Sunset Beach Community Garden: Great idea, Wrong location

A proposal was brought to the Park Board to create an inter-cultural community garden in the west end of Vancouver. Sponsored by the YMCA Connections in partnership with the West End Residents Association (WERA) and Gordon Neighbourhood House, the proposal would have placed the garden in a grassy area at Sunset Beach. This area is well used by local residents and visitors to the beach. After some consultation it became very apparent that this location did not have local support and so the proposal was withdrawn.

This has brought into question the whole idea of where community gardens should be located and what kind of public consultation should take place. Local residents complained that signage was minimal and located away from from paths and sidewalks. Local residents also said that while they supported a community garden, the proposed location was inappropriate as it was already well used.

The City of Vancouver and the Park Board are great supporters of community gardens as a way of building community and increasing local food capacity. While the latter goal may be debatable, the idea of building community in a diverse and dense population like Vancouver's is good. What needs to be discussed is where community gardens should be located. Are they a good use of parkland? Are there alternatives to parkland? Is building community gardens in parks "privatizing public space" as some have suggested? Does the city have unused land in its inventory that could be an alternative?

Before new proposals for community gardens in public parks are brought before the Park Board, I think both City Councillors and Park Board Commissioners need to look at where community gardens can best be located. Rather than the piecemeal process that is in place now, that often pits garden proponents against park users, I think an overall strategy, that includes public input, needs to be developed.

Parks and Recreation are integral to city life

On such a beautiful Sunday afternoon it's hard not to love Vancouver! The sky is blue, the air is crisp and the leaves are turning into golden confetti. The budget process is under way in the city and news has leaked that the City is $20 million short again this year. For the past two years deficits have meant cuts to the Park Board. Cuts to community services like summer day camps, park maintenance, and community centre programs.

It is important for citizens to participate in the budget process and let City Council know that parks and recreation are important. Parks and community centres are what make our busy city lives manageable. Can you imagine your neighbourhood without gardens and trees? Can you imagine your kids not being able play in the local park? Can you imagine no swimming pools, skating rinks, or community centres? The Park Board looks after all these amenities and much, much more.

Contact the Mayor and City Councillors and tell them that parks are important; that community centres are important; that trees are important. Tell them not to cut Parks and Recreation this year. Write to them at: mayorandcouncil@vancouver.ca

Park Board Budget

Public input requested
on proposed Park Board 2011 Fees & Charges
and 2011 Operating Budget Priorities

October 15, 2010 – The Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation is requesting feedback from the public on proposed changes to its 2011 Fees & Charges and 2011 Operating Budget. Over 40% of the Park Board’s budget is funded from fees and charges with the rest coming from taxes. Proposed changes to Fees & Charges include: inflationary fee increases of 4% in most areas, with different adjustments proposed for Golf, Parking, VanDusen Gardens and Stanley Park Train; reducing the age at which children are charged admission from 6 to 3 years; introducing youth playfield fees; and changing the pricing structure for low cost sessions from Loonie/Toonie sessions to 50% off regular drop in fees.

Residents are also invited to provide input on a number of new revenue options such as sponsorships, advertising and expanded pay parking.

The public can share their ideas through an online survey available on the Park Board web site. The survey includes questions about what services are considered most important by residents, what suggestions they have for improvement, how the fee structure should be set, and how programs might be prioritized in light of budget challenges.

Additional background information on 2011 operating budget
Details of the proposed 2011 fees & charges

The proposed fees and charges will be reviewed by the Park Board at its board meeting on Monday, November 15, 2010 at Killarney Community Centre so that changes can be implemented for next year. The Board will also continue to solicit public feedback on its 2011 budget priorities up to Park Board approval of the budget in January.

-30-

For more information contact Joyce Courtney, Communications Manager, at 604-257-8699 or 604-861-4375.

City of Vancouver 2011 Budget Consultation

From the Vancouver.ca website:

Do you want to have a say on next year's operating budget? More than 60% of the City’s operating budget is funded by property taxes, which help the City provide the important services that are part of our everyday lives — our well-maintained streets, green parks, libraries, community centres, and police and fire departments. You can help Council make its important decisions about the budget by being part of the consultation process coming up in the fall of 2010.

In the coming weeks, open houses and information displays are planned throughout the city. The public can learn about how the City budget is spent, current priorities and how the City’s operating budget affects everyday programs and services that citizens value. Participants will have the chance to provide their input on how council prioritizes city spending and discuss the importance of library hours, community centre and park operations, police and fire services, street work, garbage collection schedules and other such priorities.

Key dates include:

- October 18: Budget displays mounted at Vancouver Public Library’s central branch and City Hall; budget information booklets distributed to community centres and library branches throughout the city, and posted on the City’s web site

- October 19: Preliminary budget report goes to City Council

- October 20: Start of online and phone surveys on budget priorities

- October 27: Presentation on budget to Vancouver’s multicultural communities

- October 28: Open house at City Hall

- October 28 to November 20: Series of community stakeholder discussions

- End of November : Report back on public input for the budget

- Mid-December: Final decision by Council on the budget

Join the mailing list for information and updates on meetings, send an e-mail to: obc-subscribe@list.vancouver.ca

What Ever Happened to Civil Debate and the Exchange of Ideas?

