By Matthew Burrows, Georgia Straight - Vancouver,British Columbia,Canada
Publish Date: July 21, 2009
The Vancouver park board has approved the establishment of temporary RV parks at Jericho Beach and Spanish Banks during the 2010 Olympics, despite opposition from area residents.
But Vision Vancouver commissioner Aaron Jasper has promised that, if the revenue projections don’t add up, the park board could “reconsider” its decision.
“If we sat down with staff, and we were working with the residents and we had all the numbers on the table, and it actually showed that this would be a loss to the park board, I think that would definitely make the park board reconsider,” Jasper said last night (July 20) in the foyer of the park-board office after the 4-1 vote, in response to a question from Point Grey resident Ardy Zia. “Our goal was that, even with a modest occupancy, that this would break even. The bonus would be extra revenues.”
The parking lots at the beaches will accommodate up to 365 RV sites between February 8 and March 2, 2010. Visitors will pay $95 per night per recreation vehicle, a price that will cover access to washrooms, showers, waste disposal, and a free shuttle.
At the meeting, Vision’s Jasper, Sarah Blyth, and board chair Raj Hundal, along with Non-Partisan Association commissioner Ian Robertson, voted in favour of all of the recommendations contained in park board revenue-services manager Philip Josephs’s report. The park board awarded the $134,832 contract for managing the RV parks to Duckworth Management Group Ltd.
Green commissioner Stuart Mackinnon severed the recommendations into a separate motions, saying he could not support the main recommendation to approve the temporary RV sites. The other recommendations passed unanimously.
“The most troubling for me is the commercialization of parkland,” Mackinnon said. “I have a fundamental and philosophical opposition to the commercialization of parkland and beaches.”
Coalition of Progressive Electors commissioner Loretta Woodcock and Vision’s Constance Barnes were absent from the meeting. Barnes is on a leave of absence.
At one point during the fractious meeting, Robertson told the crowd that he represented all of Vancouver’s residents and not just the few that had chosen to heckle and yell at almost every turn for close to an hour.
Frank Tyers of the North West Point Grey Home Owners’ Association claimed that no adequate “cost analysis” had been done that took into account the cost of a pumping station and a scenario where occupation was lower than predicted.
In the foyer, with questions coming at him thick and fast, Jasper fired back at Tyers: “I tell you sir, with all due respect, a half a million dollars revenue is a big deal to this board right now....It’s not BS.”
Tyers said, “It’s $700,000 [in projected revenues] if every space is rented, every minute....All of the expenses that you’ve put up there don’t include the pumping station.”
North West Marine Drive resident Tom Elliott was the most vocal critic, slamming commissioners for what he said was a disgusting display of “expediency and opportunism”.
21 July 2009
Vancouver park board approves RV parking during Olympics
By David Karp, Vancouver Sun July 20, 2009
VANCOUVER — Recreational vehicles will be allowed to stay overnight in city parking lots at Jericho Beach and Spanish Banks during the Olympics, the Vancouver park board decided Monday night.
The board voted 4-1 to approve a staff recommendation to allow roughly 365 RVs to park for $95 per night, despite residents’ protests.
Green party commissioner Stuart Mackinnon was the lone opponent.
The city sent information about the proposal to 460 homes near the beaches, and received 23 e-mails, letters and phone calls opposing the move, with just three communications in favour.
“We were confident that the business case was a good one,” said Vision commissioner Aaron Jasper.
“The RVs are coming, and this is a way for us to do our part to help with the logistics of the Olympics, and to do this in a controlled way that has minimal impact to Vancouverites.”
The city will pay Duckworth Management Group Ltd. $134,832 to manage the sites.
According to the staff report, the only RV site close to downtown is the Capilano RV Park, which had a waiting list of more than 100 people as of February.
dkarp@vancouversun.com
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
VANCOUVER — Recreational vehicles will be allowed to stay overnight in city parking lots at Jericho Beach and Spanish Banks during the Olympics, the Vancouver park board decided Monday night.
The board voted 4-1 to approve a staff recommendation to allow roughly 365 RVs to park for $95 per night, despite residents’ protests.
Green party commissioner Stuart Mackinnon was the lone opponent.
