It’s a good time not to be driving a car downtown. Critical Mass has just started rolling down Howe Street and a few scant blocks away a march for trans-rights is making it’s way east towards Seymour.

The weather has turned friendly again. A good time for some public space fun. Saturday sees the first Celebration of Lights take place. A few hours after the last fireworks fade another explosion of colour will unfold with the pageantry of the Pride Parade (vancouverpride.ca).

Add to that some nice opportunities to scribble laser graffiti on a cop shop (see elsewhere in the blog or check out our location map), some fancy Viva Vancouver events (vancouver.ca/viva), farmers markets (eatlocal.ca) and fun at Robson Square (robsonsquare.ca)… and you’re set for good times in public space.

Bon appetit!

Petition Table. Photo by BlueandWhiteArmy.

A few moments ago the VPSN submitted a follow-up letter Mayor and Council detailing our review of the latest report on regulating political speech. Suffice it to say, despite some minor progress in removing the $1,000 deposit and $200 fees, the bulk of the City’s proposed amendments to the Street and Traffic bylaw are highly problematic. 

We produced a short parable this morning to explain in real terms what the proposed additions to the Bylaw will mean for street politics in Vancouver. The following letter offers a response to the specifics of the amendments. 

There’s lots going on this weekend, but we encourage you all to take a few moments to read up on this issue. It will be debated in front of Council on Tuesday morning (at the Planning & Environment meeting). If you’re interested in speaking at this meeting you can find the instructions on how to do so here. You can also find a useful comparison of the various bylaw changes that were proposed here.

Here’s the body of our letter to Council:

“[We] begin by noting, again, that we are extremely concerned about the rapid-fire way that this legislation is being drafted. A first iteration was released on April 6, providing the public with barely 24 hours to review it prior to going to Council at the April 7 Planning and Environment meeting. This latest version, building nominally on the feedback that was provided at that session, was released yesterday at 10:30am – providing a sum total of five days for response. This is patently unacceptable and is being undertaken on the false premise that revised legislation has to be in place by April 19. 

As we noted in our previous letter the City has the option of requesting an extension from the Court of Appeal to resolve outstanding issues. To this end we will make the same entreaty we did a few days ago: instruct your legal council to request an extension without further delay. It will cost nothing, will build good faith in a process tainted with justifiable cynicism and, most importantly, allow for meaningful input to be gathered from stakeholders.

Our comments on the specifics of the bylaw are identified below. 

At the onset, I begin by noting that you have chosen to re-reframe the bylaw around the issue of ‘public political expression’ versus ‘non-commercial public expression.’ Our understanding from the April 6 report was that staff had found it difficult to articulate the boundaries of political expression and had, as a result, resorted to the broader “non-commercial” term. The VPSN would like to request clarification on the rationale on this change, as well insight into any changes to (or refinements of) the City’s definition of political expression. This will have important consequences for the application of the bylaw.

Before getting to our substantive concerns, I would also like to take this opportunity to note two positive improvements that have been made in the current amendments:

• The removal of the $1,000 deposit and $200 in permit fees
• The removal of the requirement for a transportation plan

These two items represent a move in the right direction. 

Beyond this, the latest amendments remain highly problematic and exclusionary, continue to marginalize legitimate forms of public political expression, and now insert a penalty structure for non-compliance that ranges between $1,000 and $5,000 (the sort of fine commonly associated with social problems like driving while impaired, bribery, and assault).

Rather than wade into the legalese of the document, let’s consider a few points about what the current bylaw amendments will have the potential to do. As currently crafted, they will: 

• unnecessarily conflate large protest structures (those which might realistically create an undue obstruction or safety issue) with smaller “structures, substances or objects” such as tables, chairs, props, display boards, knapsacks, boxes of leaflets, art supplies, banners (furled or unfurled), and a range of other items which may be used to facilitate political expression;
• eliminate the possibility of people responding to the key ‘issues of the day’ in a nimble and timely fashion. An issue that is “hot” deserves the opportunity for a petition table the same day, if need be. The present requirements for a formal application process, construction drawings, and waivers, mean that an important opportunity for spontaneous response to key issues will be lost;
• eliminate the opportunity for facilitated political expression after 8pm, or in residentially zoned areas (other than immediately in front of a consulate).
• disallow any “structure, object or substance” that is taller than 1.3 meters, or more than 1.6 metres wide, or more than 1.0 meter deep, or is larger than 1.6 square meters. These figures represent significant reductions from the already onerous size ‘cut-off’ recommendations contained in the April 6 report. These limitations would constrain the use of a range of banners, umbrellas and tables (including the standard six foot table used by City staff at outdoor events).

