Should We Prune Vancouver’s Park Board?

 Some see it as a way to pursue ‘innovative’ governance practices. Others say it’s a ‘democratic vestigial tail.’

Christopher Cheung 6 Sep 2022 TheTyee.ca

There’s a unique kind of politics that exists in Vancouver and no other city in Canada: park board politics.

As Vancouverites approach their Oct. 15 municipal election, they’ll be asked to vote in a panel of seven new park board commissioners.

These commissioners will oversee a massive portfolio of recreational goodies: 250 public parks and beaches, playgrounds, marinas, recreation centres, golf courses, street trees, sports fields and special gardens like VanDusen and the Bloedel Conservatory.

While it’s Vancouver’s city council that makes the vast majority of municipal decisions, hot issues flare up at park board meetings every now and then, like its decision to ban new whales and dolphins at the aquarium back in 2017.

But the park board was hit with a wave of challenges accompanied by fierce public debate this past term, fuelled by a pandemic that drove more people to the outdoors for rest, recreation and refuge.

What to do about tent cities in parks, especially in a time of crisis? What to do when the mayor wants to remove a park from park board control? What to do about people drinking in parks when it’s dangerous to gather in homes and restaurants? What to do about car versus bike traffic in Stanley Park?

The dramas have led some to ask why Vancouver needs an elected park board anyway, when the councils of other cities handle the park portfolio.

As the municipal election nears, here’s our explainer on how the only park board in Canada works, whether it’s good for democracy and its big decisions during the pandemic.

How did Vancouver end up with a park board?

The park board was created at the very beginning of the city’s history.

A federal military reserve was leased to Vancouver to be turned into Stanley Park, the first decision made by the council of the brand new city.

Stanley Park opened in 1888. The creation of this massive 405-hectare park called for a park board, separate from city council, to manage it.

“It was very forward-thinking of the original government in Vancouver to do something like that,” said Terri Clark, a retired park board public relations manager of 35 years.

Clark says the board’s independence from council “keeps the fox away from the henhouse.”

She credits the board’s persistence for bringing Vancouverites closer to the water, from the long construction of the seawall from 1917 to 1971 to the gradual acquisition of beachfront properties so that people had more of English Bay to enjoy.

Fast forward to the present and Vancouver’s got a lot more assets than Stanley Park.

“I’ve had a saying for a long time: the government that’s closest to you is generally the most important one in your everyday life,” said current park board chair Stuart Mackinnon. “What’s closer to you than your parks and your trees and your recreation?”

Mackinnon believes that having an elected board allows it to be an independent voice to advocate for parks, and underlines their contribution to the beauty and liveability of the city.

Adding the parks portfolio to city’s council plate — alongside other departments like engineering and finance — would be “too much,” he says.

“The city even struggles with keeping up with what they need to do… infrastructure, building, streets and whatnot.”

The park board is not completely independent when it comes to finances. While it sets its own annual budgets, city council decides how much to give.

About 55 per cent of the park board’s budget comes from tax dollars and 45 per cent comes from revenue through its facilities.

Is an elected park board good for democracy?

Every municipal election, Vancouverites elect their park board commissioners alongside one mayor, 10 city councillors and nine school board trustees.

Political scientist David Moscrop, who researches democratic theory, believes that’s too much. Turnout for municipal elections is already poor compared to provincial and federal elections and having a crowded ballot with 27 candidates to research and select is a turnoff, he says.

Moscrop says there are many reasons why including parks under the responsibility of city council, rather than a “parallel government,” makes more sense.

Pointing to contentious issues that the park board has had to grapple with in recent years, from homelessness to transportation infrastructure like bike lanes, he says that these ultimately are not “park issues.”

“These are broader issues that are significant to municipal life,” many of which are already overseen by city council, said Moscrop.

He doesn’t think getting rid of the park board would be undemocratic.

“It’s still democratic. [Parks would] ultimately be answerable to the city council and the mayor, who are ultimately answerable to the public at large. So you still have that line of accountability,” he said.