This past week the Vancouver Sun published an Op/Ed written by former city counsellor Jim Green, in which he accuses public policy analyst and developer Michael Geller of being prejudiced against homeless people and the poor. This is yet another example of the drive by smear that is becoming too common in local politics; pundits and politicians who, rather than address the issues, choose to attack and besmirch the intelligence and reputations of those they disagree with. I don't doubt that Mr. Green and Mr. Geller have differing views on civic affairs, but Mr. Green, in a bullying and nasty piece, chose to attack Mr. Geller personally.

I know Michael Geller and admire him greatly. We probably do not agree on everything either, but he certainly is not prejudiced and to suggest so is not only unkind, but I believe, despicable. Michael Geller worked for many years with CMHC building homes for low-income families, seniors, and people with disabilities. He has very definite views on the Olympic Village fiasco, which he shares with anyone who will listen or read. He has the ability to translate complex planning issues into language most people can understand. He is a kind, honest and compassionate man and we here in Vancouver are lucky that he devotes so much of his time to public policy.

During the summer I too was at the receiving end of this kind of smear. The Chair of the Vancouver Park Board, Aaron Jasper, accused me of mischief and putting the Park Board at risk. He did not address the issue at hand but rather chose to attack my honesty and integrity.

It is little wonder that so few good people are drawn into public life, and that most people have such low opinions of politicians. When civil debate is not possible, public policy loses. When the exchange of ideas turns into an exchange of insults, people turn away. It is time that public figures were held to account. It is time to say enough is enough. Stop the personal attacks and debate the issues. There should be no place in politics for cheap shots and personal smears.

Future of Stanley Park's petting zoo land under debate

By Carlito Pablo

Publish Date: September 29, 2010
Straight.com

Park board commissioner Stuart Mackinnon doesn’t want the Vancouver Aquarium to get the land that will be vacated by the Children’s Farmyard at Stanley Park. Due to funding constraints, the park board is closing down the petting zoo on January 2, 2011.

The Green commissioner, who noted that he didn’t know whether the aquarium had expressed interest in the site, argues that it’s better to have the area returned to natural uses.

“I don’t think the aquarium should be expanding any further in Stanley Park for commercial ventures,” Mackinnon told the Straight in a phone interview.

The aquarium didn’t make a spokesperson available for an interview before deadline. According to its website, the tourist attraction, which features whales and other marine animals, occupies 9,000 square metres in Stanley Park.

Last December, the park board called for business plans to keep the farmyard open. A staff report dated September 10, 2010, stated that two expressions of interest were received. However, one was eventually withdrawn. The other didn’t demonstrate the required financial capability. Staff didn’t identify the two parties.

Peter Hamilton, founding director of the animal-rights group Lifeforce, claimed that the aquarium has shown an interest in the farmyard land.

“They had put in a proposal to use it, and the parks board wouldn’t tell us what the proposal was, so I have a freedom-of-information inquiry at city hall now,” Hamilton told the Straight by phone.

Like Mackinnon, Coalition of Progressive Electors park commissioner Loretta Woodcock said she didn’t know whether the aquarium was interested in the farmyard site. However, Woodcock told the Straight by phone that it “wouldn’t be beyond the realm of possibility that the aquarium might take a look at that area”.

According to Vision Vancouver park commissioner Raj Hundal, the park board will issue another request for proposals for the petting-zoo site after the facility closes down early next year.

Bloedel Conservatory Saved!

Park Board unanimously voted for the proposal from the VanDusen Botanical Garden Association and the Friends of Bloedel to jointly manage the Conservatory. Here is a video clip from Global News.

VANCOUVER PARK BOARD COMMISSIONERS CALL FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION TO REMOVE WHARF AT JERICHO BEACH

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 12, 2010

Delay in removing the wharf is causing severe environmental damage to fish habitat

Vancouver, BC – Vancouver Park Board Commissioners Ian Robertson and Stuart Mackinnon are demanding that the Park Board take immediate action to remove the wharf at Jericho Beach. Information provided to the Park Board from Fisheries and Oceans Canada outlines that fish habitat and other marine life is being severely compromised due to toxic contaminants leeching into the water from old creosote pilings.

“This is another example of the Vision Vancouver Park Board caucus waffling on a decision by the previous park board to return the beach to a natural foreshore. Not only is taxpayer money being wasted but now we have a significant environmental problem”, says Park Board Commissioner Ian Robertson.

The Jericho Marginal Wharf, built in the 1930s, was once used by the Royal Canadian Air Force as a float plane base. It has been closed to the public since the summer of 2009 as it has been deemed a hazard due to age related structural problems.

“Vancouver, being a coastal city, is blessed with a beautiful foreshore, but unfortunately much of it is not accessible to the public. Returning this area to its natural habitat will enhance the area, and create a haven for both people and nature” says Commissioner Stuart Mackinnon. “It’s time the Park Board moved on this”.

The previous Park Board voted in July 2008 to remove a significant portion of the wharf and return the beach to a natural state. Despite three previous public meetings and strong public support for returning the beach to a natural state, the Vision Vancouver Park Board caucus voted unanimously in March 2009 to rescind the previous Board’s decision.

