Last week I took a much needed break – partially as I mentioned because of a computer melt down, and partially because of a fatigue of pontificating.  I promised a return this past weekend, but that also didn’t happen because of my enjoyment of the malaise, some amazing weather, and a full slate of great football games.

But now, armed with a sleek and sexy new laptop, I am back.

• Mike Howell’s piece about lone NPA Councillor Suzanne Anton last Friday was very important in confirming what has become apparent: the NPA is desperate for attention, traction, and relevance.  I said it last week, and I will say it again: to attempt to draw Gregor Robertson into responsibility for the terrible gang shooting that happened on Oak Street is about the lowest form of politics one can engage in.  This is particularly emphasized when examining the NPA record of funding police officers, which Howell took a look at, or when considering the $200,000 that the VPD just received in the budget for anti-gang measures, also as pointed out by Howell.  This kind of tactic is in the same vein as Ian Robertson’s complaints about Park Board procedure with regards to the budget, even though he didn’t even bother to show up to speak to Council about the process after signing up as a speaker, and also abstained from voting on the budget altogether.  Empty political rhetoric with little in terms of a political record or current actions to back it up.  Typical NPA.

• Charlie Smith is back with his conspiracy theories.  The entire Park Board budget vote was delayed to allow for public input and further negotiations with City Council, so for anyone to suggest that the process was done in isolation is a complete falsehood.  Furthermore, if Charlie took a look at the conduct of Park Board Commissioner Stuart Mackinnon during meetings, he would realize that there is an attitude that is espoused in the form of belligerence, bullying and condescending remarks and tone.  Stuart is not prepared to work together with anyone unless he can get some cheap political points or attention out of it.  Forget about political deals – this is a stream of behaviour that Mackinnon clings to partially because of his arrogance, partially because of his longing for the spotlight, and partially because of his fear of not getting elected once again.  Go ask any of the Commissioners aside from Mackinnon’s best friend Ian Robertson about his conduct, and you will hear about how he creates conflict and looks to exploit the ensuing drama simply for his own political benefit, not the good of the public.  On this issue, Smith clearly hasn’t done enough research about the claims made by both Raj Hundal and Sarah Blyth.

• The NDP has set its rules and date to choose the party’s next leader, and the group of undeclared candidates are scrambling to sign up members before the cutoff date of January 16.  It is amazing that no one has announced quite yet, although Mike Farnworth and Adrian Dix are clearly the front-runners at this point.  I think that the problem with what has been laid out lies solely with the party’s requirement to be a member for 90 in order to be able to vote.  I think that an April 17 convention date allows the eventual BC Liberal leader to call a snap election and put the party in great peril.  That being said, the NDP is very religious about their rules and procedures, so this is no surprise.  The next few weeks are going to be a frantic race of membership signing between the potential candidates, and it looks as though these new members could be the deciding factor in consideration of the 13,000 that are already on the list, which represents an historic low for the party.

• Is the BC Rail stuff sticking to Christy Clark?  Hard to say.  In one sense, she is clearly the most popular with the public, and still most likely represents the best shot for the BC Liberals to maintain power.  On the other hand, she lacks caucus support, and has the chattering classes of the party talking about how her victory could truly open up a Pandora’s Box with regards to the trial that fellow candidate Mike De Jong thought he had squashed through a $6 million deal.  I don’t think that the story is salient enough with the media and/or the general public to become the thing that tanks Clark’s candidacy.  Yet, she has a long way to go before she is able to test out that teflon quality with British Columbians…she has to win over her own members first.

• Innovation towards business development at City Hall continues under the watch of Gregor Robertson, and this is yet another sign to the business community that this Mayor and Council are ready to serve as partners in prosperity rather than a burden of red tape and the status quo.  The City of Vancouver has always had some of the best city planning in the world, and finally this same kind of planning and infrastructure is being laid down for a thriving economic climate.

• Sorry, even for people who are used to big stars and big productions coming through town, this is very exciting news!  I am totally marking out, regardless of who they choose to fill the role, as Brandon Routh is most definitely not coming back.

• The rest of the world is catching up to Canada’s passion.  It is time that the City of Vancouver steps up to the plate to make Vancouver an annual destination on the UFC calendar.  Because as things stand right now, UFC will be unlikely to return in 2011.  What a terrible shame.

Alright people.  Have a fantastic day, drive safe, have patience in the shopping lineups, and show some good will towards others.

The dynamic duo is at it again, and this time, they are using gender politics as their latest form of attack.

