  Frances Bula gets this, and understands that her blog is as much a tool of marketing and self-promotion as it is a way to disseminate hard news.  Others on the local scene, however, take a far more virulent view of their assumed position to serve as an opposition where a huge void within the Vancouver City Council chambers currently exists.

All in all, I was very pleased by the way the morning went, and I hope that Michael Geller and others keep such events up to enlighten the debate of our collective civic future.

Hey, you never know…maybe I’ll take a shot next time.