a little shameless promotion...

The school I teach at has a terrific film program with an outstanding teacher, Mr. Jonathan Friedrichs. Each year they make films and send them off to contests. They have one some national competitions in the past, with some pretty amazing films. This year they have entered a film in the Work Safe BC contest. The theme of this year's contest is: what motivates you to get home from work safely? 1st place is $2500, 2nd is $1500 and then there is an audience choice award for $500.Please follow the the instructions below and vote to support these terrific kids. Oh, and the film features a familiar face...

"For the Lifeline Student Video Contest Grade 10 Film & TV students at Killarney made a superb video called "Lifeline" starring the talented Mr. Mackinnon. Help them win by voting! Simply Google "WorksafeBC student video contest", then click "Vote Here", and then scroll down to "Lifeline"."

Just one of the many reasons for loving where we live

Over Spring Break my friends and I made a trek half-way up the Lynn Headwaters trail in North Vancouver. This is a fairly easy hike of about 12 km there and back, though we did run into snow and icy trails. Here is a photo taken on the way back down.

photo: Louis Lapprend

There are lots of hikes in the lower mainland for every level of hiker. Getting into the great outdoors is easy. This hike is accessible by public transit.

Naming Report withdrawn

Central Park
by Sandra Thomas, Vancouver Courier, March 26 2012

Name game

Last week I wrote about a proposal to change the way the park board names public spaces. I heard from several people with concerns, including former Green Party commissioner Stuart Mackinnon and former NPA commissioner Ian Robertson, as well as former park board candidate Jamie Lee Hamilton.

“This new measure is anti-democratic since elected members of the park board will have undue influence regarding park names,” Hamilton wrote in an email to the Courier. “They will be able to instruct staff on the name they want for a particular park. This method will allow them to suggest names of friends or political insiders. Cronyism will creep into what was until now a fair and democratic process…”

In what looks like a response to comments and concerns from the public, the naming proposal has been withdrawn from the park board’s agenda for tonight’s meeting.

A statement on the park board’s Facebook page reads, “Park naming report being withdrawn from tonight’s park board committee meeting to allow GM [Malcolm Bromley] and vice chair [Aaron Jasper] to work on more detailed analysis and recommendations."

What’s driving Vision to change rules on naming parks?

Stuart Mackinnon March 21, 2012 City Caucus.com

If we rename a Strathcona park, philanthropist Milton Wong might top the candidates list

Guidelines approved in 2007 give community a voice over elected officials on naming parks. Monday vote will change that.

Names are important. They are how we identify ourselves, each other, and our community. The names of public spaces are equally important as they are identifiers of place, purpose, and sometimes historical perspective and significance. Nathan Philips Square in Toronto not only identifies a place, but also a centre of activity and a remembrance of a significant individual in the history of that city. Central Park in New York, Tiananmen Square in Beijing and Stanley Park here in Vancouver all conjure up images, for good or bad, in the minds of both users and visitors.

Names are important which is why in 2007 the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation changed its naming policy to better reflect community values and ideas. Prior to 2007 park naming was done by a staff report and a vote by the Commissioners of the day. This method can lead to political interference and the naming of parks and public spaces after friends and allies of the particular Board of the day with no recourse for the community.

This all changed with the naming of a small park in Marpole. Many people came out to a committee meeting of the Park Board with name suggestions for this new park. The ideas ranged from honouring environmentalist David Suzuki, and author and former resident Joy Kogawa, to the name of the street the park is situated on. There was no consensus and so the Commissioners put off the decision to another meeting.

At that follow-up meeting I prepared a draft policy resolution that would take the naming of parks out of the hands of staff and politicians and put it firmly into the hands of the community. This draft was adapted by staff and became the new protocol for park naming. The 2007 protocol was created to stop any hint of favouritism and to put the authority in the community.

Under this policy whenever a new park was to be named a committee of neighbourhood community members would be struck. They would solicit ideas, research the relevance, seek community input and then recommend a name to the Board. This process was successful in the naming of Ebisu Park in Marpole and Oak Meadows Park at 37th and Oak.

