Urban Vancouver

I want the last four hours of my life back: EcoDensity Meeting Part III

By samanthaorwell on March 4, 2008 - 7:28pm

See whole post: http://thevancouvermanifesto.blogspot.com/2008/03/i-want-last-four-hours...

Monday nights EcoDensity public hearing event started at 6 and ended just past 10. It didn’t help that the last speaker from SmartGrowth BC was a horrid speaker that stumbled and stuttered his way into saying absolutely nothing. This post will be equally as boring so I don’t blame you if you want to close the window now. But just in case you were wondering what went on in Part III I’ll give you the 10 highlights of the evening (highlights being a very generous word for what transpired).

1)Patrick Condon- (always fun to see in person somebody you quote a lot. ) Had discussion with Toderian about the hateration with developers. I don’t know if Cadman is right, or if he’s just milking the tension for all its worth but it seems like people are more in hate with developers than ever before. See http://www.ctvbc.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20080227/BC_Cadman_Candidat...
Discussion a) Allocating 20% to affordable/social housing does not guarantee the construction. Buying land and construction are two separate entities and processes.
Discussion b) Tradeoff between affordable/social housing and public amenities?

2) I’m happy there were people who brought up Elvin Wyly. For those of you who don’t’ know him he’s an amazing Professor at UBC Geography and he does gentrification studies. He’s really one of the only people who have successfully combined quantitative and qualitative gentrification data. See http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~ewyly/ and he has just put out a book with Tom Slater and Loretta Lees titled Gentrification. (Tom Slater is easily one of my favourite academic writers- see for a sharply written critical paper on gentrification: “The eviction of critical perspectives from gentrification research” http://www2.fmg.uva.nl/assr/conferences/documents/PaperdrTomSlater.pdf ) And Loretta Lees is doing research on new-build gentrification in London- one of the leaders in new gentrification research)

3) There was a woman with a painfully shaky voice. She looked like she was going to run away or cry on the spot, really. It hurt watching her speak. But one point she brought up was that, apparently, “affordable and social housing” is considered an amenity.
Then she went on to continue how shelter/housing is a basic human right etc.
No need to be scared, lady- you did fine. You’d make your point even better if people weren’t distracted by feeling like you needed a hug..or tissue.

4) Vancouver Public Space Network- one of the best new organizations that is completely volunteer run. Hopefully they can get non-profit status soon so donations, tax credits and all that jazz can be mad/had.
http://www.vancouverpublicspace.ca/
They presented the outcome of a public event they had recently to discuss issues and assets of the city and develop questions/suggestions for the City of Vancouver. I’m disappointed Andrew Pask, unofficial leader, did not present the piece. He is a great speaker and has a good presence.

5) Urban Development Institute (UDI): Asked, “What happens if we don’t move forward?”
UDI is a bit of a conundrum. I sway back and forth between liking them and disliking them. But at least they have done nothing to deserve my hate yet.
I can’t quite put my finger on it… but it could also be a function of who they choose to represent them I was not in like with the people they chose to present. They had such a “world city competition” urgency to their message to council. They were selling the image of “If Vancouver is not in it to the ‘race to the top’ then, de facto, it is on its way to the ‘race to the bottom’”. I don’t love that message even though people I highly respect often sell that message, most notable David Harvey (one of my favourite neo-Marxists).
Bottom line is that I don’t think fear should justify any of our actions. We should never move things forward because of fear of what will happen if we don’t. There should be solid justification FOR an action, not solid justification against inaction.

6) Planners Institute of BC. PIBC sent a nice looking young woman to the hearing (I only bring up the topic of her physical appearance because she seems to defy the general consensus of who shows up to these meetings - i.e. old white men.) She said a lot of nothing and I think just wanted to put in an official statement of where the organization stands with respect to EcoDensity. Basically, PIBC does not endorse EcoDensity but they support the City’s leadership. What the hell does that mean, you ask? Well, Kim Capri wanted to know that too. Further clarification, PIBC said that they support the city in addressing the issues but they do not support the plan. Ummm…ok..so you support the City of Vancouver for addressing issues..which is basically their job.. But you do not support the plan… and hence do not support the way they are doing their job…. I.. don’t quite get it. Anyhow, thanks for PIBC for saying nothing. I’m almost ashamed to be a member.

