Candidate Profile – TOM DIGBY – #203
Top 3 priorities (from City of Vancouver Election webpage)
- Reduce carbon footprint
- Enhance biodiversity
- Prep for sea-level rise
Platform (from City of Vancouver Election webpage)
The climate emergency is the issue of our times. I believe the Park Board can take bold action in the fight. We need to 1) reduce our carbon footprint by climate-proofing facilities and improving park and field design; 2) keep our parks at the heart of our urban biodiversity strategy by enhancing pollinator corridors and tree canopy; and 3) encourage shoreline improvements to accommodate sea-level rise. Reconciliation with First Nations underlies all our work.
2022 Park Board Candidate Questions
1. You’re speaking to a friend from out of town, and they ask for a quick overview of “where things are at” with Vancouver’s parks and recreation facilities. What do you say?
I tell my friends that Vancouver easily has the most outstanding urban parks and recreation in North America, perhaps the world. The combination of Stanley Park, QE Park, Van Dusen/Bloedel and the stunning beaches with mountain views are utterly unique in the world. After pausing for dramatic effect, I then say there is a lot we can do to improve the parks. Our parks and rec facilities are suffering under the climate emergency. We need to reduce the carbon footprint of our parks not just aiming for net-zero operational carbon, but by using lower carbon materials in construction. And we need to keep our parks at the heart of our urban ecosystem. Parks are a vital source for pollinator corridors, and migratory pathways inside the city. These are the primary values of our Park system that we need to promote and encourage.
2. The topic of equity features heavily in both VanPlay (the Parks Board Masterplan) and the recently approved Vancouver Plan. What’s your take? Does Vancouver’s park system need to be more equitable and accessible? If yes, what changes would you propose and/or prioritize to make this happen?
Yes, the park system needs to be more equitable and accessible. The Park Board has identified specific areas of the city which are underserved with public spaces, parks and recreation facilities. We must resist the neighbourhood pressure groups seeking specific assets (swimming pools or skating rinks) when there are other, perhaps less organized areas, which are clearly in need due to population growth. The word “accessible” in this question is somewhat ambiguous. Regarding people with mobility challenges, we must make our parks accessible and enhance access opportunities for those with mobility challenges. “Accessible” also means that we need to minimize financial barriers for those residents who have financial challenges.
3. As a general principle, should parks aim to accommodate cycling paths within their boundaries? What are your thoughts on bikes and bike lanes in parks? (Please note: this is not specifically a question about Stanley Park).
Parks definitely need cycling paths to and within them. However cycling paths in parks should be for local in-park experience and should not typically be commuter routes. Commuter routes should be encouraged outside of parks, like regular car commuter routes. Regarding Stanley Park specifically, the report I read showed that the new interior bike-lane had created some issues for park users, particularly those with mobility issues, and a variety of other conflicts. But it seems to me that those issues can be resolved with specific improvements, and on balance having the new bike lane is a valuable asset. I will wait for the final mobility report before confirming my views.
4. What role, if any, do you see the Park Board playing in responding to the needs of people experiencing homelessness/houselessness and encampments?
I’m a lawyer and I understand the law that people sheltering in Parks are legally allowed to remain there until the city can prove there is safe and adequate housing for them elsewhere. The park staff is already engaged in low conflict trauma-informed support services for park dwellers. This must continue until the city can establish safe and adequate supportive housing, such as tiny houses, temporary modular and permanent alternatives. The tone set by the PB should not encourage people to shelter in parks. But leaving the parks should be voluntary, when safe and adequate housing comes available.
5. Should Vancouver’s parks and recreation facilities play a part in supporting climate resilience or ecosystem restoration? If yes, how?
The climate emergency is the issue of our times. It is the over-arching context in which I place all the decisions I will make as a commissioner. How does that translate to specific actions? For me, we need to ensure our park facilities are designed for net-zero carbon generation. Further, they must be constructed from materials with the lowest embodied carbon emissions. The new $140m Vancouver Aquatics Centre is an opportunity to showpiece these criteria.
6. Is having a Board of Parks and Recreation the best way to govern and manage Vancouver’s park system? If yes, why? If not, what would you propose in its place?
Historically, the PB was established in 1887 to protect Stanley Park from being sold for urban development by unscrupulous city councillors. While this risk is largely eliminated, the elected PB still provides a valuable democratic opportunity for citizens to engage on issues closest to their personal needs and experiences – parks and recreation. This is valuable for democracy. And a real asset. Some say PB should be abolished. I tell them that there are much greater governance issues in our region (e.g. regional amalgamation). If we want to talk about governance, let’s focus on these broader regional issues.
7. What, if anything, do you think the Park Board should do to support/facilitate community activation/events and stewardship of park spaces and facilities?
Volunteerism is the core of civic responsibility. The PB needs to support, expand and connect with volunteers and community activities and community stewardship. Where roles are permanent and lose that quality of volunteerism, then we need to convert them to properly paid staff/union positions. But the PB should aim to enable a large role for community initiated events.
8. In the past few years, the Park Board has taken steps towards reconciliation, decolonization, and co-management with MST First Nations. Would you continue this work? If yes, how?
Yes, I believe the parks system should be co-managed with the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations. I also recognize that there is a vocal minority of residents who reject this, and who might use co-management to blame the First Nations for poor park services. Reconciliation requires privileging indigenous perspectives without creating new avenues of criticism from hostile settler populations. I would continue this work by negotiation with First Nations.
9. If you could make changes to one park in the city – which park is it, and what would you do?
I would revert the name of Sunset Beach (Barge Chilling Beach) to the original Squamish name which I understand to be Y-ilyshen (trans: “muddy foreshore”).
10. Is there anything else you would like to share about yourself or your platform?
I first began to understand the significance of Public Space as a concept during my 4 years as a Commissioner with the Vancouver City Planning Commission (2001-2004). I realize now how powerful public spaces are for community building.
Biography and Contact
Biography (City of Vancouver Election Webpage)
Intellectual property lawyer. Scientist. Dad with two daughters. Renter.
Tom takes a triple bottom line view (financial, social and environmental) of budgeting and policy-making. He served four years as a volunteer member of the Vancouver City Planning Commission.
Contact
Email: tom.digby@vangreens.ca
Website: www.vangreens.ca/tom_digby
Twitter: @ThomasDigby1