Category Archives: Vancouver

Aquatic Centre: Vision Vancouver Pulls a Fast One

July 31, 2014#VanPoli Civic Politics, BC Politics, Decision 2014, Politics, Vancouveraquatic centre, cedar party, constance barnes, continental hotel, john coupar, malcolm bromley, qmunity centre, sarah blyth, vancouver park board, vision vancouverRaymond Tomlin

Vancouver Aquatic Centre is Due for Demolition in Sale of City Land
The entire Downtown South Development Site booklet may be accessed by clicking here

On Wednesday, VanRamblings published a story on the proposed sale by Vision Vancouver of 12 parcels of land adjacent to the Granville Street bridge, for the development of 120 units of social housing, a new Aquatic Centre, and a new Qmunity Centre — all without any hint of an open, public consultation by Vancouver’s secretive, developer-friendly municipal Council.

In today’s VanRamblings column, we’ll provide a timeline of events about which we wrote on Wednesday, in which we sought clarification of the issues raised in yesterday’s harrowing Aquatic Centre To Be Demolished post.

Update: VanRamblings learned on Thursday of the City’s Request for Proposal to demolish the Continental Hotel, the RFP closing next Wednesday, August 6th.

Why the undue haste by the City in respect of the development of the 12 parcels of city-owned land being offered up?

Once the hotel has been demolished, the road is clear for the City to move quickly on their ‘non-market’ housing (always amorphous as to what that means, when it comes to Vision Vancouver) / Aquatic Centre development.

In addition, the pedestrian-and-cyclist-friendly Vision Vancouver dominated Council has designs on “renovating” the Granville Street bridge to make it more “active transportation” friendly.

All in due time.

The Vancouver Cedar Party issued a press release Thursday afternoon which asks questions on the issue of the replacement of the Vancouver Aquatic Centre, none of which have been answered to date by the majority party at City Hall, questions which MUST be answered by Vision Vancouver, if the public is to maintain any faith in their elected officials at Vancouver City Council and Park Board.

Also on Thursday, Vancouver Metro News weighed in with information on the proposed development, as did Frances Bula, at the Globe and Mail.

Park Board’s John Coupar, Constance Barnes, Sarah Blyth, and GM, Malcolm Bromley

First thing Wednesday morning, VanRamblings made contact with Vision Vancouver Park Board Commissioners Constance Barnes and Sarah Blyth to enquire as to whether each was aware of an “offering for sale” of city-owned land, that included a proposal for the demolition of the current Vancouver Aquatic Centre, and the construction of a new Aquatic Centre facility, on the north-end, and due east of the Granville Street bridge.

The short answer: no.

Commissioners Barnes and Blyth stated that a new or renewed Aquatic Centre was not on the immediate Park Board agenda for consideration.

Both were clear in stating that any proposal for a new / renewed Aquatic Centre would include a public consultation process. Both Commissioners Barnes and Blyth went on to state that consideration of a new / renewed Aquatic Centre was, in all likelihood, some years away.

VanRamblings also made contact with Non-Partisan Association Park Board Commissioner John Coupar, who told us that he’d look into the matter, and would report out to us following the NPA’s campaign announcement of their 2014 sterling slate of Park Board and Board of Education candidates.

Commissioner Coupar told us that he’d spoken with Vancouver Park Board General Manager Malcolm Bromley first thing on Wednesday morning, to seek clarification on issues related to VanRamblings’ Wednesday story respecting a new / renewed Aquatic Centre.

Here’s what Mr. Bromley told Commissioner Coupar: yes, the City Planning Department had approached him respecting a “wish list” for renewed Park Board facilities; Mr. Bromley suggested that a new Aquatic Centre might be high on the Park Board’s agenda for future consideration. Other than that, Commissioner Coupar concurred with the sentiment expressed by Commissioners Barnes and Blyth: there’d likely be no consideration given by Park Board, any time soon, to a remediated Vancouver Aquatic Centre, or a new aquatic facility.

