Later today, City Council will be discussing a report and recommendations that will have a number of implications for the City’s public plazas.

The report, written by the City’s Planning Department, focuses on Davie Village Public Space Improvements – and seeks Council approval for the final concept for Jim Deva Plaza (at Bute and Davie).

As we’ve noted in earlier posts, we’re quite supportive of this initiative. The new plaza will serve as a vibrant neighbourood gathering area for residents and visitors alike.

Importantly, the report also does two other things. First, it looks at the question of stewardship – and proposes a pilot strategy for the site that aims to help with maintenance, programming and other activities. Programs such as this, when properly developed and delivered, can be very helpful for enriching public spaces. Perhaps even more significantly, the report seeks Council approval to undertake a larger city-wide review of plaza stewardship, a process that the VPSN has committed to assisting.

Second, the report recommends some changes to several bylaws – including the Health Bylaw (no smoking in the plaza) and the Street and Traffic Bylaw. The latter regulatory change has some good aspects (e.g. prohibiting driving in the plaza), but also has one troubling aspect: it aims to prohibit use of the plaza “after hours.” In particular, the proposed text prohibits people from using the plaza “after hours” – between 11pm and 6am – under penalty of a $100 fine. The only thing you’re legally allowed to do after 11pm in this prominent space… is walk or bike through it.

We feel that this proposed amendment for plazas is a problem (as, for that matter, is the longer-standing precedent that exists within the City’s parks and Park Bylaw).

Public nuisance – after hours noise, disturbance, fighting, and a host of other forms of problem behaviour – is already disallowed through a variety of bylaws. This “new” bylaw therefore doesn’t do anything more to mitigate potential problems. What it does do is penalize legitimate nighttime users of a public space – including the sorts of users/activities illustrated in the City’s own rendering of the Plaza. All this, in a place (Davie Village) where there’s reason to assume that a bit more vibrant nighttime activity – not to mention ‘eyes on the street’ – would actually be desirable.

We’ve written to City Council to offer our support for the good stuff in the Council report — and to request that the proposed “after hours” amendment to the Street and Traffic Bylaw be dropped. An excerpt of our letter is found below.

…the VPSN is very supportive of the proposed design for Jim Deva Plaza. We’ve participated in the process of developing the concepts for the site and are pleased with the results. The City is to be commended for this important contribution to the West End neighbourhood. We are especially glad to see improvements proposed to the public bathroom feature.

Our organization also supports the move to establish a stewardship strategy for this plaza – as a test site and in advance of developing a similar strategy for other new and existing publically owned plaza areas in the city.

Over the past few years, the VPSN has had a chance to research a number of approaches to plaza stewardship – and while the models (and their application) vary, the point remains that a proactive plan for programming, maintenance and community involvement can play a key factor in the success of plazas and squares.

To this end, the VPSN is proud to be able to support the development of a larger stewardship strategy, and will contribute a minimum of $3,500 in-kind research and event planning to help with the development of this strategy in 2016.

The last point we wish to raise today is with regard to a component of the staff recommendations that we do not support.

While there are several regulatory changes being contemplated that make sense, the present staff report recommends at least one change to the City’s Street and Traffic Bylaw that we feel is problematic.

In particular, staff are proposing a new regulation that would disallow being in a plaza (Jim Deva plaza, or any City Plaza) “after hours” (e.g. 11-6pm) – “except for the purposes of traversing” the space. The regulation comes with a proposed fine of $100 for anyone caught and charged with violating this section of the bylaw.

We recommend that this component of the proposed changes to the Street and Traffic bylaw be struck from the revisions. Not only is it at odds with the goal of open, inclusive public space, but it also runs counter to the spirit of some of the proposed “guiding principles” for Jim Deva plaza – e.g.

• “The plaza should be clean, safe and well-lit with a sense of security in the space any time of day or night.

• The plaza should be an inclusive, welcoming and inviting destination in the West End for residents, workers and visitors of all ages and abilities, and should be public space at all times with no fees charged to get in.”

