Mothers’ Day is a poignant day for those of us whose mothers are no longer with us.

As some of you already know, my mother died a couple of months ago after several difficult years. In those years, and in the weeks since her death, it’s been brought home to me how many people are just head of me or just behind on this rough road.

I wrote an essay in Vancouver magazine about my mother and I and how our bond changed in the last years as she wandered away from me, but, as I wrote it,  I was also thinking of so many others I know who have gone through or are going through the same sadness. Hearing their stories helped me as I was trying to cope. I hope this helps others.

Jeff Rubin is someone who is influencing city planning considerably these days.

The former CIBC chief economist lurks in the minds of planners as they contemplate his Peak Oil scenario. I’ve heard people in both Vancouver and Toronto say, for example, that one of the reasons to preserve industrial land close to central cities is to be prepared for a point when driving loads of stuff in from the exurbs becomes too costly to sustain.

So I pay attention to him and, like any good mushy sort-of liberal who came of age in the 60s/70s, I’m instinctively inclined to buy his arguments about Peak Oil and the way the escalating cost of oil-based energy will reshape our society and our cities.

But one line in his recent Globe article, excerpted from his latest book The End of Growth, struck me as really offbase. (Here’s the whole article, for as long as the Globe will let you look at it for free, ha ha.)

As he argues that the way to get people to reduce their energy use, as Denmark has, is to drive them into it by charging incredibly high prices (not by building windmills or bike lanes alone), he writes: “Replace inexpensive oil with triple-digit prices and cities will eventually shrink back to their original bike-sized urban cores.”

Um, no. That’s the kind of utopian thinking I hear from too many city-thinkers, who fondly imagine that someday, everyone will move back into a city that looks something like Bologna, which you can walk across in about an hour max or bus across in 20 minutes.

That might be true if we kill off 80 per cent of the people now living and go back to the kind of world-population level in place around maybe, oh, 1850. But that’s not realistic for the moment.

The only other option to pack 10 times as many people in today’s cities back to a little urban core is to bulldoze those existing city cores and build a forest of towers. Scarily, this is what I hear some city sustainabilitists (the new utopian and dogmatic Le Corbusiers of our century) tiptoeing towards in their arguments these days.

For the moment, I don’t see that happening either.

It would be more helpful if the Jeff Rubins of the world would stay away from this kind of hyperbolic future, which ultimately doesn’t make for good planning. As long as population levels are the same or growing, which seems to be our fate for at least this century, the solution is not to dream that everyone is going to move back into some charming but yet impossibly dense central city.

1. Some people just don’t want to. As much as I love the busyness and density of the central city, I get that not everyone is like me. Planners and thinkers should too.

2. There isn’t enough room, even if they all did want to.

So better if planners/big-ideas people figured out how we could connect people better to all the things they need to do — shop, enjoy themselves and, most importantly, work — without envisioning it as everyone moving back into a 10-square-kilometre area.

I’ve seen planners figuring out the live/shop/play thing, but not how to reduce the live/work commute yet. Maybe focus on that.

(By the way, for your reading pleasure, two other critique of Rubin’s other ideas here and here.)

This out in the last few days from City of Vancouver general manager Penny Ballem. Your thoughts welcome on what this means, especially you, Brent Toderian. This follows on rumblings I’ve been hearing from here and there in the city about the higher-ups pondering not having a director, but a cluster of people heading up the planning function, similar to the five-person crew that ran the department shortly after Tom Fletcher left. (Eventually, it ended up being Larry Beasley and Ann McAfee that co-ran the department, with Larry handling the downtown and Ann managing planning activities in the rest of the city.)

To all City Staff,

I wanted to write to you to announce progress on some organizational changes.  As you know, in January 2012 David McLellan joined the City Manager’s Office as the Deputy City Manager responsible for Housing and Public Amenities.