Recent Park Board historical background respecting the Aquatic Centre: in fact, in 2012, Park Board Commissioners did confront an Aquatic Centre remediation proposal wherein Park Board was asked to approve a sum of monies to repair the centre’s heating facility, which structure had become eroded due to the salt content in the Aquatic Centre’s pools, in the early years of its operation.The Aquatic Centre now uses chlorinated water.

Remediation repair monies were approved by Park Board — and note was made by Park Board GM Malcolm Bromley that, perhaps at some future point, consideration might have to be given by Park Board to replacing the Aquatic Centre, should future remediation costs prove prohibitive.

In the late morning, and again in the mid-afternoon on Wednesday, VanRamblings met with Vancouver Cedar Party campaign chair Nicholas Chernen to discuss the Downtown South Development Site booklet — which was provided to us for our perusal — the cover of which is pictured at the top of today’s VanRamblings’ blog post, the booklet linked to above.

Mr. Chernen told VanRamblings he and his campaign staff ran across the document by accident, when perusing other files at City Hall.

Apparently, there was reference made to the document, but actual discovery of the Downtown South Development Site booklet took some while. When Mr. Chernen and his staff finally located the development booklet, a copy was provided to him — for which he had to sign out, recording all of his particulars.

Curious.

The first few pages of the booklet lay out the details of the obviously-developed-by Vision Vancouver ‘offer for sale’ of 12 parcels of city-owned land adjacent to the Granville Street bridge, which is to say …

The City of Vancouver is proceeding with the demolition of the old Continental Hotel building at 190 Granville Street, in 2014. Upon completion of the demolition, the property will be available for redevelopment in concert with the decommissioning and removal of the eastern Granville Bridge off ramp and ‘loop’, the removal of the Blacktop cabs yard, and the opening up for sale of an entire square block of city-owned land (part of the City’s Property Endowment Fund land legacy), for a sale price of $32.9 million;
The City, in offering the property for sale, is asking for “some innovative proposals for the delivery of key public benefits” for this area of the City, although offering cash or a combination of cash and amenities will also be considered.Among the amenities listed are “provision of 120 ‘turnkey’ non-market housing units”: 24 studio apartments (20%), 42 1-bedroom units (35%), 42 2-bedroom units (35%), and 12 3-bedroom units (10%);
The construction of a renewed Vancouver Aquatic Centre, with a 52-metre pool (no indication as to the number of lanes), a sauna, steam room and jacuzzi, plus gym, the new Aquatic centre situated in a landlocked location away from park land, green space and Burrard Inlet, offering little in the way of parking or ready transit access;
The delivery of a “community amenity in the form of built premises of approximately 10,000 square feet for … Qmunity, either on the property or on other land located in the West End;
A United We Can bottle depot.

More detail available on the CityHallWatch website, or by clicking on this link.

All of the above leaves a few questions unanswered, including …

“Why would a developer purchase one square block of city-owned land upon which a 120-unit social housing unit is to be built, along with the construction of a new Aquatic Centre which upon completion the developer must turn over to the City of Vancouver for $10, a community centre to be built that would also be turned over to the City, and the construction of a bottle depot — none of which properties would turn a profit for a developer, or even offer a return (other than a social justice return) on the developer’s investment of $32.9 million.

Why would a developer, then, make such a sure-to-fail economically purchase of city-owned land, unless …

The City — which is to say, Vision Vancouver — had struck an under-the-table deal with the purchasing developer to acquire the stretch of beach front property along Beach Avenue where the current Aquatic Centre is located, stretching from Burrard Street along the waterfront, almost all the way to English Bay, prime development property where the ‘Granville Loop’ purchasing developer could turn a potential profit that could very well be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Who in the media, other than VanRamblings, is asking these questions?

Will the August 15th sale of the 12-parcel Downtown South Development Site one square, city-owned block factor into the conversation in the 2014 Vancouver municipal election race? Who out there, apart from the Vancouver Cedar Party, CityHallWatch, and VanRamblings are expressing concern about the secretive nature of the proposed sale of Property Endowment Fund land, and the possible implications of the sale vis-à-vis the future sale of the current Aquatic Centre, and the surrounding, lands?

