
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.



“The Park Board chose not to cut lifeguards on duty, community centre hours, or community programs geared towards seniors and youth.” WRONG! Cuts were made to seniors and youth programs, community centre hours and building maintenance.
Let’s not kid ourselves. When Park Board cuts their programming staff at community centres, the cuts will be felt at those locations, too.
Can we look forward to a commensurate reduction to senior Park Board staff? Especially as there will be fewer venues to look after?
Sure. Pigs fly too, don’t they?
Respectfully, I have to disagree that it’s hyperbole, but the fact that you don’t have children may be instructive as to our divergence of opinion. I myself do not have children, but I can well remember the sense of wonder, amazement, and beauty that the conservatory generated when I experienced it as a child, and I find it appalling that present and future generations of children would be deprived of the opportunity for such a thing.
As for the logic that we must preserve services based on the criteria of which “… represent some of the highest usage rates of any of the programs and services the Park Board currently offers…” , I find it a bit misguided. Most students in secondary school do not avail themselves of taking higher calculus course, but I see that it would be a rather foolish notion to cut such courses in high schools.