-30-

Don't expect aquarium referendum anytime soon

By Sandra Thomas, Vancouver Courier, August 18, 2010 7:03 AM

Coalition For No Whales in Captivity spokesperson Annelise Sorg has been pushing for a referendum on keeping whales and dolphins at the Vancouver Aquarium for 18 years, nine park boards, six civic elections and 30 park board commissioners.

So she wasn't surprised last month when the Vision Vancouver majority of park board commissioners voted down a motion by the Green Party's Stuart Mackinnon to hold a non-binding plebiscite on keeping captive cetaceans as part of the 2011 civic election. Mackinnon's motion followed the June death of Nala, the aquarium's one-year-old baby beluga, whose death was caused by a penny and several rocks trapped in an airway.

According to Vision Vancouver park board chair Aaron Jasper, such a move could put the park board at risk of a lawsuit should the aquarium decide to get litigious. That's because in 2006 the previous NPA-dominated park board extended the aquarium's lease for 20 years with a deal there'd be no discussion on captive cetaceans until 2015. At the same time, the NPA commissioners of the day quashed the previous COPE-dominated board's promise to hold a plebiscite on the issue.

And now, the aquarium is preparing to expand, once again, thanks to $15 million from the feds and $10 million from the province. The aquarium's expansion isn't news--the $80 million project was approved in 2006 without a public referendum. But it's notable that government funding was announced just weeks after Mackinnon's failed motion--and at a time when the park board has been forced to lay off staff and cut back on community centre programs, not to mention the school board forced to close schools due to budget cuts.

The NPA-dominated park board of 2006 approved the expansion based on a $300,000 survey paid for by the aquarium, which made many residents and some park board commissioners question the validity of the results. COPE commissioner Loretta Woodcock summed it up this way: "The public is being asked if they really like the aquarium expansion," said Woodcock at the time. "Or if they really, really like it."

What Mackinnon, Woodcock and many residents want now is a plebiscite that offers one simple yes-or-no question, such as "Should the aquarium phase out the containment of cetaceans in Stanley Park?"

Aquarium president John Nightingale explained that some of the work in the expansion includes vital repairs to infrastructure, such as the underwater wall and viewing window located underneath the B.C. Wild Coast exhibit, which opened in 2001. Nightingale said if that vital work isn't completed, the aquarium will have to drain that pool. He adds those improvements are interconnected with other work--for example the roof on that gallery will also have to come off and be replaced, changing the appearance of the building from the outside. The expansion has been broken up into eight separate yet connected projects to be completed in three phases.

I asked Nightingale if any of the improvements will change the way visitors view the whale, dolphin and sea lion pools in light of Nala's death, which many blame on humans tossing items into the cetaceans' pools. Just two weeks ago, the spouse of a Courier reporter was at the aquarium when a child tossed a purple wallet into the sea lion pool. Nightingale says that while changes to viewing areas aren't on the aquarium's to-do list, the final design has yet to be decided.

According to the book People, Fish and Whales: The Vancouver Aquarium Story by Murray Newman and Nightingale, the first aquarium expansion was in 1967. Subsequent expansions have taken place at regular intervals ever since. In 1995, the majority of NPA commissioners voted that any future expansion would go to referendum. But in 2006, another NPA-dominated board rescinded that promise. So the aquarium has been running the show ever since. Given the park board's history of flip-flopping, does anyone really expect a change in 2015? It's probably going to take Annelise Sorg at least another six civic elections and another 30 commissioners before the park board finally stands up and asks, "Should the aquarium phase out the containment of cetaceans in Stanley Park?"

sthomas@vancourier.com

© Copyright (c) Vancouver Courier

City's democratic deficit

By Michael Bellegarde, Vancouver Sun August 7, 2010

One of the hardest things to find in Canada right now is good old-fashioned democracy.

After Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament and the B.C. Liberals slammed the harmonized sales tax down the throats of the electorate, I had clung to the hope that municipal politics would be the last bastion of democracy.

Alas, the Vancouver park board recently voted against Green Party commissioner Stuart MacKinnon's motion to have a plebiscite about whales and dolphins being kept in captivity.

For me, this was less an issue of cetaceans in captivity than of the democratic process in Vancouver's politics.

The commissioners who voted against the motion all took the coward's route out -- each one stated that a deal was in place with the Vancouver Aquarium and he or she had to honour it.

I would agree with them.

However, the motion was simply to ask the citizens what they thought, not to amend the agreement or renege on the deal.

The results of the plebiscite would merely have served as a compass to guide the board in its decisions, come 2015.

I am relatively new to Vancouver, but I thought I had read somewhere that Mayor Gregor Robertson is a bit of a socialist.

Why are his Vision Party comrades on the park board catering to corporate wishes, rather than the will of the people?

Michael Bellegarde

Vancouver

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/City+democratic+deficit/3371283/story.html#ixzz0vvvWo52D

Vacation time

The Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation takes a break in August, and so will I. The next meeting of the Board will be on September 20th, however the Planning and Environment committee will meet on September 9th. Wishing you all a happy holiday.

