AIN’T IT AWFUL!

By Betty Krawczyk. 
This article was first written as a Facebook posting and is reproduced by permission of the author.


In the book”Games People Play” by Eric Berne (1964) the author delineates some of the more common social transactions between humans and describes them as games. AIN’T IT AWFUL is a game played by people who are not moved to try to change a situation so much as they are to complain about it. I think the continuance of the BC Liberals in power will be lamented by at least some people who didn’t bother to vote. In fairness, I understand the disinterest, or rather the disconnection, between numbers of young people and the voting booth.

I don’t think it is primarily apathy that drives the young away from politics. Rather, I think it is another game described in Berne’s book that is much loved by lawyers, especially corporate lawyers, and is particularly loved by politicians. This game is called “Now I’ve Got You, You S.O.B.” It is used to try to blow up some rather insignificant infraction by one side to that of a headliner by the other. Adrian Dix NDP leader, tried to stay away from this particular game during the BC campaign but was side swiped by the BC Liberals who love the game, and are good at it. The BC Liberals are first, foremost, and above all, game players.

But in my opinion there are other reasons the BC Liberals won. I understand there was money going into the BC Liberals’ coffers from Alberta’s oil and gas interests. And I’m wondering why the polls were so wrong. Plugging into my strong sense of paranoia (paranoia has been described as a heightened sense of awareness) and raising the question…might there have been some deliberate poll fudging that had BC Liberals trailing in the polls to give progressive voters the idea that what the heck, the NDP are going to win, the polls say so, so why go out of the way to vote? Does this sound off the wall?

I would say so myself if it weren’t for the last Alberta provincial election. The same thing happened there. The Tea Party was way ahead in the polls but the polls were wildly wrong. So what has happened with the polling? Have these poll takers just become newly incompetent, or in some way we don’t as yet understand, newly corrupted? I also wonder about Gordon Wilson’s last minute conversion back to the BC Liberals. His reasons sound spurious to me (Global News 5/5/13). Did Wilson hear something the rest of us didn’t hear from inside the insiders?

But there is this other thing, a contradictory thing. It comes down to this…I don’t believe people deliberately vote against what they perceive to be their own best interest. Take David Eby’s win (NDP) in Vancouver- Point Grey riding. This is a wealthy riding. Vancouver-Point Grey includes UBC, Kitsilano, the University Endowment Lands, stunning beaches, beautiful homes and parks, etc. And as one might expect, this riding is also way above average in education so there is probably not a terrible amount of worry there about jobs. Ditto for the Green win in Oak Bay-Gordon Head riding.
The Oak Bay-Gordon Head riding won by Andrew Weaver is also above average in wealth and education with many older citizens. As a riding, the people, like Vancouver-Point Grey, are probably not that worried about jobs and can focus without the distraction of poverty staring them in the face on other things like the environment. Andrew Weaver is an environmental scientist. It’s a perfect match. 

I also voted Green but I felt a tug of guilt as I did so. I know a lot of people who are out of work, or working for minimum wage, mostly young men who are not going to be doctors or lawyers or educators. They need jobs. Not years down the road when green energy projects might start generating enough jobs for people, but now. The problem is this… in the now, primarily what we have in our country that could keep us going is resource extraction.

And paranoia aside, this is the main reason I think the BC Liberals got back in. It was the matter of which party might manage to get the oil and gas lines going. The populations of the ridings of Vancouver-Point Grey and Oak Bay-Gordon Head are not indicative of the majority of the population of BC. The majority are worried about jobs that will pay them enough to live, to marry, to start a family and/or to feed the one they already have. Many feel that putting the environment first is a luxury they can’t afford. And until this problem is met head on by everybody things won’t change.
This is the true dilemma of our days. It means that there must be a radical readjustment of our entire capitalist system that is eating up the globe if we are to create work that is healthy, and peaceful, and good for children. I have tried to urge Elizabeth May of the Green Party to try again to get the Bank of Canada back on their agenda for party votes so that, if this ever got on the ballot and passed, the federal and provincial leaders could borrow from the Bank of Canada without interest instead of from private banks with compound interest. Until this is done our country will never get out of debt and neither will we.

People do play games, as Eric Berne noted and wrote about. But we all we have to stop playing AIN’T IT AWUL and NOW I’VE GOT YOU, YOU S.O.B, and start playing WE’RE ALL ADULTS HERE AND WE CAN FIGURE THIS OUT. We must. The carbon readings have just reached 400 parts per million.

_________________________________________________________________________________
Betty Krawczyk is a Louisiana-born, British Columbia, Canada based environmental activist, author and former political candidate. Krawczyk is well-known locally for having been arrested and imprisoned numerous times for defying court orders related to logging and highway developments. Most recently, on March 5, 2007, she was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment for her role in protesting highway construction on the Eagleridge Bluffs in West Vancouver (from Wikipedia)

Iain Hunter: Green's Andrew Weaver represents more than Oak Bay

Iain Hunter / Times Colonist

May 19, 2013

 

Oak Bay-Gordon Head Green Party of B.C. candidate, Andrew Weaver, speaks to supporters at his election campaign headquarters at the Oak Bay Beach Hotel.  

Photograph by: LYLE STAFFORD, Times Colonist 

An oldster I met in my neighbourhood on Wednesday had a new spring in his shuffle because Andrew Weaver had just been elected MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head.

He thinks that from his new political platform, Weaver, who earned a share in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize as member of the International Panel on Climate Change, will have more clout in the war against global warming.

I didn’t draw the old fellow’s attention to the report, practically on the eve of the provincial election, that the level of carbon dioxide in the world’s atmosphere has risen above 400 parts per million for the first time in more than three million years.

