The Ego Takes Flight

Ding ding ding! EcoDensity motion debate! Lllllllet's get ready to rummmmbbbbbllllleeeeeee!



Round 1: Vision's Raymond Louie lands a left jab (pun intended) on Sam's refusal to answer questions. Testify!




Round 2: George Chow goes the distance against Kim Capri over his new sense of questioning style. Testify!




Round 3: BC Lee tugs at our heartstrings with an impassioned plea for trusting the Mayor. Testi...cry!

The glass closest to you does NOT have poison in it...I repeat...the glass

Extra extra! The Mayor....supports his chief rival within his own party. Apparently, this warrants a news release.

Mayor Supports Proposed Motion to Establish Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets
Resolutions support goal of environmental leadership

Mayor Sam Sullivan today announced he will support a proposed motion to establish greenhouse gas (GHG) emission targets for the City of Vancouver. Councillor Peter Ladner is expected to introduce the motion at today’s City Council meeting.


Nerd Alert! Upcoming blog postings: my thoughts on Murray Bookchin's idea of libertarian municipalism (paper review), as well as how Ladner and Sullivan differ in their approaches to c/C conservatism. Bust out those pocket protectors, cuz it's going to be a nerdy one!

Ego-Density

Check out Sam trying to slither away from the wrath of Heather Deal over trademarking EcoDensity on CTV's Saturday News. My favorite part is when he says "how can they think that I...personally....would profit from this..."

Hmmmm......I have no idea why anyone would think that.

also, his explanation about how ecodensity is different from regular density is priceless: it's "high quality" and "well planned."

Because before Sam came along, we just had ramshackle huts stacked on top of each other in Yaletown.

Judge not, lest ye be silenced in camera

Look out NPA, the Supreme Court is coming after you. It'll be interesting to see how this ruling plays out in the future. Governing parties love a good in camera meeting...it makes stifling debate so much easier.

I've edited to keep the choice cuts. I'd link to the article, but the Globe is notoriously stingy when it comes to placing articles in their paid archives. Apparently there is a huge audience willing to pay $12 a month to read old articles by Christie Blatchford talking about her dogs and the follies of middle age.

Keep meetings open, municipal councils told
KIRK MAKIN
From Friday's Globe and Mail
June 22, 2007

The Supreme Court of Canada has issued a wake-up call for municipal councils across the country to conduct business in the open whenever possible.

In a 7-0 ruling, the court said that the city council of London, Ont., was wrong to hold a meeting in camera and then hastily pass a vote that put a freeze on a controversial development project.
Madam Justice Louise Charron said the whole point of holding municipal meetings in the open is "to imbue municipal governments with a robust democratic legitimacy."

"The open meeting requirement reflects a clear legislative choice for increased transparency and accountability in the decision-making process of local governments," she said.

The dispute began in early 2004, when London City Council and its planning committee held two closed meetings - without stating their purpose - to debate an interim control bylaw that would impose a one-year freeze on development of a portion of one of its main thoroughfares, Richmond Street.

The move came after one of the city's biggest developers, RJS Holdings Inc., had moved to create a highly contentious student-housing project.

Within eight minutes of concluding its second closed meeting, the full city council immediately voted to impose the freeze.

Defending its actions in court, the city argued that closed meetings should be allowed when the subject matter of a debate involves potential litigation and that interim control bylaws are important enough to require secrecy.

However, the Supreme Court said that, while a council can justifiably hold a private meeting to deal with a wide range of topics, it cannot blithely dispense with the notion of at least giving advance notice or publicizing the nature of the meeting.

Save us, Mel Lastman!

Can you trademark self-absorbed? This is approaching Mel Lastman territory.

Mayor seeks to trademark 'EcoDensity' for himself

Don't believe me? Check out these choice pieces:

"So Fontaine came up with the term EcoDensity and the mayor suggested that it should be trademark protected immediately."

"I have no idea about the process but it seemed like a good way to protect the city."

Fontaine said the city's legal department couldn't apply for the trademark because the EcoDensity initiative had not yet been voted on by councillors.

"Fontaine didn't know whether the city's legal department knows about Sullivan's trademark application."

So he applied for the personal trademark before it was voted on by council, then 'forgot' to turn it over to city staff over the course of a year? And the legal department doesn't know?

Does this mean the city gets to pay royalties to Sam every time it gets used?

Former Sam supporter David Berner lets it rip:

Saturday, June 23, 2007

The Selfish, Secretive Mayor

Only those who don't truly know and understand the vengeful teenager who is known as Sam Sullivan are "puzzled" that The Nutty Mayor is trying to patent the word "ecodensity" for himself.
Sullivan holds about 50 patents for one thing or another. He has been applying for and registering patents by the score in the "disability" field for many years now.

