Fascinating article and one that echoes what I heard more than a decade ago from a woman who conducted public consultations about the dangers of large, public meetings: the strongly opinionated will take over, the moderates will get discouraged and go home, any hope of reasonable discussion will end.

Perhaps we can conduct a live test here: Thoughts on this article, everyone?

No one seems to want to talk about this deal much yet, since the city, developer and church are working out what is going to replace the shelter. But here’s what we know for now.

[Read more →]

You decide what’s going on here.

http://www.thenownewspaper.com/news/Council+still+tight+despite+casino+divide+Watts+Rasode/7884685/story.html

Vancouver’s community centre associations are the closest thing to participatory democracy the city has. We don’t have the kind of neighbourhood independence that exists in Portland, which gives out grants to neighbourhoods to spend as they choose.

But, failing that, the centre associations have operated as the neighbourhood councils.

Now the park board is acting on a move set in motion by the COPE council of 2002-2005, which asked for a core review of services, and is re-negotiating the arrangement that’s existed between the board and the centres for several decades.

Some community centres are willing to negotiate, while pointing out to the board that it will lose if it undercuts local autonomy to the point where centres lose the enormous wealth of their volunteers and their ability to apply for federal and provincial grants for programs through their non-profit societies.

Other community centres are going to war. Two emergency meetings are being held tonight, with language used to advertise them that might make a casual observer think that the Charter of Rights had been overturned.

Here’s my story in the Globe, which only begins to get at the many aspects of this debate. (Which has been exacerbated, by the way, by some inept handling on the board’s side.)

Also including an open letter from the board chair and, below, the full text of my story.

PARKBOARD

[Read more →]

And …. more fallout.

As some councillors noted, casino decisions really strain a marriage.

Here’s what they had to say. Story also attached below

[Read more →]

The Surrey casino: a story that just keeps on giving.

Just to try to keep on top of the developments, here’s the chronology.

After two long nights of public hearings, Surrey council votes at 2 a.m. Saturday on whether to approve a casino licence. Tweeting reporters send out news of the votes one by one. It’s 4-4 when Mayor Dianne Watts steps up and casts the deciding vote — against.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman lashes out the next day, saying he’s lost confidence in Surrey council and its decision-making process.

B.C. Lottery Corporation CEO Michael Graydon, in an interview with me, says that he was disappointed to learn that Mayor Watts had concerns for months, as she never expressed those in any conversation with the corporation. He also says that something transpired in the last few days that he couldn’t understand, but it was a complete change of direction from everything the corporation had been hearing from council for months.

Thursday, the mayor issued an open letter criticizing Graydon and Rich Coleman, who was getting his own bad press about having made calls to councillors during the process pressuring them to approve the casino,  issued a much kinder, gentler statement about the Surrey decision. Both are attached below.

Dianne Watts:

Open Letter to BCLC

re: South Surrey Entertainment Complex

I feel compelled to address the inflammatory public comments that have been made by BCLC CEO Michael Graydon.

The statement that “something transpired in the last few days and I don’t know what,” implies that I acted irresponsibly.  The only thing that transpired was public consultation.  Mr. Graydon’s comments show a complete disregard for the public process.

To state that he is “disappointed” in my actions and “if she truthfully had issues,” is crossing a line that a regulator should not cross.  I did not have any issues with Gateway or the proponent.  I was concerned with the public opposition, which no one can “fix”.

The facts are as follows:

1.    A rezoning application came forward and I did not support 1^st and 2^nd reading.

2.    On January 25, 2010, a public hearing occurred related to the site and the rezoning by-law in question, and the architect stated the development will be a 200 room hotel, including a restaurant.  Council and the public were told:

“if the casino component does not receive a license then the convention centre would be expanded to support trade show and other such uses.” Richard Holvert, Architect; Regular Council – Public Hearing Minutes.  January 25, 2010.

I supported 3^rd reading of the rezoning bylaw because there was little public concern raised at that public hearing, and I knew that before a casino use could be included on the site a separate Council approval process would be required, including a separate public hearing.

3.    The developer, prior to the 2010 public hearing, stated:

“But, failing to get approval for a casino from B.C. Lottery Corporation won’t be a deal-breaker… the hotel and convention centre would still proceed.” Vancouver Province, October 4, 2009.

4.    The Newton bingo facility has been located in Newton for several decades, and there was considerable public support in October 2009 when the slot machines were approved.  In fact, 4,273 people were in favour and only 84 opposed the project.  More than 17 community organizations spoke in support, including non-profit organizations, sporting and arts groups, businesses, and social service agencies.