This story went up in this morning’s Vancouver Courier, with the spin being that Aaron Jasper was undemocratic, and that a female should be in the chair.

But like usual, the Ian Robertson/Stuart Mackinnon alliance has become more concerned with cheap politics than substance.

First of all, where are Robertson’s examples of how Jasper was undemocratic?  I know for a fact after speaking to several of the Commissioners that on a range of issues – from the budget, to the negotiations with Van Dusen Gardens to take over control the Bloedel Conservatory, to the – Robertson was brought into the discussions from the very beginning. Mackinnon was also asked to be a part of the selection committee to select the Park Board’s new General Manager.

It is easy to throw out a label, but until Robertson can back up his claims, his rhetoric does not match up with the way in which he has been treated by the Chair of the Vision Vancouver majority.

The second tactic that Mackinnon and Robertson tried on Monday was to nominate the three women on the board for the position of chair.

Each and every Commissioner nominated by the pair refused.  Sarah Blyth has a young child and a full time job, Constance Barnes has a full time job and a full slate of committee and portfolio responsibilities, and Loretta Woodcock was also not interested.

In each and every case, Mackinnon and Robertson acted unilaterally, nominating for the purpose of political gamesmanship rather than in the name of equality.

Woodcock’s comments about Robertson’s and his party’s conduct on previous incarnations of the Board are also very telling about their views on women:

“Woodcock said she got a laugh out of Robertson’s bid to have a woman elected as chair. Woodcock explained that when the NPA was in power, she brought forward an unsuccessful motion asking the board to support International Woman’s Day.

“The NPA said if they did that, they’d have to support International Dog Day too,” said Woodcock, laughing. “It looks like Ian Robertson has become very enlightened.”

“I am happy to report Aaron Jasper was elected as Chair last night and Constance Barnes Vice Chair.

Aaron has done an outstanding job as chair this year and we are really excited about the coming year.

The only odd part of the election was when Commissioner Mackinnon supported my nomination for chair last night.

For 2 years he has rolled his eyes at me heaved sighs and talked down to me. He has been anything but supportive.

With out consulting me he decided to be my champion.

I found it very patronizing.”

Park Board Commissioner Stuart Mackinnon is playing politics with an issue that is supposed to be close to his heart.

I read with interest Park Board Commissioner Stuart Mackinnon’s blog post from last Friday, which levied criticism at an article published in the Vancouver Courier on the same day, entitled “Green commissioner opposes Beaver Lake plan”.

In his rant, Mackinnon accuses the Courier of getting the details of his political machinations wrong, and goes on to advocate for an overall stewardship plan for Stanley Park.

Well, I have done a little digging about the specifics of what exactly happened, and it is clear that Mackinnon is playing politics with an issue area that a) is a huge component of the core principles he campaigns upon and b) is one that he and his political higher-ups feel as though has been fumbled.

Mackinnon’s rebuttal to the Courier is not only inaccurate, but is also without the proper context regarding priorities and motivations. Here is a clearer account of this whole affair.

On April 8th, the Planning and Environment Committee held a meeting where the Stanley Park Ecology Society presented information on a report entitled “State of the Park Report for the Ecological Integrity of Stanley Park.” In attendance that evening was Commissioners Loretta Woodcock, Sarah Blyth and Stuart Mackinnon.

After hearing information in the report detailing the disturbing trend for aquatic ecosystems when compared to other aspects of the Stanley Park environment, Woodcock asked staff to send the report to the Board and suggest potential action plans for the ecological issues specifically at Beaver Lake by September. Beaver Lake, it must be noted, is renowned as being one of the most diverse ecosystems in terms of species in all of Stanley Park.

At this meeting, while Mackinnon did ask some questions about broad stewardship within the entire park (where he was informed about a potential price tag of around $1 million that had to be forwarded as part of the next capital planning process), he voiced no specific opposition to Woodcock’s request to focus in on Beaver Lake.

The report was put on the agenda of last week’s May 3 board meeting for formal acceptance. Now here is where Mackinnon’s political posturing begins.

In attendance at the meeting was Adriane Carr, former leader of the BC Green Party and now a deputy leader in the Green Party of Canada. Carr was clearly trying to get some play from the media in attendance, strategically positioning herself for a seamless interview if the opportunity ever presented itself. It never did.

My suspicion is that she was there because many within the Green movement were looking at the issue of Stanley Park stewardship slip away from them, with Woodcock and even the Vision caucus moving in on that particular plank of Stuart and the Green Party’s public profile.

