Last week BC’s Comptroller General released a report on the future of both BC Ferries and the much maligned TransLink, Metro Vancouver’s regional transit authority. For the most part the media focus was on the “exorbitant” executive salaries over at BC Ferries. What got overshadowed were some interesting findings relating to the impact low density suburban neighbourhoods are having on TransLink’s bottom line.

One need only visit Surrey or Pitt Meadows for a few minutes to better understand the challenge TransLink faces. Many of the Coast Mountain buses operating there are doing so at very low capacity. That’s why so many people joke about the fact the bus drivers are transporting air for the better part of their shift. Juxtapose this against the overcrowded 99-B Line servicing UBC. Empty suburban buses are not only costing TransLink a fortune, they are putting in jeopardy expansion plans in more cost-efficient high density neighbourhoods.

As I’ve stated numerous times on the CKNW Civic Affairs Panel and on this blog, low density single family neighbourhood developments are not cost efficient when it comes to transit. There simply isn’t the ridership, as most people who decide to live in the burbs do so because they enjoy the “car culture”. Despite calling for better transit service, many civic leaders continue to approve massive sub-divisions on former pastoral land which is helping to facilitate urban sprawl and further drive up TransLink’s costs.

The problem with low density neighbourhoods is that their residents expect the same level of service as can be found on more high density routes. Ask any suburban resident and they’ll likely tell you they don’t take transit because the service “sucks”. Unlike major routes like the B-Line which run pretty much every minute during the day, their suburban cousins can have gaps of up to half an hour between runs. This “lack of service” is kind of like the chicken and egg syndrome. People want to use transit, but there aren’t enough people to justify more regular service. Therefore, with lower levels of service, fewer people take transit...and so on, and so on.

The Comptroller General’s report clearly lays out the problem facing TransLink if additional low density suburban sprawl continues into the next decade:

The majority of the $130 million structural deficit faced by TransLink is a result of factors other than Canada Line, such as the increase in the operational cost of the bus fleet, particularly into lower ridership, geographically sparse areas.

The CG goes on to state:

We were advised that the expansion strategy created increased operational expenses where additional services were added to less populated regions. Ridership and associated revenue are lower on these routes, yet the cost of operating a bus is relatively constant. Overall, the growth or expansion in operational expenses exceeded inflation by a multiple of 3.5 times.

With the prospect of Surrey one day becoming the most populous city in the region, there is a very good likelihood that suburban civic leaders will soon dominate Metro’s transit agenda. Despite the fact Vancouver’s transit operations actually pay for themselves due to higher densities, decisions on future expansion will rest in the hands of the more numerous suburban mayors.

Rapid transit expansion to UBC? Don’t count on it. More buses on crowded routes such as Main Street or Fraser. Nope. Vote conscious suburban mayors will slowly begin to move services out to areas that simply don’t pay for themselves, thus further exacerbating TransLink’s financial woes. In his recent 24 Hrs column my colleague Mike Klassen touched upon some of the other issues facing Vancouver if it relinquishes its number one spot to Surrey.

The Bus Drivers Union has been very successful at lobbying for the expansion of bus service throughout the region. More bus routes translate into more work for their members. However, with costs ballooning out of control at TransLink, has the time come to look at rationalizing service? It would appear the CG believes so:

...the average cost per rider increased by 20.6% from 2005 to 2008, while the average fare per rider increased by 8.9%. TransLink did not impose an increase of fares between 2005 and 2007 and the fare increase in 2008 did not cover the cost of inflation which had occurred between 2005 and 2008. As well, the additional costs of expansion into less populated regions were not met with equivalent ridership levels to maintain a constant cost per rider. Therefore, the average cost per rider increase of 20.6% was more than double that of the average fare per rider increase of 8.9%.

TransLink’s administration costs have been significantly increasing at a pace greater than ridership and inflation, TransLink‟s administration costs increased by 101% between 2002 and 2008...administration costs have increased by a rate more than double that of ridership and approximately seven times that of inflation.

The recommendations put forward by the Comptroller General are now in the hands of the Hon. Shirley Bond, Minister of Transportation. She now has the unenviable task of turning TransLink around from a perennial money loser, to one that is on a path of financial sustainability. You can expect that the bus ride along the way will get a bit bumpy.

Earlier this year the Billy Bishop Legion in Vancouver was pleading with council to give it a break on its property taxes as a means of ensuring their doors could remain open to Canada's veterans. We contacted the Legion today to confirm they have yet to receive any tax relief.

At the time, Mayor Gregor Robertson simply shrugged his shoulders and pointed the finger at the Province claiming his hands were tied regarding possible tax breaks. Robertson argues the Vancouver Charter currently doesn't permit him to provide tax relief to organizations like the Legion, even if they are in desperate financial straights. Meanwhile, other cities in BC do provide tax relief as they are covered under a separate piece of legislation known as the Local Government Act.

As I stated in my earlier post, I think it's either disingenuous, or ill-informed of Robertson and company to say they can't do anything for Vancouver's Legions. That's because I can't imagine a scenario whereby the Province of BC would take Vancouver to court challenging their authority to provide tax relief to their veterans. Clearly that would be political suicide on the part of the Province if they ever attempted anything like this.

In advance of Rememberance Day, Vision should announce they will establish a program to provide the Legion with some sort of tax relief. They should then work with the Province to change the Vancouver Charter to reflect this new reality. A solution to this problem is not all that complicated. Especially when you consider Vision could easily find $850,000 for costly renos to their offices and foyer on the third floor of City Hall earlier this year.