Since David’s transition to his new role, Brenda Prosken has served as the acting General Manager, CSG and has done a great job moving the complex agendas of this portfolio in support of both David and I and Council. Over the last 4 months I have had a chance to better understand the pressures on CSG from the perspective of Council business (they currently account for about 80% of reports to Council) and their key role in many of the strategic issues in the city on the planning, development services and the broad social policy front.  In addition, on a day-to-day basis, CSG is responsible for issuing the majority of the City’s permits and licences, a business that represents our primary source of non-tax revenue. Finally, under the VSR we are undertaking one of the most complex and significant projects in the city (the Permits and Licenses Project) which will drive business transformation in Planning and Development Services and other related areas in the city.

Given the volume, complexity and strategic importance of the work of the CSG portfolio, and after considerable discussion with other members of CMT,  I have decided to reconfigure the existing CSG portfolio into two separate portfolios which will encompass the following activities:
1.    Planning and Development Services
2.    Housing, Culture, Social Development and Licenses and Inspections.

Each unit will be led by a General Manager focused on the range of priorities within their respective sphere of responsibility.

I am delighted to announce that Brenda Prosken has accepted the General Manager appointment for the portfolio encompassing Housing, Culture, Social Development and Licenses and Inspections. Brenda first joined the City family when she started at the Vancouver Public Library in 2006 as the Director, Human Resources, and, in 2008, was promoted to Deputy General Manager, CSG. Brenda has built relationships across our organization and has played a strategic role in integrating the work of many partners in the city in the area of housing, homelessness, social inclusion, bylaw enforcement,  local area planning and others. She is a great team member and in her acting GM role over the last few years has clearly earned the respect of CMT colleagues.

The General Manager, Planning and Development will hold the responsibilities of Director of Planning as set out in the Vancouver Charter. A major focus will be leading the business transformation in this important portfolio and  building the strategic relationships internal and external to the organization to ensure that our Planning and Development Services activities are responsive to the needs of the public, our business partners and the policy goals of the rest of the organization.

Within the coming days, we will begin the recruitment process to fill the General Manager, Planning and Development role.  We will be posting this opportunity internally as well as advertising external nationally and internationally.

Please join me in congratulating Brenda on her appointment.  And I thank her for her ongoing work leading the 2 portfolios, pending the recruitment of a General Manager, Planning and Development.

There are a number of details yet to be determined regarding the delineation of specific responsibilities between the two new General Manager roles.  As those matters are resolved over the coming weeks, we will confirm the particulars for any of you who may be impacted.

Finally, to all of our employees working in Community Services, thank you for your continued effort and commitment to serving our public.  I trust the rationale for the structural changes described above resonates with you and I appreciate your support as we move forward with implementation.

Penny Ballem
City Manager

As the economic world goes to hell in a handbasket, we’re still obsessed here in B.C. with the idea that someone is riding a bus for free.

To that end, Transportation Minister Blair Lekstrom introduced new legislation today that will 1. Give TransLink new tools to go after fare evaders who are ticketed but don’t pay fines 2. Let TransLink have the money (he estimates $4 million, or half of the potential, and TransLink is still assessing that)

Among the mechanisms TransLink can now use

– have ICBC refuse to issue driver’s licences or vehicle registrations to people with unpaid fines (since only 30 per cent of those people have proven to have driver’s licences, in the past, obviously won’t be a deterrent to the other 70 per cent)

– refuse to sell them monthly passes (This had a lot of us reporters on conference calls confused, as many people buy monthly passes at convenience stores. Would people then have to show IDs and would the convenience-store clerk then have to check if they have fines? TransLink and the minister said this would all be worked out “through regulations” and so on.

– go after them in small-claims court. (This seems straightforward, though time-consuming. Hard to believe that the $173 fine would even begin to cover court costs.)

– take it out of provincial tax refunds. (This would be a worst-case scenario, not lightly employed, I’m told)

– allow various TransLink personnel to issue tickets, not just transit police.

TransLink’s Doug Kelsey also suggested Coast Mountain Bus would be re-examining its policy of drivers not asking people for fares. As anyone who rides the bus knows, drivers simply don’t engage, except in rare cases, in challenging anyone who doesn’t pay.