7) Lance Berlowitz- He wrote that book Dream City: Vancouver and the global imagination
I’m looking at my copy of the book now, it is an absolutely beautifully illustrated book. The book is great, one of my favourites. Sam Sullivan even took a minute to suck up and thank Berlowitz for his contribution to the city.
Lance Berlowitz as a person though?- not so much. And my argument for not liking the guy isn’t even based on the lack of a proper first name. Basically, Berlowitz told council to show leadership and go through the plan. “Do so in the face in opposition”. He said not to let partisan politics bring EcoDensity down. Yeah..that’s right..he said that..he said ignore the 150-something people that are clogging City Hall because they represent a partisan minority. Oh, Lance… such a no no.
After Berlowitz’s foible, I think it was Ladner who started asking what the perfect balance is: “Leadership and getting on with the process VS Community consultation and a drawn out process”
A usefully suggestion that I think should be seriously taken into consideration is “unbundling the package” of EcoDensity. Nobody trusts Sam Sullivan and many people are in hate with at least a third of the propositions. So why don’t we take the things we love about the charter and implement them? It’s not like people are 100% opposed to the Charter. Many are 100% opposed to Sullivan, many are 100% opposed to #12 (density in the DTES) of the charter, but those same people are fine with many points on the charter. It was stated that once a few things are implemented, and implemented RIGHT, there will be easement of distrust and people will come to know EcoDensity as a good thing.

8) Jim Green. He spoke. Perople listened. He’s in support. Ladner was all over him because Green failed to mention that he was in employ of a developer.
The news filmed it. Nobody cares.
Lame.
Sullivan thanked him at the end but Green walked out as Sullivan was saying thank you. Buuuuuurn.

9) SmarthGrowth BC. Jason Emmert is a bad speaker.
Said SmarthGrowth would support amenity mapping. VSPN said they would do that too.
He described poorly what an important contribution amenity mapping is. Basically, he was proposing not only traditional amenity maps such as day cares, parks, restaurants etc. But also non-traditional amenities aka things that we value in our everyday that we don’t even realize. It’s a tough job to do, because these amenities can be so obscure and its super difficult to see what has value and what doesn’t. For example, I know of a stinky old tire that hangs from the branch of a tree on..Balaclava and 14th ish. (Somewhere in that vicinity). And I would call that an amenity. It’s kind of a remanent of tenants that were long gone and nobody has ever taken it down. When walking home kids jump on for a swing and then keep walking. It’s seriously like a landmark that I know has real value but you wouldn’t know how much value it has until its gone. And even if it were gone nobody would say anything. People would just reminisce about the good times on the stinky tire.
Anyhow, it’s a great idea and an important contribution. I just wish it was said more eloquently.

10) Last but not least my rant on each of the councillors. I do this because attendance is getting low for councillors and they are also getting lazier I.e. coming in late, taking super long breaks in the middle of somebody’s speech to council, leaving early, playing around on Google while people are speaking. The only councillors that are always there and listening is Cadman, Capri, Deal, Chow , Anton and Sullivan. I would have said Ladner too but he takes way too many breaks and is gone for an inappropriate amount of time. If the other councillors can sit on their ass and listen for 4 hours straight you can too.

Anton- Her online picture does her too much justice. http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/councilmembers.htm Every now and then a speaker picks on her and uses one of her statements against her. But Anton is there, she listens, and isn’t useless with her question asking.

Ball- She needs to buy more than one outfit. I’m over her blazer, skirt and floral scarfe. She always comes in late, wasn’t present last night. Never asks questions. She’s overall 100% useless.

Cadman- I know I have said Cadman rocks on more than one occasion. I still think he does. But I’m starting to think he’s totally wasting time and trying to draw out the process so long so that it will never go through and he can just strike it down in then end and then blame Sullivan for wasting everybody’s time. I don’t know how constructive that is. He’s still my favourite on council because he champions the working poor, but I also have to admit, on some nights he says just as many useless things as he does useful things. When he gets it right though, he gets it right. So I’ll forgive him.
Has anybody also noticed that Cadman looks like Santa Claus? Seriously.. He’s so non-threatening and jolly with his big white beard and round tummy. I almost want to sit on his lap and tell him what I want for Christmas. I tell you, he’s one to watch out for for Mayor- who DOESN’T want to vote for Santa Claus? And FYI, Jim Green needs to do a LOT of smiling for him to look like a nice guy. I voted for him, but only because Sullivan was totally out of the question. This time around we’ll have some nice looking people to vote for. Remember, politics is all about rhetoric- looks included.

Capri- criminologist trained but still touts the ‘broken windows theory’ (See Civil City). That’s why I kind of hate her. But other than that she contributes to useful discussion and is always listening.

Chow- Who is he and why is he here? Yeah, completely not present even though he is present.

Deal- I like her. She has stopped prompting questions in the middle of speeches so that takes care of my only annoyance with her. She loves micro amenities. She’s specific, to the point, and she’s relevant. I’d vote for her.

Ladner- When he’s there he’s on..but he’s just not there enough. But he’s a smart, good looking gentleman and that’ll get him far in politics.

Lee- BC LEE can you please STOP asking such USELESS questions? You waste my time with your stuttery drawn out nothings.

Louie- meh.. He makes me so indifferent I fall asleep. Politicians shouldn’t do that. I have more respect for politicians who make me hate them than ones who make me feel completely unmoved and devoid of feeling.

Stevenson- ditto.

http://thevancouvermanifesto.blogspot.com/2008/03/i-want-last-four-hours...