On deck for discussion are:

• Jericho Wharf Concept Plan
• Rezonings in Mt. Pleasant and South Cambie
• Vancouver Economic Development Strategy
• Three motions in support of citizen engagement
• Dogs, leashes and the Animal Control Bylaw
• Booze. Movies. The Rio Theatre

All the exciting details and more… below the fold.

Jericho Wharf Concept Plan

The Park Board will be receiving a staff report that outlines the final proposed concept plan for the Jericho Wharf site.

The Wharf, off of Point Grey Road, was the source of some debate over the last couple of years. Structural issues were at the heart of it, and there was disagreement about whether the Wharf should be rehabilitated, or whether the beach area should be naturalized. The new concept plan advances the restoration approach. In so doing, it proposes to create an environment “where wildlife can access the waters edge through a diverse range of habitat types including dune grass, upland shrub thickets and maturing forest.”

Public Realm Considerations – Rezoning Applications

Three rezoning applications being considered this week are of interest. The first two are for the co-joined Beth Israel / Talmud Torah School at Oak and 26th – where improved landscaping and pedestrian connections are part of the design, and a “publicly oriented plaza” is being proposed along 28th Avenue.

The third, more controversial rezoning application, is for the Rize site at Kingsway and Broadway. Here, a new podium and tower are being proposed and there is has been an animated conversation taking place over how the development proposal ‘fits’ with the objectives of the recently completed Mt. Pleasant Community Plan. Among the public realm aspects being considered are wider sidewalks and the creation of a stronger pedestrian ‘heart’ for the Mt. Pleasant neighbourhood.

Economic Development Strategy: chicken and egg dilemmas?

Council will also be receiving a report on the new Vancouver Economic Development Strategy. This document looks at ways to support three key goals:

1. Creating a Healthy Climate for Growth and Prosperity;
2. Supporting Local Business, New Investment and Global Trade;
3. Focusing on Talent: Retaining and Attracting Human Capital.

The report references the need to consider questions of affordability and liveability as part of a discussion of growth. The City’s commitment to these items is noted in a number of places – but the overall incorporation of these ideas into the strategy ultimately feels a bit thin. And this is curious because of how fundamental these considerations are to any discussion of local economy.

Our take: Want to attract and retain talent, visitors and dollars? Then a focus on providing spaces for people to live affordably (meaning homes, childcare, basic needs) needs to be a key component of any plan – and not just via references to other strategies or initiatives (like the recently completed Housing and Homelessness document). Without a solid program in these areas, the talent (and we’ve got lots here already), visitors and dollars won’t be sticking around all that long. There will be attraction without any retention.

The liveability question may seem a little less obvious, but we think there’s also a need to give this some more profile. A key way to energize and support an economy is to make sure that the various ‘spaces between’ home and work (a substantial amount of which is part of the public realm) are well-designed, inclusive and accessible – because they are as much an ‘incubator’ (to borrow a term) of local economic vitality as high-tech office infrastructure. People want to stay in cities that feel good. A big part of that good feeling comes with a vibrant public life and all the various things – parks, plazas, street life – that support it.

Don’t get us wrong, we like the idea of an economic development strategy. However, the present report could use a wee tune up. With aspirations to ” [expand] the City’s global brand on liveability, by strengthening and promoting a prosperous business climate” (p.8) the Strategy’s emphasis here, and elsewhere, seems to suggest that the cart will lead the horse.

Citizen Engagement

Three separate motions look at aspects of citizen engagement. The first sees newbie Councillor George Affleck seeking support to “direct staff to report back regarding the current process by which Council members are appointed to committees, boards and other bodies, as well as a listing of these specific appointments, and the duration of these appointments.”

It will be interesting to see what comes of this discussion. It has been our understanding that the Mayor and his caucus get to make that call – one of the perks of winning the election (and an inevitable invitation for the minority parties, whomever they happen to be at the time, to cry foul).

The second motion, also by Affleck, seeks to allow citizens better access to the decision theatre at Metro Vancouver by allowing Board and committee meetings to be “broadcast, either by internet or other means, to allow residents to view the proceedings of these meetings.”

