On Monday, March 31, the Park Board meeting will be looking at lease extensions for Prospect Point Café and Stanley Pavillion, hearing a presentation on the Stanley Park Cherry Grove Memorial, and considering a proposal for a new community garden at Kingcrest Park, located in the Cedar Cottage neighbourhood. The proposed Kingcrest Community Garden will have 20 allotment spaces, demonstration and pollinator gardens.

Speaking of bees, Park Board Commissioners will have the chance to debate a motion on “The Pollinator Project” – which, if passed, would direct staff to “develop strategies for supporting pollinators in priority Vancouver parks and streets as part of the Biodiversity Strategy and Urban Forest Strategy.”

Also in the meeting, a report on the upcoming 2014 Vancouver International Sculpture Biennale – and a proposal to keep works from the current Biennale in place throughout the duration of upcoming festival. The installations in question are Dennis Oppenheim’s “Engagement”, located in English Bay; Bernar Venet’s “217.5 Arcs” at Sunset Beach; and, Freezing Water #7 by Ren Jun, located at Vanier Park)

There are two other motions on the docket as well. The first relates to the scaling back of Canada Post service delivery. If passed, it would direct the Park Board Chair to “write a letter to the Mayor indicating the Park Board’s concerns with Canada Post’s plan.” The second item will be familiar to friends of VPSN, and is a complementary motion to City Council’s recent move to develop a strategy of no net loss of greenspace.

On April 1, 2014, City Council will be meeting for both a regular session of Council as well as a Public Hearing.

On the morning Council agenda, one item of note for the democratic dimensions of public space: a motion regarding the Federal Bill C-23, So-Called “Fair Elections Act.” If passed, the motion would direct the City (presumably the Mayor) to “write a letter to Vancouver Members of Parliament, the Minister of Democratic Reform and the Prime Minister stating opposition to Bill C-23.”

The afternoon’s Public Hearing is devoted to proposed bylaw changes coming out of the recently passed Downtown Eastside Local Area Plan. Under consideration are amendments to the Downtown Official Development Plan, the Downtown Eastside

Oppenheimer Official Development Plan and the Single Room Accommodation By-law, as well as various sections of the Zoning and Development By-law.

Next day, Tuesday, April 2, 2014, there’s a full agenda for the Planning, Transportation and Environment meeting of Council.

First up, a presentation and discussion on the Mayor’s Engaged City Task Force, and the final report and recommendations that emerged from their work. The VPSN wrote to Council in response to the Task Force’s earlier “Quick Start” report, and will be providing commentary on the final document as well. Stay tuned for that!

Next up, a series of reports on City grants for both Community Services (including neighbourhood houses, service agencies and other groups) and arts and culture organizations. If approved, the City will be investing approximately $6.5 million in operating, capital, project, childcare and rent subsidy grants for over 130 service agencies, as well as an additional $7.5 million in operating and project grants for arts and culture groups.

And to round things out, Council will be considering the Marpole Community Plan – the third of four current neighbourhood-scale planning initiatives. Like the recently passed West End and Downtown Eastside plans, this was also initiated in 2012. There are specific chapters on a number of public space items – streetscapes, parks and open space, public benefits, and more. The VPSN is currently reviewing this document and will be providing commentary to City Council in advance of the meeting. Check back on the blog to read our feedback!

Want to speak to any of these items? To find out how you can share your feedback with Council or Park Board – in person, or in writing – visit the City’s Council webpage.

The motion requested that City staff

investigate best practices, consult with the Mayor’s Engaged City Task Force, the City’s advisory committees and others, and report back to Council within two months with suggestions on how to improve citizens’ access to speak to City Council, including the possibility of allowing citizens to sign up for daytime or evening time periods, and the use of technology to alert speakers as to which number on the speakers’ list is being heard.

Here’s an excerpt from our letter:

“We feel that the City is making important strides in improving citizen engagement. In recent years there have been important advances in online engagement, civic processes and stakeholder consultations. Initiatives such as Talk Vancouver, Greenest City, Transportation 2040 and the Block 51 consultation process represent some of examples of the good work being done. The recruitment of an Engaged City Taskforce and staff devoted to civic engagement work are further milestones in this regard.

However, as we noted in our Route Map for Public Space Policy (2012-2014),

the various new tools and techniques that are being employed to gather ideas are hampered on two fronts: Council and Park Board meeting processes that require people to take time off work, or schedules key discussions at inaccessible times; and restricted scheduling in the release of key staff reports, whereby reports are released for public review with little more than one week time (and sometimes a lot less) for public review. These two areas represent key concerns that must be addressed.*

The motion being considered on October 8 responds to our first point of concern. Notwithstanding the important work that has taken place to date, we are supporting the motion because we feel that it addresses an area of shortfall: that is, the specific difficulties that many citizens face in speaking directly to Council during their deliberations. Improving opportunities for engagement at all stages of a given process is critical – but this is particularly the case when Council members are debating a given item – approving or amending policy, allocating resources and so forth. Speaking from our own organization experience, it is particularly challenging for people who have limited ability to take time off work (limited vacation, scheduling difficulties, childcare needs, etc.) to present to Council in a face-to-face format. It is more challenging still, given the often unpredictable nature of Council meetings – where discussions sometimes stretch over several meetings.

At the same time, it is precisely is type of face-to-face engagement that takes place in Council chambers that is so crucial to democratic dialogue. Letters and emails will only ever go part of the way to bridging the space between the citizenry and elected officials.

While we don’t have a solution to these issues, we would encourage some study of options to see what, if any, ways the current situation might be improved.

In conclusion, we would also like to acknowledge that the Engaged City Taskforce will be releasing a full report of their recommendations later in Fall 2013. We are looking forward to reviewing the recommendations contained in this document and note that it’s possible that some or all of the items referenced in the motion may be considered therein. However, given the importance of citizen engagement, we also wanted to take the opportunity today to signal our support for enabling greater and more meaningful participation in democratic process.”

* Our second point, referenced in the quote from our Route Map for Public Space Policy, is also worth noting – although it appears to be outside of the scope of the present motion. We’d suggest doubling the one-week advance release time for all staff reports being considered so that citizens have a better chance to find out about, read and respond to the items on which Council is deliberating).

Reference: The Vancouver Public Space Network’s Route Map for Public Space Policy was published in advance of the 2011 municipal election.