Vancouver Aquatic Centre To Be Demolished: Bids Close in 17 Days

July 30, 2014BC Politics, Decision 2014, Politics, VancouverRaymond Tomlin

Update: VanRamblings will update the story below on Thursday, with a Wednesday timeline of events and, perhaps, a bit of insight into the character of Nicholas Chernen — who, should he decide to run for Council, goes to the top of our list of preferred candidates (we’ve got a few more, but would be thrilled to add Nicholas’ name). In the meantime, you may wish to read CityHallWatch’s great coverage of the issue addressed below.

On July 19th, Vancouver’s rambunctious civic electoral Cedar Party posted Bridge For Sale, a blog item which suggested …

“Vision Vancouver and the Mayor are destroying as much of Vancouver’s transportation infrastructure, and selling off many park commitments for as little as possible before they get voted out of office … It has been found that the land encompassing the Eastern Granville Street Bridge Loop has finally been put up for sale.”

Last evening, July 29th, Glen Chernen, Cedar Party mayoralty candidate, made available a Scribd document titled, Aquatic Centre / Granville Bridge Demolition Sale Plans Discovered, in which Mr. Chernen suggests that …

“An official City of Vancouver sale package, for the sale and demolition of the Granville Street Bridge off-ramp, for the North side exit to Pacific Avenue, and the pending demolition of the Vancouver Aquatic Centre, to be rebuilt at the base of a new high rise to be located on the present site of the Granville Bridge off-ramp” has been issued, as he goes on to state, “The bidders must submit their final bid in 17 days (August 15th), with their initial deposit on this $32,900,000 assessed property.”

VanRamblings will seek clarification of the above contention, respecting the pending demolition of the Vancouver Aquatic Centre, first thing Wednesday morning, both through contact with the City of Vancouver’s Development Services department, and with Mr. Chernen, at his new offices on West Broadway, located across the street from The Hollywood Theatre.
Non-Partisan Association Park Board Commissioner John Coupar is looking into the matter. VanRamblings has contacted Vision Vancouver Park Board Commissioners Constance Barnes and Sarah Blyth seeking comment.

In the July 29th Scribd document released by the Cedar Party’s Glen Chernen, he contends, among other things, that …

The City of Vancouver indicates they will allow rezoning for high rise towers under conditions which include giving financial consideration for the development cost charges and community amenity fees to be owed by the successful bidder / developer.
The City suggests a way for the developer to avoid paying cash fees to the city by building a new Aquatic Centre on the off-ramp site and other public works projects, in lieu of cash.
The request for the developer to build/provide an Aquatic Centre and community space rather than make a cash payment for rezoning fees based on value increase, illustrates the City Hall practice of giving developers a way to avoid paying cash to the City. It makes accountability hard to enforce. This strategy results in what looks like a disguised multi-million dollar public works contract embedded in the form of constructing a new aquatic centre, which the City of Vancouver suggests be built on the site rather than cash payment.
This arrangement also prevents the City of Vancouver from holding a competitive public works bid process for renovation at the existing waterfront site 6 blocks away.
There has been no public notification or discussion with the people of Vancouver to determine if we desire having the bridge off-ramp demolished, let alone pay higher fees and taxes to fund a brand new Aquatic Centre. The off-ramp is located across the street from a mostly city owned block that is being sold to Westbank Projects developers in an exclusive, non bid process.
Also included in this sales package is the fact that any building constructed on this site would have to connect to the “neighbourhood heating system.”
Large scale heating systems in Vancouver primarily run through a distribution system owned by Ian Gillespie, the owner of Westbank Projects, a major financial contributor to the Mayor of Vancouver.

Damning indictments, if true. Glen Chernen, on behalf of the Vancouver Cedar Party, calls for the establishment of an independent law enforcement department — although he doesn’t suggest where this department would be seated — that would root out fraud and white collar crime at City Hall.
One would have to think that the Fraud Division of the Vancouver Police Department would attend to matters of fraud and white collar crime. As we say above, VanRamblings will seek clarification of Mr. Chernen’s contentious allegations respecting the Mayor and his Vision Vancouver civic party.
Part II of the Aquatic Centre / ‘sale of city land’ story may be found here.