Needless to say, these are significant problems that will have a measurable impact in shutting down facilitated political expression in this city. While it is true that other options exist (standing on your feet for several hours, clipboard in hand) these are options that are unduly limiting to political expression (particularly for the frail, the aged, younger people, persons with disabilities). More to the point, they are onerous enough to take the application of this bylaw well outside of the realm of public safety and street access – the two areas wherein the City’s attention is legitimately warranted.

In addition to the points above, we would once again request that the City make the follow changes:

(1) Change the bylaw wording to reflect recognition of different sized structures, objects or substances. The Street and Traffic bylaw should not attempt to legislate things like small petition tables, chairs, knapsacks, etc or many of the other items that are being at threat of being cinctured by the sweep of these proposed amendments. Rather, the prime focus should be on ensuring larger structures are not unsafe and do not unduly block pedestrians flow. Some size definitions are warranted, but we would submit that they are not those in the present document.

(2) Ensure structures for political expression do not unduly impede the use of public space. In particular, affirm no structure of any size should unduly (a) obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic; (b) interfere with utilities; (c) and (d) interfere with the use of street furniture or other structures; (e) or interfere with City works. But note that “unduly” should be defined in a way that is consistent with the allowances that the City makes for siting bus shelters, food carts, a-frame signs, newspaper boxes, etc. (i.e. political messaging should be allowed reasonable placement within or adjacent to sidewalk space, but should not block pedestrians). Recall that where free expression is concerned, some inconvenience may be “due”. Insomuch as the issue of fines is concerned, where structures do unduly impede public space ensure that the first line of response by the City is a verbal warning.

(3) Permit duration and renewal. While we note that the revised amendments lengthen the amount of time allowed per permit from 30 to 60 days, this figure still appears to be arbitrary. We recommend removing this provision all together.

(4) Locational considerations – safety at street side. Ensure that large and small structures are placed in a safe location, and are structurally sound. Maintain requirements around curb-to-structure distance, setbacks from building entrances, bus stops, street intersections, etc. but consider reducing the minimum setback from five metres to three meters. Again, maintain requirements around sound construction, safe repair and emergencies.

(5) Locational considerations – zoning. Eliminate the proposed Schedule F (p.6), which effectively eliminates political communication in residential zoned areas where no consulate exists. Opportunities for facilitated political expression should be available in all zones in the city for a simple reason: political issues exist in every neighbourhood.

In closing, I note that the City seems comfortable with something they are terming a “pragmatic risk based” approach to bylaw enforcement. As we understand it, this basically translates as “we may make a law but don’t necessarily enforce it.” We would submit that this is an untenable position from which to initiate the creation of legislation as it tacitly endorses selective enforcement. As a consequence, it has the potential to translate as “if we like you, you’re ok. If not, you’re hooped.” 

Everyone understands that, for a variety of reasons, laws don’t always get enforced. However, to make this your starting point suggests that something is seriously problematic. If these proposed bylaw amendments are not worth enforcing – and in this case they’re most certainly not – then we would suggest that the City’s rationale for withdrawing them is already self evident.

As we stated in our first letter, part of what makes a city lively and desirable as a place to live is its spontaneity. The most exciting cities always have a sense of the unexpected about them, often flowing from political and artistic expression in public spaces. The latest amendments continue to represent a significant over-reach as far as appropriate regulation is concerned. We urge to take immediate steps to correct this situation.”

Like many people in Vancouver you’re interested in the various goings on that take place around town. Community issues are important to you. You vote. Unlike you’re colleague at work, you’re aware that there are actually a few elections going on this year. You manage to volunteer a few hours here and there (different organizations) and do your piece to be as engaged as you can. You try to find time. You lament the decline in civic participation that you keep hearing about.

