• The position expressed by Paul Faoro in this article with regards to the changes going on at City Hall is very telling.  Why?  Because a top-heavy, in efficient organization is what was embraced by a City Hall run by former City manager Judy Rogers – and the prospect of ongoing and upcoming consolidation isn’t exactly something that a union leader likes to hear.  Yes, the Sam Sullivan loyalists and NPA supporters stuck in the past have problems with the changes that have been made – and from the looks of it, so do several of the managers that have left over the past year because they weren’t used to getting challenged about their little fiefdoms.  But in the end, the bureaucracy that ballooned out of control without the accompaniment of improvement to service, is now being culled to design a cost-effective and intelligently run system from within City Hall.  It isn’t easy, but it most definitely is the right thing to do, in spite of the backlash from those that are responsible for much of the mess in the first place.

• The over-the-top enthusiasm for the Mayor by pollster Mario Canseco is a little hard to understand, but these numbers are certainly not as dire as the usual suspects are making them out to be.  I won’t go into the different polling techniques and questioning that make this Angus Reid poll and the one conducted by StratCom that far off from each other.  Rather, I will put this question forward: who of any profile or status in this city worthy of a potential Mayoral run would be willing to battle against Gregor Robertson at this point?  I still can’t see a worthy opponent stepping up that easily, and from what I am hearing, neither can the executive board members of the NPA.  Oh, and for the record, there were several other candidates for this round of the NPA nomination process taking place on November 20th, who abruptly pulled their names from the running, promising instead to come on board next June.  Yeah right!  Bottom line, the Mayoral void on the side of the NPA is a huge problem for them that will not be solved by a Suzanne Anton or Ian Robertson candidacy.

• If she decides to do it, two things happen.  First, Surrey First will be in disarray, as the entire team revolved around the salience of Diane.  There are some candidates that could prove to emerge as a viable replacement (Tom Gill?), but the landscape of possibility for opposing parties truly opens up upon her departure.  Secondly, if she is handed the keys to the Premier’s office (as should be arranged if I was advising the party brass), she gives the BC Liberals a fighting chance.  That is of course an assessment made under the proviso that Carole Taylor is truly out of the game, and is going to stick with her new SFU appointment.  If Taylor enters the race, however, I’d say that both women could be game changers for a party that is in deep trouble at the moment.

• And what if they say no?  Is the entire burden on the municipalities?  Weeks ago I advised these Mayors to stand up to Gordon Campbell…and now with the events of the past week, it is all the more reason to step up and take a stand.  Provide some new funding mechanisms devoted for transportation instead of putting everything on the shoulders of property owners – that is the message to be collectively delivered to the Province.  There should be no approval by the Metro Vancouver’s Council of Mayors unless Gordo in his last few remaining months makes a commitment for new revenue sources for these cash-starved municipalities that BY LAW are not allowed to run a deficit.

• I don’t always agree with him on his political viewpoints, but on the eve of Remembrance Day, I have to give huge praise to Allan De Genova, who has been one of the key architects behind the opening of Honour House.  De Genova’s contacts in the development industry have been invaluable in raising funds, and I know how proud De Genova is that the project is now open to host veterans and their families.  Congratulations Allan on an amazing job of taking your dream and making it into a reality – 2 years from conceptualization to grand opening is an impressive feat.

• I have received a number of emails from NPA members wishing to remain anonymous who are upset with not only the individuals that have been acclaimed as candidates for the party (one individual said to me “a man who hasn’t been relevant in decades and tried to change our great party’s name, and a guy who ran for the Conservatives years ago and lost”), but also the fact that they have been shut out of the decision (another email contained this line “They took my money for the dinner, but they aren’t going to get anymore after this kind of interference in the democratic process.  I am done with the NPA!”).  This “nomination” process has already turned into a gong show and we haven’t even got to the date for the actual meeting.  My assumption?  The people that I mentioned above who pulled away from their stated intentions to run are not coming back.  And filling the rest of those vacancies with viable candidates is going to be an effort in futility.  Good luck Manjot…you are going to need it.

• I want to encourage everyone to go out to your local Remembrance Day ceremony and pay your respects.  It has been a tradition for me since I was in high school, and no matter the temperature or weather, I always feel blessed to be in the presence of greatness, and to be able to offer a small gesture of how appreciative I am.   Lest we forget.

Enjoy the beautiful sunshine today.  Vancouver is so stunning at this time of year.