It would appear I'm not the only one who takes this position. In response to my earlier post, a number of commenters agreed with my position. Here is what Doug Mcarthur (we're not sure if it is the Doug McArthur) had to say on the subject:

The Billy Bishop is a great neighourhood gathering place. I am sure it has to struggle in the face of high costs, including taxes. Regardless of what you feel about wars, service men and women deserve our recognition. I agree, a request to the province should be made by Council. But in the meantime why not go ahead and 0 rate the Billy Bishop and see who tries to stop it.

Another commenter wrote:

A salient feature which seems to be missing in this argument is the thousands of dollars the Royal Canadian Legion raises annually for charity. For instance The Billy Bishop branch alone raises one third of all funds collected by Greater Vancouver’s annual Poppy Campaign. Throughout the year the proceeds from all fund rising events in every legion branch must go to charity. A cardinal element of the RCL’s constitution is that any ‘profit’ made must go to charity. In most jurisdictions this is recognized and appropriate tax breaks are granted. In Vancouver legion branches are taxed as though they are ‘for profit’ businesses – like pubs and restaurants – Shame on you Vancouver. Who’s going to service these charities if the Royal Canadian Legion goes down? Have you thought of that Mr. Mayor? Do you really care Mr. Mayor? You’re well heeled, got a good job and I hope will never need to rely on charity. So I don’t suppose it matters to you whether the RCL and in particular the Billy Bishop branch exists or not. One thing is certain, if you help us to get our taxes reduced you and your party will be welcome at the Billy Bishop when the next election rolls around. If you don’t help us I suggest you give The Billy a miss the next time you’re looking for votes.

I have it under good authority that Billy Bishop is not the only Legion in Vancouver struggling under the burden of heavy property taxes. Therefore, the time has come for Mayor Robertson to stop pointing fingers and start taking action. Prior to the election campaign his Vision team did everything they could to secure the veterans vote and they receieved it. Now that they're in office, it would appear they're turning their backs on a group of Canadians that deserve more than just our respect. What do you think? Check out our new online poll on this subject.

The race to see who will replace David Miller as Toronto's next mayor is heating up. This afternoon MPP George Smitherman, the powerful Minister of Energy & Infrastructure, as well as being Deputy Premier in Dalton McGuinty's government and an openly gay public figure, has announced he's running for mayor.

"I've taken myself out of the realm of speculation and moved into the realm of certainty. I want to take that track record of getting things done to my city," said Smitherman to the Toronto Star.

The speculation had gone on for weeks, prompting calls for Smitherman to make up his mind. Considered an outspoken and sometimes boisterous public figure, Smitherman's departure from McGuinty's cabinet comes at an awkward time with the recent loss of David Caplan as Minister of Health.

Says the Globe and Mail, "In a cabinet made up mostly of mild-mannered personalities, Mr. Smitherman's departure will leave a big void."

Smitherman paints himself as "a candidate of the broad centre," Smitherman pledged to "build a campaign with people from all parties." It has also been speculated that former Ontario Conservative Party leader John Tory is also looking at the job of Mayor of Toronto, but to date he has not confirmed this.

Metro Vancouver’s unelected regional government met Thursday to discuss a report on the future of the Ashcroft Ranch in BC’s interior. In 2000, they purchased it as part of a long-term plan to manage the Lower Mainland’s production of garbage. As it turns out, they never received the necessary approvals they required from the Province of BC, and the land is no longer destined to become Metro’s new garbage dump.

So what should Metro Vancouver do with their massive parcel of land estimated at approximately 4200 hectares? Well, a proposal has come before the Agriculture Committee asking Metro Vancouver to give serious consideration to becoming buffalo farmers. That’s right, the committee debated whether there was some merit in having Metro Vancouver's regional government get into the bison (buffalo is actually the incorrect term) business.

Ashcroft Ranch coordinator Dawn Ross advised Metro Vancouver in the report:

Given the decline in the cattle market, Metro Vancouver staff will evaluate alternative livestock options such as bison to assess potential profitability and compatability with existing infrastructure.

Ross tells the Province newspaper that although she hasn’t completed her research, she doesn’t think that the bison business will actually work for the Ashcroft Ranch. She also indicates the ranch is losing about $180,000 per year.

Let me get this straight. Metro Vancouver recently announced they were going to jack up taxes by 50% in the next few years in order to help finance their operations. This is in addition to the announcement that their ill-fated water tunnel project is massively over budget and eating up precious tax dollars. And now they want us to get into the bison farming business?

I think Metro Vancouver directors should think long and hard about getting into the bison business. Regardless of cattle market conditions, perhaps the time has come for Vancouver's regional leadership to decide that with no real use for the Ashcroft Ranch besides raising cattle, they may want to liquidate this asset. It's this kind of thinking that might help to limit all those new tax increases their planning over the next 5 years. What do you think?

Over at the Vancouver Sun, Daphne Bramham wrote an excellent story today about the need for electoral reform at the municipal level. She's written a series of columns over the last year or so which have raised the profile of this issue. BC Premier Gordon Campbell recently announced he too was concerned about the rules governing municipal campaign financing. So much so that he struck a task force which is scheduled it implement change before the next election in 2011. Manitoba has already announced they are moving ahead with some serious reforms.