Stuart raised a point of order against Woodcock’s amendment to forward the issues associated with Beaver Lake to staff for research and recommendations because he claimed that he had not been given any advance notice (which is procedurally correct, but in reality false because of his attendance at the aforementioned April 8th meeting).

As a result, the report and associated amendments were then thrown back to the Planning and Environment Committee for further discussion last Thursday, May 6. All Commissioners with the exception of Constance Barnes were in attendance.

Ian Robertson made a request that staff forward recommendations on other issues besides Beaver Lake that are worthy of action. Everyone agreed in principle. Woodcock’s amendment was supported by the Vision Vancouver caucus, as they argued that Beaver Lake was the most sensitive aspect of Stanley Park arising from the report.

Mackinnon, however, seemed a little confused. When asked by Raj Hundal what the difference between a master plan and a stewardship plan was, he was unable to answer, and passed on the question to staff to deal with.

So let me get this straight…you claim on your blog that “We must understand that what we do to one part of the park affects all parts. A stewardship plan will help with future planning as it will look at the park as a whole,” and yet you don’t even know the proper definition of what a stewardship plan constitutes or entails?

Thus, in addition to Robertson and Woodcock’s requests, Mackinnon has now asked staff to come back with an answer on something he should clearly be aware of.

The politics behind Mackinnon’s fuzzy and evolving viewpoints have to do with his insecurity about his spot on the Park Board, particuarly as all parties begin to look at the second half of this term, which will eventually lead into an election in November, 2011.

If Woodcock from COPE, the Commisioners from Vision Vancouver, and even Robertson when he takes his Mayoral-aspirational head out of the sand, can usurp Mackinnon’s core of ideology and purpose, it is understandable why he is beginning to become a little worried.

On the other hand, on issues that he supposedly feels passionately about, I find it surprising that he is so ill-informed and nebulous when it comes to his positioning.

Obviously, Adriane Carr and others in the Green Party feel the same way.

I understand the political game as well as anyone, and know that getting re-elected is something that is populating the thoughts of all Commissioners as we move further into the calendar year. But on issues where everyone is clearly on the same page about the priorities advanced in the report by the Ecology Society, politics needs to be put aside.

As the Courier article clearly pointed out, Mackinnon has been caught with his political pants around his ankles, and is now scrambling to get back some relevance within the debate.

To do that, he would be well advised to think about his responsibilities more broadly than the parameters of achieving his own personal political advantage.

Tsakumis is at it again, with his rage over the success of Vision Vancouver seemingly running roughshod over the facts.

Here is part 1 for context, because like I said in this previous post, most times that I have the opportunity to read an Alex Tsakumis rant, I don’t stop laughing and shaking my head.

Never let the facts get in the way of a political axe that you have to grind.

This is Tsakumis’ take on Park Board Chair Aaron Jasper’s attendance at the Friends of Bloedel Rumble in the Jungle fundraising event.  He implies that Jasper arrived at the fundraiser and threw his weight around in demanding a discount.

What a load of crap.

Here is how it really went down.

First, Jasper confirmed his attendance with John Coupar, the president of the Friends of Bloedel and whose father Charles was the first director of the conservatory, the week before.

Jasper was told specifically by Coupar that the preferred method of payment was by credit card, not cheque.

The original plan was for Jasper to attend the event with fellow Park Board Commissioner and now Vice-Chair Sarah Blyth.  One was going to pay for both tickets and reimbursed by the other at a later date.

The price for one ticket was $125, and a discounted $200 for two.

On the day of the event, Jasper called Vancouver garden centre operator Thomas Hobbes (one of the key people involved in the ticket selling) before arriving to inquire whether cheques were going to be acceptable.

In contrast to Coupar, Hobbes said that it wasn’t a problem.

Hobbes asked Jasper if he would be attending with anyone else.

Circumstances had changed for Jasper, however, as Blyth had already arranged her own ticket in advance.  Jasper explained the situation, and Hobbes immediately told Jasper that he should still only pay $100 for the ticket, which would have been the price if he had showed up with Blyth as originally planned.

So, as a result of that conversation, Jasper came armed with a $100 cheque in hand, which can be confirmed via a paper trail and/or a conversation with Hobbes.

As usual, Tsakumis virulent and venomous disdain for most things and individuals associated with Vision Vancouver has taken him off into the realm of creative writing rather than accurate reporting.

So as I tell anyone who bothers to read Tsakumis, don’t believe the hype.

I also suggest that showering after the experience might also be a good idea.