Bill McCreery sits in the background, looking very unhappy at having to sit and be a greeter at the NPA table. His former party TEAM never made a man of his stature do such things I am sure.

Over the weekend, there was a very telling quote delivered by newly acclaimed NPA City Council candidate Bill McCreery, who is leading the charge for what is “new” within the 73 year old political entity (Bill received his Bachelor of Architecture in 1969 and was a Commissioner on the Vancouver Park Board from 1973-74, and thus has witnessed first-hand the NPA evolve into the young, fresh and dynamic organization it is today).

Mike Howell from the Courier asked McCreery if he was concerned the fact that there was only one race at the nomination meeting this past Saturday.  Here was his response:

““There were other people who were interested [in running] but one year is an awful long time to be campaigning, and I don’t think a lot of people want to be doing that,” said McCreery, who predicted a bigger turnout and competition for NPA seats in the party’s spring 2011 nomination meeting. “As a matter of fact, on Saturday, there was two or three people I hadn’t met before who came up to me and said they were seriously thinking about running in the spring.”

So Bill, who is one of the most active individuals in the party, and who also sat on the board up until the summer, has people he has never met approaching him who are interested in running.

Exciting news I suppose for a party that might have a hard time finding enough people to fill out a full slate of candidates.

But terrible news for a party who desperately needs name recognition amongst its candidates to have any chance at pulling a few across the finish line as newly elected officials.

Let’s look at the election results from 2008 and more specifically the names that didn’t quite make it through for the NPA:

Candidate	Elector Organization	Votes
LOUIE, Raymond P.	VV	66226
DEAL, Heather	VV	63116
CHOW, George	VV	62262
JANG, Kerry	VV	60598
REIMER, Andrea	VV	59148
STEVENSON, Tim	VV	58380
CADMAN, David	CPE	56665
ANTON, Suzanne	NPA	52941
MEGGS, Geoff	VV	49538
WOODSWORTH, Ellen	CPE	45877
DHALIWAL, Kashmir	VV	44854
GELLER, Michael	NPA	44353
CAPRI, Kim	NPA	44270
BALL, Elizabeth	NPA	42727
LEE, David	NPA	42195
WONG, Kanman	NPA	36795
HOUGHTON, Korina	NPA	34588
COPELAND, Leanore	NPA	34566
BICKERTON, Sean	NPA	33510
SIDHU, Daljit S.	NPA	28894

Now, Michael Geller has kept himself immersed on the municipal scene, and his weekly CKNW appearances as well as his occasional slip-ups amidst his commentaries on development and the Olympic Village, make Geller a valuable potential candidate for the party.  I can tell you that he most definitely would get my vote over a Ellen Woodsworth, for example.

The next two – Capri and Ball – were incumbents that were punished for the Sam Sullivan reign of error and both are unlikely to return to run for the moribund incarnation of what their party has become.

David Lee was a man who was apparently recruited to run by the former Mayoral candidate Peter Ladner, but also a candidate who was short on details and definition throughout the campaign.

Kanman Wong was a former Conservative candidate from the riding of Vancouver Kingsway (much like my friend Jesse Johl is right now), who spoke out of both sides of his mouth when he targeted messages to voters of different ethnic backgrounds.  I am sorry to say to Jesse – the City of Vancouver doesn’t seem to like Conservative candidates (current or former) that much.

Korina Houghton was a Park Board Commissioner from 2005-2008, but apparently her previous experience didn’t help her much in terms of name recognition.  She is actually one of the names that I am hearing is planning on making another attempt for City Council.

Leanore Copeland is a fantastic lady and a friend, but who also last I checked spends much of her time these days in London, UK.

Sean Bickerton is an NPA stalwart who has been the lifeblood of the organization for some time now.  He is smart, sharp well informed and very diverse, and also a fellow musician which I always have respect for.  Yet, in spite of all his civic involvement, I feel he still lacks the name recognition that is necessary to get elected.  He is also a name I expect to return as a candidate.

Finally, we have Daljit Sidhu, who is the President of the Punjabi Market Association, faced the same kind of situation I described following the 2008 election that other South Asian candidates faced.  So, it is no surprise that he came in last amongst all of his party’s Council candidates.  I do not expect him to run again.

So if these were the results for candidates – many of which were incumbents – in a time when the party was a lot healthier (membership, financially, politically, etc.), then what will be the fate of candidates that even Bill McCreery has never met or heard of before?

And consider this – if Suzanne Anton does indeed end up running, giving up her spot as a Council candidate, then the NPA could very well have no electeds on City Council by the time the 2011 election is over.

An NPA board member asked me recently “Why do you have to say so many negative things about the NPA – ALL THE TIME?”