As we all eagerly await the latest supplementary finance disclosure documents from Vision's $150,000+ fundraising event held at the Wall Centre (I checked the City's website and curiously I can't seem to find it), Bramham helps to highlite what some of the concerns are when it comes to who is bankrolling municipal politicians.

Bramham is not the only person to have voiced concern over the impact of the fundraising tactics of civic politicians. Surpisingly even Vision Councillor Geoff Meggs told fellow blogger Frances Bula back in 2007 that he had some serious concerns about the role that corporate donations might have on the decision making process at Vancouver City Hall:

We're seeing a concern in the corporate sector about the impact that continuous, heavy fundraising may have....It's one thing when you raise money close to the election. It's another when you're doing it throughout the entire term of decision-making.

As for Mike Magee, Mayor Gregor Robertson's Chief of Staff and former Vision Vancouver President, he told the CBC:

These civic political organizations exist for the sole purpose of putting candidates in office. As far as we're concerned, all money raised over the three-year cycle is campaign money.

This is an intriguing statement and it will be interesting to see if Vision Vancouver files a statement of earnings and expenses at the end of this calendar year. If they do, everyone will be able to see where all that "campaign money" has been raised and invested.

Although Bramham raises a number of good questions, I'd like to throw in a couple more. For example, Vision Vancouver state they are still over $240,000 in debt from the last election. What person or entity holds that debt? I've had several conversations with the City Clerk's office on this issue and they indicate that political parties aren't legally required to disclose who they owe their debt to, merely how much it is. Obviously this is a big loophole in the system if the "debt" never gets repaid back to the lender.

Does Vision's debt consist of a traditional bank loan or did someone (or group) lend them the money to finance their campaign? If so, who is it? Do these lenders currently have any development projects before the city? Do they stand to benefit from any of the decisions being made by this labour friendly council?

Knowing who is owed the debt is very important as it helps provide more openness and transparency for voters. Whether it's Vision removing Vancouver from Metro Vancouver's regional bargaining unit or allowing private land developers to gain access to more density in SEFC, Vancouver voters deserve to know who owes money to whom.

When you consider that Vision dined out on the issue of continuous disclosure leading up to the last election, it makes their current lack of transparency all the more offensive. The one councillor who raised the biggest stink was Vision Councillor Raymond Louie, who made some pretty amazing statements that we captured in an audio file earlier this year.

The other question Bramam might ask is who is currently footing the bills for the month-to-month operations of Vision Vancouver? They seem to have endless amounts of cash to hire numerous communication spin doctors, produce glitzy videos, conduct polling and incur other costly expenses. Who is cutting Vision the cheques they need to pay for all these operational expenses? Is this not "campaign money" as Magee previously noted?

Bramham does touch on a number of subjects that are bound to make a few Metro Vancouver civic politicians squirm in their chairs. She states:

Candidates' election spending in 15 Metro Vancouver municipalities alone was $7.9 million -- $1.6 million more than the New Democrats spent in the last provincial election.

The reason there's so much money sloshing about is that no other level of government provides as big a bang-for-your-buck.

It takes only six votes on city council to get property rezoned, which can be a windfall worth millions of dollars for developers; six votes to approve lucrative union contracts.

With no serious opponents, Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie, for example, spent more than any other Metro mayoralty candidate. He raised $244,836 (much of it from the development industry) and he had $135,790 left over from the previous election.

But that unprecedented $7.9 million doesn't account for spending on nomination bids, only the contributions and spending within the election period. Raymond Louie, for example, spent $244,000 in his unsuccessful bid to be Vision Vancouver's mayoralty candidate.

Then Bramham takes aim at who should be eligible to donate to civic parties. She questions whether American citizens (who contributed heavily to Gregor Robertson's campaign) should be banned from making contibutions:

Still, there's the question of whether all individuals are eligible to contribute. Vision Vancouver had a number of large American donors in 2008. Should non-residents be allowed to contribute? And if the task force is looking at residency requirements for donors, shouldn't it also consider whether it's right that candidates don't have to live in the municipalities they want to run?

If you want a good read on the need for electoral finance reform, I would also recommend you have a peek at Eric Mang's piece on this subject. Mang's piece is not only informative, it has become one of the most well read posts on our blog over the last 12 months.

Needless to say, we're pleased that at least one columnist in the mainstream media has chosen to focus on an important issue related to the governance of our big cities. Kudos to Bramham for her excellent ongoing coverage of this issue.

As we take stock of the past year of Vancouver civic politics, we're seeing a pattern emerge. Limited by their inarticulate yet telegenic leader, Vision Vancouver are proving to be less a profile in political courage than they are in political expediency. No Vancouver government in recent memory have had as many policy reversals in such a short period as our current government. With sizable majorities on council, park board and school board the question is, why?

I think we all understand the meaning of "vision." To have vision means that one can see the future unfolding, challenge the norms, stand up to naysayers, and exercise leadership. You'd be hard pressed to find any example of this behaviour within Vancouver's governing caucus.

Having political vision doesn't mean collapsing like a house of cards when the public complains, which we see demonstrated repeatedly by Gregor and the Vision team. The electorate are fickle as we know, but your job when elected is not to be continually reacting to the public mood. Your job is to often make tough decisions within your mandate. But when the going gets tough, you'll usually find Vision Vancouver hiding under a blanket.