The Good is in the Doing

Last Monday evening COPE Commissioner Loretta Woodcock and I brought a motion to the Board of Parks and Recreation seeking a plebiscite in 2011 on phasing out cetacean (whales and dolphins) exhibits in our parks. This motion was brought forward in order to give the citizens of Vancouver the opportunity to democratically express their wishes on this controversial subject. It was not surprising that over 20 delegates came to speak. It was also not surprising that the Aquarium spoke against this initiative. What was surprising was Vision Vancouver's lack of empathy for the cetaceans in captivity and their continuing bullying tactics with the public. Board Chair Aaron Jasper had repeatedly claimed over the previous week that a plebiscite could bring a legal action against the Board which would cost the taxpayers countless dollars, yet at the table this was not mentioned, instead substituting the mantra, first intoned by the Aquarium, that "a deal is a deal". This confirmed my apprehension that Vision Vancouver believes that local government can sign away our democratic rights. Somehow a 'deal' made with the Aquarium prevents the voters of Vancouver from expressing their will in a ballot initiative.

Then in a truly bizarre twist, after accusing the proponents of the motion of trying to waste taxpayers dollars, Jasper sounded like he made a commitment to hold a stand alone plebiscite in 2015 on this subject, thereby incurring ten of thousands of dollars in costs. 2011 was the last opportunity to hold a plebiscite in conjunction with a civic election, saving you money. As my mum used to say, penny wise and pound foolish.

Despite the motion falling 5-2 I still believe this was the right thing to do. I still believe that the citizens of Vancouver have the right to decide what activities are permissible in our parks. I still believe that contracts and 'deals' cannot usurp the basic democratic rights of citizens. Bringing this motion forward was the right thing to do. As my friend Janos Mate said to me, "the good is in the doing". I believe we have done good.

Park Board votes down plebiscite on whales, dolphins at aquarium

VANCOUVER - The Vancouver Park Board has voted against holding a non-binding plebiscite on whether or not to keep dolphins and whales at the aquarium.

Officials say the final vote was two-to-five, with only Green party park board commissioner Stuart Mackinnon and Loretta Woodcock voting for the motion.

Had the motion passed, it would have created a public, non-binding vote on whether or not the aquarium can keep the animals for the fall civic election.

Park Board spokeswoman Joyce Courtney said the meeting was attended by 23 separate delegations, mostly for the motion. Courtney noted, however, that some groups, including the Vancouver Aquarium, were in opposition of the motion, which was originally brought up by Mackinnon.

The discussions were described as "very lively," and around 60 people packed into the room where the meeting was held.

Mackinnon had previously said he thinks the public is ready now to end the practice of capturing whales and dolphins for exhibition.

"My motion is about the democratic process," he said. "The board has agreed it will renew the bylaw concerning captive cetaceans in 2015, and so the referendum should be held next year."

The Vancouver Aquarium is one of the city's major tourist attractions. It is home to five beluga whales and three dolphins, and has housed as many as three killer whales.

Mackinnon's motion would have called for live shows at the aquarium to be phased out, with no new whales or dolphins captured to replace those now at the aquarium.

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Why a plebiscite on captive cetaceans? Why now?

The following is an editorial I wrote for the CityCaucus.com web site.


Post by Stuart Mackinnon in Editorial

A pivotal vote that will affect the Vancouver Aquarium happens Monday evening

Last Monday I submitted a motion to the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation to hold a plebiscite during the 2011 civic election on the phasing out of cetaceans (whales and dolphins) in captivity in Vancouver parks. The latest death of a beluga whale calf in June 2010 at the Vancouver aquarium has brought up once again the topic of cetaceans in captivity. According to the LifeForce Foundation, at least 36 cetaceans, including 9 orcas, 7 narwhals, 8 belugas and 12 Pacific White Sided Dolphins have died at the Vancouver Aquarium. The academy award winning documentary film, The Cove, has brought to the world’s attention the industrial killing and capture of dolphin populations. The Vancouver Province newspaper on June 23, 2010 wrote, in an editorial, that the public are calling into question the wisdom and morality of keeping captive cetaceans that otherwise deserve to be born, live, and die in their natural environment, saying "the latest in a long line of whale deaths at the aquarium — this time one-year-old beluga calf Nala — calls into question the wisdom and morality of keeping captive whales and other large marine animals. It is a practice that must end."

Aaron Jasper, the Vision Vancouver Chair of the Park Board, in a press release last week called into question the legalities of holding a plebiscite, claiming that I am “putting the Park Board at risk of a potential lawsuit, in spite of his prior knowledge of a legally binding agreement with the Vancouver Aquarium.” Commissioner Jasper does not state what this ‘legal binding’ agreement is, nor the basis of a potential lawsuit. Nor does he state that my motion passed through the city’s own legal department and was approved by both the acting GM of the Park Board and himself as Chair.