I didn’t want to suggest to him that CO2 isn’t the only problem, that there’s other nasty man-made stuff choking the life out of our planet too — that it’s probably too late to reverse a lot of the damage that has been done.

Neither did I have the heart to remind him that by moving, at least partially, from the laboratory to the legislature, Weaver has to contend with a lot of issues besides the survival of the planet. I also kept to myself a nagging thought that as a politician, his most passionate advocacy might be suspect.

In one sense, Weaver is now for climate change — not the world’s climate but the climate in the legislature. It’s one that’s nastily partisan and stifling, where debate is shallow and often completely beside any point worth making.

At least that’s the way Weaver seems to see it. He’s convinced that people are fed up with partisan politics, where people elected to address the issues and concerns of their constituents spend their time quibbling and insulting one another.

As the only Green MLA, he won’t be under a party whip. He feels he’ll be able to raise issues that might not be raised otherwise, to support whatever government policies are good and oppose those that are bad.

As a scientist, he will demand that decisions be based on evidence, that evidence not be produced for decisions already made.

He decries the influence of “special interests” to which parliamentarians succumb too often, and it will be interesting to see where that leads.

As a scientist, he knows that the protection of special interests is why so little has been done by governments in the face of climate change. As a politician, he’ll be dealing with a party in government that consistently confuses special interests with the public interest — as the effusive post-election press releases from energy outfits, chambers of commerce, business associations and condo builders remind us.

Weaver acknowledged after his election that “I’m way out of my comfort zone.” I’m not sure that many of those who voted for him would want him to become too comfortable in a system he finds so deficient.

Elizabeth May was voted by her fellow MPs as Parliamentarian of the Year for 2012, yet nothing in the House of Commons seems to have changed much.

It must not be by accident that B.C. — this Island — has been chosen to refresh the political climate by electing Green members at the federal and now provincial level. And though Weaver would like to see some form of proportional representation adopted, he should remember that he got in simply by being first past the post.

The turnout in Oak Bay-Gordon Head that gave him victory was the third-highest of all ridings. Green support rose in many ridings, notably next door in Saanich North and the Islands, prompting silly analyses like the one saying that if every Green voter had supported the NDP, Adrian Dix would be premier.

There are green shoots appearing among the bilious orange and hectic red electoral fields all over the province, and they will be nourished.

Weaver represents more than the 9,602 who cast their ballots for him; more than one riding. He represents the hopes of a lot of British Columbians who want better governance and a better world.

He represents a conscience too long dulled by greed and ideology.

The old gent went on his way and, I swear, he gave a little skip.

© Copyright 2013

NDP’s loss not Greens’ fault, says candidate

By Sandra Thomas, Staff writer May 16, 2013 1:49 PM

 Vancouver Courier

B.C. Green Party candidate for Vancouver-Fraserview Stuart Mackinnon doesn’t believe his party had anything to do with the NDP’s surprisingly poor results in the May 14 provincial election.

Because the margin of votes between the Liberals and NDP in some ridings was so close, some speculate votes for the Greens undermined the NDP. There were 12 ridings in the province where the Liberals received a smaller number of votes than the NDP and Greens combined.

Several pundits have speculated the NDP would have prevailed with a majority government had it not been for the Greens. But Mackinnon strongly disagrees. “This was about the NDP not getting their vote out, that’s what did them in at the end,” said Mackinnon. “And I think there’s an inherent arrogance if they think that if it wasn’t for the Greens, people would have voted NDP.”

Mackinnon said while Vancouver-Fraserview has long been a Liberal stronghold, he heard from many constituents grateful for a “Green” choice this time around.

“They said, ‘Thank you Stuart because now I can vote,’” said Mackinnon.

In Vancouver-Fraserview as of May 16, Liberal Suzanne Anton won with 9,127 votes, 546 more than the NDP’s Gabriel Yiu. Mackinnon received 1,053 votes and the Conservative’s Rajiv Pandey’s 578. Across the province, the Liberals won 50 seats to the NDP’s 33. Andrew Weaver became the first Green elected as an MLA after winning Oak Bay-Gordon Head.

Mackinnon, a high school teacher, said a colleague told him almost everyone in his co-op housing development is an NDP supporter, but as far as he knows, he was the only one to vote. “It’s not a question of the Greens taking those votes,” said Mackinnon.

NDP MLA Vancouver-West End Spencer Chandra Herbert, who was re-elected Tuesday night, agreed.

“In the end you have to earn every vote,” said Chandra Herbert. “I had Liberal supporters and Greens telling me they were going to vote for me this time. We don’t own the vote, people own the vote.”
Chandra Herbert said as of Wednesday he hadn’t heard any complaints about vote splitting. While he is disappointed in the election results across the province, he’s pleased the NDP increased its share of seats in Vancouver.

The day after her win, Anton said she had no comment about vote splitting. “I’ll leave that up to the pundits,” she said with a laugh.

sthomas@vancourier.com
twitter.com/sthomas10

© Copyright (c) Vancouver Courier

Another successful campaign

The ballots have been counted, the signs have been collected and the dust is starting to settle. Thank you to my incredible team of Ann and Byron, to my friend Susan and my colleagues Joanne and Donald who came out to help and to Louis for setting up the donation link. Thanks to the Killarney Service students who helped out too as part of their learning. Thank you to those who asked for a lawn sign. And a HUGE thank you to the kind people who donated money to the campaign.

It is amazing what a handful of volunteers and $2500 can do. Imagine if we had had more. 

Our goal was to give the voters a choice and we did that. My goal was to get 1000 votes and we did that --final result was 1230 votes, a 25% increase over the previous election.. So I would say the campaign was a success. We didn't split the vote or steal the vote. We earned our votes.

