Tsakumis’ Loose Facts, Part 2

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.

Leave a Reply

Thu Mar 18, 2010

March 2010
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
  
 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31  

FACT OF THE DAY

An article titled Vancouver Politics by Paul Tennant in The Vancouver Book (1976), describes the entry of TEAM onto the civic political scene in 1968. TEAM, wrote Tennant, “sought to be a moderate reform group appealing to persons of all political ideologies.”

On their left was COPE (the Committee of Progressive Electors), also formed in 1968, and on their right was the NPA (the Non-Partisan Association), which had been a power in city politics for nearly four decades, and which “held that the affairs of the city should be run by those with the necessary knowledge and experience, i.e., those with a professional-managerial background, in order to run the city in a business-like way.”

The reformers, on the other hand, “felt that civic decision-making should be open to the public, with leadership coming from a cross-section of the population, and rule going to the working class majority. This group was concerned about land use, they advocated city control, and preferred to structure politics around the neighborhood concept.”

Quote OF THE DAY

“It was very diverse, and we got together by word of mouth. There were professors, business people, labor, lawyers and from all across the city. It was a coalescing of people around the idea we should do something.” – former City Councillor Setty Pendakur on the formation Vancouver’s reform movement and its political manifestation – TEAM – came into being in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.

Archive

Tags