On March 26th the new Board wants to revert back to the old system, whereby staff will lead the process and the Commissioners choose the name.

It seems more than coincidental that at the last meeting of the Board Commissioners passed a motion to fast-track the naming of a park for former City Councillor and community activist Jim Green. In fact in this week’s Georgia Straight, Vice-Chair of the Park Board Aaron Jasper suggested that the new park at Trillium (in the Strathcona neighbourhood) would be good spot to honour Mr. Green. While Mr. Jasper might be correct, should it not be the community that decides this and not the Commissioners?

There are many individuals that could be honoured here. Milton Wong was a tireless advocate for both the Chinatown/Strathcona community and for the city at large, and could be a worthy choice for honouring. The park at Trillium is primarily a sports facility and could easily be used to honour the memory and accomplishments of track and field athlete Harry Jerome. The point here is that it isn’t any one individual or group of politicians who should be naming this or any other park, but rather that it should be named by members of the community to honour that community and reflect its values.

The proposal coming to the Park Board on Monday is regressive, and it would appear done in the name of expediency. The Staff report says the current process takes too long and involves too many steps. This is nonsense. Perhaps the current method takes a bit longer, but it is the way for the community to make the decision.

Sometimes democracy takes a little longer. But it is worth it.

http://citycaucus.com/2012/03/whats-driving-vision-to-change-rules-on-naming-parks/

Central Park: NAMING RIGHTS

By Sandra Thomas, Vancouver Courier March 21, 2012

A former park board commissioner says a proposal to change the way parks and public spaces are named by the Vision Vancouver-dominated park board opens the door to nepotism.

Stuart Mackinnon served one term on the park board as a Green Party commissioner until last November.

Mackinnon says if the proposal is approved, the change means the community has less say in naming parks and public spaces, while the politicians have more. He says this is the way parks were named before 2007, when it was decided the community should lead the naming process.

According to a parks staff report, there are a number of new parks that will be named within the next two years. As a result, the report says the way things are done today is too "resource consuming."

A committee created for each park with approval from the park board names parks. Staff wants to eliminate committees and move to a web-based model, which would still include community input and final approval from the board.

In an email to the Courier, Mackinnon said under the new protocol it will be staff that solicits ideas and then prepares a report to the commissioners, who will then choose the name.

"This can lead to political interference and the naming of parks and public spaces after friends and allies of the particular board of the day with no recourse for the community," says Mackinnon. "The 2007 protocol was created to stop any hint of favoritism and to put the authority in the community."

Vision Vancouver vicechair Aaron Jasper says the power will still be in the hands of the public. He adds it was staff that suggested the change because today's process is too cumbersome.

"We're not returning to the good old days when sitting commissioners sat around the table naming parks after themselves," says Jasper. "This just offers a more balanced approach."

sthomas@vancourier.com Twitter: @sthomas10

© Copyright (c) Vancouver Courier

Read more: http://www.vancourier.com/life/Central+Park/6335078/story.html#ixzz1plRxH6F4

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: Vision Wants to Take Back Naming Rights to Parks

A motion is coming forward to the Park Board on Monday 26 March which will take the naming of parks out of the hands of the community and put it back into the hands of the politicians. This was the method used until 2007 when a new protocol was adopted that put park naming in the hands of the community. I wrote the draft for that policy and was rightly very proud to have put in place a mechanism for real community decision making.

Under the current protocol a committee of community volunteers seeks names from the community for parks and public spaces and then makes a recommendation to the Board. This allows the community to make the decision. Under the new protocol, staff will solicit ideas and then prepare a report to the Commissioners. Then the Commissioners will choose the name. This can lead to political interference and the naming of parks and public spaces after friends and allies of the particular Board of the day with no recourse for the community. The 2007 protocol was created to stop any hint of favouritism and to put the authority in the community.

This is a regressive motion done in the name of expediency. The Staff report says this process takes too long and involves too many steps. This is nonsense. Perhaps the current method takes a bit longer, but it is the way for the community to make the decision. Sometimes democracy takes a little longer. But it is worth it.