Time for a bit of a rest, collect our breath and then back into the fray. There is much to be done.

Thank you all for your support.

A message from Elizabeth May to voters on the eve of the BC election

Dear fellow British Columbians,

During my campaign in 2011, nearly everyone outside of my team and supporters said there was no way I could win. Even as polls were closing, the media was still saying I didn't have a chance. I recall one interview (with CKNW in Vancouver) days before the vote when the guest host for the Bill Good Show told me I couldn't be elected dogcatcher. And then the results came in - we won by over 7,000 votes (10.1%). It was a very decisive win!

Now that I've been working as an MP for two years, I've worked to improve civility in Parliament, reaching out across party lines within the principles I laid out during my campaign. I've proposed hundreds of amendments to Conservative omnibus bills, I've created two non-partisan caucuses that include members from all five parties, I've kept my constituents and fellow Canadians informed of all the secretive back-room politics that go on in Ottawa, and my fellow MPs even voted me "Parliamentarian of the Year".

Having Greens elected to the BC Legislature will be a win, not only for the Green Party, but for democracy itself. In this campaign, Jane Sterk and her fellow candidates have already pushed the NDP to adjust their decisions, such as with Mr. Dix's sudden refusal to allow Kinder-Morgan to use the Ports of Vancouver or Delta. Despite the NDP loss of a huge lead, Adrian Dix still has a commanding lead and will form government. A few Greens will have a very healthy impact on the NDP-Liberal partisanship of the legislature. Greens will be a powerful presence. Andrew Weaver, Adam Olsen, Jane Sterk, and other Green MLAs will be able to fight for a guaranteed livable income, a transition off fossil fuels, and support for the burgeoning clean energy industry in BC; they will keep us informed of what goes on in our Legislature, and they will model a new kind of politics that isn't about what party you belong to, but what values you hold dear. BC needs Green MLAs or none of that will ever happen.

So I'm asking you not to listen to the fear-mongering, the scare tactics, the vote-splitting propaganda, and to vote for what you believe in. Feel good about your vote - vote with hope, not fear. My election in 2011 gave hope to people across Canada. Let's do it again tomorrow and see BC take the lead! Let's make history again.

Election Day: tomorrow, May 14, 8am-8pm.

Elizabeth May
MP, Saanich-Gulf Islands
Leader of the Green Party of Canada

If not now, then when?

The following is from the Straight:

by Stuart Mackinnon on Apr 22, 2013 at 11:59 am

People ask me why they should vote Green. I answer because we need change. Real change. And if we don’t vote for change now, then when?

Voting for the Green party means voting for change. Radical change for some. It means not buying into the tired old ways of the mainstream parties. It means saying no to the cynical old methods of buying your votes every four years. It means taking a leap of faith that things can be better, politics can be honourable, and change can happen.

Voting Green means voting for positive change. It means voting for a clean, bright future. It means caring what kind of world our children will inherit, and their children after them.

I joined the Green party because I wanted to be part of the change that needs to happen. As a secondary teacher I want the best future possible for my students. I want a world that is safe, clean, and sustainable. I want a world where innovation and inspiration are what the economy requires. I want a world where clean air, clean water, and healthy food are the right of every citizen.

I’m running in Vancouver-Fraserview because I live, work, shop, and play in Fraserview and want to represent my community in the legislature. I live in the East Fraserlands neighbourhood. I teach at Killarney secondary. I shop on Fraser Street, Victoria Drive, at the Killarney Market, and other local businesses. I walk along the Fraser River and at Everett Crowley Park. I want to be sure that the issues that matter most to my neighbours are articulated. I want a healthy neighbourhood. I want a neighbourhood with diversity. I want a neighbourhood for everyone. Fraserview is a dynamic multicultural neighbourhood where you know your neighbours and where people care about each other. I like that.

I want to help my neighbourhood. I want to ensure seniors have a safe and caring place to meet. I want to make sure there is a Seniors Centre built—not just promises but action. I want to make sure there are local health-care options. Seniors shouldn’t have to travel across the city to access care.

I want to help improve public transit to a neighbourhood that is car-dependant because there aren’t buses that take you where you need to go. I want to ensure that residents can stay in their neighbourhood to shop. I want to support local businesses that give back to the community.

I want to make sure there is affordable housing in my community. I want to encourage a diversity of living models which include single family, townhomes, condominiums, and rental housing. I want the great cooperative housing movement brought back.

I want the best education possible for the children in my community. I want educators to feel respected, schools to be fully funded, children to be safe, and curriculum to reflect the challenges of the present as well as the dreams of the future.

Green politics are about more than land, water, and air. Green politics are about healthy communities, healthy families, and a healthy environment.

Join with me in making real change in British Columbia. Make your vote a vote for a healthy community. If you don’t vote for change now, then when will you?

Vote for positive change. On May 14, vote Green. In Vancouver-Fraserview, vote for Stuart Mackinnon.

Stuart Mackinnon is the B.C. Green candidate for Vancouver-Fraserview.

Stuart Mackinnon running for Greens in Fraserview

By Sandra Thomas, Staff writer Vancouver Courier, April 16, 2013

Former park board commissioner Stuart Mackinnon has been named the Green Party candidate for Vancouver-Fraserview to run in the May 14 provincial election.

I wasn’t surprised by the news because even though Mackinnon had officially left politics, I heard from him regularly about community issues, particularly those affecting the Fraserview/Killarney area. Mackinnon was unsuccessfully in a bid to get re-elected to the park board in the 2011 municipal election.

Mackinnon will go up against former city councillor Suzanne Anton, who is taking another kick at the can after losing her bid to become the B.C. Liberal candidate for Vancouver-Quilchena.