Meanwhile, VanRamblings has heard from a very reliable source that over the past six years, under the stewardship of the Vision Vancouver civic administration, the once huge $3½ billion Property Endowment Fund (PEF) land legacy, consisting of property owned by the City, has been depleted by Vision Vancouver, such that only $300 million remains in the fund.
In 2007, the Non-Partisan Association administration of Mayor Sam Sullivan turned over 14 city-owned sites (part of the PEF) for the development of social housing by the provincial government. Approximately 1,637 new and livable social housing units are now on stream, the most significant social justice legacy of the Sullivan administration, a feat unmatched by the Vision Vancouver administration of Mayor Gregor Robertson, and his colleagues.
If, in fact, the allegations by the Cedar Party prove to be true — that the Vision Vancouver administration of Mayor Gregor Robertson trades development favours with their developer supporters, in exchange for the funding of the Vision Vancouver civic party — and, if it is proven true that, in fact, the Property Endowment Fund has been depleted by Vision Vancouver over the course of the past six years — perhaps as city-owned land given away to their developer backers, or simply sold off to replenish the City’s diminished coffers, such activity, and its consequences, could very well prove to be the story of the 2014 Vancouver civic election.
Little wonder that Kirk LaPointe, the Non-Partisan Association’s mayoralty candidate, is challenging Mayor Robertson to open the books.

NPA’s Kirk LaPointe: A Democrat, Thinks For Himself, On Your Side

July 28, 2014Decision 2014, VancouverRaymond Tomlin

Georgia Straight editor Charlie Smith has written about Non-Partisan Association mayoralty candidate Kirk LaPointe — former Managing Editor of the Vancouver Sun, CBC Ombudsman, and current publisher-editor of Self-Counsel Press — on a couple of occasions, once six weeks prior to his Monday, July 14th candidacy announcement, the other this past weekend.
Throughout the 2014 electoral campaign, Mr. LaPointe will post to The Vancouver I Want, his 2014 Vancouver civic election campaign blog.
Earlier today, in light of the fact that Charlie Smith makes reference to The Vancouver I Want blog post in his weekend piece, VanRamblings requested permission to re-post Mr. LaPointe’s blog post, supplemented by a re-posting of a few of Mr. LaPointe’s Twitter offerings — which, it should be pointed out, on both counts, Mr. LaPointe wrote himself, sans intervention from the NPA’s Communications team (not that the team isn’t helfpul or competent, but rather that Mr. LaPointe is his own man, and when words appear in print under his name, they’ll be words he has actually written).

Kirk LaPointe, in The Vancouver I Want: Latest Learnings

On the 2nd week of my candidacy, what I am learning and reflecting upon:

1. I may wait for the proverbial cows to come home for my opponents to agree to sign a code of conduct to avoid personal attacks in the campaign.

2. I may wait for the proverbial cold day in Hades for my opponents to open the city’s budget books and permit us a line-by-line examination of how, where and what government spends. Until we get the how, where and what, we have every right to suspect why.

3. Our homelessness issue is not going to be solved on our own in the city. We need a new national conversation on health, justice, income and education, and Vancouver has to lead the discussion. This government makes a mistake by promising to end homelessness (or, as it has reframed the matter in a more modest objective, street homelessness) when it knows it’s an elusive goal on its own.

4. Until we understand how the Port of Vancouver might run Granville Island, Gregor Robertson and the Vision council members should not be pulling out the chequebook to offer to buy it. And if they are serious about it, they have an obligation to consult the community on what they would do and how it would be better than the Port plan. Granville Island became the great neighbourhood under federal watch, not under the city. Ideology should not trump the benefit of the doubt.

5. Until we understand what Gregor Robertson and the Vision council members want to do with the Arbutus corridor, they should not be pulling out the chequebook to buy it from Canadian Pacific Railways. If the asking price is $100 million (which is what it was several years ago), how can that expenditure be justified except through eventual development? And if that’s in the cards, Gregor Robertson and the Vision council members should level with the neighbourhood.