I, along with Council, worked with the proponent to define a project that would have the best chance for success, and serve the residents of Surrey, as we moved forward to the public consultation component of the process.  Our input was intended to assist the developer, but was not approval for the project because we are committed to public consultation prior to making decisions.

If, in fact, the CEO of BCLC expected this to be fully supported, then why bother going through with the public consultation process and a public hearing that continued for 13 hours?  We must ensure that we have an open and transparent process where the Mayor and Councillors can make decisions and be supported, whichever side of the issue they are on.

Sincerely,

Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts

And the minister:

Surrey gaming decision proves process works – Statement – January 24, 2013

VICTORIA – Minister Responsible for Gaming Rich Coleman has issued the following statement with regard to the recent Surrey gaming decision:

“I want to express my appreciation for the time and thoughtfulness Surrey City Council and the community as a whole took to examine the merits of the entertainment and gaming complex proposal and to be clear that I respect the final decision.

“Surrey Council exercised its responsibility on behalf of residents by conducting a thorough, open process that led to an independent decision. I can tell you from experience that these types of decisions are complicated and are not reached easily.

“We have never put a casino in any community that has not wanted one. That will continue to be the provincial government’s policy.

“I am always open to discuss projects and answer questions for issues falling under my ministry, which is what I did in this case. That will not change.

“I respect Surrey Council’s decision and want to personally thank them for taking the time to consider the opportunity.”

I can’t recall when I’ve heard a high-level bureaucrat sound so upset. At first, when I heard about Energy Minister Rich Coleman’s comments about the Surrey decision, I thought it was the usual strong words from our very expressive MLA from Langley.

But a lengthy interview with BCLC CEO Michael Graydon made it clear there’s a lot more than a little quick-tempered disappointment going on. The lottery corporation staff clearly feel they were invited to come to Surrey bearing a casino licence and invited to spend hours with planning staff and councillors to come up with exactly the kind of complex the city wanted to see there.

I wasn’t on the ground, so it’s hard for me to judge how strong the opposition really was there. Mr. Graydon says it was nowhere near the levels of community opposition Vancouver saw. That’s certainly what I was hearing in the early days of the casino proposal last fall.

But I’ll let him speak for himself, as he did in my story today.

[Read more →]

To some, Vancouver many historic schools are among the few remaining artifacts of the early city, visible and valuable mementoes that should be saved. To others, they are death-traps, likely to crumble instantly on top of the heads of students the next time there is even a mild earthquake here.

The Vancouver school board has been caught between those two views since the 1990s, when groups of parents successfully lobbied the board and the provincial government for money to restore or rebuild those schools.

Although the board has restored many schools, it has also taken down others after (or before) building new schools, notably Magee secondary, Dickens elementary, and Kitchener elementary. Up next: Hudson elementary, L’Ecole Bilingue, and Kitsilano secondary.

Now, given the chance to try something else due to the luck of working with a large lot, as I wrote in the Globe this week, the board is trying to find someone, anyone (except a private-school operation) to take on the about-to-be-abandoned Sexsmith elementary, 103 years old, and possibly Douglas elementary.

Sorry, I know some of you are sick of this, but I’m fascinated by this train wreck. Here’s the latest.

Hard to keep up with this story, I know, what with new revelations every day that the Waldorf Productions partners weren’t the flushest, or perhaps savviest, of business people (as per Charlie Smith’s story that I tweeted yesterday).

Then there’s the whole “Hastings is being turned over to condo developers” meme to contend with.

Helping bring some clarity, former senior planner Trish French outlines for council (and us) the zoning situation in the area. She sent her letter off yesterday:

January 14, 2013

 

Dear Mayor and Council:

Re: Waldorf Situation: A Simpler Solution

Much has been said in the media about saving the Waldorf as a cultural space and/or a heritage asset.   There has been a bit of a “Chicken Little” quality to the whole situation.  I am puzzled that nothing has said by you, or anyone else, about the City’s zoning and land use policy on the site, which provides a simple direction on the issue of the site’s purchase by a condo developer.

The existing MC-2 mixed use zoning on the Waldorf site, and along the north side of Hastings from Clark to Semlin,  does not permit development of condos.   This is in contrast to the MC-1 zoning on the south side of Hastings in the same strip, which does permit residential, and where some developments are going forward.

[Read more →]