• I tend to agree with the sentiments of Harvey Enchin when it comes to his opinions on controlling spending at City Hall – but I think that there needs to be a little bit of context given as a backdrop to his comments.  First, over their three years of working together as Mayor and City Manager, Sam Sullivan and Judy Rogers added 15.6 per cent to the city’s operating budget with little to no scrutiny.  Enchin’s math is also wrong, because the increase in expenditures from last year to this year is $54.8 million (page 6), (not $60.2 million.  Of that figure, $34.9 million is going towards a four per cent wage increase for city workers.  These increases come of course from the collective agreements signed in 2007 by Sullivan as Mayor.  The Mayor is taking the remainder of $19.9 million and devoting it to four priorities – affordable housing, the environment, public safety and arts and culture – all of which he campaigned and got elected upon.  So, while I agree with Enchin’s sentiments as a general rule of thumb, this Council is by no stretch of the imagination going crazy with spending increases as the previous Council did.

• MLAs like Jenny Kwan and Adrian Dix are doing a fantastic job of keeping parents riled up about school closures, with new lines of attack on the decision coming everyday.  Two things I want to mention, however:  1) These MLAs should be swinging away at the BC Liberal government, which continues to add costs onto the shoulders of school boards while at the same time cutting back budgets – it isn’t the school boards’ fault and 2) When schools are operating at 50-70 per cent capacity due to a lack of enrollment, something needs to be done to consolidate.  I understand that if I had a child in one of the schools potentially slated to shut down, I would be fighting tooth and nail against such a decision.  But because I do not, I am able to take a position that is a little less emotionally involved and understand that schools that are cavernous because of too few students does nothing to help children, learning, or budgets in the future.

• Kingsway is pretty dangerous for cyclists (I have seen some pretty close calls driving into Vancouver during rush hour over the years), and so while it won’t happen during this term, this idea seems like one that is bound to emerge in the next few years.  More importantly, it should also point out to the minority of rabid anti-cycling zealots that the desire to make forms of transportation easier, safer and more accessible to citizens is something that isn’t only originating from within City Hall – it is a movement that more and more people are catching onto at the neighbourhood level.

• Is it true what I am hearing about the NPA’s nomination meeting on November 20th?  That they are simply going to re-nominate their already elected incumbents to mark the most anti-climatic outcome to a date that the party has been promoting for many months?  If that is indeed the case, it is a pretty pathetic sign of the interest level surrounding the possibility of carrying the NPA banner around in the next election.

• Forget about the cultural divide that might exist in Surrey when it comes to secondary suites – the more pressing issue is the affordable housing options that these suites offer to new immigrants and others who are moving into the city at a rapid pace.  I think that the “opt-out” provisions for communities who do not favor suites that the City of Surrey is thinking of offering is ridiculous and will just create more of a headache in terms of administration for a city staff that I am aware is bursting at the seems in terms of workload.  I am shocked that a city like Surrey, where secondary suites are so prevalent, is the last major municipality in the Lower Mainland to deal with the issue.  For the sake of safety, for the sake of uniformity, and for the sake of creating a stock of rental housing that can accommodate the influx of 1,000 people per month, they need to get their asses in gear.

• Stuart Mackinnon has written a piece about how community gardens are supported by the Park Board and the City of Vancouver, and so even though the multicultural plots proposed for Sunset Beach have been rejected by residents, there will be another location somewhere for the concept.  But is any proposal for community gardens the “right” location?  Because it seems to me that many community garden proposals – take the one that was proposed as a new “rooftop farm” atop 211 East Georgia street – are always opposed by property owners.  I understand certain individuals having an issue with land that was previous accessible to all being given away to “private interests.”  On the other hand, a rooftop garden, or one that might fill in a rarely used parking lot, or even one that adds a little colour and character to a non-descript patch of land, all seem like innocuous offerings to the broader community.  Is this typical Vancouver NIMBY attitudes or something else?  Personally, I find the consistent opposition confusing and frustrating.  Here is the idea behind the original concept of the inter-cultural Sunset Beach Community Garden proposal.

• Aside from having no tolerance for line-ups, attitudes and high drink prices (plus the fact that I feel old these days any time I enter one), this is yet another reason why clubs just aren’t for me anymore.  I tell you, the atmosphere on Granville Street these days on a Friday and Saturday night, and the kinds of things that happen in these crowds in and outside of the venues, just aren’t the way things used to be.  And yes, before someone mentions the legend of Bindi Johal being shot up on a dance floor on Richards street, let me just say that it just doesn’t feel the same – people are going out not only to have fun, but with something to prove.  Sorry, not exactly my bag.