You’ve got issues you really care about too. Perhaps you’re passionate about resolving homelessness, or keen on promoting sustainability. Maybe you’re eager for action and want to do more to make your community ‘the Greenest Neighbourhood in Vancouver.’ Maybe women’s issues are a concern. Or perhaps it’s salmon farming, or community gardens, or the HST, or human rights, or advocacy for a living wage, or for protection and services for the mentally ill. There are, after all, no shortage of things to be passionate about.

And say – just to carry the story on – you’re sitting at home this time next week and you happen to flip through your local paper and see a story about your issue. It’s a compelling story, catching your eye in an instant. Something big is going down. It’s unexpected. You wonder: is this for real? People need to know about this. Pronto.

After you jet off the requisite emails to your friends and fellow-supporters, you drum your fingers on the kitchen table and take a deep breath. You realize that what you really need is connect with everyone else – not through more time on-line, but by getting out and talking with your fellow citizens.

And so you decide to do something really brave. You pull out that dusty card table from the closet and gather up an old wooden crate to use as a seat. Loading them into your cargo bike you ride along the new separated bike lane the crosses downtown, and head for Robson Street and the good ol’ Art Gallery. It’s a warmish afternoon, and you’ve decided you’re going to spend a couple of hours gathering petitions… because City Council needs to know that people are interested in this issue.

You’ve never done this sort of thing before, and at first you find approaching people harder than you had imagined. So many people seem to keep on walking, barely noticing you. (Barely noticing anything, you think to yourself). People with faces pressed in their phones, oblivious to the world around them. People laughing and talking with their friends.

But you persevere and get a few folks stopping. And then a few more. They hear you out and jot their names down and thank you for your efforts. Gradually you find yourself heartened at being able to engage with so many people. And after an hour or so, you find you’re better at it too. You’ve found your voice. The discussions that you have are good ones, and even some of those phone-using folks have stuck around to chat.

And then, as so often happens, time flies by. It’s later than you thought and you’re about to pack up and head home for supper when out of the blue, a group of walking tour participants happen upon your table. They saw you earlier and decided to return to ask you en masse about the issue. There are quite a few of them – all eager!

You envision another sheet of signatures to show the Mayor… wishing that you still some water in your refillable bottle. You pause for a second, throat feeling a little parched. But then – what the heck – this is what it’s all about! You smile… and in a flash of inspiration you pull out the old crate and stand on it to project a little better. It’s probably the first time in recent memory that someone actually has stood on an old soap box to get their message out. But this is Vancouver, you think. We’re good that way.

Well we are, aren’t we?

When the bylaw officer approached you, just after you finished with the walking tour (15 more signatures!), he had a ticket pad drawn. You were puzzled.

By the time he was finished, you found yourself with over $1,000 in fines – and a warning that it could have been a lot worse (“up to $5,000,” said the officer in a be-thankful-I’m-a-nice-guy voice). You found out that both your table and crate counted as “structures” under the City’s system of bylaws and that, unbeknownst to you, the City required a permit for their use (“probably for both” said the officer, though he wasn’t sure). Strike one. And to think, the table was barely big enough to eat dinner off of.

To make matters worse, as the Bylaw Officer was writing your ticket up he tapped on his watch and noted that you were also using your crate and table after 8pm. This too was a problem (“no,” he sighed, “it doesn’t matter if it’s still light out.”). You realized that there were grounds for more fines if you didn’t shut up. Strike Two.

And then the kicker. You found out that if you were to follow the rules for your petition table, that you would have had to fill out a formal application form, submit dimensioned construction drawings, and then have the whole thing approved by City staff in advance. All for a one-person political project using a card table and crate. So much for spontaneity. The ball goes whizzing past. There’s not point in even swinging the bat. You pack up and head home. You’re out.

You’ve got your packet of signatures but it cost you $1,000, a hefty loss of morale. And to what greater good, you wonder, does that calculus lead.

A very good question indeed.

A quick recap: on April 6 City staff released a report that suggested amendments to the Street and Traffic Bylaw that would allow for regulation of “any structure, object, substance or thing” used in “non-commercial public expression.” We published our concerns about this report here, and then provided a detailed follow-up to the City outline the specific issues we had with the bylaw.

We are currently assessing the revisions and will report back shortly. 

