Laura Christensen was elected to the Vancouver Parks Board on Mr. Sim's ABC ticket in November of 2022.
Ms. Christensen is no longer an ABC Parks Board Commissioner, and is instead now sitting as an independent.
When the good Mr. Sim, the ABC leader and current Mayor, announced his intention to abolish the Parks Board late last year, Ms. Christensen was passionate in her defense of the elected Board, making it clear that when he she first agreed to run, Mr. Sim assured her that the Board would be reformed but would remain if his party won the election.
So.
Is there something untoward going on here?
For example, will the abolishment of the Parks Board clear the way for the selling off of park land under the now public, and some might say infamous, Recommendation #14 from the Mayor's Budgetary Task Force that we discussed yesterday?
Well, according to the actual wording of the said Recommendation #14, you could assume that all parks are safe given that they have been assigned to the 'critical asset' category.
Additionally, as Raymond Tomlin noted earlier today, Mr. Sim had the following to say on December 15th of 2023:
“I want to be very clear: as long as I’m mayor, parks will always be parks in the City of Vancouver,” Mayor Sim told CityNews in an interview on Friday, December 15, 2023.
But here's the thing...
As Ms. Christensen pointed out in her passionate petition to City Council (which you can watch here - it only takes three minutes and it will do your heart good when it comes to restoring your faith in what a true public servant can and should do), one hundred of the City of Vancouver's parks are not designated as 'permanent'. One of those not 'permanent' parks is Spanish Banks, pictured above.
Why does this matter?
Because, according to independent, and straight speaking, Parks Board Commissioner Christensen this means that the not 'permanent' parks are not protected by the need for a public referendum and a unanimous vote from City Council to 'de-parkify' them.
This conclusion of Ms. Christensen is actually supported by the wording in Mr. Sim's December 6, 2023 resolution to remove the Parks Board:
...FURTHER THAT, in accordance with the above (resolution to remove the Parks Board), (Vancouver City) Council formally request that the Province of British Columbia amend the process for revoking and/or cancelling the designation of areas designated as permanent public parks of the City under the VC, notably under section 488 of the VC (“Parks in care of Board”), to a unanimous vote of all Council members, along with provisions for a public referendum... (material in brackets and bolding mine)
And if a big chunk of developer desirable not permanent parkland were to be de-parkified with no elected Parks Board to protect it?
Hmmmmmm.
Perhaps we should ask ourselves what might happen to said de-parkified public land under the good Mayor's Task Force 'Recommendation #14 for asset privatization?
_____
Now, does an entire park have be swallowed, whole, by a developer to make a few of the chosen ones a whole lotta money?....Of course not?...How do I know this?...Because I saw the entire deal go down, up-close-and-personal, when another bait-and-switch happy politician cut the heart out of Pacific Spirit Park under the guise (i.e. initial bogus bait) of protecting the edges of a golf course...Seriously.
Again, Raymond Tomlin is all over this story over at his place.
.
3 comments:
Building at Spanish banks would be difficult especially with climate change and the rising oceans. that doesn't mean they can't build marinas there. I suspect they'll want to privitize the golf courses first or build housing on it.
this densification for more housing isn't for those working in the city but for those who own the land to make larger profits when they sell the land. The rents on laneway homes aren't cheap and most people working for the city and health care most likely couldn't afford them.
Now back to the Parks. The golf courses could be sold and they would promise lovely buildings with parks. What they won't mention is the parks would be like a postage stamp, The rents or prices to buy would be high .
I recall a park by the PNE which used to have an outdoor pool, it would go in a heart beat.
the park the developers are most interested in is Stanley Park. Lets see, where the Tea House, is a lovely high rise, what is left of the zoo area--there are buildings there any how, more condos
If the city were really interested in providing affordable housing, all they have to do is phone that developer who el gordo gave such a good deal to on Little Mountain, tell them the land is being expropriated by the city and then the city will build housing.
Some decades ago some one decided it might be a good idea to extend the golf course along Marine Drive onto Everet Crowley Park. Those of us living in Champlain Heights were not amused. We held a meeting.
I'll never forget our Parks board member, Connie Foggle running into the metting announcing, I'm Connie Foggle, a parks board member and what is going on here. She had come straight from the air port.
If people don't want their parks sold then it is time to get organzied. As the city densifies we will need more parks, not fewer. Selling parks now is short sighted but lucrative for the supporters of the politicians. You sell the land, balance the budget next year but what then. Its gone, no parks, nothing to sell, etc. No places to go sit on grass, no place to play baseball, football,or have picnics.
Actually every one keeps wondering where to have the unhoused set up tents. Side walks and the end of the Knight St. bridge isn't working so well. the Little Mountain lands wqere meant to be used as housing. Not much has been built so perhaps that might be a good place for campers and set up washrooms and showers. Of course the neighbours aren't going to like it, but the unhoused are citizens of this country and deserve to have their rights respected.
Perhaps getting the Christmas train up and running was just a way of softening us up to sell off park land. No government land ought to be sold off. Perhaps leased for 50 years, but that is it. We need all the land we have. In my life time the population has grown, a lot. You go around thinking its 5 billion and the next time you check its 8 billion. We need to plan ahead. Europe is getting rather full.
As one person said, people will come regardless so we might as well welcome them and set up a system to accomodate them. Some parts of the world are too war torn to accomodate people. Most of that is the result of colonialism so we are repeaping what we have sown.
Enough of my rant, time for coffee, and MAYOR SIMS--NO BUILDING ON OR SELLING OF ANY OF VANCOUVER'S PARK LAND
cutting and pasting here
Who owns Stanley Park land?
Stanley Park Vancouver: Making the land a legal person ...
Today, under Canadian law, the federal government owns the land, leasing it out to the City of Vancouver. That relationship is currently being reviewed as the Vancouver Parks Board conducts a colonial audit to map the history and potential future of Stanley Park. Dec 7, 2022
and
https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/highlights/is-it-time-to-make-stanley-park-a-legal-person-6215286
The thinking goes something like this: by legally re-configuring land ownership as a person, it gains certain inalienable rights that effectively protect it from development or resource extraction. Any government, company or individual trying to infringe on the land would leave themselves open to legal action.
Sim and his alphabetical party of convenience is nothing more than a rebranded Vision Vancouver, a party for land developers and land speculators.
His wanting to abolish the parks board should be put to a referendum and not left to a questionable politicians, with questionable alliances and even more questionable associates.
The question is, will Premier Eby (who cheated to become leader of the party) of Vision Vancouver provincial, allow a referendum or have enough plain brown manila envelopes have found their way to Victoria?
Post a Comment