Ok, that’s it for now folks.  Have a fantastic day.

Lone NPA Councillor Suzanne Anton is going to be changing her footwear for the remainder of her term.

I have always said that changing your mind in politics shouldn’t be as big a deal as it is usually portrayed – if, that is, it is handled correctly.

And that is why I am not inclined to immediately jump down Suzanne Anton’s throat when I read this about her changing her mind on supporting the Hornby bike lane.  Rather, I am open to listening to her reasoning and then assessing whether it is politics or principle that has motivated her decision.

Well, after reading her release from yesterday, it is clear that she has changed her mind because of the shit kicking she has received from opponents of the bike lane and her core constituencies rather than the reasons she so desperately tried to get across in her release.

Let’s break down the statement in detail.

“FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 6, 2010

STATEMENT FROM NPA CITY COUNCILLOR SUZANNE ANTON

“No one who spoke to council on Tuesday expected to be a part of a Kangeroo council,” says Coun. Anton

A very awkward quote clearly written by her young staffer, although I understand what she is trying to say.

“On Tuesday night at 11:38pm city council once again held a vote at the end of a marathon meeting that suited the agenda of the Mayor and his caucus more than it did Vancouver citizens, small business owners, or City staff.

“When the meeting concluded I was satisfied that two of my biggest concerns about the Hornby Street bike lane project were met. First, I was assured by the City’s Engineering Department that the design of the separated bike lane was the absolute best of all available options for Downtown Vancouver. Second, thanks to my amendment of the motion I understood that every best effort would be taken by the City to mitigate the impacts of this development upon Hornby Street residents, businesses and their customers.

This is interesting, because her acknowledgment that a) the design of the bike lane is sound and b) the interests of Hornby residents and businesses were absolutely being taken into account seem to appease the majority of the criticisms and concerns that were raised by speakers in Council chambers on Tuesday evening.

“However, earlier today I discovered that a critical requirement of my support has not been met. I’ve learned that at 7:30am on the morning after council’s decision, crews and equipment began immediate work on the new Hornby Street bike lane.

Ok, and your issue is…?  First of all, according to the City’s Director of Transportation Jerry Dobrovolny, construction will take 10 weeks, and they are hoping to have everything finished “before the Christmas shopping season.”  That math doesn’t exactly add up, by the way, because 10 weeks of work would put us to about one week before Christmas, while the Christmas shopping season begins in about six weeks.

Anyways, let’s let Anton continue:

It’s clear to me from prepared signage and work plans that logistics for this project were not done overnight, and that staff was given direction to undertake this work weeks ago. Furthermore, I’ve learned that the road had already been marked in preparation for the work as early as Monday, a full day before the public meeting took place.

Here is where my alarm bells went off.  Are you telling me Suzanne that with such tight timelines to get everything done, you are suggesting that absolutely no planning and/or preparation was supposed to begin before the decision?  Because if that is what you are arguing, you are either ill-informed or have developed a convenient case of political memory loss.

City staff are well aware of Council directives long before a vote is taken – that is how it has always worked at City Hall.  City Council and the Mayor’s office indicate a direction to staff and generally ask for a feasibility report and a set of recommendations.

Let’s give you an example that you should remember from your past as part of the ruling NPA Council from 2005-2008.  EcoDensity was an idea of former Mayor Sam Sullivan’s that was first introduced to City staff in July, 2006 (you can read the staff report here – check the bottom of page 3) with a mandate to create a Charter, Toolkit and Forum on EcoDensity.  Yet as you can see from that report, the presentation to Council by at the time newly minted Director of Planning Brent Toderian was made on November 14, 2006 – a full five months later.

Now here is the key point – Sam Sullivan launched his EcoDensity initiative in advance of the World Urban Forum in June, 2006 – BEFORE STAFF WERE DIRECTED TO BEGIN THEIR WORK – via a press conference flanked by “a number of environmentalists, community activists and academics…” At that very press conference, there were glossy brochures and materials that had already been printed with the City of Vancouver’s logo on them.

Let me note that this initiative had not even been discussed with Council at this point (there were 5 opposition Councillors), never mind work by staff or an official vote in Council chambers.

So, for Anton to cry foul about work being undertaken the morning after an affirmative vote is completely disingenuous and politically transparent.