If the city were to design a new electoral system today, Moscrop argues that there would be no reason for it to include an elected park board with seven seats.

The only reason we have it is “because it exists,” he said, nodding to its roots in early Vancouver history.

“The park board is a democratic vestigial tail. It shouldn’t exist as an elected body. It’s extraordinarily silly. It’s unusual and nobody else does it.”

But associate professor Alexandra Flynn of the University of British Columbia’s law school, who researches municipalities and governance, is of the view that “more democracy is always better.”

“I think it’s better to have more bodies and more entities that have some degree of power who are challenging the status quo,” she said. “I feel like there’s a sweet spot with the park board, the way they’ve been able to push the agenda on pretty important issues.”

Vancouver politics is also unique because there are municipal parties running candidates for mayor, council, school board and park board.

In a climate where it’s possible for one elected party to be given a lot of power, Flynn says having separate bodies, like one responsible for parks, is a good thing, creating more “push and pull.”

Why is the park board known as a political training ground?

Many first-time politicians start off as park board commissioners before making the jump to higher offices, from city council to provincial and federal politics.

Philip Owen was a park board commissioner before becoming one of Vancouver’s longest serving mayors from 1993 to 2002. The Non-Partisan Association’s Melissa De Genova, seeking a third term on city council this year, also started at the park board. Spencer Chandra Herbert is a former commissioner who’s currently an NDP MLA. Sarah Blyth, who spent two terms on the park board, went on to a very different kind of public service: helping start the country’s first overdose prevention site in the Downtown Eastside.

Current board chair Mackinnon, after three terms, is running for council this year, though he’s leaving the Green Party of Vancouver to join Vision Vancouver.

While the park board is a place to cut one’s teeth, it’s also draining.

Aaron Jasper, a former board chair, once told the Vancouver Sun: “It has traditionally been retired people or those with no children at home who have the time to do this. We have to find ways of making it easier for single moms and young people to serve. If all you get is empty nesters running for office, you are doing the park board a disservice. I think there needs to be a discussion on properly compensating people for the jobs they do.”

It’s common for commissioners to work other jobs while serving in their elected role.

Commissioners get paid a little over $18,700 per year. The chair of the board gets a bit more, $23,400, but it’s still significantly less than a councillor’s salary: $96,400.

How do Vancouverites feel about the park board?

One mayoral hopeful was set to get rid of the park board.

It was the first major campaign promise of Ken Sim, who ran with the pro-business NPA last election and is running with a new party called A Better City this year.

However, Sim has now reversed his stance.

Abolishing the park board and transferring its responsibilities to city council would require provincial approval and Sim has said that the “time and attention” needed to do so during an NDP leadership race would be difficult.

All other municipal parties are in favour of keeping the elected park board as is, but a recent poll hints that Vancouverites’ stance is changing.

Public opinion firm Research Co. polled voters in June about whether they’d like the elected park board to be abolished and its responsibilities incorporated into the city at large.

Fifty-two per cent of respondents wanted to get rid of the current model, eight per cent higher than when the same poll was conducted a year and a half ago. Only 25 per cent of respondents were in favour of keeping the elected park board.

How does the park board handle tent cities?

The park board took a stand this past term when it came to a park with a history of tent cities.

In 2008 and 2014, city council and the park board were in agreement when they asked for court injunctions to back the clearing of unhoused people who had set up tent cities at Oppenheimer Park.

In 2019, another tent city at the park grew to about 200 tents.

Vancouver Mayor Kennedy Stewart wanted the park board to temporarily transfer control over Oppenheimer Park to city hall, which he admitted broke with tradition.

He called the tent city a “city problem that’s taking place in a park,” and said that the city, not the park board, was better positioned to work with senior governments on housing solutions for people sheltering at the park. He said that an injunction was one option that needed to be on the table.

But this time, the park board decided not to pursue the usual injunction.