The city sent information about the proposal to 460 homes near the beaches, and received 23 e-mails, letters and phone calls opposing the move, with just three communications in favour.
“We were confident that the business case was a good one,” said Vision commissioner Aaron Jasper.
“The RVs are coming, and this is a way for us to do our part to help with the logistics of the Olympics, and to do this in a controlled way that has minimal impact to Vancouverites.”
The city will pay Duckworth Management Group Ltd. $134,832 to manage the sites.
According to the staff report, the only RV site close to downtown is the Capilano RV Park, which had a waiting list of more than 100 people as of February.
dkarp@vancouversun.com
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
25 April 2009
beer at the folkfest
The Vancouver Folk Festival approached the Park Board to approve the sale of beer and wine during the festival. They wanted a 750 seat public tent and a 250 seat tent behind the scenes for the artists and staff, for a total of 1000 seats. Alcohol has never been served at the festival. In fact Gary Crystal, one of the founders of the Folkfest, said on CBC radio that the festival deliberately did not sell alcohol as they didn't think it was conducive to the spirit of the event. Times and ideas change of course and the festival now believes it needs alcohol sales to help defray the costs of the event.
The motion came to the Board without public consultation. The Folk Festival organizers did not attend the meeting to make their case, rather relying on staff to put the recommendation forward. Staff explained that as the Folk Festival had been approved for a 500 seat tent last year, there was no need for public consultation this year.
I disagreed and put forward a motion to refer the matter to the Planning and Environment committee so that the public,especially the neighbours, could have input. I believe that the original permission, granted last year but not followed up on, was not relevant as this new permit was for double the original request. My referral motion was defeated 4-1 and subsequently the motion to approve the beer tents passed, again 4-1 with mine being the vote to disapprove.
I found it odd that the majority of the Board did not think that public input was necessary on this motion when it could have significant impact on the neighbourhood, yet the majority had previously voted to re-visit the Jericho wharf decision, even though there had been a public process on that.
The motion came to the Board without public consultation. The Folk Festival organizers did not attend the meeting to make their case, rather relying on staff to put the recommendation forward. Staff explained that as the Folk Festival had been approved for a 500 seat tent last year, there was no need for public consultation this year.
I disagreed and put forward a motion to refer the matter to the Planning and Environment committee so that the public,especially the neighbours, could have input. I believe that the original permission, granted last year but not followed up on, was not relevant as this new permit was for double the original request. My referral motion was defeated 4-1 and subsequently the motion to approve the beer tents passed, again 4-1 with mine being the vote to disapprove.
I found it odd that the majority of the Board did not think that public input was necessary on this motion when it could have significant impact on the neighbourhood, yet the majority had previously voted to re-visit the Jericho wharf decision, even though there had been a public process on that.
07 April 2009
Wendy Ladner Beaudry
The death of Wendy Ladner Beaudry has touched many of us in the community. The following is a statement I made at the April 6th Park Board meeting:
"I imagine that everyone here tonight is aware of the tragedy that occurred in Pacific Spirit Park this past weekend. I am sure that everyone at this table joins me in expressing our great sorrow and extending our condolences to the Ladner-Beaudry family. The death of Wendy Ladner-Beaudry is a shock and a terrible loss to our community. Any untimely death is a tragic event but the circumstances of this one is particularly significant to those us who advocate for parks and public spaces. Our parks are safe places but we must always be vigilant and aware of our surroundings. Our heartfelt thoughts and prayers go out to the entire family."
"I imagine that everyone here tonight is aware of the tragedy that occurred in Pacific Spirit Park this past weekend. I am sure that everyone at this table joins me in expressing our great sorrow and extending our condolences to the Ladner-Beaudry family. The death of Wendy Ladner-Beaudry is a shock and a terrible loss to our community. Any untimely death is a tragic event but the circumstances of this one is particularly significant to those us who advocate for parks and public spaces. Our parks are safe places but we must always be vigilant and aware of our surroundings. Our heartfelt thoughts and prayers go out to the entire family."
18 March 2009
Letter to the editor: Jericho Wharf
Letter of the week
Vancouver Courier
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
To the editor:
Re: "Wharf advocates attack park commissioner," Letters, March 4.