On the encouraging side:

• The proposed $1,000 deposit and $200 permit fee has been removed
• The requirement for a transportation plan has been removed

At the same time there are a couple of definitional changes that have emerged, as well as a set of fines for non-compliance (min $1,000 – max $5,000).

On the wording side… First, the broad definition of “public expression” has been constrained, in this iteration, to “political expression.” (Suffice it to say, this will likely create challenges of interpretation down the road). 

Second, the definition of ‘structure’ appears to be further refined – and we’ll be looking closely at the wording of the bylaw to see how this might affect public expression. Our initial read suggests that there are still difficulties in this report as it expressely states “a person must not build, construct, place, maintain, occupy, or cause to be built… any structure, object, or substance which is an obstruction to the free use of such street” without first applying to the City for a permit. This suggests that a range of activities – small petition tables, demonstration props, etc. – will still require official sanction before they can appear on City streets. Our hope with this process, is that the City will better recognize a distinction between large and small structures so as to allow the sorts of things that do not provide undue interference with the free use of the street. Undue, here is a key word.

There are a number of other items that we’ll be looking at on this one. Look for a longer post on the subject in the next 24 hours.

In the meanwhile, here’s the City press release:

Revised bylaw for structures for political expression on public streets

A proposed bylaw for permitting and regulating structures on city streets for political expression has been redrafted and will come before City Council on April 19. The bylaw includes a number of revisions to address concerns raised by the public and members of Council at its meeting April 7, 2011. The amended report and the accompanying proposed bylaw is designed to enable and facilitate the use of structures on city streets for the purpose of political expression, following direction as set out by the BC Court of Appeal.

Revisions in the proposed bylaw include:

• Allowing for street structures for political expression to be permitted outside consulates which are conducting business in residential areas
• The elimination of a $200 registration fee and $1000 refundable deposit
• The removal of the requirement for a transportation plan
• Modifying the need for a structure to have continuous attendance.

The provisions being proposed would legally enable opportunities to use structures on city streets for political expression. Staff have reviewed the relevant by-laws of many other jurisdictions in Canada and the United States including Victoria, Surrey, Calgary, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, and Washington D. C. None of their bylaws permit structures for the purpose of political expression on public streets. The proposed bylaw will be unprecedented in North America.

The report with the proposed bylaw can be viewed at: http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20110407/penv20110407ag.htm

CELEBRATE

• Wednesday, May 4 – Turn V (with us)

ENGAGE

• An Expanded Robson Square – On the Cusp of a (Lost?) Opportunity?
• Structures for Public Expression – Street Politics in Vancouver

VPSN & RELATED EVENTS

• Friday, April 8 – A City of Sustainable Neighbourhoods: how do we get there?
• Saturday, April 16 – VPSN Guerrilla Gardening Planting Event!!
• Tuesday, April 19 – VPSN Transportation Meeting
• Tuesday, May 17 – The next 125 years? An Urban Framework for Vancouver

VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES

• VPSN Leadership Opportunities Available
• Projects That Need a Hand…

OTHER EVENTS

• Sunday, April 10 – Discover Downtown by Bike

CELEBRATE PUBLIC SPACE

Wednesday, May 4 – Turn V (with us)Time flies! In May 2011, the Vancouver Public Space Network turns five whole years old. It seemed like only yesterday we were setting up that first meeting at the Roundhouse!

 Naturally, there’s only one appropriate response to this sort of thing: PARTY TIME!!!

 Please mark your calendars and plan to join us at the Bayside Lounge (Davie and Denman) as we celebrate this very special anniversary. We’ll be sending out a formal invitation very shortly and we’d be honoured if you’d come on out for the occasion.

:: Facebook event page

ENGAGE

An Expanded Robson Square – On the Cusp of a (Lost?) Opportunity

An update on the expansion of Robson Square (with thanks to the many of you who keep asking about it). As you’ll recall, in December of last year City Council passed a motion that directed City staff to look into the creation of “major public square at 800 Robson Street to coincide with Vancouver’s 125th Anniversary.”

Those of you who have had the chance to walk along the recently re-paved and car-free street may have gotten a taste of the possibilities that exist in this space. Imagine – the nice setting of the Art Gallery, buskers, a market, street musicians and more. It’s the perfect place for a gathering space of this sort. And the timing, given the Province’s renovations to the street, is near-perfect.