Now here  is another key point to consider about Anton’s flip flop:   She was apparently OK with the bike lane on the evening of Tuesday, when she voted in favour of it in spite of many speakers who voiced their concerns in person, yet now she has a change of heart because construction crews begin work AFTER the vote had carried – to get work and the project completed as quickly and as efficiently as possible (NOTE: Isn’t that approach the opposite of what is so often a complain with City Hall – that bureaucracy and red tape create destructive and obtrusive delays?).

That to me rings completely false.  But please, Suzanne, go on:

“Regardless of your views on the Hornby Street separated bike lane, no one who spoke to council on Tuesday expected to be a part of a Kangeroo council. It is a fundamental trust between citizens and their elected representatives that when we meet in council chambers that we are there to listen, deliberate and debate, and finally decide based upon the inputs we have received.

Well, as I have pointed out above, I call Bullshit on that statement.

“It is crystal clear to me now that Tuesday’s council meeting was a mere formality, and pure political theatre. Businesses on Hornby Street cannot have faith that their concerns will be properly considered, nor can they have faith that this is a ‘trial’ project.

So let me get this straight – on Tuesday you “understood that every best effort would be taken by the City to mitigate the impacts of this development upon Hornby Street residents, businesses and their customers,” and now that you see work starting the morning after, you have a different opinion?

Once again, I call bullshit.  Anton’s decision has to do with the absolute shit kicking she took after her vote alongside Vision Vancouver, which caused many of her supporters and those who were looking for her to take a stand to be shocked and angered after the vote.

Let’s just use a few examles from former NPA supporter Alex Tsakumis, who on Wednesday morning stated that:

“Suzanna Anton has really sunk her party, the NPA.”

“[she] has undermined a significant platform her party could have used in the nest election against Vision Vancouver.”

“Do not vote for Suzanne Anton in the next election (or Vision Vancouver) if you want a sane agenda to return to City Hall. I will now make it my personal mission to see that Suzanne Anton loses as many votes as possible–her vote in support of this lunacy last night was the last straw for me. She should be defeated and is of absolutely no value to any of you as citizens of this city.”

Let me assure you that many of her NPA core of support felt the same way.  As an example, last night there was an NPA board meeting, and I can tell you that my sources tell me that it wasn’t pretty in terms of the utterances made about Anton’s performance the evening before.

That, my dear readers, is why Anton is now doing this:

“I am therefore submitting a motion to rescind to the City Clerk, and withdrawing my support of this project. I will also request a full report from staff that explains how these preparations had been completed in time to stage work the morning after our vote.

“Thanks to the STIR projects, HEAT Shelters, and now this bike lane, Mayor Robertson and his colleagues have a well-earned reputation for being autocratic. With my decision I am hoping to send a clear message to council that we must listen to the people who elected us.”

– 30 -

Media inquiries to Suzanne Anton

Funny how she never spoke about autocratic politics when Sam Sullivan pushed forward with EcoDensity in spite of neighbourhood protests.

Now let me make one point very clear – I am in full support of an elected majority on City Council being able to push forth with an idea that they campaigned on (and I will back up Sullivan here, because it was in his inauguration speech where he first spoke about increasing density within the city), regardless of the protests of Vancouver’s NIMBY neighbourhoods, who tend to oppose any change that threatens their fiefdoms.

Anton has been a part of an administration that is determined to advance an agenda in spite of vocal opposition, which only confirms that today she is simply playing politics with issues like the bike lanes, the HEAT shelters or the STIR program

Which is fine – that is a part of the game.

But don’t come out with a flip flop statement on changing your vote and expect people to believe the line that you are doing it based on the fact that “crews and equipment began immediate work on the new Hornby bike lane” the morning after approval.

Because I, and many others including your own base of supporters, will call bullshit on that cockamamie story.

Not everyone within City Hall is up in arms about the internal change that is currently occurring, as some might have the public believe.

Frances Bula wrote a story about the changes that are going on at City Hall, which is fascinating enough in its account of how those within the Hall are reacting to the way in which things are being shaped by the Vision administration.  But then there was this comment left at her blog, which I for one don’t find surprising in the least:

• 5 city hall insider // Sep 23, 2010 at 8:44 pm

  “Change is long overdue in the Hall and we are all enduring the whining of a group that has controlled City Hall for many years under NPA regimes. To cry out that the current administration is politicizing the workforce is laughable. We have witnessed years of political appointments to management positions in this organization. The outcry at the hall from our hard done by managers is a result of the fact that their buddies are not in power any more to protect them from their nice gigs. The “leaked” memo is a calculated response from a group that is fearful of the changes that will be coming to City Hall once the Employee survey released and the services review is complete. We are seeing people being called into account. We have lobbied for change for a long time here and now we are beginning to see it. Many of us approve of what is going on. Let’s hope this new guy really knows what he is doing.”