Joan Bunn needs to get her facts straight. To suggest that the crumbling concrete, creosote and steel of the Jericho Wharf is green because "it is basically inert" is not only incorrect, it shows a complete misunderstanding of ecological health. The decaying wharf is the opposite of "green." Its creosoted pilings continue to leak toxic compounds into an area that has been designated by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans as prime juvenile fish habitat. The concrete and steel of the wharf and the rip rap provide absolutely no healthy habitat for any creature, except perhaps rats.
I have worked as a volunteer with the Jericho Stewardship Group for the last five years to restore and enhance habitat in the park. Despite its relatively small size, the park is critical habitat for a number of species, including species at risk. Rare species are also encountered in the park, whether a northern goshawk, a water scorpion or a tiny shrew. I can assure readers that none of them are dependent on the dilapidated wharf for their survival.
Originally, the Jericho Stewardship Group advocated for the wharf's complete destruction and restoration of the foreshore with native dune plants and features that would have provided habitat for another complement of species to further enhance the biodiversity of the park.
When the previous park board and park board staff recommended the demolition of most of the wharf, but restoration of a 500-square-foot section to recognize its value to part of the community, we thought it a compromise that we could live with. That this small special-interest group is unwilling to accept a reasonable compromise and acknowledge the biological and natural values of the site is disappointing, to say the least.
Dawn Hanna,
Vancouver
© Vancouver Courier 2009
Vancouver Courier
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
To the editor:
Re: "Wharf advocates attack park commissioner," Letters, March 4.
Joan Bunn needs to get her facts straight. To suggest that the crumbling concrete, creosote and steel of the Jericho Wharf is green because "it is basically inert" is not only incorrect, it shows a complete misunderstanding of ecological health. The decaying wharf is the opposite of "green." Its creosoted pilings continue to leak toxic compounds into an area that has been designated by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans as prime juvenile fish habitat. The concrete and steel of the wharf and the rip rap provide absolutely no healthy habitat for any creature, except perhaps rats.
I have worked as a volunteer with the Jericho Stewardship Group for the last five years to restore and enhance habitat in the park. Despite its relatively small size, the park is critical habitat for a number of species, including species at risk. Rare species are also encountered in the park, whether a northern goshawk, a water scorpion or a tiny shrew. I can assure readers that none of them are dependent on the dilapidated wharf for their survival.
Originally, the Jericho Stewardship Group advocated for the wharf's complete destruction and restoration of the foreshore with native dune plants and features that would have provided habitat for another complement of species to further enhance the biodiversity of the park.
When the previous park board and park board staff recommended the demolition of most of the wharf, but restoration of a 500-square-foot section to recognize its value to part of the community, we thought it a compromise that we could live with. That this small special-interest group is unwilling to accept a reasonable compromise and acknowledge the biological and natural values of the site is disappointing, to say the least.
Dawn Hanna,
Vancouver
© Vancouver Courier 2009
16 March 2009
An unpublished letter to the editor from Mike Cotter re: Jericho Wharf
Dear Editor:
I am writing to correct some misconceptions left by the March 4 letters of the organizers of the group seeking to reverse the former Vancouver Park Board’s decision to return Central Jericho Beach to its natural state.
This year the Jericho Sailing Centre Association is celebrating 35 years of providing low cost, accessible ocean access opportunities to the people of Vancouver in small, naturally powered craft-ocean kayaks, row boats, windsurfers, canoes and sailing dinghies. The Jericho Sailing Centre, the former Jericho Beach Air Station “Building 13”, recycled by our non-profit volunteer driven organization has always been accessible to the public-it is our mission-over 15,000 people accessed Vancouver’s ocean playground from our facility in 2008 including the 8,000 who went through our ocean kayaking, windsurfing and dinghy sailing lesson programs. Vancouver’s demand for such ocean access will continue to grow in the future.
The beach adjacent to the Jericho Sailing Centre is the only public park space specifically designated to allow ocean access for small naturally powered craft in Vancouver. There were over 150,000 launches from this busy public space last year, a stark contrast to the sparsely used 1 ½ acre dilapidated concrete wharf immediately east of it.