Well, the answer to that question is simple.  I don’t need to.  I do so because it is such an easy target, and really now sits as a non-option for voters…which is really quite a shame, since competition brings out the best in government.

And, I will continue to point out the fatal flaws of an organization that in rhetoric considers itself a viable alternative, but in reality, has little to nothing to offer the public.

The upcoming bass ackwards nomination process is going to hurt the NPA with a domino effect of cynicism about the party's prospects.

Here’s a quick note that I wanted to write before heading out for a busy day of meetings.

As many of you are aware, the NPA is holding their first round of nominations for City Council, Park Board and School Board on November 20.

Fantastic.  Recent polling puts the NPA at 28 per cent polling in contrast to 52 per cent support for Vision Vancouver.  And all things considered, that is a good number for a party that has been moribund and largely silent for much of the past 2.5 years.

But like I have mentioned in a previous post, the ambiguity surrounding who might step forward next year, when the NPA is poised to nominate a Mayoral candidate, holds all other developments in limbo.

Why?  Because I would be shocked to see a candidate of any name profile step forward for one of those nominations on November 20 without any kind of indication of who is going to be carrying the banner in next year’s election.

Having just returned from Toronto where I had the opportunity to sit down and chat with some of the George Smitherman Mayoral campaign brain trust, I began to understand how unique the municipal party system that is so entrenched in Vancouver is in comparison to the rest of the country.

You have ward candidates campaigning in Toronto without any kind of commitment (public or private) to support any of the Mayoral candidates.  If they win, they are going to be forced to work with whoever becomes Mayor, and thus as independent candidates without affiliation, it makes absolutely no political sense to play favourites.

The same, of course, cannot be said about the situation in Vancouver.

With 10 Councillors to choose, voters will often go down the alphabetical list on the Council ballot, as an example, and tick off those based on party rather than personal preference.

So, the first 7 Vision candidates might get selected, and then to mix it up, the voter will throw in a couple of other names representing different political entities to balance out the mix.

And, under those circumstances, the person that becomes the face of the party as the Mayoral candidate represents at least 75 per cent of the equation as to whether one’s name gets marked off for Council, Park Board or School Board.

When Gregor Robertson was elected as Vision’s Mayoral candidate in June, 2008, interest in the party’s nomination process went crazy, and the party benefitted from the diversity of the interested nominees that stepped forward as a result.  Robertson was a politically attractive anchor in which to base one’s electoral hopes upon.

With the NPA, that quality of candidate is very unlikely to emerge.  And while people like Sean Bickerton and Michael Geller are fantastic individuals who really emerged as players in the last election, the remaining slate could likely end up being a bunch of NPA activists that no one outside of their small political sphere know about, and who certainly do not bring value added to the party in terms of profile and interest.

And that is the danger for the NPA, because it becomes a snowball effect.  A lacklustre slate of candidates might very well dissuade top-notch Mayoral candidates from stepping forward.

And then what do you have?  A Suzanne Anton candidacy, which for even those who are diehard behind the NPA brand, doesn’t exactly thrill or provide a hell of a lot of optimism.

I am still baffled as to why they would go about things this way.  Although, maybe it is precisely because the NPA brand and drawing power has been damaged so badly in the past few years that they needed more time to take a shot at getting that outside star Mayoral candidate.

And who knows, maybe it will happen.  But at this point, the prospect of fighting Robertson for a job – which if people really take a moment to consider, is likely a losing proposition – while still being able to carry at least 3-4 candidates across the finish line, is a daunting task.

I have dug high and low within my NPA contacts to find some names – any names – that have a little political sex appeal, for lack of a better term.

And thus far, my searches have come up empty.

Anyways, I anxiously await the first name to break the ice and officially declare before making any definitive assessments on the health of the party’s brand and drawing power.

CivicScene is back in the saddle with a holiday diet and a blogging schedule that once again need a steady regimen.

I have returned to the blogging horse, a little more weighty from no less than three holiday dinners within four days – a condition, I might add, that I fully intend to begin working off sometime today.

Today I am struck by two columns by two of Vancouver’s most respected scribes – Rod Mickleburgh of the Globe and Mail and Allen Garr of the Vancouver Courier – that offer assessments on two of Mayor Gregor Robertson’s most prominent and contentious policy directions over the past year.

There can be little argument with the fact that Vision Vancouver’s victory in last year’s civic election was predicated on a strong commitment to tackle homelessness in addition to a stated intention to create dedicated bike lanes on the Burrard Bridge (the former obviously having a far greater impact than the latter).

So if both of these policies were clearly articulated within the context of an election campaign that returned a decisive victory for the party proposing them, then it is safe to say that a majority of Vancouver’s electorate embraced them as something they were willing to see implemented.

This of course didn’t stop certain members of the outgoing regime from doing their damnedest to work up fervour to the contrary.