The third motion on notice, being proposed by Andrea Reimer, seeks (in part) to reopen a discussion that occupied elected officials during the last session of Council. The two-part motion would have City Council write to the Province and “reiterate the request to have the ability under the Vancouver Charter for Council to make campaign finance rules and consider alternate voting systems” as well as “make a new request for the ability to release raw vote data.”

The motion then makes a further request for “recommendations from the 2011 Chief Elections Officer for measures to increase voter turnout, citizen involvement and fairness for all candidates in the 2014 civic election.”

Dogs, Leashes, Laws

Public space is governed by a number of regulations whose ‘teeth’ appear inconsistently, and usually only when there are complaints. For example, tire swings on street trees, garage sale notices on neighbourhood utility poles, and sidewalk chalk on the road are all examples of things that, despite their innocuousness, contravene city bylaws.

Another newbie Councillor, Adriane Carr, is going after a regulation that may – depending on your perspective – fall into this nebulous category. In this case it’s Animal Control Bylaw, which states that anyone who keeps a dog must not allow on “a street or other public place” unless the dog is under their “immediate charge.” Carr is concerned that this unnecessarily penalizes the owners of well-behaved dogs who are tethered to posts, etc. while their owner does errands in stores, cafés or other buildings.

Carr’s motion requests that staff “report back on options for changing the Animal Control Bylaw so as to allow people to safely tie up and leave temporarily unattended” their well-behaved canine.

Booze. Movies.

This one is a little less of a public space issue, though its a matter we know that many of our members have been following.

One of the staples of the East Van cultural scene is the Rio Theatre – which showcases movies, variety shows, live performances and events of all sorts. You may have heard that they’ve run into a bit of roadblock in trying to get a regular (that is, non-special event) liquor permit. It seems our rather Byzantine liquor legislation, (in particular, the Liquor Control & Licensing Act & Regulations), disallows live performance venues from serving alcohol if they also show movie screenings at other operating times.

It’s weird enough that people aren’t allowed to drink a beer and watch a film (which is pretty common in many other cities). However, thanks to our current laws, it also means that the Rio, if they want to have live performances (and serve alcohol), are effectively being disallowed from showing movies at all! (Even if they don’t serve alcohol at screenings).

Heather Deal’s motion seeks to remedy at least part of this by having Council seek “a condition on the Rio Theatre’s existing liquor license [to allow] them to show movie screenings without alcohol service when no live events are scheduled.”

There’s also an on-line petition that has been circulating on-line which you can sign.

Have your say!

Got thoughts on any of these issues? Jot an email to the motion’s proponent by using firstname.lastname [at] vancouver.ca. Copy the others at mayorandcouncil [at] vancouver.ca.

You can also request to speak to Council, mail in your thoughts, or get in touch with your elected officials through other means. Click here for the details.

“I voted” sticker – Photo by Cave Canem

Next week promises to be a busy one at Council – between the regular session of Council on Tuesday and the various Council Committee meetings taking place on Thursday there is a full suite of public space related activities. These include:

• A motion (see below) on the possibility of on-line voting (Tues)
• A motion on calculating available density in the city (Tues)
• A report on expanding street food options (Thurs)
• A report on noise in the city and the efficacy of the noise bylaw (Thurs)
• Discussion on the VAG move (which we mentioned in our previous post) (Thurs)
• Two presentations – likely quite contentious – on building heights and view-related issues (Thurs)
• The draft Greenest City Implementation Plan (Thurs)

The first is particularly timely. Earlier this week a suite of contenders for the leadership of the BC liberals endorsed (some cautiously) the idea of on-line voting. And here’s a chance to consider it at the local level.

For those that have difficulty scheduling a trip to the neighbourhood voting box once every three or four years, this might make life easier. There’s a larger discussion to be had about civic engagement here – and, as much as we like technology, we can’t help wonder if this will do much to get at the core issues behind current voting levels. Then again, if it does a better job of getting residents engaged with the civic contest, that’s a positive outcome.

Either way, it’s an interesting motion and we’re be watching to see the sort of exchange that ensues.