This month Vision are cranking up communications to their base of supporters on how successful their first year in office has been. Thanks to all their hyperbole around the HEAT shelters, the greenest city launch, and the Burrard Bridge lane reallocation, you'd think they've found a cure for the common cold while ending all wars in their first 12 months.

Vision Vancouver are just the latest practicioners of populist politics. Rule #1 is to classify your opponent as elitist, which is why they like to portray the NPA as pointy-headed and bourgeois west siders, out of touch with the political centre. In reality, the NPA had blended quite well over time with Vancouver's many diverse parts. Hardly elitist, two of the last three mayors the NPA elected rose from very humble beginnings – one was the son of a school clerk, and the other was the son of an Eastside auto parts seller.

Even Vision's only controversial decision that held, to reallocate a lane on the Burrard Bridge, nearly folded under the weight of indecision within their ranks, and fears about how the public would react. Lucky for them the geniuses in Vancouver's traffic engineering department mapped out a way to make the lane closure have the least impact. It helped that the sun shone more brightly this summer than it has for the last four years, making cycling a more agreeable transportation option than usual this summer.

Here's a list of recent policy reversals by Vision caused by a backlash from the public:

1. This week began with Vision caving in on their own plan to make the city more "fun". What council did was incite the wrath of restaurateurs, winemakers and diners who want better than plonk with our meals. On course for a collision, Vision grabbed their booze bylaw off the order paper.
2. In the face of public criticism over their Olympic gag law, Vision once again changed their stripes. Gregor was out promising to give the bylaw a re-think, leaving Geoff Meggs, who had drawn fire on the policy for weeks, looking like a hypocrite.
3. Councillor Tim Stevenson quickly dropped plans to attend an event in the USA on the taxpayers' dime last month as soon as questions began to be asked about his travel plans. Stevenson's overnight decision, he claims, happened after he figured out that the City was having money issues.
4. Coun. Kerry Jang was hung out to dry by the Mayor when he said that Vision's promise of hiring a mental health advocate was all but dead. When the papers filled with stories about a broken promise, Gregor hedged and suggested that, again, he'd give the decision a re-think.
5. Perhaps the biggest loss of face for council was the mess around the HEAT shelters. The Granville & Howe Street shelters were touted as a great success, and their critics as NIMBYs. But as the pressure built, Vision retreated.

It's not just when the media pick up on the story that Vision caves in on its commitments. The party's promise on electoral reform was a bargaining chip used to gain support with COPE, but as Vision becomes increasingly confident of its own political strength, the less it feels obliged to honour the promise of a 2011 wards referendum. Political analyst Kennedy Stewart and the Georgia Straight's Charlie Smith won't soon let them forget it.

And Council are not the only ones who get weak in the knees when the public complains. Park Board had grand plans for ripping up a contract with a private operator of a wedding services facility at Queen E Park's Celebration Pavilion, and turning it over to their generous supporters in CUPE. Again, when that private operator caught the attention of the media, Vision killed the proposed change.

A formidable list of flip-flops for a party with just one year in government. It's unlikely to get any better in years two and three.

Perhaps the most famous practitioner of populist politics was the legendary Huey Long, governor of Louisiana, immortalized in Robert Penn Warren's All the King's Men. While Gregor Robertson has none of the rollicking style of a politician from the Deep South, like Long, Robertson and Vision have quickly reshaped the leadership within the city's bureaucracy to stamp out any dissent. They also killed staff morale in the process.

Full of promises, and always aiming to please, Vision Vancouver take their cues from a salesman like Huey Long. As long as you don't expect leadership from them, Gregor Robertson and the Vision team will always dish up what the public loves. Standing up to controversy simply is not in their DNA.

CityCaucus.com has read a draft strategy document written by the Vancouver Economic Development Commission (VEDC) which recommends that the City should aggressively pursue a regional economic strategy over its outdated go-it-alone approach to boosting the city's business climate. It also advocates for setting up an expert panel to review the city's tax system, even suggesting that owners of higher value properties pay higher tax rates to compensate for poorer parts of the city.

Preceding the report's release comes news that this Monday morning mayors from Metro Vancouver's three largest cities, plus six other jurisdictions, are banding together in a first step for a cooperative economic strategy for the region during the 2010 Games. The so-called Metro Vancouver Commerce (MVC) initiative, started in 2007, was the brainchild of Sam Sullivan's team during the last city council. It was felt that it would take too long to get all cities in the region on-board, so it was better to start the party without the hold-outs and invite only the largest players – Vancouver, Surrey and Richmond. MVC partner communities now include those three cities, plus the 2 North Vancouvers, the cities of Port Moody, New Westminster, Coquitlam and the District of Maple Ridge.

MVC's release states:

Metro Vancouver Commerce (MVC) is the leading group of economic and business development professionals in the region. Its purpose is to implement collaborative economic planning and development on a regional basis – recognizing that many economic development activities can be done more effectively, and more efficiently, on a regional basis.

The VEDC's report starts off as a compendium of facts and figures, as well as an analysis of Vancouver's strengths and weaknesses as an urban economy. Much of the research has been underway over the past several months, as listed on this page describing workshops with up and coming business leaders. As we mentioned earlier, Vision Vancouver when in opposition voted together against further funding for the VEDC. Of course, now that they are in government, they're playing a different tune.

Then Coun. Peter Ladner pushed for expanded support of the VEDC, and council adopted a set of "guiding principles" for economic growth back in the summer of 2006. The VEDC's full report has been a long time coming, in other words. It's not clear whether Gregor Robertson's dream of being the greenest city has factored in the tardiness, but the references to GCAT's work have a feeling of being tacked onto the report as an afterthought.