“We basically said enough is enough,” said Mackinnon. “These people without homes have worth, have dignity and they need a place. Parks aren’t the place for them, but we’re not just going to throw them away. So we took what I think is a compassionate and trauma-informed approach that focuses on human rights.”

Instead, the park board voted to work with the city to find housing for everyone sheltering at Oppenheimer.

(The tent city would eventually be shut down a year later by a provincial order, citing fears of COVID-19 spread. Campers were offered housing and faced possible arrest if they refused to stay.)

“It was tough times,” said Mackinnon of his board’s unusual stance. “I received a lot of support from people in Vancouver, but I also received a lot of vitriol.... Social media and the immediacy of email means that anybody can send anything they like, and some of it was pretty vile, I gotta tell you.”

In 2020, the park board passed a bylaw that allowed overnight tenting in parks for people who don’t have a permanent home, but only if tents are removed by 8 a.m. The bylaw also requires tents to be attended and prohibits campfires and propane stoves.

And in early 2021, the park board’s general manager did support an injunction when it came to removing the residents of a tent city at CRAB Park, arguing that they could shelter elsewhere.

In that case, a Supreme Court judge ruled that because residents had nowhere adequate to stay, they had a right to shelter at the park. The judge also added their presence in the park wasn’t causing harm to the public.

Residents and advocates called this ruling a “monumental” victory.

Flynn of UBC’s law school said it was an interesting decision that highlighted the limits of what a unique body like the park board could do in this situation.

“It called out the park board as a public body that needed to be more conscious of the constitutional rights of those living in encampments,” she said.

What’s in the park board’s future?

It’s been 132 years since the park board was created, but it’s still heading into new territory.

Public drinking was finally welcomed to major parks during a pandemic pilot, for example.

And the park board voted on a motion in early 2021 to explore what co-management of its lands with the three local First Nations — Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh — could look like.

“We’re going to be sitting down with [them] in the next few weeks and then we’ll take it from there,” said Mackinnon. “This is not an idea that said what will happen — because, of course, that’s the old colonial mentality. This is a conversation between partners on what the management or co-management of our parks can look like in the future.”

The park board’s independence puts it in a good position to explore “innovative” governance practices like sharing decision-making with First Nations, says Flynn.

Decisions like this highlight the uniqueness of the park board, said Mackinnon.

Did Vancouver’s early leaders intend for parks citywide to be governed in this way? Or were they just concerned about offloading the management of Stanley Park from its first council so that it could focus on building up a city?

“It was perhaps accidental,” said Mackinnon, “but such great foresight.”

original article here

Lesli Boldt & Stuart Mackinnon: Coastal Front podcast

 

Why did you leave the Green Party?

This a question I am sometimes asked as I run for City Council with Vision Vancouver.

The short answer is I wanted to be in a ‘big tent' party, one that draws many people together, and one that has a proven track record of getting things done. 

I have the greatest respect for the Greens at Park Board. My caucus mates, Dave Demers and Camil Dumont, are not only people I respect and admire, but I have grown to love them as people. 

But when I look at this past City Council, I see one that was incredibly dysfunctional. So many staff reports came with multiple amendments from the floor. If you give good direction to staff and work with them during the creation of reports, if you are really understanding what the public process has gathered, then there isn’t the necessity for on-the-fly amendments at the last minute. 

What I see in the candidates Vision Vancouver has selected for Council, and at other levels, are hardworking, thoughtful folks who can work with staff, listen to the public, and get things done. They are also folks who understand that we need bold ideas to move Vancouver forward. We can no longer tinker away; we need to confront climate change, the housing crisis, and the overdose problem head-on.

Vision Vancouver is a party that believes in the things I do and shares my values. And it is where I am excited to be to move Vancouver forward.