My motion is not about whales and dolphins in captivity, nor is it about the Aquarium. It is about the rights of the citizens of Vancouver to express their views on what happens in our public parks. Commissioner Jasper would have you believe that this cannot be done, and so now, according to him, the issue becomes one of government liability when conducting the normal business of government. If the government, in this case the city, cannot conduct normal business—in this case conducting a democratic survey in the form of a non-binding plebiscite—by the terms of a lease or contract, then I would ask, is this lease or contract binding or lawful? In other words, can the city sign away the public’s democratic rights in a contract? Now stop and think about that for a moment. Can the city sign away your democratic rights? I don’t think so, and I don’t for a minute believe that the courts would allow for that either. In which case, Commissioner Jasper’s release was simply a red herring and a personal attack.

Animals in captivity have a long and controversial history in Vancouver. In 1993 there was a referendum on the fate of the Stanley Park zoo and 53% of the electorate voted for its closure. The zoo was closed down three years later. In 1996 an NPA Park Board passed a motion which called for a further referendum if the Aquarium wished to expand. In 2005 a majority COPE Board set a referendum on holding cetaceans in captivity—similar to the plebiscite I am calling for—during the 2008 civic election. The next Board, which was dominated once again by the NPA, rescinded both of those previous motions and instead passed a motion stating that “it is the Board’s intention that in 2015 the board review the Parks Control By-law relating to captive cetaceans”. The motion did not deny the Board the right to review the by-law earlier, nor to collect information in order to review the by-law.

The plebiscite I am calling for is non-binding, and would be done in order for the Park Board to collect information for the review. So why hold the plebiscite in 2011, 4 years before the review? The provincial government set up an electoral review commission to look at local governance in British Columbia. This commission reported out this spring and the provincial government accepted all of its recommendations. One recommendation is to change the length of time between civic elections from 3 years to 4 years. As civic elections are held in November, the next election after November 2011 would be November 2015—after the review of the cetacean by-law. Therefore, the 2011 civic election is the last opportunity to hold a plebiscite during a civic vote. To make these bylaw decisions without prior public consultation would be contradictory to our mandate as well as disrespectful and irresponsible.

Whether you agree with keeping cetaceans in captivity or not, I think this motion is important. When politicians attempt to strip us of our democratic rights and hide behind vague and intangible legalese when denying us the right to express our voices, there is something terribly wrong.

I believe the citizens of Vancouver have the right to express their views on this controversial issue. This is why at the next meeting of the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation I will be bringing a motion proposing that a plebiscite be held during the 2011 Vancouver civic elections, asking the public if they are in favour of phasing out existing exhibits that contain cetaceans, on land leased from the Vancouver Park Board. The people of Vancouver have the right to choose. I believe this plebiscite is the right thing to do.

- post by Stuart Mackinnon. Stuart Mackinnon is a Green Party member and Vancouver park board commissioner.

The Legalities of the Plebiscite

Last Monday I submitted a motion to hold a plebiscite on the phasing out of whales and dolphins in captivity in Vancouver parks. The motion was sent to the City of Vancouver's legal department and they returned with a concern, not with the motion, but with one of the whereas clauses. I changed all the whereas clauses, but retained the motion as written. This was accepted by both the Chair of the Park Board, Vision Vancouver's Aaron Jasper, and the Acting General Manager of the Park Board. If the city legal department said it was okay, where is the problem?

Aaron Jasper, in his press release yesterday, chose to personally attack me and my motivation for this motion. This attack has become a well coordinated effort coming from offices much higher than Jasper's. I have to ask myself, what is the real motivation behind this? What does Vision Vancouver have to fear in consulting the public?

It’s Time for a Plebiscite on Captive Cetaceans

The latest death of a beluga whale calf in June 2010 at the Vancouver aquarium has brought up once again the topic of cetaceans in captivity. According to the LifeForce Foundation, at least 36 cetaceans, including 9 orcas, 7 narwhals, 8 belugas and 12 Pacific White Sided Dolphins have died at the Vancouver Aquarium. The academy award winning documentary film, The Cove, has brought to the world’s attention the industrial killing and capture of dolphin populations, while the Vancouver Province newspaper on June 23, 2010 wrote, in an editorial, that the public are calling into question the wisdom and morality of keeping captive cetaceans that otherwise deserve to be born, live, and die in their natural environment. In the editorial, the writer says, "the latest in a long line of whale deaths at the aquarium — this time one-year-old beluga calf Nala — calls into question the wisdom and morality of keeping captive whales and other large marine animals. It is a practice that must end."

This debate is not new. Recent history goes back to the 1990's. A history of the debate is summarized by the group Whale Friends:

"Many citizens in Vancouver have for decades been advocating for the phase out of cetacean captivity in the Vancouver Aquarium. Many also call for an end to all marine mammal captivity in Stanley Park.

The Park Board has received over twenty thousand signatures asking for a city wide referendum on the question of phasing out the cetacean captivity program of the Vancouver Aquarium. In addition, opinion polls have indicated that the majority of citizens in Greater Vancouver oppose keeping these intelligent beings in captivity.

Being respectful of the spirit of citizen involvement in our municipal democracy an NPA dominated Parks Board in 1996 decided that should the Aquarium request permission to expand in Stanley Park, a city wide referendum would be held. In the same spirit of the civic democracy, a COPE dominated Park Board in 2005 decided that the question of phasing out cetacean captivity in Stanley Park should be put to a city wide referendum. Unfortunately, in 2006, the last NPA Parks Board … rescinded both of those earlier decisions."