Here's a summary of some of the VEDC's long awaited proposals:

• The VEDC wishes to task themselves with advocating for a region-wide economic strategy, and maintaining a key role with the aforementioned MVC;
• The VEDC will work to reduce regulatory burden upon businesses, regularly reporting back on their progress;
• The VEDC will work through industry associations to link financial, research, government and other resources;
• A so-called high profile green industry project will be developed on the False Creek Flats in partnership with educational institutions as a symbol of Vancouver's commitment to being the greenest somethingorother;
• The VEDC will use the 2010 Games to promote Metro Vancouver Commerce (see above);
• The City will make itself more attractive for international talent by increasing the availability of family housing and child care availability, and providing more entertainment options for young professionals;
• The VEDC recommends that it expands its own policy-related research in partnership with stakeholders;
• The VEDC will work with City staff to build better engagement with senior levels of government to align the goals of both;
• The VEDC will step up its own communications about economic development in partnership with other stakeholders, to educate the public about economic challenges and opportunities;
• Finally, the VEDC requests a significant increase in its own budget, currently set by the City at $2M annually. The VEDC argues that other smaller jurisdictions spend more on economic development, and that the Province and business groups could match the City's contribution.

Most of what is put forward by the VEDC sounds doable, and would not stir much controversy. We've already commented on the green component in our Vancouver Sun Op/Ed, which we consider well-meaning but vague. Item six, which proposes the City get more directly involved in the creation of affordable housing and child care will no doubt raise the most eyebrows.

The VEDC is seeking approval from Council to study the topic of property taxation and development cost levies in the search for a more "progressive" approach. The report points out that much of the new housing being built in the city is far too small to raise a family, suggesting that at least 2 bedrooms and 1100 square feet is a baseline for family living. The VEDC proposes that the City significantly increases its density to help drive down housing prices.

Any study commissioned by council should consider that DCLs, which are used to fund neighbourhood infrastructure, but instead perhaps property taxes should pay for this infrastructure instead. DCLs require new buyers, who are by-in-large younger and who have less means.

Property taxes, the report states, are seen as regressive in a city with highly diverse economic classes like Vancouver. Any study commissioned by council, they say, should consider whether residential property tax could be made more progressive by charging higher taxes on properties with a higher value.

The VEDC suggest that while child care is seen as the responsibility of senior levels of government, cities should try to expand their own commitment to improve the city's economic future.

A timely side note of this recommendation is the viability of "entertainment" in Vancouver. The paper describes the deep dissatisfaction with Vancouver's approach to liquor establishments and restaurants. As we saw earlier this week, Vision Vancouver came within an inch of making this situation worse with their ill-considered restaurant booze bylaw.

No doubt when this report hits the streets it will get tongues wagging. It's definitely a different direction for the city, and we can thank councils past and present for pushing for these recommendations.

Longtime political observer and now blogger Alex Tsakumis broke the story that Vancouver Park Board chair Raj Hundal is stepping down from his position on the PNE Board. Vision Vancouver sent out a hastily-prepared press release that raises more questions than answers. Hundal, the story goes, was visiting Playland with family when one of his cousins decided to punch out an actor in the Fright Night exhibit.

Vision supporters and Frances Bula are shrugging it off. Raj Hundal stirred controversy for the feckless Park Board this past summer when he publicly squared off with the Mayor's hand-picked City Manager over the matter of General Manager Susan Mundick's successor. Why the actions of Hundal's cousin would force Hundal to step down from the PNE Board is a question still needing to be answered.

As Vision's caucus chair, Mayor Gregor Robertson must step in and fix this train wreck. Hundal is becoming a distraction, and Vision can ill-afford yet another embarrassment from its controversy-prone park commissioners. To date, Gregor hasn't shown that he has the backbone for disciplining one of his own. It's possible that this saga will drag on until the next election.

Last week we reported that Vision brought forward a motion which was music to CUPE's ears. Today we can confirm that in a vote of 9-1 (only NPA Councillor Suzanne Anton voted contrary) Vancouver council decided to pull out of the regional bargaining unit known as the Greater Vancouver Labour Relations Bureau.

The Bureau was first set up in 1964 as a means to strengthen the position of cities when they negotiated collective agreements with CUPE. Vision Vancouver's decision to pull out of the GVLRB will effectively put an end to the organization.

It is worth noting that Vancouver pulling out of the GVLRB received no mainstream media coverage, despite how important this decision is to the future of collective bargaining. This lack of media interest allowed Vision to slip this motion in with only one speaker addressing council to the contrary. That speaker was none other than former NPA councillor Elizabeth Ball. She was appointed as the council liaison to the GVLRB during the last term of council.

I spoke with Ball earlier today and she points out that Vision Councillor Geoff Meggs inaccurately states in his motion that pulling out of the GVLRB will save Vancouver $500,000. She rightly points out the only way the city would save this kind of money is if it doesn't do any research or hire any negotiators. In other words, if Vancouver spends nothing preparing for the next round of negotiations, it would basically be going in blind. It's hard to believe Meggs' plan is going to save even one dime for the city in the long run.

CityCaucus.com obtained a copy of Ball's presentation to council whereby she expresses concern regarding the speed in which Vision wants to pull Vancouver out of the Bureau. Here is an excerpt:

I understand it must be frustrating to wait for a lengthy review. However, isn’t it better to wait for the report and have it well done, thoroughly and correctly, than to rush into a decision that might impact the taxpayers of Vancouver financially for years to come.

