On Monday evening, February 12th, 2024, approximately 100 citizens tried-and-true, almost to a person strong advocates for the preservation of Vancouver’s cherished 135-year-old independent, elected Vancouver Park Board met together.
Why do we say almost to a person?
Because at meeting’s outset, a group of “concerned citizens” were present, who did their best to hijack the meeting, to push their agenda that take our present Park Board to task for failing to “save the trees in Stanley Park.” A righteous cause, for sure (or, perhaps not) but not the reason why the 100, or so, people meeting in the Hillcrest Community Centre gym on Monday evening had gathered together in common cause, which is to say: save Vancouver’s much cherished and beloved 135-year-old independent, elected Board of Parks and Recreation.
The video above pretty much presents the highlights of Monday night’s phenomenally moving meetingof a sterling group of Vancouver’s finest, most activist citizens, persons possessed of uncommon wit and intelligence, heart and conscience, committed to a social democracy that champions the community, the hope of our present and our future, folks who could just as easily stayed at home, but instead gathered in common cause to work together to preserve our elected Park Board.
Terri Clark, in charge of Park Board communications from 1973-2008, was present, as was Erin Shum, a past Park Board Commissioner (and one of our very favourites), in the city, traveling from her home in the Okanagan, and Jerry Fast, the President of the Kitsilano Community Centre — to whom we owe a thousand apologies — as well as former Killarney Community Centre President Ainslee Kwan (another one of our very favourites), and someone who we’ve been asked not to write about — cuz she’s in the employ of the City, and no one, we mean no one (except maybe a dastardly few in the administration and employ of Mayor Ken Sim … hey, it’s politics, and the current folks at City Hall, like many folks in past civic administrations, play hard ball) wants to see this fine woman of character, intelligence and passion for our city have her employment with the City jeopardized.
Of course, Scott Jensen — current Vice-Chair of Park Board — was present.
One wonders if Mr. Jensen ever thought for a moment — when a couple of years back, then ABC Vancouver candidate for Mayor Ken Sim asked him to run for Vancouver Park Board on his party’s slate — whether a couple of years on he’d find himself in the midst of a trying political maelstrom that rather than lead to an enhanced quality of life instead has changed his focus, such that too much of his energy is being directed away from his family, his satisfying career of contribution as an educator, and his very important work as a Park Board Commissioner.
Still, as a nascent #SaveOurParkBoard movement begins to burgeon, how can one not take heart that we are together a small but sturdy group of activists working collectively in common cause, part of a salutary movement for the ages in our little burgh by the sea, destined to be recorded in the history books as a grassroots democratic movement the likes of which we’ve not seen in Vancouver in decades.
Fills one with hope for a better, more democratic and more community-minded city.
In 2012, Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson opined about the idea of scaling back Langara Golf Course and turning part of it into residential housing as part of the city’s broad new approach toward creating denser neighbourhoods.
“At this point it is debatable as to whether that is valuable green space,” the mayor said. “The public can’t access it, it is not biodiverse ,” as he went on to suggest that Langara is “underused”, that there may be “opportunities to transform that space, to maintain golf on that site, to increase public access, to increase public housing.”
Pictured: Park Board Commissioners Melissa De Genova, John Coupar, Aaron Jasper, Constance Barnes, Niki Sharma & Trevor Loke. Commissioner Sarah Blyth had stepped out for a moment, during a break.
On July 9, 2012, the Vancouver Park Board met to consider the instruction of Mayor Gregor Robertson to “hive off half of Langara Golf Course for the development of low cost condominiums.”
City Manager Penny Ballem and Mayor Robertson’s Chief of Staff Mike Magee had, previous to the meeting, called in Vision Vancouver Park Board Commissioner Aaron Jasper to City Hall to demand he move a motion to redevelop the Langara Golf Course, in order that the Mayor’s wishes might be realized, that half of the golf course would be developed for housing.
Vision Vancouver Park Board Commissioner, Aaron Jasper, set to carry out the wishes of the Mayor
Subsequent to Aaron Jasper’s meeting with Ballem and Magee, in an interview with the media, Jasper suggested that the course could be downsized from 18 holes to nine holes, which would free the land for public park space.
Alternatively, Jasper pointed out that the course could be eliminated altogether to develop a full park in its place. Golfers would be redirected to the city’s two other golf courses, McCleery and Fraserview.
One hundred and fifty irate, activist members of the community turned up at the contentious July 9th meeting of Park Board — spanning every age group, from young pre-adolescent children to seniors, with members of the cultural and ethnic mosaic of the Vancouver well-represented among those who had gathered to oppose Mayor Robertson’s “vision” for a redeveloped Langara Golf Course.
More than two dozen speakers slammed the Vancouver Park Board that cool, mid-summer Monday evening, fearing they said that the city-owned Langara golf course might be changed into a park or affordable housing.
Many speakers, as well as Commissioner John Coupar, said they feared the motion to ask staff to compile usage and revenue figures for the city’s golf courses might be the first step toward turning Langara into a park or residential development.
“The way this has been rolled out, I think is a little scary,” Coupar said of the motion, which came after Mayor Gregor Robertson publicly questioned whether Vancouverites are best served by a golf course in the area.
The first speakers to present to the Park Board Commissioners that evening were two 23-year-old women of Chinese descent, who said the following after introducing themselves …
“The two of us grew up in the area surrounding the Langara Golf Course. We grew up in some degree of poverty, living a kind of hand-to-mouth existence. Our parents each ran business, one a small corner store, the other a dry cleaning business. We were often left to our own devices, alone, without much to do. This was in an age prior to social media, when cell phones — which we couldn’t have afforded anyway — were not a feature of life.