We understand that the likely concern relates to matters of noise and nuisance; however, these (and other relevant concerns) are already dealt with in existing regulations.

The net result is that the additional element of regulation will unduly penalize legitimate users of the new Jim Deva plaza, as well as other plazas that will be covered through the bylaw…

UPDATE (December 16, 2015):

City Council heard from speakers on the various recommendations contained in the staff report. The design concept was approved – which we support – as were a number of other important measures (see minutes). However, while there was some discussion about the amendments to the Street and Traffic Bylaw, Council ultimately opted to approve a motion that instructs the Director of Legal Services

to prepare amendments to the Street and Traffic By-Law, the Health By-Law, and the Ticket Offences By-Law, generally in accordance with Appendix A of the Administrative Report dated December 4, 2015, entitled “Davie Village Public Space Improvements”, to regulate activity in Jim Deva Plaza.

While we are disappointed with this decision, we understand that there will still be an opportunity to make the case about the particular aspects of the amendment that we are concerned about. We will be posting more on this in early 2016.

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

Petition table at an evening vigil, downtown Vancouver. Photo by Keith Low

At noon today, the VPSN sent a letter to Mayor Gregor Robertson and members of City Council. The correspondence follows up on our concerns about proposed changes to the Street and Traffic Bylaw that would effectively limit political (and other non-commercial) speech. 

(The City’s proposals are outlined in a report entitled Structures for Public Expression on City Streets and our concerns were initially flagged in a blog post last week.)

The intent behind the present letter is to provide a more thorough assessment of the proposed bylaw amendments and offer what we feel are constructive suggestions on how the document can be modified to support the goals of free speech.

The issue will be back in front of Council on April 19. We encourage you all to take a look at the proposed amendments and send Council your thoughts. You can email them directly at mayorandcouncil@vancouver.ca, or you register to speak during the debate. Instructions on how to do so can be found here.

The following is an excerpt of our letter. A PDF version is available on our main webpage here.

——————-

[We are writing] to present our organization’s recommended changes to the draft amendments for the Street and Traffic Bylaw. We were registered to speak on the April 7 Planning & Environment Committee meeting and intend to speak on April 19. We are submitting these remarks in advance of this time as we feel that they may offer some constructive assistance to City staff.

We begin by noting that when it comes to regulating the freedom of expression governments have a duty to use the tiniest and least infringing measures that are possible. Only measures carefully tailored to allow the widest ambit of expression will be considered constitutionally acceptable by the courts; courts have made this clear over and over again. So this notion – that we must aspire to the least regulation possible to achieve the City’s aim of safety and access – is what must inform this entire legislative exercise.

The VPSN is opposed to the proposed changes to the Street and Traffic bylaw (outlined in Recommendation A of the staff report on Structures for Public Expression). We are pleased that the Mayor has reaffirmed that Vancouver is a “free speech zone”; however we are concerned that the suggested amendments to the Bylaw will actually run counter to that sentiment.

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. This bylaw would mean a curtailing or elimination of impromptu street art interventions, petition stands, leafletting, flashmobbing, and many more interesting and surprising contributions to the public realm by Vancouver residents. And this is on top of what would amount, effectively, to a prohibition on many other kinds of public political activity. The City is justified in its concerns around ensuring sidewalks are not unduly obstructed. It is similarly justified in regulating around matters of safety. However, the proposed bylaw amendments, as currently articulated, represent a significant over-reach as far as appropriate regulation is concerned.

Our concerns around this report are primarily directed to:

• The ambiguity of the legal definitions
• Permit considerations that attempt to limit the duration and location of political expression
• Fees, deposits and application related constraints

and the impact that these items will have on ensuring a healthy, vibrant and diverse public realm.

We understand from the discussion at the April 7 meeting that the City is proceeding under some time constraint to get these amendments in place. We would encourage the City to seek an extension from the Court of Appeal to allow for additional time to resolve outstanding issues on the bylaw wording. Failing that, we do not believe that any significant difficulty will befall the city if section 71 of current bylaw lapses, and our confidence in this comes from the paucity of enforcement evidenced over the preceding years. In either case, “rapid fire” lawmaking on a matter of this importance is highly problematic, and will create more challenges than it solves.