Mackinnon lost no time in criticizing the party’s choice of candidate for the riding. “I have to admit I was surprised the premier would approve someone from Kerrisdale to run in Vancouver-Fraserview.”
Kash Heed, the Liberal incumbent for the riding, is not running for re-election. The Liberals have won the riding in the last three municipal elections by narrow margins. The NDP candidate for the riding is Gabriel Yiu.

Mackinnon, a teacher at Killarney secondary, said he decided to run at the prompting of neighbours who told him they are unhappy with what they perceive as neglect from the city and park board.

Mackinnon told me if elected, his goals include pushing for a long-awaited seniors centre, an item of concern in several past municipal elections. As a resident of the community, Mackinnon says he knows first-hand just how badly underserved the community is when it comes to transit and that’s something he intends to work on. Mackinnon notes housing prices are also pushing residents out of the community so he wants more co-op developments built. The Champlain Heights neighbourhood of Fraserview is the city’s poster child for how to make co-op housing work and Mackinnon says he wants to expand on that success.

$$ for seniors centre
Speaking of that elusive seniors centre, April 15, the day before the provincial election officially launched, the B.C. Liberals issued a press release committing $1.3 million towards a new facility. Killarney resident Lorna Gibbs, who has been leading the charge for a seniors centre, told me she’s pleased the news came in the day before the writ was dropped. What it means for the future, she adds, is yet to be determined.

sthomas@vancourier.com
twitter.com/sthomas10

© Copyright (c) Vancouver Courier

Why I Do What I Do

For those of you who don't know it, I am a secondary special education teacher. I have a program for grade 8 and 9 students with severe learning disabilities. I teach them their academic subjects and hopefully prepare them for reintegration to the regular stream for grade 10.

Working with the kinds of kids I do, success is measured in inches not miles. Sometimes the improvement is hard to see. This is part of a note I received from a parent after I e-mailed that their child had done exceptionally well on a test. The student is one of those who I thought would probably not graduate when she started. Now she is honour roll. She has climbed mountains in the year and half that she has been in the programme.

"Hello Mr. Mackinnon

We are very proud of her achievements too. She has come a long way. Just to share with you, after the quiz, she was a little nervous that she did not do well.  Yesterday, when I asked her, she put on a sad face and pretended that she failed. She’s getting good at it too, we may need to enrol her in drama class!

On behalf of my husband, we want to say thank you very much for your encouragement and assistance throughout the  2 years. You have also given her confidence and opened her up.  She started as a shy little girl sitting way at the back hiding behind the books."

I really don’t take credit for the success. I am only the pathfinder. She has not only climbed mountains, she has moved mountains. She deserves all the credit for putting in the time and effort.

Most of the students I get feel worthless in the beginning. Their educational experience has not been a positive one. My goal is to give them first the confidence to be successful and then the tools to learn. From there I really think they learn in spite of me.

This is the most rewarding job I've ever done. I know I learn as much, or more, from them as I will ever give back. The biggest lesson I have learned is that no child is disposable. Every child is worthy of our best efforts. Every child deserves an education. Every child must be given the opportunity to achieve to their utmost potential.

Stuart Mackinnon is the Green Party of BC candidate for Vancouver Fraserview

For Immediate Release

12 April 2013 Vancouver - The Green Party of BC is pleased to announce that Stuart Mackinnon will represent the party in Vancouver Fraserview in the May 14, 2013 provincial election. 

Stuart is a former Vancouver Park Board Commissioner who represented the Green Party from 2008 to 2011. He focused on parks and public space issues and fought against fee raises for children and the closing of the Bloedel Conservatory.

“Fraserview deserves better” comments Stuart Mackinnon. “I want to give the people of Fraserview a choice in this election. I want to fight for a better tomorrow for Fraserview and all the people of British Columbia by offering them a clean, bright future based on sustainability and green ideals.”

Stuart lives in the Fraserlands neighbourhood and teaches at Killarney Secondary school. He is also a Governor of the VanDusen Botanical Garden Association and a board member of Axis Threatre.

“The Green Party represents a change from the old style politics and brings a sense of hope for a brighter, more honest political system” continued Mackinnon. “Fraserview needs an MLA who lives, works, and plays in this neighbourhood, not someone who just represents it. Fraserview deserves better. British Columbia deserves better.”

Stuart joins a team of passionate people who want to represent the citizens of their constituency in the BC Legislative Assembly,” comments Jane Sterk, leader of the Green Party of BC. “These are new times. Our candidates have new ideas.”

“A vote for Stuart Mackinnon is a vote for real change,” concludes Sterk.

-          30 –

Media contact: Stuart Mackinnon: 778-389-1956 or stuart.mackinnon@greenparty.bc.ca

Aren't Pipelines Supposed to be Safe?

With all the Enbridge advertisements flooding our airwaves I think it's time to show another kind of flood. This is footage of the oil spill in Mayflower Arkansas. This is not what I want for British Columbia.

This is what Reuters had to say:

Exxon cleans up Arkansas oil spill; Keystone plan assailed

 

By Kristen Hays and Matthew Robinson

Sun Mar 31, 2013 7:26pm EDT
 

(Reuters) - Exxon Mobil on Sunday continued cleanup of a pipeline spill that spewed thousands of barrels of heavy Canadian crude in Arkansas as opponents of oil sands development latched on to the incident to attack plans to build the Keystone XL line.

Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers said on Sunday that crews had yet to excavate the area around the pipeline breach, a needed step before the company can estimate how long repairs will take and when the line might restart.

"I can't speculate on when it will happen," Jeffers said. "Excavation is necessary as part of an investigation to determine the cause of the incident."