No matter how certain individuals try to spin that city staff are disenchanted and on the verge of revolt, nothing could be farther from the truth.

As I have written in a past opinion piece for the Vancouver Sun, unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats from within City Hall – particularly the ones that were appointed by past political administrations – are prone to push back and do everything in their power to maintain their grip on the levers of power.

As Bula points out:

“While the Vision Vancouver administration has been making dramatic changes to the public face of the city, it has also been making less-visible but significant changes internally to create an organization more like a provincial ministry – attentive to what the political leaders want, centralized and more top down, quick to react and focused on efficient communication.”

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  Political leaders that have been put in place by the people, and who must continue to answer to the people to keep their jobs, have every right to make the decisions for the policy direction of the City of Vancouver.  And accordingly, if changes are needed so that these political decisions can receive the proper attention and expediency that is necessary to advance an agenda, then I find them to be entirely appropriate, regardless of whether it creates what some might deem as “chaos.”

Having studied change management theory, and been a part of crafting a strategy for an entrenched organization encountering new leadership, I can say that selective blowback, and the ensuing intent by some to damage that new leadership in whatever way possible, is something that happens quite often.

But here is where the clarification must come in.  First, as Bula additionally points out, there are most definitely an array of mixed responses within City Hall to the above-mentioned changes:

“…there are some people who are really enjoying working with new city manager Penny Ballem — they like her directness, willingness to listen to new ideas, and decisiveness — I continue to hear daily complaints from people in various departments and at various levels in the system.”

This is a part of the 30/30/30 split that Penny Ballem talks about in the article.

Secondly, these changes are not crippling the organization as the same political opponents I alluded to above would have people believe.  Rather, these changes are contributing to a leaner, more efficient and much more responsive workforce.

Now I watched the video with the Vancouver Sun’s Fazil Mihlar and Jeff Lee talking about Gregor Robertson’s “summer from hell” as was coined by the headline writer.

In it, Lee talks about how Vision Vancouver is an “incredibly aggressive administration” when it comes to their agenda as they “came in with a mandate and they intend to exercise that mandate.”

Lee also describes how you are seeing people “reacting to a mandate that they really didn’t believe was going to take place…they wonder where this all came from.”

And my point is that if Lee is correct, then people voted blindly or just didn’t pay attention at all to what Vision campaigned on during the election.

Like I have referenced in a previous post, the majority of major policy planks that Vision Vancouver is now moving forward on were specifically referenced in Vision Vancouver electoral platform.

Bike Lanes?  Check.  The STIR program?  Check.  Tackling homelessness?  Check.  The greening of the city?  Check.

I will once again reference my past words to articulate my sentiment on whether Vision Vancouver is ramming an agenda down people’s throats:

“In a case like the overwhelming [electoral] result that Vision Vancouver received in November, 2008, there was an endorsement of their vision for the city, encompassing widespread coverage of their intent to tackle housing and affordability or sustainability and environmental stewardship.

Consultation is obviously essential, particularly when it comes to the locality and immediate impact felt within the civic political arena.

However, consulting for years on an idea that was already endorsed at the ballot box is simply a recipe for gridlock.”

This was not a hidden agenda folks.

And by virtue of that fact, the changes that have been implemented in City Hall under the leadership of Penny Ballem – the end to duplication of services, the cost savings, the changes in leadership, the systemic measures to ensure speed in adopting and implementing political direction, etc. – should also come as no surprise.

The vocal opponents of any program/initiative are always going to get more attention and play up their position far more than those who are passive and accepting of an idea, particularly in the current media climate of Vancouver, which in recent months tends to emphasize the sensational rather than the substantial.

But make no mistake about it – all of the griping that we in the civic political bubble of interest are getting barraged by these days – must be kept in perspective when contrasted with those city workers, members of the public and even media types that see the benefits in what Vision Vancouver is trying to do for the city.

The Vision Vancouver fundraiser in Chinatown on Wednesday night is a perfect example of how support – and I mean tangible support – is often a far cry off of what is being portrayed in the newspapers and through the airwaves.

Because after witnessing that turnout first hand, I’d be interested to hear whether an individual like Tung Chan really wants to wade into this kind of climate and test his own support within the Chinese community.