Just because another City chooses to take an action does not mean that Vancouver has to follow the same route. Vancouver has many different needs and has had a greater commitment to the goals and success of the Bureau. Vancouver has, since the inception of the Labour Bureau in 1964, provided leadership and has been a stable guiding and reliable influence at the Bureau. Vancouver has a responsibility to our municipal partners in Metro Vancouver to continue to provide that leadership role. The Bureau is what we make it. The Bureau has been a successful organization for over 40 years and has provided excellent value for its municipal members and the taxpayers of the lower mainland. Those services contribute greatly to successful cities. The process works – the City of Vancouver has been recognized as an excellent employer and was recently included on a national Top 100 Employers list.

Ball was apparently asked several questions by the Vision councillors with Tim Stevenson asking her why she bothered to even show up and voice any concerns. This is becoming a bit of a theme for Vision Vancouver who are increasingly asking why people would publicly dare to question their motives. Ball went on to state:

Currently, trained negotiators are aware of the history and needs of each municipality and work with those municipalities year after year. They know the benefits, salary levels, and job descriptions of each city. Without trained negotiators to work side-by-side with City staff, who are already fully employed running the City, the process is likely to be both uninformed and unfair to both taxpayers and employees. The best negotiations are negotiations where the balance of power is as close to equal as possible. CUPE is a national organization and the City of Vancouver is not. When the lower mainland cities came together in 1964, this action was taken to create a balance of power at the negotiating table that was fair to both the employees and the taxpayers.

There is a mention in the Motion B2 of potential savings of more than $500,000 a year. I am surprised at this number given the depth of research necessary to conduct a genuinely informed process for each separate negotiation, in order to guarantee over 9,000 employees with a fair and informed agreement and the taxpayer a legitimate result.

If you choose to walk way from and lose that depth of experience and resources, then researching employment issues and hiring negotiators on a fee basis can be extraordinarily costly. Currently, Vancouver does not pay a fee to the Bureau to provide negotiators for major civic institutions - the library, the police with 3 unions, and the three museums. Think how expensive that will be for these institutions, and therefore Vancouver taxpayers, if those tax-payer funded institutions have to add those expenses to their bottom line. The costs will almost certainly be more than $500,000 per year if they want to conduct informed, fair, and balanced negotiations.

In the end, despite Ball's request for Council to wait for the appropriate studies to be completed, Vision rammed through a 9-1 vote (yet again) and effectively killed the GVLRB. In the years to come, Metro Vancouver taxpayers will likely look back at this quiet debate and wonder why they didn't speak up when they had the chance.

The stunning new Olympic Village was formally handed over to VANOC yesterday. As we think about the athletes walking into their rooms for the Olympics, or the new owners seeing their finished units for the first time, it is a good opportunity to recognize the efforts of all those who built this amazing project.

It was refreshing to hear Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson offer praise to past councils and partners in the project, given that as recently as a few weeks ago he was still referring to it as a “train wreck”.

The public lands in Southeast False Creek were long ago identified by our civic leaders as being an ideal location for the city’s greenest neighbourhood. With the Olympic bid came the opportunity to move more quickly by committing the site for the Athlete’s Village.

In 2003 the Olympics were awarded to Vancouver, and the COPE/ Vision council of the day made the unprecedented commitment that civil servants, not the private sector, would take responsibility for developing the project. By the end of their term, the land was zoned and ready to go.

By 2005, when I was first elected, council was faced with designing and building 1000 units of housing, and doing it fast. Several key decisions were made. Council unanimously agreed that the city would retain ownership of the land to guarantee timely completion, that Millenium would be the developer, and that Fortress would be the lender.

It is worth noting that many of the current COPE/Vision councillors were on that council and participated in those key decisions, with all councillors being provided the same information and options for consideration.

Financing was challenging throughout. It reached a crisis at the end of 2008 with the global financial meltdown. Fortress had advanced $317m but refused to advance any more under the existing terms. The city had to scramble and council (unanimous again) agreed to advance funds to keep the project moving forward. That decision was leaked to the press and not only did it become an election issue, it was part of the reason Vision won their majority.

In Nov 2008 the newly elected Mayor Robertson renegotiated the financing and returned the $317m external funding to Fortress. The new money was cheaper but 100% of the risk was transferred to Vancouver taxpayers. At this stage the City has now loaned about $650m to the project, and much more to the social housing and public amenities, for a total of over $1b.

Through all this the hammers kept pounding, the cement was poured, and the buildings reached completion. Now, a year later, the proud moment has arrived when city has met its commitment and has handing the keys to the country’s greenest and most cutting-edge neighbourhood over to VANOC.

Unfortunately the Mayor until recently continued to refer to all the hard work and heavy lifting done by the previous councils and staff as a “train wreck”. There are several problems with this characterization: The unseemly spectacle of his council colleagues disavowing their own previous decisions; the deplorable criticism of staff who worked on the file at the time; and the fact that the characterization was just plain wrong.

The project was in difficulty due to the global financial meltdown, but herculean efforts were made to keep the project on track for fall 2009 delivery.

The Athlete’s Village is the City’s project and it is important to keep the public’s faith. After all, 100% of the risk is in the price of the units. Shake confidence and you shake sales. In undermining faith in the project, the Mayor was putting taxpayers at the greatest risk of all.