Unlike my good friend and neighbour, Jim Foort, who has done more for prosthetics and amputees than almost anyone else alive these days, and who has NEVER taken out a patent for himself, Mayor Sam has always been all about Sam.

No mayor in living memory has operated so privately and so outside the boundaries of City Hall as Sullivan.

He is basically a new fiefdom, The County of Sam.

Ain't nothing political about taking out the trash

So what was originally a 5-second cut and paste post as I was flying out the door to demonstrate the lack of policy resources in the Mayor's office turned into a population ratio attack, I'll respond by posting this from the equivalently-sized-but-strong-Mayor-system- Seattle Mayor's office. A lot of them fall under Vancouver's Corporate Management Team, but 3 policy advisers, a speechwriter, and my favorite - "executive Protection" - shows a different priority on city resources.

I'd argue that this stems from Vancouver's still-imbedded-but-painfully-outdated notion of civic government as non-partisan and being solely concerned with efficiency and delivering services. Why does the Mayor need staff when the bureaucracy makes all the policy ecisions, right?

TIM CEIS - Deputy Mayor
KEN NAKATSU – Chief of Departmental Operations
REGINA LABELLE - Counsel to the Mayor
MARIANNE BICHSEL - Communications Director
EMELIE EAST- Council Relations
MARTY MCOMBER - Senior Communications & Policy Advisor
NICOLE SCHULTZ - Senior Speechwriter
MIKE MANN, Infrastructure Team Lead
JACKIE KIRN, Environment and Neighborhood Services Team Lead
DOUG CAREY, Public Safety Team Lead
MARILYN LITTLEJOHN, Human Services Team Lead
NATHAN TORGELSON, Community Development Team Lead
HADDIS D. TADESSE - Sr. Policy Advisor
VIET SHELTON - Sr. Policy Advisor
CLAUDIA ARANA - Community Development Policy Analyst
REBECCA HANSEN- Boards & Commissions Administrator
PAMELA GREEN - Director of Community Outreach
MICHAEL J. GILMORE - Community Outreach Liaison
KAREN KEEGAN - Executive Administrator
SUE NAKAMURA - Executive Assistant to the Mayor
SHARON THOMAS - Correspondence Manager
KIM GARRETT - Executive Assistant to Tim Ceis
KINDLE SHAW - Executive Assistant to Senior Policy Advisors, Council Relations and Counsel to the Mayor
MELIA BROOKS - Mayor's Scheduler
GRETCHEN CONRAD - Mayoral Assistant
SHAREE PIERCE - Community Outreach Liaison
ALLISON SCHWARTZ - Reception Desk
KRISTA LEIMBACHER- Office Aide
JOE BOUFFIOU AND RODNEY STOKES - Executive Protection to the Mayor

The Office

So Mayor Sam gets 3 staff paid for by the city, and then uses private money to hire an npa caucus liason. Compare that with the sweetness that is Toronto's Mayor's Office:

Personal Assistant
Gloria Melnick

Special Projects
Michael Booth

Reception
Dalton Jantzi

Executive Assistant
Bruce Scott

Administrative Assistant
Michelle Goland

Communications
Don Wanagas
Stuart Green

Senior Advisor, Waterfront Revitalization
John Piper

Senior Advisor, Planning, Licensing
Chris Phibbs

Policy Advisor, Transit
Brendan Agnew-Iler

Constituency
Karen Duffy
Joanne Miller

Executive Assistant
Jane Karwat

Administrative Assistant
Irene Schneider

Scheduling
Mitzi D’Souza
Matthew Lee

Senior Advisor, Climate Change
Mary MacDonald

Senior Advisor, Community Development, Recreation
Carmen Smith

Civic Engagement, Community Safety
Sylvia Searles Elam

Policy Advisor, Works
Mae Lee

Free downtown bus regulators...mount up

Just got back from a class trip to Seattle, where once again I had it pounded into my head that Vancouver is way behind in the times. Free buses in downtown Seattle. How long do we have to wait until Robson and Davie buses are free?

And as it was my first road trip in a while, our carpool had some battles over the music. Luckily nobody messed with me when I demanded we listen to Free Bird. But on the way back, I concocted my list of the best progressive urban studies-related songs:

Move to the city by Guns N Roses - a tale of how a lack of shelters for runaway youth can result in prostitution and fighting with the police

Back to Ohio by the Pretenders - lack of smart growth policies eats up green space with parking lots

Downtown by Neil Young - a vibrant urban core draws people to downtown tonight

Regulate - Warren G and Nate Dogg - urban city crime can be countered by a strong community presence and the development of friendship among habitants. Spin-off effect is support for small-business industry, as the protagonists follow up their crime fighting by enjoying a sex party at the eastside motel.