Sadly, we recently learned that this won’t likely be happening this year. In the course of proposing some summertime programming on the site, we’ve been told by the City that Translink is quite concerned about any closure of the 800-block. Our thoughts? Be strong on this one City! There are lots of ways to tackle the transit challenges that may exist. 

More to the point, we feel that would represent a significant lost opportunity for the city – and that an important opportunity to close the space, or to even extend the temporary closure of the space while consultation and transit planning work takes place – is about to be given up.

If you have a few moments this weekend consider taking 5 minutes to write a short letter copied to Ian Jarvis, Translink CEO [mailto:ian.jarvis@translink.ca] and Mayor Gregor Robertson [mailto:gregor.robertson@vancouver.ca]. Your letters of support for the closure of the 800-block were part of the reason Council voted to support the idea. 

:: VPSN Flickr Set – Robson Square

Structures for Public Expression – Street Politics in Vancouver

It was an interesting time at the Planning and Environment meeting of City Council yesterday. On Wednesday, we published a story on how staff had come up with a plan to regulate political expression involving “any structure object, substance or thing.” Later that day, we issued a joint press release with the BC Civil Liberties Associate, saying that we were opposed to this proposal on a number of grounds.

The tenor of the discussion yesterday – which you can watch here was fascinating. Our read? There was a tone of defensiveness that seemed to pervade much of the dialogue, and the exchange between the small number of speakers that had a chance to present and Council was at times nearly combative. We are quite concerned about this issue. A suggestion that the new proposal is “innovative” and ‘enables’ political expression – as was claimed in the City presentation – shows what we feel is a lack of understanding about why the City recently lost a recent Court of Appeal case on this issue. 

We strongly encourage you to read up on this matter. The session yesterday was reconvened to April 19 to hear from more speakers, so there’s still time for you to have your voice heard.

:: More information – VPSN Blog

VPSN & RELATED EVENTS

Friday, April 8 – A City of Sustainable Neighbourhoods: how do we get there?

The Vancouver City Planning Commission invites you to an evening of exploration and celebration of what the idea of a sustainable neighbourhood means to Vancouver citizens. How can neighbourhoods best contribute to the evolution of a sustainable Vancouver? How can the City help neighbourhoods become more sustainable and livable? The VPSN will be there and making a presentation, what else, public space. The event takes place 7-10pm (Registration: 6:30 pm). Vancouver Public Library Conference Centre (lower level) 350 West Georgia Street, Alice MacKay Room 

Saturday, April 16 – VPSN Guerrilla Gardening Planting Event!!

Fancy a bit of city-greening work? Join us next Saturday at 3pm – 4pm for some top secret planting work. You’ll need to bring supplies if you can! That means round up any shovels, gloves, etc. that you can get your hands on. We could also use some durable plants, so if anyone has any then please bring them or contact us and we can arrange to pick them up. Please bring a $1-5 donation for participation and other supplies. This is an inclusive event – everyone is welcome! Exact location details revealed upon registration.

:: For more information – leita [at] vancouverpublicspace.ca

Tuesday, April 19 – VPSN Transportation Meeting

Interested in transportation issues – walking, biking, transit and more? Join the VPSN Transportation team as they meet to strategize on new projects and on-going work. New ideas and new members welcome. Meeting starts at 6:00pm, location TBD.

:: For more information – demian [at] vancouverpublicspace.ca

Tuesday, May 17 – The Next 125 years? An Urban Framework for Vancouver

Join us for an evening of big picture thinking. The VPSN is pleased to host a special presentation by Senior Urban Designer Scot Hein and the students of UBC SALA. Hein, together with Professor Patrick Condon, conducted a workshop in the Fall of 2010 that was premised on the creation of a plan for the future of the City. The plan sought to account for projected demographic changes in Vancouver, an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases, emerging best practices, such as district energy, all while connecting the city with the desirable urban systems – such as localized places for all neighborhoods/communities and electrified transportation. Location TBD. More details to follow.

VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES

VPSN Leadership Opportunities Available

Hey – you’ve got the chops don’t you? Passionate about public space, eager to help plan and coordinate projects, mobilize volunteers… make change in the city?

We have a few openings for coordinators right now and we’re looking for sharp, savvy, strategists who are willing to commit beyond one-project activity. 