What the Mayor did not understand was the incredible spirit of the project team. It was such an exciting experience being part of it. The politicization of the project was a terrible disappointment to everyone. Workers felt proud to be a part of history and everyone truly believed they were helping to make our city shine in the eyes of the world. To see it be used as a technique to get elected and denigrate others who gave it their very best under constant pressure and challenges was most disappointing.

With the dedication of the developer, the construction contractors, the many professional staff and the thousands of builders on the site, the City has pulled off a remarkable accomplishment. There have been bumps along the way, but the site is now ready for the Olympics.

We can all feel so proud of the hard work of all those who have built this project. When the Olympics are over, all of Vancouver will be able to judge the Village for themselves. I’m guessing they will have no concept of why it might have been called a “train wreck” and will see it for what it is: an outstanding new neighbourhood and a stellar Olympic legacy.

Suzanne Anton is a Vancouver City Councillor elected with the Non-Partisan Association. Other elected officials from Vancouver council are also encouraged to provide us with their perspective on city issues.

Many familiar faces from Vancouver politics have banded together to hold a rather big coffee klatch on how the city is doing under the current Vision Vancouver administration. Organizer Michael Geller, along with communications consultant and columnist Bob Ransford, and SFU City Program coordinator and former city councillor Gord Price bill it as "a series of three panels that will focus on the agenda and accomplishments of Vancouver City Council."

We suspect it will be heavy on the agenda topic as the accomplishments would make for pretty thin gruel (nyuk!). More now from the group's release:

Expert panelists will share their observations on what’s been happening at city hall, particularly in the areas of housing, city planning and development, city finances, local economic development and civic political leadership. Attendees will have an opportunity to engage the panelists in a question and answer session following each panel’s presentation.

CityCaucus.com has been asked to join a media pundits panel. Presenters will include Gordon Price, Bob Ransford, ThinkCity's James Fletcher, Peter Ladner, and John Tylee of the Vancouver Economic Development Commission. Housing initiatives, planning and development, as well as the city's proposed Green Capital initiative and budgetary issues will be discussed. The morning will wrap up with commentary from some of the city's most thoughtful, and yes sometimes outspoken pundits including Frances Bula, Monte Paulson and Alex Tsakumis.

“While some of us have had past ties to the Vancouver Civic NPA, this is not an NPA event. We hope it will bring together partisans from all parts of the political spectrum and people who haven’t been actively involved in partisan politics,” Geller explained.

Editor's note: All have had past ties to the NPA, but we take Michael's point. This is not about the moribund civic party per se.

“We are simply a group of concerned citizens who believe the last election resulted in a significant change in Vancouver’s civic political landscape and on the one-year anniversary of that change, it is worthwhile having a substantive and informed discussion on what has happened and what should happen” he explained.

Doors open next Saturday morning (November 14th) at 8:00 am at the Wosk Centre for Dialog. Admission to the event is by donation—to help offset the logistical costs.

It's great to see the blogger I once knew in short pants is now hitting the big time with an Op-Ed in Thursday's 24 Hours Vancouver newspaper. The daily edition of the paper is available for download at their website, or all over Metro Vancouver.

In this column Mike talks about the leadership shown by the City of Surrey on its Town Centres design competition (see townshift.ca), and the seemingly inevitable climb of Surrey toward the #1 spot in Metro Vancouver's population stats. Will Vancouver turn over the top spot in the region willingly? Is there a plan to deal with this population shift?

For the next few days you can read Mike's story online here, or the digital edition.

Mike talks about some of the implications of the Lower Mainland eventually revolving around Surrey. Pick up a copy of Thursday's column, and weigh in with your comments on the 24 Hours website. Congratulations, Mike! 24 Hours made a smart choice having you write for them, if I do say so myself.

Let me first be clear about the fact that I'm not a doctor or researcher specializing in the spread of infectious diseases. Nope, I'm merely one lowly blogger living in a big city where the concern over contracting H1N1 has reached a fevered pitch.

What we're experiencing now with H1N1 (aka Swine Flu) is officially called a pandemic, but what happens if (some say 'when') a major epidemic spreads around the world? How will it impact our biggest cities? How will our local economies be affected? Will mass transportation need to be shut down? How quickly will the disease spread? Are people in cities going to be impacted differently than our cousins living in rural communities? These are the types of questions some people are now asking of our civic officials in order to determine if we're prepared to take on this type of challenge as a society.

Over the last 72 hours or so, I've been in an out of Surrey Memorial Hospital as my critically ill father-in-law was rushed there by ambulance on Sunday. What I can report after having spent the better part of three days in the emergency ward is that the hospital system is taxed to the max. The waiting room appears like a scene out of a Hollywood horror movie with dozens of gravely ill people dawning medical face masks queuing up for their turn to meet stressed out medical staff. In a nanosecond, you are acutely aware that anything you come into contact with has a good likelihood of being contaminated with H1N1. Hence the need to regularly wash your hands and use hand sanitizer to kills all those germs while visiting the hospital.

The whole experience got me thinking about a couple of key questions facing urban centres. If we were to be hit with a global epidemic, how would our major cities cope? Secondly, does living in a high-density community put you at greater risk of contracting an infectious disease than living in a less populated, rural community?