Exxon's Pegasus pipeline, which can carry more than 90,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude from Patoka, Illinois to Nederland, Texas, was shut after the leak was discovered late Friday afternoon in a subdivision near the town of Mayflower. The leak forced the evacuation of 22 homes.

Exxon also had no specific estimate of how much crude oil had spilled, but the company said 12,000 barrels of oil and water had been recovered - up from 4,500 barrels on Saturday. The company did not say how much of the total was oil and how much was water.

Allen Dodson, Faulkner County judge who is the top executive for the county where the spill occurred, told Reuters in an interview on Sunday that the smell of crude was less potent on Sunday as cleanup efforts continued, saying it was weaker than the smell of fresh asphalt laid on a road.
"The freestanding oil on the street has been removed. It's still damp with oil, it's tacky, like it is before we do an asphalt overlay," he said.

Exxon said it staged the response to handle 10,000 barrels of oil "to ensure adequate resources are in place."

Officials from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) also were on site to investigate the spill.

Fifteen vacuum trucks remained on the scene for cleanup, and 33 storage tanks were deployed to temporarily store the oil.

The pipeline was carrying Canadian Wabasca Heavy crude at the time of the leak. An oil spill of more than 1,000 barrels into a Wisconsin field from an Enbridge Inc pipeline last summer kept that line shuttered for around 11 days.

The 848-mile pipeline used to transport crude oil from Texas to Illinois. In 2006 Exxon reversed it to move crude from Illinois to Texas in response to growing Canadian oil production and the ability of U.S. Gulf Coast refineries to process heavy crude.

The Arkansas spill drew fast reaction from opponents of the 800,000 bpd Keystone XL pipeline, which also would carry heavy crude from Canada's tar sands to the Gulf Coast refining hub.
Environmentalists have expressed concerns about the impact of developing the oil sands and say the crude is more corrosive to pipelines than conventional oil. On Wednesday, a train carrying Canadian crude derailed in Minnesota, spilling 15,000 gallons of oil.

"Whether it's the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, or ... (the) mess in Arkansas, Americans are realizing that transporting large amounts of this corrosive and polluting fuel is a bad deal for American taxpayers and for our environment," said Representative Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat.

Supporters of Keystone XL and oil sands development say the vast Canadian reserves can help drive down fuel costs in the United States. A report from the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, put together by oil and gas consultancy Penspen, argued diluted bitumen is no more corrosive than other heavy crude.

A year ago Exxon won a court appeal to charge market rates on the Pegasus line, or rates that are not capped and that can change along with market conditions without prior approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

That decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. said the Pegasus pipeline is now the "primary avenue" to move Canadian crude oil to the Gulf Coast. The ruling also said Exxon moves about 66,000 barrels per day on the line.

Last week PHMSA proposed that Exxon pay a $1.7 million fine over pipeline safety violations stemming from a July 2011 oil spill from its Silvertip pipeline in the Yellowstone River. The line, which carries 40,000 barrels per day in Montana, leaked about 1,500 barrels of crude after heavy flooding in the area.

Exxon has 30 days from the March 25 order to contest those violations.
According to PHMSA, the U.S. has 2.3 million miles of pipelines.

CLEANUP
Exxon said that by 3 a.m. Saturday there was no additional oil spilling from the pipeline and that trucks had been brought in to assist with the cleanup. Images from local media showed crude oil snaking along a suburban street and spewed across lawns.

Twenty-two homes in the affected subdivision remained evacuated on Sunday, though Mayflower police were providing escorts for residents to temporarily return to retrieve personal items.
Jeffers said a couple of homes "appear to have small amounts of oil on their foundations," but he had no information on damage estimates or claims. Exxon had established a claims hotline for affected residents and said about 50 claims had been made so far.

Dodson said oil that made it to the street went into storm drains that eventually lead to a cove connected to nearby Lake Conway, known as a fishing lake stocked with bass, catfish, bream and crappie.

He said local responders that included firemen, city employees, county road crews, police quickly built dikes of dirt and rock to block culverts along that path that stopped crude from fouling the lake.
"We were just in the nick of time," he said.

Exxon later deployed 3,600 feet of boom near the lake as a precaution.
Dodson said crude also got into several homeowners' yards, which will take longer to clean up.
"We've just gotten used to having pipelines go through cities and counties, and you hope something like this doesn't happen. My heart goes out to all of the people personally impacted," Dodson said.

(Additional reporting by Timothy Gardner in Washington; Editing by Steve Orlofsky, Bernard Orr, and Chris Reese)

Old Vision Vancouver hands raging over park board mess

By Allen Garr, Columnist Vancourier.com February 14, 2013

 

Just so you know: a battle has been raging for the past couple of weeks in the back rooms of Vancouver’s governing party. A number of old Vision Vancouver hands are livid over the damage being caused to the party’s reputation particularly among its own supporters by the park board’s assault on community centres and the blow back in the community.

There is no clear winner yet on that one although there has been movement.

This week, Vision board member Maria Dobrinskaya, appearing in her regular city hall panel slot on CBC Radio’s The Early Edition, conceded that the shenanigans of the past few months have been destructive to whatever good will existed between community centre volunteer boards and the Vision-dominated park board.

This week, too, a senior Vision insider at city hall made this observation: the attempt by the park board to control revenues raised by those volunteer boards and manage programs at their centres was never part of Vision’s election platform. This was: Over the next three years, the Vision Vancouver park board will “focus on making programs affordable for everyone by introducing a pilot program of specific free-of-charge family days at recreation facilities and ensuring that the universal Flexipass and Leisure Access Cards are honoured at all Park Board facilities.”