Stuart Mackinnon and Kishone Roy: Livability means housing and parks aren’t separate issues — they are forever linked

 Opinion:. For those who live in apartments, parks are more than just a backyard, they are part of their home here in Vancouver and increased density means we need to think of new ways to create parks and green spaces

Author of the article:

Stuart Mackinnon and Kishone Roy

Publishing date:

Jun 20, 2022

Vancouver is one of the most desirable places to live in the world. Our climate, natural beauty, and year-round outdoor activities makes it a top international tourist destination, help create the livability enjoyed by almost 700, 000 residents.

Our neighbourhoods are all unique. Together they make up the whole of Vancouver, a city that needs to share its housing options and its access to green space and recreational opportunities right across the board. Whether somebody owns, rents, is a co-op member, is unsheltered, or is just visiting, our parks need to be safe spaces that we all feel responsible for, and want to care for. We have to love them, nurture them, visit them, and grow them. Just as a variety of housing is necessary for complete communities, a variety of public spaces will complement these neighbourhoods. With land values ever-rising, bold new ideas for public spaces will be necessary to ensure that there is sufficient public space for all of the new residents within the Broadway corridor.

Over the past 50 years, Vancouver has seen innovative new neighbourhoods along our waterfronts in False Creek — around Granville Island, Yaletown, and the Olympic Village — the West End and Coal Harbour, and the newest community in the East Fraserlands dubbed the River District. What makes these spaces livable is not only the variety of housing — social, community, as well as market — but also their access to parks and recreation.

Each neighbourhood should be open to everyone, and parks are one of the most important ways of expressing this. Social housing, co-ops, market rentals, and condominiums in different neighbourhoods are another way of expressing this because, otherwise, our parks become exclusionary based on wealth.

The Broadway Plan, Vancouver’s newest urban development plan, is a look into one growing neighbourhood, and will only be successful if it includes these values. Innovations in past development ideas, as well as bold new ideas, will make this re-visioning of the Broadway corridor as livable as each of Vancouver’s established neighbourhoods, but unique in its own way. One great strength of the plan is the focus it has on rental housing. It has been a long time since there has been an opportunity to see new purpose-built rental housing again.

For those who live in apartments, parks are more than just a backyard, they are part of your home here in Vancouver. Increased density means we need to think of new ways to create parks and green spaces. Ways to do this could include mid-block lots used as infill green space, exploring partnerships with land owners and stratas so that the space between and surrounding buildings could become common areas open to all, in addition to the delivery of green space through redevelopment.

Other innovative ideas are re-purposing appropriate streets as linear green spaces, such as what was done to create Lilian To Park at 17th and Yukon. Using air space to create rooftops parks and gardens on top of lower-rise buildings, similar to the new park proposed for the Oakridge development, could utilize otherwise unused space as public amenities.

The Park Board, in conjunction with the city, can make the most of existing parks by renewing them so they can withstand more intense usage. The city can collaborate with the Park Board to turn city-owned lands into permanent open green spaces.

A new community centre could be created in conjunction with new developments. Securing social, seniors or community housing on top of a community centre would ensure a community amenity along with needed purpose-built housing. Another innovation could be securing street-front locations for smaller programming spaces — a community centre doesn’t have to be contained just within one building.

By thinking outside the box, being creative and using every available space, public amenities don’t have to come at the cost of losing valuable space for housing.

With an estimated 260,000 new residents envisioned for Vancouver by 2050, the need to plan for new housing is crucial. We cannot afford hand-wringing or desperate pleas for a utopian past that never really existed. With the limited space available, density focused on height is the path forward. How we build that density will be crucial to keeping Vancouver a livable city, open to all, regardless of income. The inclusion of parks and green-space will enhance that livability and promote strong communities.

Kishone Roy is an affordable housing advocate and former CEO of the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association; Stuart Mackinnon is a natural and public space advocate and is an elected Vancouver park board commissioner. They are both Vision Vancouver candidates for City Council.

(c) 2022 The Province original post here

PARK BOARD CHAIR MACKINNON JOINS VISION TEAM

April 25, 2022

Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation Chair Stuart Mackinnon today announced that he has joined Vision Vancouver and will be seeking a council nomination under the party’s banner.