Here’s the text of the motion, which was introduced by Councillor Andrea Reimer:

WHEREAS

1. Less than 35% of eligible voters in Vancouver cast ballots in the last two
civic elections;

2. Voter turnout is considered an important indicator of social cohesion
and vital to a healthy democracy;

3. Research conducted by Elections Canada on voter turn out in the last
federal election found that 57% of non-voters cited time pressures that
prevented them from getting to a voting place in person;

4. Elections Canada will be conducting an online voting pilot in the 2013
federal election;

5. Online voting can greatly improve accessibility by increasing the time
and place options available to voters to cast a ballot;

6. Online voting is used in more than three dozen Canadian municipalities ranging from 44 municipalities in Ontario, such as Markham, ON which piloted online voting in 2003, to Halifax, Nova Scotia which conducted successful pilots in a 2008 general election and 2009 by-election;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Clerk report to Council on the feasibility of conducting an online voting pilot in the 2011 municipal elections or, if 2011 is not feasible, what the earliest date for a pilot would be.

1. Our submission to the Task Force argued against the re-introduction of the corporate vote and we are very pleased that the Task Force agreed with our argument.
2. Our submission urged the Task Force to, in turn, urge the Province to address the matters of the declining rate of municipal voter turnout, stating that we believe that voter apathy is overcome only when citizens believe their vote matters. We deeply regret that the Task Force did not address this matter. We will need to find new ways to remind government of the need to address this.

On another note, we wonder how the Task Force recommendation to change the length of ‘term of office’ to four years might impact the issue of voter turnout. The Task Force didn’t indicate why four years is better than three; rather, the rationale seems to be to have municipal elections conform to provincial and federal practice, and the practice in other provinces.

The idea raises some interesting questions. Will this longer period prompt voters to feel even less engaged if they are called on to vote less frequently? Will elected officials assume that voters will forget promises made four years prior? In other words, how will four-year terms better serve citizens?

It may be that there was a big press announcement last fall about Premier Gordon Campbell’s having appointed a joint Task Force to make recommendations for legislative changes to “improve the electoral process for local government elections across B.C.”; if so, we missed it. Thankfully, a recent CBC radio interview of Bill Bennett, Minister of Community and Rural Development, brought it to my attention. We believe this should be of interest to anyone concerned about who is involved in local decision-making.

Bill Bennett co-chairs the six-member Task Force with Harry Nyce, president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) and includes two other UBCM executive members and two provincial MLAs.

Topics under review by the Task Force are:

• Campaign finance, including contribution/spending disclosure and limits, and tax credits
• Enforcement processes and outcomes
• Role of the chief electoral officer (B.C.) in local government elections
• Election cycle (term of office)
• Corporate vote
• Other agreed upon matters, (e.g. matters raised in UBCM resolutions such as eligibility of local government volunteers to be candidates)

The issue that particularly concerns us is the “corporate vote”. This refers to the proposal that companies located in a B.C. municipality have the right to vote in that municipality’s local election. 

Prior to 1973, participation in local democracy in BC was generally more closely linked with property ownership and the payment of property taxes. E.g., people who owned homes had the vote; those who merely rented suites did not. And in many B.C. municipalities—although never in the City of Vancouver—corporations (including foreign-owned corporations) could vote in local elections. And there were an unrestricted number of votes – an individual could vote in relation to his or her residence and (via an agent) in relation to as many corporations as he or she owned, thus garnering more than one vote within a single municipality.

Various changes were made in 1973, 1976 and again, in 1993, when the corporate vote was discontinued.

Since the removal of the corporate vote, some business advocacy organizations have called for its restoration. For example, the BC Chamber of Commerce regularly recommends reinstatement of the corporate vote in its annual resolutions book.

The argument given is that, since companies pay significant amounts of property taxes to the municipality, they should have the right to vote, that local elected officials should be accountable to business taxpayers through the electoral system. We would argue that paying these taxes is simply one of the costs of doing business—and that the costs are passed along to the consumer, in any case.

More details, both for and against a corporate vote can be found in a discussion paper on this and the other topics under review, on the Task Force website.

The Task Force will accept written comments submitted by April15, 2010.

The Task Force website is at http://www.localelectionstaskforce.gov.bc.ca/