Most, if not all, of the community centre boards are already willing to negotiate these conditions; it wasn’t necessary to threaten to wipe them off the face of the earth. But that’s what happened when Vision threw the first punch. Here is how Trout Lake Community Centre board president Kate Perkins saw it unfold. She is one of the most onside with the park board’s desire to renegotiate the 40-year-old joint operating agreement (JOA).
 
But first a bit of background. Rewriting the JOA has been on the agenda of the past few park boards. Vision operatives have been dealing with the matter for the past five years, increasingly annoyed at the surpluses building up in the coffers of some community centres while others went wanting
.
But the matter never got tackled. Until now.

Which brings us to this process and the first punch. Park board general manager Malcolm Bromley arranged to meet with the presidents of the community centres last February to see, as Perkins says, “if we could land on something” that would work.

But that cordial atmosphere abruptly ended when Bromley disappeared only to return with an ultimatum. “This is the deal” Perkins recalls him saying, and adding, “We hope you’ll be part of it. If not, we’ll find someone else” and replace your board. It was non-negotiable.

The “deal” meant the community centre boards would lose control over programming and revenues.
You can imagine how that went down. But the park board seemed unmoved by the building anger. And as Perkins says, when you “start getting (the more moderate) Dunbar, False Creek and Trout Lake boards angry, you’ve done something terribly wrong.”

In January, community centre boards asked for a facilitator. Bromley responded with a demand the negotiations be settled in three weeks. Perkins and the rest rejected that as unreasonable.

Then followed the ridiculous nine-hour park board meeting at the West End Community Centre that ran until 3:30 in the morning. It only served to inflame the public against the park board even more. In spite of that, the position of Bromley and the rest continued to shift as more community centres agreed to come to the table with the offer of a mediator or facilitator to help move things along.

Where we are at right now is a bit of a pause for most community boards while a mediator or facilitator is being sought and approved. The issue of controlling revenues and programming is still the most contentious. Meanwhile, the most determined community boards are boycotting the process and using some of their surplus funds to launch a campaign and build public support against the park board.

As for Vision Vancouver, the internal dispute continues. Even the most adamant Vision soldier will say they are doing the right thing, knowing full well the process has been deplorable and the whole exercise is costing them politically.

agarr@vancourier.com
twitter.com/allengarr

© Copyright (c) Vancouver Courier

 

 

 

‘Have-not’ community has idea to solve Vancouver park board saga

February 13, 2013 

By Emily Jackson Metro Vancouver

Sure, it’s down at the bottom on Vancouver park board’s “have-not” list, and yes, it’s all for a little more equality between community centres.

But the Marpole-Oakridge Community Centre, the centre in Vancouver’s poorest neighbourhood according to a city ranking, still isn’t a big fan of the park board’s proposal to collect all the revenue and redistribute it to level the playing field.

Instead, Marpole’s community association president Danny Yu is looking for a way forward with an idea for an alternative financial model – a middle ground that’s been largely absent from the saga between the board and the city’s 23 centres as they negotiate a new operating agreement.

Yu suggests a taxing model where the board and associations come up with a formula where a percentage of revenue would go to the board based on size, programs or usage.

The current model, where the associations don’t give up any revenue to the park board despite getting the buildings rent free, isn’t working perfectly, Yu said.

“If you have a store in a shopping mall, you pay rent,” he offered as a comparison to his proposal. “That leaves a little bit for volunteers to continue to provide good programming, and the park board gets their money.”

A similar idea was rejected about two years ago at an Association Presidents Group (APG) meeting, he said, but it will likely be more palatable since the board’s proposal to control all the revenue. Former park board commissioner Stuart Mackinnon proposed a similar idea in a recent blog post.

Both APG chair Kate Perkins of Trout Lake and park board commissioner Niki Sharma did not want to discuss potential funding models as the matter will be negotiated at the bargaining table.

“All ideas will be welcomed at the table. We will take a look to see what works to meet the goals of better equity and access,” Sharma said in an email.

 Copyright 2001-2013, Free Daily News Group Inc.

What is the ultimate purpose of life?

"What is the ultimate purpose of life? It is to give. Start giving. See the joy of giving."
Narayanan Krishnan

Is it time to phase out Vision's Penny?

By Allen Garr, Columnist Vancouver Courier February 7, 2013

 

 

There is at least one penny a growing number of people in Vancouver would be happy to see taken out of circulation. That would be Penny Ballem, Vancouver's city manager.

Vancouver Vision operatives insist it's nothing but NPA political blarney to believe that the whole mismanaged assault by the Vancouver park board on the city's community centre volunteer boards of directors is being driven by Ballem.

Her Vision Vancouver political masters may eventually pay the price for this appalling behaviour. But community centre board members from across the city note it was Ballem who kept turning up like the proverbial bad penny when she joined her direct report, park board general manager Malcolm Bromley, in a series of meetings a few months back. Community centre presidents and their boards were told the park board would, in a new Joint Operating Agreement, be taking control of all community centre revenues. And that was "non-negotiable."

More recently, on Tuesday evening while Green Party Coun. Adriane Carr was sitting in a public hearing at city hall regarding a contentious West End development, her cell phone rang. It was Ballem. Carr would get back to her at the next beak.

It turns out that on Monday, Carr, following city council procedure, filed a notice of motion to ask staff essentially this: given the park board's intention to take over the revenues of community centres which would most likely dampen future fundraising efforts by community center volunteer boards, what was the city's estimation of the funding shortfall this would create for the park board? And, given that the park board is a department of the city from whence it receives its budget, what contingency plan does the city have to make up for that funding shortfall?

A reasonable request based on a reasonable assumption, no?