Just think about it for a moment; if a disease such as H1N1 can be spread through close contact, would we find ourselves in the position of having to shut down mass transit? If so, how would people get to work? Would we face gridlock as people rushed to get into their vehicles to commute back and forth? Would this type of lock down translate into a massive hit on our economy?

In order to find out some of those answers, in particular to how quickly any disease can spread, it really does come down to math. Yes, the battle against today's infectious diseases is not only tackled through high profile vaccination programs, but also through the use of mathematics.

Dr. David Fisman

When the SARS crisis hit Toronto a number of years ago, it was a group of mathematicians that quickly worked together to build the models to advise government and health officials regarding how quickly the disease could spread through the Toronto area and beyond. The mathematical tools that were created helped public officials determine whether airports or rapid transit should be shut down. They've also become a vital tool in helping to plan for and fight future outbreaks of infectious diseases.

In the name of full disclosure, I must advise our readers that I work for a mathematics organization that formed part of this SARS team. As a non-academic, I've come to appreciate how mathematicians play a role in almost every aspect of my life from morning 'til night. However, during the current H1N1 scare, their algorithms and models can mean the difference between life and death.

On Friday November 6th, MITACS is sponsoring a free public lecture with Dr. David Fisman, a leading expert in how infectious diseases are spread. He is based out of Toronto at the University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of Public Health.

He plans to speak about about how Canada’s mathematicians are helping to guide smart, efficient and effective use of vaccines, antiviral drugs and other interventions in the fight against H1N1. If you live in Metro Vancouver and are interested in attending the free public lecture, here are the details:

Friday, November 6th
11:30 – 12:30 pm
Frederic Wood Theatre
6354 Crescent Road
University of British Columbia

If you're unable to attend the public lecture, an audio cast of it will be posted at www.mitacs.ca in the coming weeks.

If you scan the front page of the Vancouver Sun today, you will read a story from Doug Ward about former Mayor Sam Sullivan and his plans to establish a new urban think tank. Sullivan plans to make the formal announcement of the launch of the Global Civic Policy Society (GCPS) tomorrow at the Pan Pacific Hotel where over 250 invited guests are expected to attend. Former NDP Mike Harcourt will emcee the event which will feature a number of guest speakers including Professor John Clague (SFU Earth Sciences Dept), Professor Lawrence Frank (UBC), and architect Bruno Freschi of Expo 86 fame.

According to Sullivan, GCPS has already attracted international investors and will attempt to raise the profile of a number of urban issues such as densification & other land use planning, safety and security and battling urban sprawl. Sullivan was a member of Vancouver city council for 15 years, whereby the last three years he served as the Mayor.

Here is an excerpt from Ward's piece:

Sam Sullivan, urban eco-warrior, has two rules in his new post-political life. He won't do breakfast meetings and he no longer drives, preferring to roll his zero-carbon wheelchair through a 10-block radius around his high-density downtown Vancouver condo tower...

Sullivan hopes Global Civic will become a vehicle through which he can explore some of the key policy areas of his controversial mayoral term: How to achieve denser communities (EcoDensity, anyone?); how people can live together in dense communities (Project Civil Society); and how drug laws can be created to treat addicts as disabled patients, and not as criminals (his ill-fated Chronic Addiction Substitution Treatment program).

These were policies that alienated many members of his Non-Partisan Association and, Sullivan acknowledges, contributed to his political demise last year.

In the crowd tomorrow you can expect to see a number of former Vancouver politicos, business leaders and community activists. If Sullivan is successful (and I don't doubt that he will be) you can expect to hear a lot more about Global Civic Policy over the coming years.

Without being encumbered by the normal restraints of poltics, Sullivan will have a freer hand to explore his twin passions of public policy-making, and his desire for Vancouver to become an even better place to live, work and raise a family.

We've talked a lot on this blog over the last 11 months about the issues relating to our North American car culture and the urban sprawl it has facilitated. As a result of a heightened level of awareness, we've now come to better understand the impact fossil fuel dependent cars are having on our environment.

That's why I wanted to share with you a PSA (public service announcement)  that I recently saw (click on play button above) on KIRO TV from Seattle over the weekend. After viewing it, I had to ask myself if this was 1959 or 2009. The 30 second public service ad is entitled "The Freedom to Drive." It has been playing throughout North America for a while now and it extols the virtues of why the car has made America such a great place to live.

The voice over in the commercial tells us how the car has provided us with the freedom to go places and live our life to the fullest. Perhaps if the spot were extended to a 60 second, they could also add the following lines to the script. "The car has provided us with the freedom to facilitate suburban sprawl. It has provided us with the freedom to pollute. It has provided us with the freedom to pave over countless acres of green space and farmland in order to build super highways."

The PSA we came across is not the only one out there challenging our collective efforts at going green. A new Audi commercial also pokes fun at all of us seeking a more environmentally friendly lifestyle. In what could be considered a slap in the face to many of Vancouver's green activists, Audi laughs at people who use their bicycles to go to work or choose other alternative forms of transportation.

In one scene, a cyclist is riding in some urban centre while the rain is pouring down on him. Moments later a beautiful new white Audi drives by on a sunny day with the occupants claiming they're just as green as the cyclist. This is due to the fact they are burning up "clean diesel". The ad says if you're going to save the planet, at least have some fun doing it.

In any event, we wanted to share these two commercials with all of our readers who aspire to live a greener and cleaner urban lifestyle. I'd encourage you to take a moment and look at these two commercials and let us know if you think they're the kind of advertising that should be produced in our new enviro-age.