During the original public consultation process the members of the JSCA and other users of the Jericho Sailing Centre were among the majority who favoured the complete removal of the Jericho wharf and reinstatement of the natural beach. The eventual decision to retain a 5,000 square foot section of the eastern end of the wharf for public viewing and commemorative purposes was supported by the JSCA.
In his letter to the Courier Mr. Gary Wedeking is incorrect when he states that the JSCA presented “relatively detailed plans” to expand the sailing centre launch facilities into the natural beach. In fact, I was careful at the meeting he refers to, to reference the Park Board’s own wording with respect to the positive aspects of the decision to remove the wharf which included, along with the obvious economic and environmental “Pro’s”, that the removal of the majority of the wharf provided the greatest flexibility for future public recreational use.
Considering the historic significance of the adjacent native village of E’eyoughmough, dating back thousands of years, it’s not a huge stretch to imagine what possible future uses might include and that the local population may, once again, choose to launch canoes and other small naturally powered craft from a naturally reinstated Central Jericho Beach.
The future recreational use of Central Jericho Beach will undoubtedly involve a separate public consultation process. In the meantime the natural beach recently liberated by the former Park Board faces the grimly ironic possibility that the current, self professed “greener” Park Board may choose to reoccupy it with 400 creosote leeching pilings, 1 ½ acres of crumbling concrete and an ongoing maintenance bill expected to exceed one million dollars over the next ten years.
Sincerely,
Mike Cotter,
General Manager
I am writing to correct some misconceptions left by the March 4 letters of the organizers of the group seeking to reverse the former Vancouver Park Board’s decision to return Central Jericho Beach to its natural state.
This year the Jericho Sailing Centre Association is celebrating 35 years of providing low cost, accessible ocean access opportunities to the people of Vancouver in small, naturally powered craft-ocean kayaks, row boats, windsurfers, canoes and sailing dinghies. The Jericho Sailing Centre, the former Jericho Beach Air Station “Building 13”, recycled by our non-profit volunteer driven organization has always been accessible to the public-it is our mission-over 15,000 people accessed Vancouver’s ocean playground from our facility in 2008 including the 8,000 who went through our ocean kayaking, windsurfing and dinghy sailing lesson programs. Vancouver’s demand for such ocean access will continue to grow in the future.
The beach adjacent to the Jericho Sailing Centre is the only public park space specifically designated to allow ocean access for small naturally powered craft in Vancouver. There were over 150,000 launches from this busy public space last year, a stark contrast to the sparsely used 1 ½ acre dilapidated concrete wharf immediately east of it.
During the original public consultation process the members of the JSCA and other users of the Jericho Sailing Centre were among the majority who favoured the complete removal of the Jericho wharf and reinstatement of the natural beach. The eventual decision to retain a 5,000 square foot section of the eastern end of the wharf for public viewing and commemorative purposes was supported by the JSCA.
In his letter to the Courier Mr. Gary Wedeking is incorrect when he states that the JSCA presented “relatively detailed plans” to expand the sailing centre launch facilities into the natural beach. In fact, I was careful at the meeting he refers to, to reference the Park Board’s own wording with respect to the positive aspects of the decision to remove the wharf which included, along with the obvious economic and environmental “Pro’s”, that the removal of the majority of the wharf provided the greatest flexibility for future public recreational use.
Considering the historic significance of the adjacent native village of E’eyoughmough, dating back thousands of years, it’s not a huge stretch to imagine what possible future uses might include and that the local population may, once again, choose to launch canoes and other small naturally powered craft from a naturally reinstated Central Jericho Beach.
The future recreational use of Central Jericho Beach will undoubtedly involve a separate public consultation process. In the meantime the natural beach recently liberated by the former Park Board faces the grimly ironic possibility that the current, self professed “greener” Park Board may choose to reoccupy it with 400 creosote leeching pilings, 1 ½ acres of crumbling concrete and an ongoing maintenance bill expected to exceed one million dollars over the next ten years.
Sincerely,
Mike Cotter,
General Manager
11 March 2009
Jericho Wharf
It seems my decision to uphold the previous Park Board plan regarding Jericho Wharf has not sat well with some members of the community (though I must say I am very heartened by the overwhelming support I have received overall). One only has to look at my record over the past 10 years of advocating for the preservation of, and public access for, our foreshore to know that it would have to be a very compelling argument for me to vote against more public access.