But it's also reasonable to assume we will never find out. Because according to Carr what Ballem phoned to say was this: Carr's notice of motion would never see the light of day. Carr says she was told that her motion asking for information could jeopardize the "negotiations" now going on between the park board and the community centres.

When I emailed Ballem and asked about her extraordinary move to muzzle an elected representative, her communications machinery spit out an elaborate "no comment."

Incidentally, the public hearing Carr was sitting through Tuesday night under city hall rules ended at 11 p.m.. It would continue at a later date to hear the rest of the 50 or so speakers. (The rule says hearings must end at 10 p.m. but can, with a unanimous vote of council, be extended by one hour.)
Nothing so civilized was contemplated across town the night before. That's when 74 people lined up to speak in a packed room at the West End Community Centre. This was at an "emergency meeting" called for by what is an increasingly inept and disrespectful park board to hear from the public on the board's plan to have their way with community centre funds. For decades, these funds had been left in the hands of volunteer boards to be used for everything from renovations to the creation of new facilities. That was ending.

The approximately 30 pages of material for the meeting was not available until 11 that morning, which meant that most board members who work for a living didn't see it until an hour or so before the meeting started.

As you may already know, the meeting started at 6:30 p.m. and clattered on for nine hours, which made it 3:30 in the morning with members of the dwindling audience repeatedly asking for an adjournment only to be rebuffed.

It finally reached a sorry state of frustration because of the lateness of the hour and the vast majority of the speakers opposing what the park board was up to, frequently pointing out significant errors in the material being presented. I was long gone by the time the Vision majority blithely passed the motions to support what they had intended to do all along and cops had to be called in to restrain those who were left.

This passes for what Vision Vancouver calls citizen engagement.

agarr@vancourier.com

© Copyright (c) Vancouver Courier

 

 

 

Vision pokes hornet's nest at community centres

By Allen Garr, Vancouver Courier February 1, 2013

 

 It is hard to imagine just how much political trouble Vision Vancouver is in right now. The pushback over its attempt to put its hands into the pockets of the city's community centres makes past protests over spot zoning or the imposition of homeless shelters relatively insignificant annoyances.

 

Let me explain why by first telling you a story. In 1934, 22 neighbours around East Hastings near the PNE each put 50 cents in the pot to come up with $11 dollars. That was the amount they needed to register a society for the purpose of protecting their park from the encroaching exhibition.

 

The neighbours then went to the park board of the day and asked for money to help develop public tennis courts and a lawn bowling facility.

The park board said: We don't have any money but you go right ahead and raise the funds on your own. Which they did. That small group of volunteers would grow to become the Hastings Community Association, which was frequently required to be self-reliant in meeting neighbourhood needs.

That story is not unlike any number of inspirational stories generations of volunteers, who have served on the boards of Vancouver's community centres, have woven into their cultural history.
To my knowledge, none of the Vision Vancouver park commissioners - who form a majority on the board and are central to the attack community centres now feel they are under - has ever served on a community centre board.

What is worse, they fail to grasp just how disrespectful, how insensitive, how politically threatening their actions are. They most certainly must be unaware of the damage they are causing themselves as they spill the political capital that Vision has accumulated while in power.

What is most appalling is the strategy being employed to roll out Vision's new policy. We are told it will bring "equity" to all centres, rich or poor, East Side or West Side, and the people who chose to access the facilities. None of the centres, by the way, has a problem with that. It is about who controls the money that has community centre boards more than twitchy.

When was the last time you saw a government introduce a new policy where an elected official hasn't been front and centre to either cut the ribbon or take the heat?

Yet what do we see here? On Tuesday night at the Kerrisdale Community Centre meeting, while a couple of Vision Park commissioners pasted themselves against the wall and refused to speak (except to the media) and city communications bureaucrats scurried about, it was park board manager Malcolm Bromley who took to the stage to be booed by the packed room and two other spaces that were quickly set up to handle the overflow crowd of about 400.

In fact, for virtually all of the past briefing meetings with community centre boards, park commissioners have been told not to attend. It has been Bromley and, usually, city manager Penny Ballem. When the NPA's Melissa De Genova tuned up at one briefing the board invited her to, Bromley turned on his heel and walked out.

This is one reason why Hastings Community Association president Eric Harms is just one of many who say this whole attempt to get control of the community centre funds is a conspiracy being driven by the city manager: "When Malcolm Bromley speaks you can see Penny Ballem's lips moving."

Of course it would be naïve to think Ballem would do anything of this magnitude without support from the mayor's office. But the tone at the top around that joint always has our mayor heavily insulated against criticism.

With six full-time city staff apparently attached to this strategy, is it any wonder that a few of the community centres have decided, for better or worse, on funding a public relations campaign of their own?

This is particularly understandable when the park board's idea of communications has included installing locked glass bulletin boards in community centres where they alone control the content of the messages and they hold the keys. How smart is that? How smart is any of this?

agarr@vancourier.com

© Copyright (c) Vancouver Courier

 

 

 

City must quit making enemies of volunteers

By Stuart Mackinnon, The Province February 1, 2013

 

The rhetoric is heating up. Tempers are flaring. There seems to be a showdown shaping up. How did things go so terribly wrong? The battle over control of programming at Vancouver community centres has begun in earnest.

For most community-centre associations, CCAs, the last joint-operating agreements were negotiated 30 years ago. Ever since, the parks board and the centres have been talking about improvements and changes, and ever since there has been mistrust.

When I became a parks board commissioner in 2008, staff told us that this would have to be dealt with during that term. I'm not sure if it was because most commissioners did not understand the issue or because they were afraid of upsetting the community, but not a lot was accomplished. I understood that the status quo was not tenable. I felt that if local associations were not willing to change, that more central management might be necessary.