Our wish list: some game-changers who can help us amp up campaigns around pedestrian issues, cycling and public transit, parks and urban design.

Projects That Need a Hand…

Hornby Bike Activation and Bike Music Festival

The separated lanes are ready for their spring activation. The sun has come out (a little) and we want the cyclists to come out too. Got energy and ideas around getting bums on bikes on Hornby and the other fab downtown lanes? Bike on over here!

Hastings Park Consultation Involvement

One of the city’s biggest parks, and a cultural/historical icon in many ways, the City is looking for input on the paths and greenspaces through Hastings Park. The VPSN is looking for folks that want to take some of the teams’ thoughts on this and interact in the process.

Feeding Vancouver’s Soul

The final phase of our esteemed Where’s the Square Competition, we aim to animate Robson Square to enliven it like the winning submissions from the contest. Centred around local food, urban farming and good old fashioned eating together, we need help pulling off this showcase of successful public plazas.

Newsletter & Blog Editor(s)

We’ve got lots to say, but man! we need someone to make better sense of it (and fix our grammar). Got editor eyes? We want you!

:: For more information – Erin [at] vancouverpublicspace.ca

OTHER EVENTS

Sunday, April 10 – Discover Downtown by Bike

Good times with our friends at the Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition. Themed bike route maps will be distributed to visit all sorts of fun shops, attractions, and art through downtown, including promotions from Sun Yat-Sen Gardens and Panz Veggie Restaurant.

Meet at Starbucks at Hornby and Dunsmuir for a free coffee. Gather at 1:00 for take off at 1:30. (Oh, and Aveda will be there giving free hand massages).

:: More information – www.discoverbybike.ca

UPDATES:

• April 7, 2011 - VPSN Newsletter – Discussion of “Structures” debate at City Council (blog)
• April 12, 2011 – VPSN Letter to Mayor Robertson & City Council on proposed “Structures” bylaw amendments (blog) (pdf)

MEDIA RELEASE: Wednesday, April 6, 2011

VANCOUVER – The Vancouver Public Space Network (VPSN) and BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) are jointly calling on the City of Vancouver to reject proposed changes to the City’s Street and Traffic Bylaw.

The amendments, outlined in a staff report on “Public Expression” would serve to constrain political activity in the City by requiring upwards of $1,200 in upfront fees and permitting costs for any political or non-commercial activity that utilizes a “structure, object, substance or thing” in the course of message making.

The proposed changes will be bundled into the existing Street and Traffic bylaw. They are the result of a court case in which the City lost in its attempt to limit Falun Gong protests in front of the Chinese consulate.

The proposed amendments do not expressly ban structures and other “things,” but makes it highly impractical for certain kinds of demonstrations to go forward because of limitations that include

• A refundable security of $1,000 for removal of the structure;
• A maximum of four demonstration permits per year;
• Payment of $200 application fee to cover costs of application review ($50 fee for permit renewal of same structure and location);
• A guarantee that there will be no structures on city streets between 8pm and 8am.

According to Andrew Pask, Director of the VPSN, “these proposed amendments could constrain everything from anti-HST tables to salmon-farming displays to anti-war vigils… anything, in essence, that utilizes more than a placard to help get the message out.”

According to Micheal Vonn, Policy Director of the BCCLA, “the new process would prove to be a major impediment to a whole array of voices – smaller organizations, unfunded initiatives, poverty activism, grassroots tabling activities, and a spectrum of the sort of important messaging that we need in a democratic society.”

The proposed report is available online at http://vancouver.ca and will be debated tomorrow, Thursday, April 7, 2011 at 2:00pm at the City Services and Budget meeting, City Hall, 453 West 12th Avenue.

– 30

Falun Gong in Vancouver – Photo by K. Nicoll

It’s hard to believe something of this calibre was only made publicly available one day before it goes in front of City Council.

Tomorrow, Councillors will be considering a proposal to regulate political expression by requiring permit fees and deposits totalling $1,200 for any political activity that utilizes “a structure.” The report was posted on the City website sometime within the last 24 hours.

What’s a structure you ask? It’s not specifically defined. The report mentions the Falun Gong protest in front of the Chinese consulate as a precursor to the proposed amendments. (In this, the protesters utilized a large, weatherproofed, shed of sorts. The City tried to get this structure removed and lost a court case on constitutional grounds.)