I believe the citizens of Vancouver have the right to express their views on this controversial issue. At the July 19th meeting of the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation I will be bringing a motion proposing that a plebiscite be held during the 2011 Vancouver civic elections, asking the public if they are in favour of phasing out existing exhibits that contain cetaceans, on land leased from the Vancouver Park Board. I believe the people of Vancouver have the right to choose. I believe this plebiscite is the right thing to do.

The meeting will be held Monday night at the Park board office: 2099 Beach Avenue. To speak you must register before noon on Monday by calling: 604-257-8451

Hold citywide vote on whales in captivity, Vancouver park commissioner suggests

By Carlito Pablo

Georgia Straight

Vancouver residents may get a chance next year to vote on a divisive issue.

The question boils down to this: Is it right to keep cetaceans, such as whales and dolphins, in captivity?

Green park commissioner Stuart Mackinnon is bringing forward a motion to a meeting of the Vancouver park board on Monday (July 19) suggesting a plebiscite on the matter.

In a phone interview, Mackinnon said that the plebiscite would ask the public if it is in favour of phasing out cetacean exhibits and banning the future containment of these marine mammals on land leased by the Vancouver park board.

The commissioner is recommending that the non-binding vote take place during the next civic election in November 2011.

Mackinnon recalled to the Straight that in a special meeting on November 27, 2006, the board passed a motion to review the bylaw relating to cetaceans in 2015.

“If the park is going to reevaluate the bylaw in 2015, it would be a good idea to find out what the people feel about it,” Mackinnon said.

The death last month of Nala, a one-year-old baby beluga, at the Vancouver Aquarium has revived questions about the wisdom of keeping captive dolphins and whales for public display.

Nala died in the evening of June 21. Her airway was found blocked by a couple of rocks and a penny.

(c) Georgia Straight

BP Slick Covers Dolphins and Whales

A must see video. How sad, how sickening.

Olympic RV Park lost money

That's a headline in this weeks Courier. You might remember the controversy over this initiative last year. Residents in the neighbourhood fought this, and I was the lone voice on the Board against it. It passed by a 4-1 vote by the Commissioners.

Current Park Board Chair Aaron Jasper was quoted at the time in the Vancouver Sun on why Vision Vancouver supported this initiative: “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.”

Well, now it seems the Park Board lost about $70,000 on this venture. Sometimes commercialization of public lands comes back to bite you.

Aquarium must stop keeping whales

Editorial: Aquarium must stop keeping whales

The Province June 23, 2010 10:20 AM

The Vancouver Aquarium is a wonderful institution that has perhaps more than any other similar organization in Canada contributed to the public's appreciation of marine animals and their environment.

You only have to look into the amazed eyes of a child, nose pressed to the glass of one of the aquarium's many exhibits, to understand how well the facility teaches all of us to respect the natural world. And, of course, we can express only positives about the aquarium's work at rehabilitating injured or orphaned animals and the research it supports.

However, the latest in a long line of whale deaths at the aquarium ˜ this time one-year-old beluga calf Nala ˜ calls into question the wisdom and morality of keeping captive whales and other large marine animals. It is a practice that must end.

With whale-watching tours and the gorgeous high-definition nature shows we can all now watch on television, the argument that seeing whales up close in an enclosure is the best way to appreciate them have dried up. And the common refrain that baby whales die earlier and more frequently in the wild does not justify raising them in captivity ˜ even without finding pennies and pebbles down their blow holes.

These are tremendous creatures that deserve to be born, live and die in their natural environment on their own terms, and our species should assume no right to impose our will upon them. The aquarium needs to evolve.

What do you think? Comment below or email, including your name and town, to: provletters@theprovince.com.

© Copyright (c) The Province

Dirty, noisy, and inefficient--an end to gas-powered leaf blowers in our parks

At the next meeting of the Board of Parks and Recreation I will be bringing forward a motion directing the Vancouver Park Board to find alternate methods for collecting leaves. Currently the Board uses 2 stroke leaf blowers in some areas. These machines are noisy, dirty, and create more problems than they solve.

The noise generated is not only a nuisance, it can actually be harmful to hearing for those anywhere in close proximity. The two stroke engines, which use a mixture of oil and gas in order to run, spew out noxious fumes that according to the California EPA, produce 145 times more hydrocarbons, 7.5 times more carbon monoxide, and 11 times more particulate matter than a light duty vehicle driven at 30 mph. The Lung Association states that a single gas-powered leaf blower causes as much smog as 17 cars. And then there is all the stuff that the jet engine-like wind blows up and around and we breathe. An excellent essay on this can be found at the Wilmette Life website.

In addition to some background information, the motion will ask the Board to "replace the current inventory of gas powered leaf blowers with more sustainable methods of clearing leaves."

Some links on this issue:
http://www.ecocycle.org/askeco-cycle/20031031.cfm
http://www.nonoise.org/quietnet/cqs/leafblow.htm
http://www.noisefree.org/leafblowers/leafturndown.html
http://www.terranovalandscaping.com/blog/2009/08/28/ban-leaf-blowers-otherwise-known-as-polluting-noi
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/mailouts/msc0005/msc0005.pdf
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/51126
http://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/Commnoise4.htm

Much Ado About Nothing?