“…failed bike lane trials making the Burrard Bridge far too narrow for car traffic, thus providing open lanes for about a dozen riders per day…”

“The root of this growing problem was Robertson’s eagerness to score a few political points by opening the shelters quickly…”

“No matter where you turn, the comments keep rolling in on what is surely going to be labeled by Vancouver commuters as Gregor’s Gridlock in time for the June lane closures.”

Well, as 2009 draws to a close, let’s read some excerpts from Garr and Mickleburgh following the implementation of both of these decisions:

“One of the undeniable successes of this past year was the implementation of the five HEAT shelters.”

“Restricting one of the bridge’s six lanes to bicycles worked right off the bat. Five and a half months later, it’s still working.”

“Those shelters took 500 of the city’s most difficult to house folks off the streets. The impact was immediate. The DVBIA, the Downtown Business in Improvement Association, monitored the homeless situation over the next several months and reported several outcomes: The incidents of trespass dropped as fewer people sought refuge sleeping rough out on the streets. The reports of aggressive panhandling dropped while passive panhandling went up arguably because more people were being fed and receiving treatment through shelters and the staff servicing them. They were less desperate to fill their bellies and beginning to find some order in their lives.”

“It’s working,” said the city’s assistant transportation engineer, Jerry Dobrovolny.  Overall, bike traffic on the bridge is 26 per cent higher, Mr. Dobrovolny said, while vehicle crossings are down slightly and pedestrian use is up slightly.  The big thing is, there are no delays on the bridge itself. There have been added delays of perhaps a minute or two elsewhere, but the data shows people are changing their habits.  The success of the experiment is a feather in the cap for the city’s biking mayor, Gregor Robertson.”

“If there was a failure it was in a complete lack of effective consultation with the neighbours, particularly around the two shelters at the north end of the Granville Bridge, by either city staff or Robertson and his council.  But those missteps were just a distraction from the real point of the exercise.”

“The previous, right-of-centre council had bowed to the bleating of the car lobby, opting for a plan to widen the sidewalks for $30-million rather than simply give the bike lane a try.”

Now I agree with the NPA’s Sean Bickerton (something I am beginning to do more regularly these days) when he states that “opening shelters is not a plan to end homelessness.”  I also understand that whereas the promise of two cycling lanes were a part of the Vision platform, only one was feasible enough to execute upon.

Nonetheless, these are bold steps that required political will, capital, and quite frankly bravery.  You don’t take out a lane on a major artery into downtown Vancouver after a complete failure in 1996 without realizing the risks involved.  You also don’t expect not to have to face typical Vancouver NIMBY residents at one corner or another of the city who don’t like people without a home being visible from their windows.

But at the end of the day, with news helicopters and live radio broadcasts just itching for the bridge trial to fail, and angry residents swinging golf clubs at people they deem to be risks, Council still pushed ahead.

The fact is that making the city more conducive to other forms of transportation than the car (particularly with reference to the downtown core and people’s places of employment) and giving the homeless access to shelter until more permanent housing can be introduced in cooperation with the province (screw the feds…they just don’t care) are sound policy decisions.

Politics can be about taking the lowest common denominator and milking it for everything it’s worth.  Thankfully, this City Council isn’t about to rest on that kind of a strategy to get them through to the next civic election in 2011.

If only we all acted like the inhabitants in this picture, VANOC's promises of blue skies would undoubtedly come true.

As a former member of the Vancouver Youth Symphony Orchestra (VYSO), and a current member of the West Cost Symphony Orchestra, Sean Bickerton’s outrage over VANOC’s treatment of both the youth and the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra rings very true for me.

This apology is as useless as a Gordon Campbell promise not to use the practice of lip synching during the opening ceremonies, or a Gordon Campbell promise of inclusion into the opening ceremonies.

I am particularly troubled by the muzzling aspect of the contract signed with the VYSO, as it is indicative of the information/security/cost/etc. vortex that comprises the business of organizing the Olympics.

The spectacle of the Olympics has taken on a decidedly negative hue in so many aspects in my humble opinion.

Security that potentially infringes on freedom of expression and which costs over $1 billion.

Ticket prices that make any normal working family shudder and then come to the realization that television will likely be the “venue” that they can watch the events occur.

Intensive corporate protection of multinational corporations that represent everything opposite to the spirit of sports, competition and healthy lifestyles (Coke, McDonald’s).

A organizing committee that will likely do nothing to leave a social legacy after the games – as in, watch for the Olympic village social housing component to slip away due to market forces.  This will only be the beginning.

And let’s not forget the nuclear explosions of expense and cost that we as Canadian, British Columbian and Vancouver taxpayers will have to pony up for years to come.

Forgive me if my Olympic “spirit” is as damp as our weather over the past week.