“I love our city and care deeply about the people and neighbourhoods who are all working together to make life better. It’s time they had a council that was working with them,” said Mackinnon. “Vision Vancouver has a strong track record and experience moving quickly and responsibly on the issues that matter in our city. As a part of the Vision team, I know we can build a stronger, more compassionate city.”

A former Green Party member, and three-term park board commissioner, Mackinnon’s announcement comes on the heels of former COPE park board commissioner John Irwin’s news that he has also joined the Vision Vancouver team. Mackinnon will sit as a Vision Vancouver park board commissioner until the end of his term.

“Vision Vancouver has a proud record of action on climate, housing, active transportation, reconciliation, public space, child care and so many other issues. Our hallmark for a decade on Council was courageous leadership that worked hard to bring the diverse views of the progressive community together in Vancouver. It’s never been more needed and that’s why more people are coming over every day,” said former Vision Vancouver city councillor Andrea Reimer. “With Stuart and a diverse team of candidates for nomination, we can ensure that people’s priorities are represented, and real action is taken, at all levels of our city government.”

“As the cost-of-living climbs, people are feeling even more squeezed than before, and the pandemic has only made things worse,” said Mackinnon. “With a strong team of Vision Vancouver councillors who share the same priorities as our neighbours, we can start making progress again on building more affordable housing, expanding public transit, protecting our parks and advancing reconciliation.”

In addition to his role as park board Chair, Mackinnon is a former educator at Killarney Secondary School, a current Vancouver Public Library Trustee and board member of many non-profit organizations including Axis Theatre, the Wilderness Committee and the VanDusen Botanical Garden Association. Stuart lives in Vancouver’s Fraserlands neighbourhood.

Contact: Ange Valentini

 ange.valentini@votevision.ca

Co-Management of Vancouver Parklands with the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh nations

Last night, in a 5-2 vote, the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation voted to "to explore opportunities with the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations (“the three Nations”) for co-management of parklands within their own respective territories that are currently under Park Board jurisdiction per the Vancouver Charter". 

These are my introductory remarks upon moving the motion:

At the start of each of our meetings, in the spirit of reconciliation, we make a land acknowledgment. This is an important statement recognizing where we are. But reconciliation has to be more than just words. There must be action as well as words. In her book ‘Indian in the Cabinet: Speaking truth to power’ the Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould reminds us that “Words, in the work of reconciliation, are also cheap without real action—action that goes to the core of undoing the colonial laws, policies, and practices, and that is based on the real meaning of reconciliation” (176)

The Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation is, I believe at the forefront of this work, and I want to thank the entire Decolonization, Arts and Culture team for the incredible work they are doing. I want to thank all of our staff for embracing reconciliation as a foundational principle.

The spirit of this motion is for the Park Board to again put reconciliation into action. The motion calls for the Park Board to initiate a conversation with the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations on ways for them to work with the Park Board on managing parklands within their respective territories that fall under our jurisdiction. 

This motion seeks to move closer to reconciliation with past decisions that impact our city today. Many of our parks and beaches are on land that has been integral to the First Peoples of this area for millennia. Villages, camps, food gathering sites, and burial sites are situated on the land we manage and have jurisdiction over. This motion seeks to recognize this fact.

The motion asks staff to explore with the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations and report back on recommendations for co-management of parklands within their own respective territories that are currently under Park Board jurisdiction per the Vancouver Charter. The motion calls on our staff, including our legal staff, to work with the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh nations to define what co-management means in the context of Vancouver parklands and once that definition is agreed upon to then develop a plan for co-management. 

The motion does not have any pre-determined outcomes, nor does it set out how the process will unfold. It asks our staff to work with the Nations to create this process and then develop how this idea can be fulfilled. 

In 2018, when the Park Board approved the Colonial Audit, Chief Ian Campbell of the Squamish Nation stated, “First Nations can be more involved in decision-making, economic opportunities, and environmental stewardship”. This motion seeks to recognize this and act upon it.