Since then I have learned a lot. I have learned more about how the CCAs operate. I have learned what they do and why they do it. I have also learned I was not always told all the information I needed to make a good decision. Too many meetings were held behind closed doors and commissioners were told by management not to get involved when involvement was needed.

The CCAs' experience with the board's senior management has not been healthy. Entrenched positions have become the rule.

Enter city manager Penny Ballem, who insisted that all assets belonged to the city and if the CCAs would not voluntarily give them up, they would be dismissed and the assets would be taken. Hardly a good way to instil trust and goodwill.

I believe that community centres are collective assets and belong to everyone. I believe in universal access; that one membership should give you service in all centres. What I don't believe in is a one-size, one-price system. Some facilities have more services than others or offer different levels of service. Some offer services that others do not. Clearly the community knows best what should be offered.

I also believe in shared financial responsibility. Larger centres can rent more and therefore collect more. Destination centres can attract more people. Some centres will be able to make more money than others - but they will also have greater demands on their services and so higher costs.

I think an idea for sharing resources is to have CCAs pay for their use of the facilities and for the utilities they use. Smaller centres pay less, larger ones pay more. The funds from this pool could then offset disparities in programming across the city. Another idea would be to take a percentage of all revenues after expenses generated by CCAs to be put into a fund that would be shared equitably across the system for programming. This has been done successfully in school districts that have a diversity of income neighbourhoods. The key here is to be creative and stop making ultimatums.

The CCAs are loath to hand over revenue they generate as they don't trust the parks board's management. There is no guarantee any moneys taken by the board wouldn't be put into general revenues to cover shortfalls in other areas or used as an excuse for the city to cut further the parks board's budget.

A one-size fits all system will never work in Vancouver because not all community centres are funded the same way. Some receive financing directly from other levels of government. That funding would be put in jeopardy if all moneys were taken by the board.

A system where there were no CCAs would not be able to access provincial and federal grants. A system where local associations could not keep money from rentals and programming would result in fewer facilities and less services.

The CCAs now understand the need for universal access and have agreed to this. They also understand that not all neighbourhoods are the same and are willing to talk about this. Clearly, there has been movement on their side.

The board needs to take a step back and stop trying to make the CCAs into enemies instead of the partners they are. The CCAs have to look at finding ways of making the system work better and fairer. Both sides need to negotiate in good faith and in a clear and transparent manner.

These are not simple matters, but entrenched positions will not help. Let's think outside the box. Let's look at ways of making a system that has been successful for over 50 years even better. Let's work together for a better Vancouver.

Stuart Mackinnon was a Green Party parks board commissioner from 2008 to 2011. He blogs about parks and public-space issues at Betterparks.org.

© Copyright (c) The Province

 

 

Community centres protest Vancouver park board plan

Public meeting at Killarney turns ugly after commissioner's rant

 By Sandra Thomas, Staff writer Vancouver Courier January 30, 2013

 

 Photograph by: Dan Toulgoet, Vancouver Courier

Approximately 400 concerned citizens turned out for the Kerrisdale Community Centre Association's meeting Jan 29.

Almost 400 seniors showed up to a hastily called meeting at the Kerrisdale Community Centre Tuesday afternoon to protest what many are calling a cash grab by the park board.

As first reported in the Courier in 2011, the park board is negotiating with the city's community centre associations to finalize a new joint operating agreement. The Vision Vancouver dominated board wants to change the way the centres operate, including centralizing "core programs." The most contentious of the recommendations would see the park board take all revenues from room rentals and programs - money traditionally retained by the associations. The park board argues the money should be pooled into a general account to be distributed amongst "poorer" centres. The park board calls the recommendation "non-negotiable."

That's where at least six community centre associations have drawn a line in the sand. The model for the joint partnership, developed almost 50 years ago, sees the park board supply the physical building while the associations manage the centres. In some cases, the associations helped build the centres, rinks or pools.

The afternoon meeting at Kerrisdale was held for seniors while a second meeting Tuesday evening at the centre was open to the public.

Senior Marianne Kropf told the Courier she's been a regular at the centre since her husband died three years ago. She warned the park board must pay attention to the senior vote.

"If you want to get something done get a bunch of seniors involved," said Kropf. "There's power in this."

Robert Lockhart, vice-president of the Kerrisdale Community Centre Association, said the two main concerns with the proposed agreement are a fear the costs for programs will increase dramatically and that the seniors lunch program would be eliminated.

Another evening meeting was held at Killarney Community Centre, where the gathering turned ugly when Vision Vancouver commissioner Trevor Loke addressed the crowd in what can best be described as a tirade. Loke began by thanking the crowd for showing up, but those platitudes quickly turned into a rant about the inequalities between poor associations and their rich counterparts in communities like Killarney.

Loke's comments caused the crowd, made up largely of blue-collar workers, seniors, immigrants and young families, to react with shouts and boos of disapproval.

Following Loke's comments, a man stood up and asked the young commissioner why he thought it was reasonable to "scream at us like kids."

"Who the hell do you think you are," the man yelled at Loke.

Former Green park board commissioner Stuart Mackinnon also addressed the crowd at Killarney Tuesday night.

"Tonight we are discussing in my opinion, the most cynical, desperate and dishonest power grab by a city management who are more concerned with their own megalomania and control than what is best for the people," Mackinnon said.

Green Coun. Adriane Carr told crowds at both Kerrisdale and Killarney that despite information to the contrary, the issue is in fact a council matter and does not lie solely with the park board. Carr explained if there is a financial trickle-down effect to changes in the way park board programs are run, any demand for more money will come back to city council.

sthomas@vancourier.com
twitter.com/sthomas10

© Copyright (c) Vancouver Courier