One writer accused me of not fulfilling a campaign promise to reverse the previous Board decision. This is in fact wrong, as I never promised to reverse the decision, but to re-examine it. Here in part is my reply to that writer:
During the civic election campaign I made a commitment to re-examine the decision made by the former Park Board to remove a portion of the wharf and return the area to a natural foreshore. On February 3rd the newly convened Planning and Environment Committee, of which I am member, met to discuss this issue. At that meeting members of the public were invited to share new information with the committee showing that the decision made was not the correct one. At that meeting I heard no new or compelling information suggesting that the decision was not the correct one.
Staff shared with us the plan proposed, which includes the retention and refurbishing of about 1/3 of the existing pier to serve as a reminder of the usage of the area during wartime and for the use and enjoyment of the public, as well as a return of the remaining area to a natural foreshore. Staff then shared with us the process of public consultation which was taken to seek input to the plan. I think the public process was fair and allowed all stakeholders a voice.
Vancouver being a coastal city is blessed with a beautiful natural foreshore, but unfortunately much of it is not accessible to the public. I believe that the plan presented allows for a dignified memorial to those who served, as well as allowing more of our foreshore to be accessible.
No decision can fulfil all of the interests expressed during the public process, but I truly believe that this plan satisfies the wants of the community. It retains a portion of the pier as a memorial, while allowing access to a natural foreshore."
There are many other compelling reasons to uphold the decision, which I will share with this blog at another time. I believe I made the right decision at the committee meeting and continue to believe this is the right plan for Jericho.
One writer accused me of not fulfilling a campaign promise to reverse the previous Board decision. This is in fact wrong, as I never promised to reverse the decision, but to re-examine it. Here in part is my reply to that writer:
During the civic election campaign I made a commitment to re-examine the decision made by the former Park Board to remove a portion of the wharf and return the area to a natural foreshore. On February 3rd the newly convened Planning and Environment Committee, of which I am member, met to discuss this issue. At that meeting members of the public were invited to share new information with the committee showing that the decision made was not the correct one. At that meeting I heard no new or compelling information suggesting that the decision was not the correct one.
Staff shared with us the plan proposed, which includes the retention and refurbishing of about 1/3 of the existing pier to serve as a reminder of the usage of the area during wartime and for the use and enjoyment of the public, as well as a return of the remaining area to a natural foreshore. Staff then shared with us the process of public consultation which was taken to seek input to the plan. I think the public process was fair and allowed all stakeholders a voice.
Vancouver being a coastal city is blessed with a beautiful natural foreshore, but unfortunately much of it is not accessible to the public. I believe that the plan presented allows for a dignified memorial to those who served, as well as allowing more of our foreshore to be accessible.
No decision can fulfil all of the interests expressed during the public process, but I truly believe that this plan satisfies the wants of the community. It retains a portion of the pier as a memorial, while allowing access to a natural foreshore."
There are many other compelling reasons to uphold the decision, which I will share with this blog at another time. I believe I made the right decision at the committee meeting and continue to believe this is the right plan for Jericho.
08 March 2009
A fine balancing act
After a few months as a Park Board Commissioner, my role as member of the Board is becoming clearer and more focussed. Being a caucus of one, even in a progressive alliance, can sometimes feel a bit lonely, especially when others on the Board haven’t always shared my worldview (Hollow Tree and Jericho Wharf come to mind). However I have to be true to my values and true to the people who helped elect me.
Responsibility is my watchword: financial responsibility; social responsibility; and environmental responsibility. Each of the decisions I make have to make sense from all three perspectives.
The Park Board, like any other level of government, uses public funds and so we must always keep in mind that every decision we make will have some sort of impact on the taxpayers of the city. Every dollar must be of value—especially in these tough economic times.
Each decision has to be socially responsible—it must not adversely affect one group over another nor favour one group over another. This is a very fine balancing act, as decisions made often have unforeseen consequences.
As an elected Green I have a strong responsibility to make sure each decision is environmentally sound and sustainable. This is probably my biggest role and responsibility on the Board, but I am happy to say that the Park Board workers and senior management all share these values. In the months ahead when the long term vision for Stanley Park is discussed this will become very evident.