Stewardship of our parklands is of ever-increasing importance as we become a denser city and parks and greenspaces become more important to the residents. The First Peoples have been stewards of this land since time immemorial and we newcomers have much to learn. We must seek traditional knowledge, as well as new knowledge, as we tend to these precious spaces. 

Jody Wilson-Raybould also states “to address the legacy of colonialism in this country, the colonizers are going to need to learn a lot from those they sought to colonize. Not just to confront their own actions, ignorance, and systemic racism, but to actually make Canadian institutions and modes of governing better by learning the values, principles, and practices that uphold Indigenous governments and societies…” (265)

This motion seeks to be another step in that direction. By acknowledging the land, and by recognizing that colonial ways of doing things are not the only ways of doing things; by seeking help from the indigenous people of this land and working with them, we can have better parks in Vancouver. We can have parks that recognize the natural history and the human history, and prepare our public spaces for a future where all are welcome and that will last millennia to come.

Time is well past due to address climate change, for our own sake

Recent events only confirm the environmental threat's real

Vancouver Sun 22 Jan 2022

Stuart Mackinnon says. 

The recent storms have shown how vulnerable Vancouver's coastal infrastructure is.

The seawall around Stanley Park sustained major damage. Our beaches, coastal parks and pathways were inundated with water and aquatic debris. Piers were torn up, logs tossed about on beaches and damage caused to our waterfront access. This, on top of the earlier damage from the atmospheric river event that pushed a barge so far onto Sunset Beach that the owners and federal government are still unsure of how they're going to remove it.

These events have a lot of people talking. Some of that talk has been irresponsible speculation, some has been hair-pulling and teeth-gnashing apocalyptic chatter and some has questioned the benefits of maintaining a fortress-like wall around the city.

What we need is less self-righteous indignation and more co-operation to support our park board workers as they navigate the difficult tasks involved in fully reopening the parks. This includes staying off the seawall while repairs are done.

The seawall is a much-loved amenity — loved by residents and visitors alike. Our staff will be working to clear the debris, analyze the damage and seek the quickest and most cost-efficient ways to safely repair and reopen it.

However, we as a city need to think about how these changing climate events are impacting our infrastructure. If, as many believe, these aren't anomalous events, but in fact a new normal, then we need to be planning for infrastructure that can withstand these events.

Projections for sea level rise vary widely. However, after the year 2050, it's projected to rise from 60 centimetres over current levels to more than six metres over current levels by

We can no longer afford the luxury of putting off climate mitigation. We must find ways to both allay the dangers coming and work together to reduce our ecological footprint.

2100. The province of B.C. currently recommends using half a metre for planning to 2050, one metre to 2100 and two metres to 2200. Unfortunately, historic sea-level rise can't be used to predict future increases given the increasing pace of climate change.

To protect vulnerable areas, the City of Vancouver estimates it will need to invest $1 billion in flood management infrastructure alone by 2100. With climate change and sea-level rise, simply building back to current standards won't be enough.

We need to rethink which amenities are both cost-effective and desired. Every decision we make has a cost attached to it. The park board, like other public and private entities, must now include climate change in those costs — both to build and to maintain infrastructure. And not just new projects; we must re-examine all of our current infrastructure through the lens of climate change and mitigation. We must not only build new and better, but also sustain what we already have.

As we look ahead, this is an excellent chance to work in partnership with the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-waututh Peoples, who have lived on these lands since time immemorial, to learn about these iconic places and their experience working with the land and sea. Their knowledge will be imperative so that we don't repeat mistakes we may have made in the past.

Vancouver isn't unique in this situation. Coastal cities around the world are faced with the same dilemmas. Whole nations face being swamped by ever-rising oceans. We can no longer afford the luxury of putting off climate mitigation. We must find ways to both allay the dangers coming and work together to reduce our ecological footprint that is driving climate change.