There is a great deal of to-do in some of the local press about the Park Board policy of not allowing political demonstrations in the public areas of our community centres. The anti-HST proponents want free access to the lobbies of our community centres to collect signatures for their petition. The Park Board turned down the request based on a policy that states in part:

Examples of events which are not necessarily compatible with the Park Board’s mandate include non-recreational events such as press conferences, rallies, protests and events of a political or commercial nature and other gatherings to conduct activities which are not active and/or passive recreational activities. These non-recreational events are not compatible with Park Board’s mandate and thus are not generally approved to be held on parkland. In addition, to safe guard public enjoyment of parks, the Park Board does not allow the distribution of written material or solicitation on parkland without permission.

The Board has offered the anti-HST petitioners the use of a room for a fee—the same as any other group wanting to use a community centre. They have turned this down, demanding free space in the lobbies.

Now the former Chair of the Board is bringing a motion to the next meeting of the Park Board that would allow a one-time exemption for this group - the rationale being that the HST will affect every user of the community centres. I believe this is both risky and unfair. It is risky to pick and choose who should or should not be included in our rules and regulations and it is unfair to exempt one group over others. Other groups will want the exemption as well and we will be hard-pressed to justify why one can and another cannot. What should be debated is not an exemption, but the policy itself. If the Board does not believe this is a fair policy, then the policy should be done away with for everybody, not just a select few who it agrees with.

I firmly believe that community centres are public spaces for everyone and the current policy ensures that they are free from partisan politics. Our users should not have to be confronted with partisans with an axe to grind. I also happen to support the anti-HST movement and have signed the petition. It is easy to find the petition without having to go to a community centre. Many shops and malls and even street corners have people offering the petition for your signature.

The Civil Liberties Association has weighed in on this, declaring that the Park Board policy unfairly restricts freedom of speech and assembly. They even suggest that discussing the hockey game could be construed as against the policy. This is utter nonsense and they should know better than to spread such hogwash. There are limits imposed in many situations. The Park Board is not stopping people from assembling in community centres or restricting conversations. The policy simply says there is a place for political demonstrations, but it is not in parks or community centres.

Budget cuts put the chill on summer fun for kids

The budget cuts the Park Board approved by a vote of 4 to 3 last November will really hit home this summer. These cuts are the result of the City holding the tax increase to 2 1/2% and thus reducing funding to the Park Board. The following parks will have their summer playground programs cut this year:

Balaclava- Closed
Brewers- Closed
Burrardview- Closed
Clark - Closed
Clinton - Closed
Columbia - Not open in 2009
Falaise - Closed
Killarney - Not Open in 2009
Memorial South- Not open in 2009
Nanamio - Closed
Renfrew - Closed
Riley - Closed

I thought these cuts were wrong then and still think so now. I believe the taxpayers were willing to pay a little more to keep the services we all think are important. Write to City Council and to the Park Board Commissioners and tell them what you think of these cuts to your neighbourhood services. Hopefully when preparing the budget for next year, they'll listen to what you say.

Midterm speculation--What will he do?

I had always heard that in politics summer was the silly season. Seems there isn't enough real news and so people find strange things to dig up or make up. Midterm is a bit of a silly season too. I can't tell you how many people have asked me, in the last little while, if I will run again and if I do, who I will run for.

As an elected Green, I have tried to keep green values always foremost in my decision-making. Other than that, I have tried to look at each motion on its own merits. It doesn't matter to me who puts it forward. If, in my opinion, it is good for the environment, good for the community and fiscally sound, then I would support it.

Some see this as 'playing politics' or 'flirting with the enemy' or 'breaking up the coalition'. I find this amusing. This is politics, I see no enemies on the Board, and I do not belong to a coalition. I have been elected by the people of Vancouver as a member of the Green Party of Vancouver. My mandate is to 'provide, preserve and advocate... to benefit people, communities and the environment' and that is what I try to do.

We are fortunate that this Board has representatives from four different political organizations, and as such there is a broad range of opinions and views. Mostly we get along, and most motions pass without dissent. Sometimes the political heat is raised--especially around fiscal matters, but there have been others--but at the end of the day we all have to work together and by and large we do.

The next election is still a year and a half away and in that time anything can happen. But to quell to queries, I enjoy my work on the Board and I am as committed to green values as I ever was.

Sunshine and BBQs

On a beautiful day like today it is hard not think that summer has already arrived. Being Vancouver we know that tomorrow might be cool and wet, but as they say, we like to make hay while the sun shines. Not only are the days getting warmer and the sun brighter, but the days are also getting longer and that means that our parks are full of people enjoying themselves a little later. In my neighbourhood lots of families are out enjoying the evening with picnics and BBQ s.

One of the many great amenities to be found in some Vancouver parks are permanent BBQ s. In my park there are two and they are well used. There is something special about being in a park and smelling the food being prepared out of doors. I love the laughter and fun of picnic-ers and love how many people use our parks.