One of the things I have learned in my brief tenure is how hard the Park Board staff work making our parks and recreation system so wonderful. To the folks who keep the parks clean, to the foresters who look after all the wonderful trees in the city and to all the rest of the fine employees of the Park Board, I say thank you. We can all be very proud of your work and dedication.
Responsibility is my watchword: financial responsibility; social responsibility; and environmental responsibility. Each of the decisions I make have to make sense from all three perspectives.
The Park Board, like any other level of government, uses public funds and so we must always keep in mind that every decision we make will have some sort of impact on the taxpayers of the city. Every dollar must be of value—especially in these tough economic times.
Each decision has to be socially responsible—it must not adversely affect one group over another nor favour one group over another. This is a very fine balancing act, as decisions made often have unforeseen consequences.
As an elected Green I have a strong responsibility to make sure each decision is environmentally sound and sustainable. This is probably my biggest role and responsibility on the Board, but I am happy to say that the Park Board workers and senior management all share these values. In the months ahead when the long term vision for Stanley Park is discussed this will become very evident.
One of the things I have learned in my brief tenure is how hard the Park Board staff work making our parks and recreation system so wonderful. To the folks who keep the parks clean, to the foresters who look after all the wonderful trees in the city and to all the rest of the fine employees of the Park Board, I say thank you. We can all be very proud of your work and dedication.
19 February 2009
Parks board gives Jericho Wharf supporters new hope
Sandra Thomas
Vancouver Courier
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Green Party parks board commissioner Stuart Mackinnon says there's no need for a second consultation on the fate of the Jericho Wharf.
"For me, the whole idea of preserving the Jericho Wharf is a little like people who want to preserve the Hollow Tree in Stanley park," he said. "I think some people are confusing nostalgia for heritage. It's something from their past that they're attached to and somehow not able to let go of and they think taxpayers should pay for it. We have to be very careful."
Mackinnon was the only commissioner to vote against a recommendation by the board's planning and environment committee, which includes four parks board commissioners, to hold a second consultation on the fate of the historic wharf. Once a staff report is completed on the motion, the board must approve it before it can move forward.
The former parks board voted last July to tear down the popular landmark and leave a small portion as a memorial for an estimated cost of $1.1 million, with $500,000 in maintenance over 10 years. Other options considered included repairing the entire wharf for $1.8 million, with an additional $100,000 to $200,000 needed every six years for maintenance, or spending $2 million to demolish the entire wharf and reinstate the foreshore and seawall along the stretch of the beach the wharf occupies.
"At the planning and environment committee I didn't hear any new compelling information that warrants going further," said Mackinnon. "I was prepared to look into it if any new information had come forward, but I didn't see anything like that."
Last year the public consultations held prior to the decision included signs posted near the site, public meetings, an open house, media advertising and information posted online. While some residents argued the wharf should be left intact because it's a popular landmark and could be used as a public amenity, others insisted its historical significance should be enough preserve it. The wharf was built more than 60 years ago as part of the former Jericho Seaplane Base. Jericho Beach was home to the Pacific Coast Station of the Royal Canadian Air Force from 1921 to 1945. The wharf's perimeter was installed during the 1976 United Nations Habitat Forum on and around Jericho Beach. The railings for the wharf came from the Lions Gate Bridge, which was under construction at the time.
Vision Vancouver parks board commissioner Sarah Blythe said Vision heard from many residents leading up to last November's municipal election upset about what they called a lack of proper consultation regarding the wharf.
"The Vision team wants to be thorough in getting the word out to enough people that they can feel they were part of the process," she said. "The more information we can get out there the better."
Blyth insists the decision doesn't mean Jericho Wharf will be saved, but rather that a new decision reached by the parks board will be based on more complete information.
"It looks to me that a very large chunk of people were left out of the process," she said. "We want to make sure we know enough to be comfortable making a final decision."
Blyth said if the second consultation is approved at parks board, work will begin almost immediately.
"We're going to get moving on this as soon as possible," she said.
The Courier asked Piet Rutgers, director of planning and operations for the board, whether approving a second consultation could open the door to reviews of other decisions made by past boards. Rutgers sent a message through media spokesperson Joyce Courtney that he was unable to comment until the staff report was complete.