When More Is Less

The city budget passed which will mean fewer services and less maintenance for parks and recreation in Vancouver. While the city did increase the budget allocation to parks, it was not enough to meet the costs of the department.

For years the Vancouver School Board has been saying that they have been underfunded, even though the provincial government says funding has been growing each year. This has never been more evident than the last few years when Vision Vancouver has had a majority on the school board. While the provincial government is correct in saying funding has increased, the school trustees are also correct in that they are underfunded. Say what? This is because increases have not kept pace with inflation and other costs that have risen more than the increase in funding. This has resulted in years of under-funding.

The same is true at the Park Board. While the Vision Vancouver city council rightly says funding for parks and recreation has increased, this increase has not kept up with costs, thereby creating a situation similar to the school board's under funding. What gets me is that Vision Vancouver criticizes the provincial government for the same thing that they themselves are doing.

I once debated this issue with a provincial cabinet minister and took the opportunity to teach him a basic lesson in arithmetic. I told him that "when funding goes up by two cents but costs go up by five cents, there is still a shortfall of 3 cents--this is called underfunding. But we are not talking about pennies but millions of dollars". Perhaps Vision Vancouver needs the same lesson in arithmetic.

Vision Park Board continues with their Bait & Switch routine

You might remember last year when the Vision dominated Park Board threatened to close washrooms in its bid to slash the budget ordered by City Council. This was a cynical attempt to goad the public into action, only to be saved at the last minute by a relenting Council. Meanwhile all the other cuts went through almost unnoticed.

This year's bait & switch was the proposed cuts to the Life Guard budget. The plan called for the removal of Life Guards from Jericho beach. Once again the public rose to the bait and convinced the elected not to cut this all but essential service. Meanwhile, another million-plus in cuts is coming down the line. More cuts to park maintenance, more cuts recreational facility maintenance. More 'one time only' savings that never seem to get back into the budget.

I thank the incredible work of the community in saving the life guards (and last year in saving our washrooms), but ask that you don't be lulled into a sense of false security--more cuts are coming. Tell the Commissioners and Councillors that enough is enough. Parks and recreation are important. Death by a thousand cuts is not acceptable. Vancouver's beauty is a result of decades of planning, planting, and maintaining our parks, gardens and recreational centres.

Enough is enough. Stop the cuts. Its time for full funding of our park board.

Jericho Beach lifeguards would disappear under proposed park-board budget cuts

By Carlito Pablo, February 24, 2012 www.straight.com

Publish Date: February 24, 2012

For as long as Mike Cotter knows, Vancouver’s Jericho Beach has always been a lifeguarded beach.

But to the dismay of the long-time general manager of the Jericho Centre Sailing Association, lifeguard services may be cut from this popular water destination by the Vision Vancouver-led park board.

A staff report on the February 27 agenda of the park board indicated that lifeguard services will be focused on five beaches only this year.

It’s a cost-cutting measure intended to save $270,000.

For Cotter, this isn’t right.

“The city and the park board have always underestimated the interest that citizens have in using the ocean for recreational purposes,” Cotter told the Straight in a phone interview today (February 24). “And we’re going the other way. The population of the city is growing.”

According to Cotter, the city’s population is also getting younger and sports activities are among their priorities.

“A swim in the city is one thing that you think would be second nature,” he said. “We advertise our beaches as some of the best swimming beaches in the world and I think that is the case. But reducing the safety presence there is a direction the city shouldn’t be going.”

The staff report recommends lifeguard services be concentrated at five beaches: English Bay, Kits Beach, Locarno, Spanish Banks East, and Third Beach.

It’s part of the $1.3-million budget cut being proposed for the park board for 2012.

---

Source URL: http://www.straight.com/article-617656/vancouver/jericho-beach-lifeguards-would-disappear-under-proposed-parkboard-budget-cuts

Belugas languish at Vancouver Aquarium

Animals rights hyperbole alienates public, hurts cause

By Mark Hasiuk, Vancouver Courier February 21, 2012

Save the whales, from the animal rights folk.

No other North American social movement has been more damaged, more pushed to the fringe, by extremists than the so-called animal rights movement. Regularly, intransigence from hardcode activists alienates the general public. Legitimate concerns about animal wellbeing, whether in pet stores, zoos or aquariums, get lost in the gong show.