Vancouver parks have something for everybody and are a great way to enjoy the lingering daylight hours.

The Stewardship of Stanley Park

At the last meeting of the Park Board's Planning and Environment committee the topic of a stewardship plan for Stanley Park came up. There was some discussion of just what a stewardship plan is and is not. I will admit that, despite my best efforts, I was unable to articulate clearly enough for some around the table what is meant by a stewardship plan. Here is how the Land Trust Alliance defines it:

A stewardship plan is important to ensure consistent and effective monitoring and stewardship of protected properties over time. Stewardship means planning for and taking the necessary actions over the long term to successfully preserve and protect the natural, cultural, or historical value of a resource asset. Such actions included, as applicable, managing the resource asset, performing regular maintenance and upkeep, providing for necessary monitoring, educating or informing those that might negatively impact upon the resource asset about the need for and/or legal obligation to protect and preserve it, and securing sufficient levels of financial resources to carry out all such necessary actions.

Staff explained that a stewardship plan differs from a 'master plan' in that a master plan deals with development within the park while a stewardship plan deals with the long term maintenance of the park.

I think it is long overdue to have a stewardship plan for Stanley Park. It will be expensive but I think it will be worth it in the long run. We can no longer take actions within the park without understanding how those actions will effect the overall health of the park. We must understand that what we do to one part will effect the entire park.

A Very Proud Moment...

There are certain events in one's life that are so special you wish you could hang onto the moment forever. Last Saturday was one of those. After three hard years of sacrifice and study I walked across the stage at the Chan Centre and was presented with a Masters hood and diploma for my MA Ed in Leadership and Administration. The day was made even more special as I gave my class valediction. My valedictory address was surely more nerve wracking than any political speech I have ever made, as I was speaking to my peers--a daunting task as my class was filled with very fine minds. It was a very proud moment and I was glad to share it with my friends Dr. Julie Wong and City Councillor Andrea Reimer. Conspicuous in their absence were my parents who did not live long enough to witness my achievement. This was all the more poignant as it was the Mothers' day weekend.

My love of learning and my inquisitive mind are what brought me to advocating for parks and natural spaces, just as they led me to teaching. I won't miss the lost weekends spent writing endless papers and reading long academic journal articles, but I will miss the wonderfully challenging classes and my fellow classmates who always inspired me to think in new ways. I was blessed to have had superb professors at the University of Phoenix (Vancouver) who gave of themselves beyond what was called for. Special mention to my mentor and my friend Dr. Joy Ruffeski, who inspired me to pursue my masters degree and then made sure I completed it! We are fortunate to live in a country that values education and I am fortunate to have been able to reach a level of education only dreamt of in my youth.

I will take the summer off from studying and spend some extra time with family and friends and then, who knows. I will always be a lifelong learner. I always figured that when I was too old to learn, then I'd be too old for life.

When the press get it wrong

There is an article in today's Courier which says I voted at the last Park Board meeting against a motion to save Beaver Lake in Stanley Park. In fact there was no motion. Commissioner Woodcock attempted to add an amendment to the motion to accept the Stanley Park Ecology Society's state of the park report--and that amendment was ruled out of order. I did vote in favour of accepting the report. The Courier article also says that what I voted against was a plan to save the lake that had been agreed to at an earlier Planning and Environment committee meeting--in fact no plan was presented as the committee meeting wasn't held until two days later.

At the Planning and Environment committee meeting staff brought forward a recommendation to look at all aspects of the report and bring a 'menu of items' to the Board in the autumn and then after careful consideration we would choose which ones to act upon. Beaver Lake will be a priority on that list, but it will not be the only item. Indeed Beaver Lake is not the only area of the park that is in need of remediation, and we must choose which areas and which course of action very carefully. NPA Commissioner Ian Robertson understood this while my COPE and Vision colleagues seemed strangely unaware or unwilling to understand that Beaver Lake is not the only area of the park in need of attention. In the end we agreed with staff, and that a priority would be put on Beaver lake.

One good thing that came out of all this is that staff will also look at the cost of an over all Stewardship plan for the park. I have been asking for this for years--and it was part of my campaign. I am grateful to COPE Commissioner Woodcock for speaking in favour of staff reporting back on this.

It really is time that we stopped looking at Stanley Park as a collection of areas and started looking it at it as a complex, diverse, and interconnected region. We must understand that what we do to one part of the park affects all parts. A stewardship plan will help with future planning as it will look at the park as a whole. After all the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Thank you to my readers

It is coming up to the mid-point of my term on the Park Board. I want to take this opportunity to thank the readers of this blog for your comments, both directly to the blog, and through e-mails and conversations with me personally. I hope you have found the information and opinions I have shared useful.

Politics in Vancouver seems to be shifting. I'm not sure which way it is going, but parks and recreation, trees and public amenities have taken a big hit over the last couple of years. The economy has had a lot to do with this as the city tries to balance its budget and find new revenues.

The economy has made a recovery, though of course it isn't at the levels it was at before the downturn. I hope that in the second part of my term we can focus more on the things that make this city great already--making sure we keep what we have, before we start moving in new directions and incurring new expenditures.