It's not easy reading Green

So Friday's Vancouver Courier was one for the ages. First, Phillip Owen publicly digs into Sam:

Owen's reply to Sullivan's approach came as a question.
"Appease Ottawa? Why? They like George Bush and the war on drugs. Lock 'em up and hang 'em high and often. I mean, gosh. Sam's kind of a got a little problem here with this issue. He's waffling around all the time."
Added Owen: "To try and suck up to the Harper government on harm reduction, I think is_ well what will I say? I better not say what I really want to say."

But my nominee for outstanding work in the field of James Green journalism goes to Mike Howell's lil' piece on Mr. Green's new book. Some of my favorite selections:

"To give Green's book any credibility is difficult since it is littered with spelling mistakes and incorrect names. Daisen Gee-Wing of Canadian Metropolitan Properties Corp. is "Dason Wong."

"Green also used Courier photographs of Sullivan and Vision's Green without the newspaper's permission."

"The most interesting part of the 217-page book, which is printed in large type and can be read in a couple of hours, is Green's background."

"I am not sure if any of the current councillors make the grade, but if some of the current people are re-elected, I will work with them to become members of the James Green Dream Team."

I like how he refers to himself as a team. That's classy. Also classy: using large font. I wonder if the foreword was written in wingdings and if there's a pullout poster of him in the middle....

Russian doll trojan horses

Today's lesson in civic politics: when my side wins it's because we worked hard, when your side wins it's because you stacked the meeting and didn't deserve it.

Ordinary tales of everyday political manipulation
COPE’s AGM takeover keeps Louis safely on the inside
by Reed Eurchuk

“Politricks” and anti-democratic manipulation were the order of the day at the COPE Annual General Membership [AGM] meeting on May 27. Local NDP MLAs, labour bureaucrats and civic NDP types teamed up to wipe out the COPE Classics.

- Ah yes, the no-one-is-as-pure-as-I-am argument. So by their classifications alone, the NDP, labour and civic NDP types are all "the enemy" because they opposed the COPE classics.

Strange, when that same group was voting down a unity agreement with Vision in the last election, there was no problem with their qualifications then. But since they don't agree with you anymore, that makes them your antagonist.

"The meeting was stacked with 50 or so pink-cheeked middle-class white kids who, with their family members, voted en masse for a slate: "the Group of Seven." "

"Only middle-class white kids can have the sense of entitlement that allows them to parachute a group in to control an executive board they have only had superficial involvement with."

- nothing firms up an argument quite like patronizing the other side. So what we learn from this is a) middle class and white means you're not as worthy to be part of the COPE memberhsip
b) middle class white kids that work for months to sign up members are stacking the meeting

So if the meeting was stacked with 50 of these people, and the vote count on the first ballot was 197-169, that means that 147 other COPE members also have this sense of entitlement. Presumably, they voted en masse because they are labour and ndp apparatchiks.

"On May 15, the day after Louis had sent his request, the VDLC had a regularly scheduled meeting with all delegates. The delegates were not told that the Executive had received the Louis request. Several delegates who wanted to raise the issue were not able, due to procedural formalities. Then, without any information regarding the alternative slate and without any forewarning, the VDLC Executive put forward a motion—which passed easily—endorsing the Group of Seven slate."

- one key point: whereas the group of 7 already had their slate organized, Tim Louis did not. Louis requested the VDLC to endorse his slate which at the time did not have any members on it. His slate was not announced until 4 days before the AGM. The VDLC is supposed to endorse a slate that they don't even know who is on it?

So the NDP, civic NDP-types, labour bureaucrats, the VDLC, Spencer Herbert, white kids with COPE membership: despite spurning Vision, organizing slates, signing up members, they're still not 'COPE' enough. Jesus, what is the COPE litmus test for these guys?

Just how are you supposed to have a 'coalition' when you constantly attack those that are within your coalition? It's like the trojan horse has morphed into those Russian dolls: everytime one of the dolls is cracked and leaves, there's another one to get rid of.

Puffy public private partnerships precursor to public passion pertaining to politically unpalatable private profit projects

I don't even know what that means, just thought I'd try.

With the juiceman's Cambie street business-help program being the media gift that keeps on giving, there seems to be a fair bit of discussion on the RAV (sorry, I mean the Patriot/Freedom/Canada) line. The mega-project to end all mega-projects has long been popular for left-of-centre of bashing, with reasons ranging from public money being spent on a project that provides huge private profits, to its P3 nature, to the fact that many don't see the Cambie route as a burning necessity to be built.