6. Until we understand how Gregor Robertson and the Vision council members intend to finance a subway to UBC, they should not be claiming it is a “new” offering in its literature and commercials. Perhaps “speculative” or “notional” would be the better term to apply to the line. Financial dance partners are required (Ottawa, Victoria, UBC) but the mayor is on the floor alone on this one. It will take billions of dollars from something other than the city, and many years, so “new” is a fib that should be fixed.

Your browser does not support frames. <a href="http://globalnews.ca/video/1479100/translink-hires-independent-expert">Click here to view the frameless video.</a>.

7. When did we stop trusting public servants? Bad enough that Gregor Robertson and the Vision council members permit our city executives to forbid public servants to talk directly to the media. But why would we heed the Robertson/Vision call for an independent investigation into two SkyTrain stoppages? TransLink has explained what happened. If there is a reason to distrust this explanation, we should hear it now. If there is a deficient contingency plan, then let’s just fix that. But there would be many more matters deserving of an independent investigation ahead of this.

8. While I might not always agree with Trish Kelly on policy, what happened to her was distressing. She contends she was dumped from the Vision Vancouver ticket on park board and that she didn’t step aside (as Vision Vancouver claimed). Her eight-years-ago performance art video might discomfort a few people, but I had hoped we were well past gendered responses and could also understand how social media shares ideas. Her nomination support indicated immense potential in public life and I hope she finds her way there soon. Her expulsion is an odd move for a party that professes modernity, tolerance and inclusiveness.

Meeting Courage with Courage: Valuing Women’s Lives in Politics

July 27, 2014BC Politics, Decision 2014, Politics, VancouverRaymond Tomlin

Mia Edbrooke & Kyla Epstein, co-authors of Courage: Valuing Women’s Lives in Politics

The following statement was issued by One City Vancouver, on July 23rd …
Meeting Courage with Courage: Valuing Women’s Lives in Politics
Of the fifteen One City Organizing Committee members, seven of us are women under the age of forty.
Needless to say, the sudden resignation of Trish Kelly as a Vision Vancouver Park Board candidate has, as they say, hit close to home.
The seven of us are the daughters of women who, since the sixties and seventies, have fought for a seat at the table — and in many cases, won.
We are recognized for our work and are valued for our participation in our communities. Many of us have partners who do their share of the housework, and most of us have or will take maternity leaves and other hard-won benefits. We see people like us in positions of power. We also know that there are fights yet ahead. Women working in and out of politics face judgment based on their appearance, age, family situation, gender identity and sexuality, far more than men do. As younger women, many of us have had to fight harder than men do to legitimize ourselves in the workplace and in our community lives. This struggle broadens our perspective, sharpens our compassion, and brings us together. We simply can not afford to remain silent on this matter. There is too much at stake.
The seven of us know that, should we decide to run for public office one day, we can expect to see any number of things dredged up, especially in the feeding frenzy that is social media. Perhaps it will be over some article we wrote in university; whom we dated, or whom we didn’t date; whether it’s okay for a woman with younger kids to enter into public life; images of us dancing on an art car at Burning Man; private photos that we took with a former partner; our hair, our weight, our clothes, or whether we’re shrill and angry when we assert our position on an issue.
It takes a courageous woman to stand for election, to declare that her voice has worth, in the face of such attacks.
For real social change, institutions need to meet the courage of these women candidates with courage of their own — to stand with women through personal attacks, and to call out the attackers.
At One City, we found it chilling that the decision-makers who hold power at Vision failed to act to affirm their support for Trish Kelly.
Political parties need to say loudly and repeatedly that a woman’s (or anyone’s) appearance, private life, gender identity and sexuality do not diminish their worth as a candidate. In fact, progressive political parties need to fully embrace the diversity and sex-positive activism of women.
We want to build a world where women candidates’ whole lives are valued, where a woman’s history, experiences, and choices are recognized as making her the person she is today.

–

Alison Atkinson; Anna Chudnovsky; Cara Ng; Christine Boyle; Kyla Epstein; Mia Edbrooke; & Thi Vu. Members of the One City Organizing Committee