But the changes being proposed now, which will be bundled into the Street and Traffic Bylaw, go far beyond the Falung Gong situation. A close read of the newly proposed amendments, suggest the intent is to cover any “structure, object, substance or thing” used in political expression. That’s a frighteningly ambiguous statement.

Another thing — although the report initially attempts to frame the discussion in terms of “protests” (undefined) it later acknowledges that the concepts of political expression are broad and difficult to regulate. To resolve this, it proposes to amend the bylaw to cover all activities that communicate “non-commercial public expression.” Think Anti-HST tables, salmon-farming displays, anti-war vigils… anything that utilizes something more than a placard to help get the message out. (Though, frankly, don’t placards count as “things”?)

So in sum, the proposal being contemplated will set up a system to regulate “all non-commercial public expression” that utilizes “any structure, object, substance or thing.” Take a moment to read that sentence again.

Now, to be clear, the proposed amendments won’t be banning these things. The report claims to be broadly supportive of protests and political expression. But it will create some pretty interesting limitations. If your political efforts are such that you require the use of a structures or objects or substances or thing, you’ll need to get approval first. And this will be conditional – because you’ll first need to provide

• A refundable security of $1,000 for removal of the structure,
• a release and indemnity of the City
• payment of $200 application fee to cover costs of application review ($50 fee for permit renewal of same structure and location)
• A guarantee that there will be no structures (etc.etc.) on city streets between 8pm and 8am.

not to mention a formal application process, sign-off by City officials and a number of other guarantees.

Setting aside the principles of regulating political expression like this, it strikes us that $1,200 in upfront fees, the application process, and the other considerations contained herein, will prove to be a big impediment to a whole array of voices – smaller organizations, unfunded initiatives, poverty activism, grassroots tabling activities, and a spectrum of the sort of important messaging that we need in a democratic society.

Ironically, the report claims that the City’s intent is to create and “innovative program that will facilitate free political expression on City streets.”(p3) Go figure.

Another kicker – the report suggests that the proposed bylaw changes are intended to support a number of goals, including the following:

• Promoting public non commercial expression
• Preserving the city’s character
• Preventing unsightliness
• Minimizing distractions to traffic
• Protecting public safety
• Minimizing detrimental impacts on city businesses
• Minimizing interference with public utilities and transit
• Protecting the city from liability and costs
• Ensuring adequate vehicular, pedestrian and emergency access to streets
• Protecting use and enjoyment of private property

One could explore these considerations in detail, but suffice to say, it’s interesting that “unsightliness,” “distraction” and the preservation of “character” are used as justifications for something that will ultimately serve to limit expressions. After all, isn’t it exactly the point that political expression is meant to gather attention and draw it to the ‘cause’ – however unpalatable that may be?

A rationale such as is contained in the above list, reveals more than it purports. It’s an autobiography of civic anxiety. More to the point, it seems to make an entreaty to manage and sanitize any messages that might shake Vancouverites out of their everyday comfort zone.

You can read the report here. It’s going to be debated at the City Services and Budgets Meeting tomorrow, April 7, at 2:00pm.

Consider signing up to have your voice heard on this one… before you need a permit to do so.

Addendum

To get on the speakers list for tomorrow’s Council meeting

1. Call the City Clerk’s Office at 604.873.7276, or
2. E-mail your request to mayorandcouncil@vancouver.ca

Other details about speaking to Council can be found on the City’s website here.

As people concerned about the health of our public life, we are excited for the good work done each year by the Media Democracy team. As the year winds down and we reflect on the events of 2010 (The Olympics, the G20 in Toronto, etc) it is important to recognize where and when media has narrowed democratic discourse, and where it has fostered more meaningful public discussion. Victor attended a panel on “Global Protest and Media” that examined the relationship between global protests and media representation.

“Ever since the Seattle WTO demonstrations in 1999, global protests have become a part of the mainstream mediaís image bank. Whether covering the recent G20 protests in Toronto, or opposition to the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic Games, the mainstream media have, for most of the past decade, painted citizen activism and engagement with the same brush. What are the shortcomings of mainstream media representations of protest and negotiation at global marquee events such as the G20 and the Olympics? How are alternative and independent media re-writing this story to make it more diverse?”