For example. Last week, following a Jan. 31 highway collision in Manitoba involving a train, a tractor-trailer and 71 cows, animal rights group PETA called for a roadside memorial. "A memorial sign will serve as a tribute," said PETA spokesperson Emily Lavender, "to those dozens of cows who had been severely injured and killed on their way to slaughter."

The humanization of cows (the other red meat) demonstrates the fatal flaw of the animal rights movement. Rights, bestowed by culture and courts, remain the sole property of human beings who enact laws to, among other things, protect animals from mistreatment. An accident involving dozens of dead cows does not require a Charter challenge-it requires a bulldozer, and maybe some barbecue sauce.

Last Friday, while a light rain fell on the Vancouver Aquarium in Stanley Park, three beluga whales-smooth and white with deep black eyes, averaging more than 3,000 pounds-moved gracefully through blue water in an outdoor tank no bigger than a typical hotel swimming pool. In the wild, belugas cruise Arctic coastlines of the U.S., Canada and Russia, diving for char, squid and crab. In Stanley Park, they float next to a snack bar that sells hamburgers and fish and chips.

According to aquarium officials, seven cetaceans (three whales, three dolphins, one porpoise) live at the aquarium. Every year, one million visitors pay up to $17 to tap the glass at one of Vancouver's most popular attractions. Last week, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) held its annual meeting in Vancouver. The four-day event included a symposium at the Vancouver Convention Centre where conservationists and ethicists argued against cetaceans in captivity. Oddly, two days earlier, the AAAS staged a media reception at (you guessed it) the Vancouver Aquarium.

When critics such as No Whales in Captivity, a Vancouver-based group, cried foul, the AAAS acknowledged the irony but pled no contest. "We had already paid our deposit fee at the aquarium at that point in time," said Ginger Pinholster, AAAS spokesperson, speaking by phone from Washington, D.C.

No Whales spokesperson Annelise Sorg fired back, telling the Courier: "Here they are promoting the declaration of cetacean rights while at the same time booking the local whale jail for a media reception party. It just doesn't make sense."

I'm with Annelise on that one, hyperbole about the "whale jail" notwithstanding. But what do Vancouverites think?

Back in 1993, a referendum sunk the Stanley Park zoo when 53 per cent of voters called for its closure. Yet the aquarium, a non-profit organization, remains open for business on public land thanks to an agreement with the park board.

The board has kicked around the cetacean issue for years. Former park board commissioner Stuart Mackinnon, who lost his reelection bid last November, wanted a plebiscite added to the 2011 civic election ballot. Whales and dolphins, said Mackinnon, should be phased out of Vancouver. However, Vision park commissioner Aaron Jasper nixed the plebiscite, claiming it put the "the park board at risk of a potential lawsuit" because of the board's legal arrangement with the aquarium.

Incidentally, that arrangement includes $90,000 in rent each year from the aquarium to the board. Not to mention an untold number of tourist dollars for the economy and the cachet all great cities, especially the "most livable city in the world," require. Whales are big business. And they aren't leaving Vancouver anytime soon.

To be fair, the aquarium says captive whales spawn valuable research, which aids conservation efforts in the wild. No doubt that's true. But last Friday I watched three belugas logroll in a virtual puddle while kids pointed and cameras flashed. Such scenes seem unworthy of scientific research. Moreover, despite requests from the Courier, aquarium officials refuse to disclose documentation about the origin and transportation of belugas and other cetaceans. What's the park board think about that?

Two weeks ago, a U.S. federal court dismissed a PETA lawsuit, which accused SeaWorld of violating the "constitutional rights" of killer whales because the 13th Amendment abolished slavery in 1865. Whatever your views on captive whales, you likely don't equate them with black slaves.

If activists focused on reality when pushing aquariums and their political allies, more people would listen. The caging of magnificent animals seems out-of-step with humanity's forward march.

mhasiuk@vancourier.com

Twitter: @MarkHasiuk

© Copyright (c) Vancouver Courier