With the Langara Golf course nearby, and given that it was the only green space in the neighbourhood, we took to walking around the trails that surround the golf course. Soon, we were running around the golf course, and over the years, from age six through our teens, we continued to run around the trails surrounding Langara. Over time, our running skills were strengthened, we joined the track team at our high school, and not long soon after we were recommended by our PhysEd teachers to the Canada Olympic Committee.
Long story short, the both of us became Olympic gold medal winning runners at the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing. Later this month, we will both be competing again at the London Summer Olympics.
Were it not for the opportunity we were afforded to, over many, many years, to run around the track surrounding the Langara Golf Course, we most certainly would not have become Olympic gold medal winners. Langara is a critical resource to families like ours, a welcoming green space like no other. We do not want to see the Langara Golf Course developed into condominiums.
With all due respect to the Mayor, we are present here tonight to speak against the initiative moved by Commissioner Jasper, on behalf of Mayor Gregor Robertson.”
At the conclusion of the address of the two accomplished young women, applause broke out. Observers, and Park Board staff and Commissioners, could well see that the 150 members of the community who had arrived at the Park Board offices to oppose the initiative of the Mayor to develop the Langara Golf Course were heartened and moved by what they’d heard. A new feeling of hope permeated the room.
The next speakers up were two UBC climate scientists who spoke about climate change, making the case for the preservation of the Langara Golf Course …
“In its present form, as the ‘lungs of our city’, as a health resource for citizens not simply because of the recreational resource it provides, but for the vital role Langara plays in addressing the role of climate change in our city, preservation of the Langara Golf Course must be seen as a paramount consideration.”
The scientists were followed by a groups of baby boomer, Gen X and millennial age women who spoke about the safety that they were afforded in their daily walks on the trails surrounding Langara. “There are always eyes on us. We feel safe. Langara in its present form is an invaluable resource for us. Please do not develop the site.”
Next up: groups of young boys and girls, and seniors, who spoke about their love for golf, about how they could never afford the hundreds and thousands of dollars that would be required to join a private golf course, but that for as little as seven dollars they could afford several hours of play on the Langara Golf Course.
“Better that we should be outside and in the environment,” they averred, “than at home watching TV, or playing video games.”
And with that, the speakers / intervenors / community input portion of the Park Board Committee meeting drew to a close.
Aaron Jasper, Chairperson, Vancouver Park Board, 2012
During the course of the evening, several speakers who had presented to the Commissioners made mention of the fact that the Langara Golf Course was usable only six months of the year. Given the poor / virtually non-existent drainage on the course, users could not play the course when the autumn rainy season began, through the end of March, and sometimes April.
Without asking for remedy to such, Aaron Jasper had the following to say …
“I would like to make a motion asking staff to report back to the Board this upcoming early autumn, with recommendations and costing of installing a proper drainage system within the Langara golf course, such that the course might be used year-round. I would ask for the unanimous support from the Board for the motion I will put on the table.”
Aaron Jasper’s motion passed unanimously.
Sarah Blyth, multi-term Commissioner on the Vancouver Park Board
In a conversation VanRamblings had with former, multi-term Vision Vancouver Park Board Commissioner Sarah Blyth earlier this week, she told us the following …
“From time to time, my Vision Park Board colleagues and I found ourselves in conflict with the Mayor, with city staff and our Vision colleagues on Council. Never once, though, were we bullied by the City Manager or the Mayor’s Chief of Staff, and most certainly not by our elected Vision colleagues on City Council.
The Mayor and the Vision Councillors realized that we had been elected by voters to fulfill a mandate to preserve, protect and enhance Vancouver’s parks and recreation system, and to work on behalf of all the citizens of our city to maintain the best parks and recreation system on the continent.”
Did Aaron Jasper, and his Vision Vancouver colleagues on the Park Board, follow the “instruction” of Penny Ballem and Mike Magee to pass a motion that would lead to the halving, at best, of green space on the Langara golf course? No, no, they did not. Instead, as it turned out, in the autumn of that year, the Board unanimously approved a motion from Mr. Jasper to have installed a new drainage system — at a cost of $4 million — on the Langara golf course property, allowing golfers to use the course year-round, more than doubling the revenue derived from Langara, easily “repaying” the initial $4 million restoration expenditure.
And what was the political fallout for Vision Vancouver Park Board Commissioners Aaron Jasper, Trevor Loke, Sarah Blyth, Niki Sharma and Sarah Blyth?
Nada, zero, zilch.
The Vision Vancouver Commissioners on Park Board continued on representing the best interests of the citizens of Vancouver, unscathed and much admired.
At the conclusion of the 2014 Vancouver civic election, as the incumbent Vision Vancouver Commissioners chose not to seek another term, Vision Park Board candidate Catherine Evans topped the polls, on a newly reconstituted Vancouver Park Board that saw Michael Wiebe and Stuart Mackinnon elected as Greens on the Board, with Non-Partisan Association candidate John Coupar re-elected to a further term in office, joined by NPA colleagues Sarah Kirby-Yung, Casey Crawford and Erin Shum, the four emerging as the new majority on the Vancouver Park Board.
What is being left unsaid in this column? Yes, you’re right.
Vancouver Mayor / autocrat “play ball with me, and my office, or consequences will be severe” Ken Sim
Unlike the autocratic “if you step out of line, we’ll end you” ABC Vancouver administration of Mayor Ken Sim, the Vision Vancouver and the Non-Partisan Association Park Boards were left alone by the Boards of Directors of each long serving Vancouver political party, as well as their respective party’s colleagues / elected representatives on Vancouver City Council — free to do their jobs as they best saw fit, the jobs they had been elected to perform, unbidden and unscathed.
For part 1 of this series, click on the following link …
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 harrowingAquatic 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 Partyissued 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;
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?