Pulling of hair and gnashing of teeth is neither useful, nor productive. It's time to work together for the benefit of all.

Stuart Mackinnon is a Green party commissioner and chair of the Vancouver park board.

Does Vancouver need a Park Police Force?

 At the last meeting of the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, staff presented a report entitled “Park Ranger Service Model - Phase 1 Report Back”. This report recommended increased budget for the Park Rangers program and to ‘Create new positions with Peace Officer status to provide enhanced by-law enforcement support’. 

The Ranger program began in 2000 as the front-line ambassadors in parks and public spaces. They support a broad range of events and activities, and assist with issues such as:

• Providing visitor information and wayfinding

• Educating the public about park regulations such as the smoking, dogs on leash, and cycling                     bylaws

• Enforcing the Park Board By-laws

• Supporting permitted events and filming

• Working with Vancouver Police, Vancouver Fire and Rescue Service, BC Ambulance, and other             departments and agencies on issues found in parks

• Dealing with homelessness as it impacts parks, and connecting individuals with support services

• Responding to park concerns reported through 3-1-1 and VanConnect services

• Park Rangers patrol parks and beaches throughout Vancouver. A seasonal ranger station is located         at Second Beach, next to the concession.

However, Park Rangers are not police and Park Board acknowledges that the public should call 9-1-1 if there is an emergency that requires police, fire, or ambulance.

With an increase of more than 1,153% of cases from 2015 (1,909 cases) to 2020 (22,010 cases) there is definitely a need to increase the number of Rangers. Social issue related cases such as mental health, drug addiction, and temporary structures in parks, rose by 40% in 2020, and are forecast to continue rising during 2021.

 The call for enhanced powers is because the Vancouver Police do not regularly attend to Park by-law infractions unless they are called by the Rangers, and then generally only if there is a special need for them to be there. Excessive noise, camping, feeding wildlife, or smoking in parks are not usually deemed important enough for attendance.

The recommendation to create new Peace Officer positions would see some Rangers elevated to the level of Police Constable. Police Constables are police officers. They have all of the same rights and responsibilities of a police officer. What was not known was whether that would mean they could carry handcuffs, batons, or even a fire arm, or if they would have the right of holding and arresting individuals, and using force to do so.

The Commissioners unanimously approved an increase of 1.8 million dollars to hire more Rangers, but by a 5-2 vote amended the recommendation to explore the creation of new positions with ‘enhanced bylaw enforcement authority’ as part of the regular full-time workforce, rather than to move immediately to creating Peace Officers. I was one of those who supported the amendment. 

I understand the need for our Park Rangers to be able to enforce park by-laws but I am not sure that elevating them to police constables is necessarily the right move. I want to ensure that we make the right changes, and so need to know what the options are. 

In Vancouver we already have the RCMP, the Vancouver Police Department, and the Transit Police. Do we need another police force? Could Park Rangers enforce our by-laws without being Peace Officers/Constables? Could they be trained as ‘Special Constables’ with very specific authority?

Before we move to another level of policing, I need to know what the cost of training would be. I need to know what the cost in equipment, wages, and professional development would be. I want to know what the alternatives are. Do we need to change provincial legislation or could the creation of ‘Special Park Constables’ with limited powers be done under current regulations? What do the local police feel about another layer of policing within their jurisdiction? What does the Indigenous community think? What does the BIPOC community think? What do queer, trans, and Two-Spirit folks think? What do marginalized communities think?

It would be easy to say yes let’s create a Park Police to enforce our bylaws; it would be irresponsible to do so without knowing the costs and consequences of such a decision.

Park Board approves planning of creek through Spanish Banks parking lot and dog park

 Kenneth Chan, Daily Hive

|Oct 5 2021, 1:43 pm

Planning for the daylighting of Canyon Creek at Spanish Banks Beach Park will advance, following a unanimous decision by Vancouver Park Board commissioners on Monday evening.