The panel was helmed by Stuart Poyntz, Assistant Professor at the SFU School of Communication and consisted of David Eby, Founder of PIVOT Legal Society and Executive Director of the BC Civil Liberties Association, Cathryn Atkinson, editor for Rabble.ca, Issac K. Oommen, editor of the Vancouver Media Co-op and Irwin Oostinde, Executive Director of W2 Community Media Arts.

David Eby began with a sharp critique on the media representation during the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. He argued that the government and media were complacent together in managing dissent and deliberately failed to capture the multitude of view points of the opposition. Instead, the spotlight was solely fixed on the criminal and violent elements. This was accomplished through three means. First, civil disobedience was tantamount to terrorist activity and fell under the category of criminal protest. Eby provided an apt example encapsulating his argument: a Province headline titled “Olympic security force of 16,500 prepares for ‘criminal protests’.” Second, there was a tendency in the media to take the most extreme statements as the most representative of the Olympic opposition. And third, the uncritical repetition of police statements of the ‘threat’ represented by protestors. Examples cited were of rocks concealed by paper mache and marbles being portrayed as violent weapons, when instead they were designed to make noise.

Eby singled out the unaccredited media centres, represented as “neutral media distribution outlets,” as the most effective way government manipulated media. The amount of resources allotted allowed the government to effectively control the agenda of news stories. “If journalists were curious about homelessness, they’d be told well there’s an official homeless information centre in the Downtown Eastside you can go to.”

He concluded with an amusing email back-and-forth exchange of a failed attempt to get a press release distributed with information on planned BCCLA media briefings the BCCLA. The conversation between Eby and the media centre was fraught with long delays and periods of no response.

Following Eby, Cathryn Atkinson took up the podium and spoke about the role Rabble played within alternative media and its G-20 Toronto summit coverage. Rabble covered the event extensively and was very active during the summit, Twittering about information as it happened. Atkinson pointed out the mainstream media had many of its journalists exit the area due to possible detainment or arrest and were thus unequipped to report the G-20 fully from the ground. One of Rabble’s reporters, Krystalline Kraus, was detained during the day of and was asked if Rabble was sending out messages to the protestors. The fact that the police asked this question signaled to Atkinson the general attitude toward dissenting media.

Atkinson made a call for critical analysis and conversations of protests. “There’s a huge need for people to have this dialogue because journalism is meant to be that,” she said.”The protests doesn’t end and begin on the street.”

Issac Oommen’s presentation centred on the Vancouver Media Co-op, its origins and methods of engagement in the city through workshops and skills training. He spoke about how the Media Co-op is “pretty much the most controversial media organization in Vancouver” and hope they will continue to be so by challenging the dominant perception of what is independent media.

Last up for the panel was Irwin Oostinde. Speaking about W2: Community Media Arts, the cultural hub in the DTES aims to provide a media infrastructure within Vancouver–distancing itself from an activist or mainstream media organization. As an independent community media organization, they espouses peer-based learning & training and bottom up stories emanating from the community. The most interesting piece Oostinde noted during his talk was Vancouver as a social media hub. A Ph.D. student in England tracked Twitter traffic from the W2 and True North Media House, a media collaboration campaign consisting of about four or five people during the Olympics. He noticed an interesting phenomenon where True North’s tweets only consisted of information going outwards, all emanating from one source, with no interaction whereas the W2 had a “polyflower” effect with multiple Tweeters with different distinct clusters communicating. It was a satisfying and rewarding experience for Oostinde as it was indicative that the W2 was reaching out to the community and capturing different voices.

Overall, the panel was very interesting with a good mix between featuring alternative and independent media organizations in Vancouver and critiques of mainstream media representations during the Olympics and G-20. More pertinently, the discussion pointed to the larger theme of the role public space plays in facilitating civic discussion and the free exchange of ideas. According to the panel, this did not happen during the Olympics and G-20 with the mainstream media completely failing to represent citizen activism and engagement accurately. Public space does not only support democracy, but forms the basis of the site of everyday democracy. A prime example being the respatialization of the site of everyday democracy towards the digital sphere with the extensive role Twitter played during the 2009-2010 Iranian election protests. With the changing media landscape and push towards digital spaces, it will be interesting to see what the future holds.