We understand that contemplating this matter and attempting to resolve the issues created by the Court of Appeal decision has not been easy. It is with this in mind that we respectfully submit the following proposals for your consideration:

1. Maintain the distinction between commercial and non-commercial structures objects, substances or things:

(i) Continue to prohibit all commercial structures, objects, substances or things that are used on City streets, unless allowed through the proper permitting process. (This will properly constrain a range of land-use and transportation considerations and accord with the City’s Sign Bylaw (6510), Street Distribution of Publications Bylaw (9350) and License Bylaw (4450), as well as other components of the existing Street and Traffic Bylaw.)

(ii) Continue to affirm the existence of a ‘non-commercial structure, object, substance or thing’ as proposed (71B). 

(iii) Develop a legal definition that will allow you to distinguish between small structures used for non-commercial expression (tables, chairs, banners, red tents) and large structures (full-size booths). Consider the dimensional parameters contained in 71B (3) (k) through (o) as a starting point for further consultation.

2. Change the permitting requirements outlined in 71B (1) and (2) to reflect different sized structures:

(i) For large structures – maintain the permitting requirement outlined in 71B (1) but make it less onerous by eliminating 71 B (2) (b) the required traffic management plans; (c) the $1000 security deposit; and (e) non-refundable $200 permit fee. (i.e. maintain 71 (2) (a) requirement for plans and specifications; and (d) executed full release and indemnity.

(ii) For small structures – eliminate outright the requirement for permitting – 71B (1), as well as 71B (2) (a) required plans and specifications; (b) required traffic management plans; (c) $1000 security deposit; (d) release and indemnity; and, (e) non-refundable $200 permit fee. (This will allow someone getting signatures on a petition, handing out leaflets from a chair, etc. to avoid requiring an onerous permitting process. It will also legitimate a lot of activity that takes place already.)

3. Maintain 71B (3a-e) – ensure non-commercial structures do not unduly impede the use of public space. In particular, affirm that all small and large non-commercial structures should not 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. Here, “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. non-commercial 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”. Where structures do unduly impede public space ensure that the first line of response by the City is a verbal warning.

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 – 71B (3) (j). Maintain the requirement for setbacks from building entrances, bus stops, street intersections, etc. – sections 71B (3) (h) and (i) – but consider reducing the minimum setback from five metres to three meters. Maintain requirements around sound construction, safe repair and emergencies – 71B (3) (q), 71B (4) (c) and 71D – thus ensuring that political expression is done in safe fashion.

5. Locational considerations – zoning. Eliminate 71B (3) (g) and related Schedule F, which effectively eliminates non-commercial communication in residential zoned areas. Opportunities for non-commercial expression should be available in all zones in the city. Difficulties arising as a result of such activity, which we believe will be infrequent, can be dealt equitably with through other means under the law.

6. Duration of structure/Term of permit. Eliminate 71B (3) (b), 71B (4) (a), and Section 71C (a) through (d). These sections place undue limitations on political expression, requiring that permit holders only be allowed one permit at a time, each for a maximum of 30 days and further require that each permit holder only receive a maximum of six 30 day permits a year. Finally, these provisions require that structures be dismantled between 8pm and 8 am.

7. Additional Items. Section 71B (5) contains a number of restrictions around the use of electronic signs, gas lighting, barbeques, etc. We note that in some instances, it may be possible to use extension cords that draw power from an adjacent building, or from a small battery, or similarly to use battery operated signs (such as mini reader boards). We suggest eliminating 71B (5) (a) and (71B (5) (c) from this section. The point here is to be safe, and to not have cords on the ground where they could be a tripping hazard – but this can be specified in the bylaw without eliminating the use of these items all together.

We would add that we support the submissions made by the BC Civil Liberties Association during their presentation on April 7. While our above suggestions differ in the details from theirs, we approach this issue in the same spirit.

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.