© Vancouver Courier 2009
Vancouver Courier
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Green Party parks board commissioner Stuart Mackinnon says there's no need for a second consultation on the fate of the Jericho Wharf.
"For me, the whole idea of preserving the Jericho Wharf is a little like people who want to preserve the Hollow Tree in Stanley park," he said. "I think some people are confusing nostalgia for heritage. It's something from their past that they're attached to and somehow not able to let go of and they think taxpayers should pay for it. We have to be very careful."
Mackinnon was the only commissioner to vote against a recommendation by the board's planning and environment committee, which includes four parks board commissioners, to hold a second consultation on the fate of the historic wharf. Once a staff report is completed on the motion, the board must approve it before it can move forward.
The former parks board voted last July to tear down the popular landmark and leave a small portion as a memorial for an estimated cost of $1.1 million, with $500,000 in maintenance over 10 years. Other options considered included repairing the entire wharf for $1.8 million, with an additional $100,000 to $200,000 needed every six years for maintenance, or spending $2 million to demolish the entire wharf and reinstate the foreshore and seawall along the stretch of the beach the wharf occupies.
"At the planning and environment committee I didn't hear any new compelling information that warrants going further," said Mackinnon. "I was prepared to look into it if any new information had come forward, but I didn't see anything like that."
Last year the public consultations held prior to the decision included signs posted near the site, public meetings, an open house, media advertising and information posted online. While some residents argued the wharf should be left intact because it's a popular landmark and could be used as a public amenity, others insisted its historical significance should be enough preserve it. The wharf was built more than 60 years ago as part of the former Jericho Seaplane Base. Jericho Beach was home to the Pacific Coast Station of the Royal Canadian Air Force from 1921 to 1945. The wharf's perimeter was installed during the 1976 United Nations Habitat Forum on and around Jericho Beach. The railings for the wharf came from the Lions Gate Bridge, which was under construction at the time.
Vision Vancouver parks board commissioner Sarah Blythe said Vision heard from many residents leading up to last November's municipal election upset about what they called a lack of proper consultation regarding the wharf.
"The Vision team wants to be thorough in getting the word out to enough people that they can feel they were part of the process," she said. "The more information we can get out there the better."
Blyth insists the decision doesn't mean Jericho Wharf will be saved, but rather that a new decision reached by the parks board will be based on more complete information.
"It looks to me that a very large chunk of people were left out of the process," she said. "We want to make sure we know enough to be comfortable making a final decision."
Blyth said if the second consultation is approved at parks board, work will begin almost immediately.
"We're going to get moving on this as soon as possible," she said.
The Courier asked Piet Rutgers, director of planning and operations for the board, whether approving a second consultation could open the door to reviews of other decisions made by past boards. Rutgers sent a message through media spokesperson Joyce Courtney that he was unable to comment until the staff report was complete.
© Vancouver Courier 2009
03 February 2009
Signs of the Time
There has been a lot of controversy of late at both the City and the Park Board over amendments to the city's charter concerning advertising and signage. The charter allows for advertising and signage in parks but the language used is very loose. The City's legal department has been wanting tighter language and greater restrictions for some time. The Olympics have given us the opportunity to make those changes. Changing the charter is not easy as the Provincial government has to do it. In this case, the Park Board has to ask the City and then the City has to ask the Province to make any changes.
Opening up the Charter is always fraught with difficulty as it is perceived as watering down the Charter and the basic rights it acknowledges. In this case the Charter amendments actually put further restrictions on advertising and level the field so all people/groups can be treated fairly. I have fought against (and some would say was elected because of this fight) the commercialization of our public spaces for many years. It is because of this fight that I supported the amendments. I believe they give the Park Board more control over signs and advertising and better protect us from increasing commercialization.
Opening up the Charter is always fraught with difficulty as it is perceived as watering down the Charter and the basic rights it acknowledges. In this case the Charter amendments actually put further restrictions on advertising and level the field so all people/groups can be treated fairly. I have fought against (and some would say was elected because of this fight) the commercialization of our public spaces for many years. It is because of this fight that I supported the amendments. I believe they give the Park Board more control over signs and advertising and better protect us from increasing commercialization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)