I won't argue with a lot of that. But I happen to think that in what is clearly a shades of grey case study, that there is one reason that trumps them all. And that is money spent on transit is a good thing.

There's been some revisionist history around the TransLink vote of late. A popular argument is that there was some decision to make it a P3. That's not the case: the funding from the federal gov, provincial gov, and airport authority was all contingent on the project being a P3. The TransLink vote was a yes or no scenario: does it get built with this money, or not?

I've heard some argue that all of the money from the other levels of government could be used on different forms of transit, like more buses or the evergreen line. But it wasn't going to be. Senior levels of government came together to decide that the millions of dollars would be used on a single project. Local government didn't have a say in where that money could also go. It was a take it or leave it vote.

With the dearth of money from other levels of govenrment being used on transit, I'm inclined to take it if it's on the table. If RAV had been voted down, that's hundreds of millions of dollars that with our current governments would be shuffled into high-end tax cuts or military spending.

And here's what was offered up, c/o the TransLink motion:

3.1.1 Government of Canada:
• In a letter dated April 15, 2004, the Government of Canada
advised that it would contribute $150M in nominal dollars,
equating to $135M in real 2003 dollars, in addition to the
$300M ($284M in real 2003 dollars) previously committed,
towards the RAV Project.

3.1.2 Province of British Columbia:
• Prior to the BAFO Stage, the Province confirmed that
$150M of its total $300M contribution was to be paid
during the operating period of the Concession Agreement,
with the remaining $150M to be available for milestone
payments during construction.

3.1.3 Vancouver International Airport Authority:

• The VIAA current funding commitment is $277M,
including its share of common costs, based on the current
proposed costs for the Airport Connector.

You swallow my drugs and I'll let you inject yours

Where was this 10 months ago? Why doesn't he bring forward a motion calling on council to support the Olympics while he's at it?

Mayor plans campaign to save injection site
Sam Sullivan to put forward motion to endorse 3 1/2-year extension of site

What this shows is that Sam is all about Sam. He didn't care about InSite until he knew that showing support would help him get CAST off the ground. This guy is an egomaniac who wants to fashion his own Phillip Owen-type story so he can have this as "his" drug project.

Thing was Owen did it over 9 years, Sullivan's trying to get his glory in 18 months. What a joke.

The boy is back in town

What a week. Who knew reading marxist interpretations of city development would take so much time? But now I'm out of the ivory tower and ready to get down to business. News round up!

New COPE Coming? Ian King explains why, with apologies to Peter Bjorn and John, we should care about the young folks. But he is obviously bought off by gambling interests because he takes some shots at Tim Louis.

Supplying legal drugs in pill form will allow city to close injection site, Sam Sullivan says
This hasn't really been a secret, but the fact that he came out and stated it, then backtracked, is news. For those not in the know, Sam wants his untested drug pill substitution program to replace InSite, because Harper and Sam's conservative friends don't like it - and he's been lobbying the government with that argument. He also declared this without going through council - which controls the city's drug policy - or the 4 Pillars coalition. So the Mayor unilaterally declared he wants to change the city's drug policy. Hear anything? It's the sound of corporate Liberals in the NPA grumbling as they deal with the same wedge issue that crumbled their political machine in 2002.

Garr also gets into Sam's one man vigilante stance on InSite here.

“The strength of our local economy requires the responsible fiscal management we are providing. We have frozen business taxes, produced surpluses and made important strategic investments in infrastructure,” said Councillor Peter Ladner. This little gem came from the NPA's 18 months of happiness report they launched last week. As soon as I get some time I'm going to crunch the numbers and beat the crap out of that argument. 'Fiscal responsibility'? 15% property tax in 18 months? When Tim Louis was running the city's finance committee, I think it reached 12% over 3 years. And with $13 million 3-1-1 coming on the books next year, good luck putting together a good times election-year budget, PL.

As far as the numbers crunching goes, I want to sink my teeth into the business tax shift. So business had 2% shifted onto residential, which works out to 4% for homeowners. now we all know that this was to help small businesses. But if I run a deli and you own the GAP on Robson, and we both get a 2% property tax decrease, who saves more money? So the money that the GAP, HMV or Chapters saves in property taxes is transferred onto homeowners. This is fiscal management?

Me thinks not.

I've got more entries coming, including a shout-out to my good friend Reed at the Republic (good to put a name to some of the comments) for his article in the newest Republic, but for now, it's back to work and class.

Does that make me working class? Talk amongst yourselves.