Canyon Creek, which is fed by a large catchment area within Pacific Spirit Regional Park, currently runs through a culvert under Northwest Marine Drive, the Spanish Banks West Parking lot, and the park’s dog off-leash area, before entering Burrard Inlet.

Based on Park Board’s staff preliminary planning work since late 2020, this project would establish a watercourse at ground level with a naturalized and vegetated area, creating a new habitat for bird, aquatic, and pollinator species. It would also serve to improve the water quality entering Burrard Inlet.

To achieve the daylighting of the creek north of Northwest Marine Drive, it is currently estimated that about 35 out of a total of 266 existing vehicle parking stalls would need to be removed.

It would also bisect the park’s off-leash dog area — the third-largest in the city with a total open area of 12.45 acres. About half an acre of this off-leash dog park area would be removed to accommodate the naturalized riparian habitat, which would need to be fenced off to prevent dogs from disturbing any wildlife.

East-west pathways at the park would also be reconfigured. Currently, both the pedestrian and cycling pathways run along the northern edge of the park. Improvements would be made by fully dedicating the existing pedestrian pathway and building a new separated pathway north of the parking lots for cyclists. Two bridges would be constructed over the daylighted creek for the pathways.

“This is a very exciting project, certainly exciting for me, who has been working on daylighting creeks for more than 20 years here in the city. Any chance we have to daylight a creek is a good day,” said Green Party commissioner Stuart Mackinnon.

“The report talks about increasing biodiversity, naturalization of the area, and connectivity of waterways. These are things that we ought to be doing more of. I know it’s very expensive to do these things within the city, but we did it in a brilliant way for Renfrew Ravine, Still Creek, and other areas.”

Green Party commissioner Dave Demers added: “It’s a very exciting project. It’s one that captures the imagination of the general public. We see that with every daylight project that is out there.”

Staff with the Park Board will now take the next steps of consulting with local First Nations and pursuing a nominal rent tenure — $1.00 for the entire term — from the provincial government, given that the proposed project area sits on untenured crown land.

The Park Board, under the City of Vancouver, has a 99-year lease from the provincial government for the area that is used as a beach park. The lease expires in January 2029, and negotiations would be required for a renewal of the lease. The proposed daylighting project would be undertaken only within the city’s lease area.

Mackinnon says he wants any land that is leased from the municipal government passed to the Park Board as a permanent park.

The Park Board anticipates it will receive the required provincial approvals by late 2022. This will trigger detailed design and public consultation in 2023, with Park Board commissioners potentially reviewing the project late that year for final approval. If the project proceeds, it would be covered under the 2023-2026 capital plan, which also necessitates approval by Vancouver City Council.

Further east in Kitsilano, the Park Board has plans to daylight the historical creek that once flowed through Tatlow Park and Volunteer Park, just east of Macdonald Street.

More than 180 people moved from Strathcona Park into accommodation by GM Order deadline

 April 30 2021

The encampment in Strathcona Park has come to a close with the vast majority of people who had been sleeping overnight in the park having moved into safe and secure accommodation.

The movement of people from the park follows a General Manager’s Order that was issued by the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation on April 9. The order stated that all existing tents, temporary shelters and structures must be removed from Strathcona Park by 10 am today.

Over the past three weeks, BC Housing and the City of Vancouver have moved 184 people into accommodation, with many people moving into private rooms with their own washroom. A small number of tents and temporary shelters remain in the park, and we are continuing to work with the remaining people on other options. 

The entire eastside of the park will now be fenced off and staff from the City and Park Board will clean and remediate the park. The west side of the park remains open for public use. The warming tent and hygiene facilities that were installed in the park in January will be shut down today and removed in the coming days.

In March, the Park Board and the City signed a memorandum of understanding with the Province formalizing the joint commitment to take a coordinated approach in supporting unsheltered residents. As part of this commitment, the Province will continue to provide indoor options for unsheltered residents and Park Board staff will be monitoring parks across Vancouver to prevent the creation of new encampments.