My guess is that all the publicity around this will produce more of a scare factor and also a cultural-acceptance factor that will induce people to pay for transit, so that the above mechanisms will not need to be used that intensively.

As well, once the Compass cards come into play, along with faregates, that will automatically reduce the possibilities for fare evasion, at least on SkyTrain lines. The B-line, or as the 20-somethings of my acquaintance call it, the free line, will remain an issue. Presumably the transit police will become more of a presence there once the faregates are in place on the SkyTrain system.

The party’s over. That’s what some realtors are quietly telling their west-side clients who were rosily dreaming of selling their shacks for $5 million.

There’s been a slowdown in the higher end of real estate on the west side and, I suspect, a few other pockets as well that were attractive to a select group of well-heeled buyers, either investing or looking at moving here as immigrants.

That group has primarily been viewed as mainland Chinese buyers in stories of the last two years that have breathlessly talked about how they’re buying up Vancouver and driving real-estate prices sky high, to the dismay of more nuanced thinkers who noted that those stories 1. made no distinction between immigrants and offshore investors 2. never tried to parse out exactly how big or small this pool was 3. never clearly explained that whatever impact this small group was having was fairly localized.

We still don’t have any real statistics on this, but whatever they are, the anecdotal evidence coming from west-side realtors is that that trend has slowed. As people in my story today note, there are many reasons why: restrictions on capital being allowed out of China, new demands from bank for proof of income and assets even in what are called “equity loans” (loans where the buyer puts in a substantial downpayment and the bank can be assured of recouping its money no matter what happens), some over-supply as sellers jumped into the market thinking they would cash in on the easy money, immigrants and investors slowing down as they realize the market is over-priced and there’s actually lots of supply, and more.

This is all in the context of a general slow-down in the market with, as many have noted, a lot of inventory piling up and a low number of sales — the lowest since 2001 — being recorded in these early months of 2012.

Will that be enough to slow the speculative fever in Vancouver? I doubt it. Seems to me it would take several years of downward pressure on prices to convince everyone — both locals who stampede into the market fearing they’ll be left behind if they don’t, and investors here and elsewhere — that real estate is not magic money.

Apparently Toronto Mayor Rob Ford charged towards the reporter screaming that he was spying on him, as per this story, now making the rounds on Twitter.

Various reporters across Canada are already suggesting what their mayors would do in the same situation: offer lemonade; write a sharp letter to the editor if the reporter actually came into the mayor’s bathroom at home, etc.

What do you think your mayor would do?

Listening to Vancouver councillors talk this morning about the security measures needed for oil tankers in the harbour, you would never know there’s actually a port authority already ensuring this.

It was quite fascinating to listen to Kerry Jang say he doesn’t believe the current security measures, like having three tugs attached to any tanker, are really effective in any way and there could still be a terrible oil spill in the harbour.

Good thing those councillors are on top of everything.

Okay, snippy comments aside, this post is to note that council did indeed pass the motion put forward by Mayor Gregor Robertson to demand that tankers have more liability insurance than the current $1.33-billion that Canadian law currently makes them provide. It also passed a motion by Green Party Councillor Adrian Carr, asking for a report from staff and the Vancouver Economic Development Commission assessing the risk of increased tanker traffic.

I’m attaching my Globe story from Tuesday, where I noted that tankers are already required to carry insurance plus a contract with a local clean-up crew. Since then, there has been more clarity from city hall that the city’s motion is intended to add to what is already required.

By the way, that $1.33 billion number is the one generated by a researcher with the Living Oceans Society in 2010 (report here) as part of what seems to have been a general effort by environmental groups to oppose increased oil transport and drilling by focusing on the liability issue, particularly for Enbridge or Arctic projects. That number has then been used by a number of other environmental organizations.

Although Vancouver is not likely to see drilling in the harbour or tankers operating at the speed of an Exxon Valdez, that risk argument has been imported into the Vancouver debate.

I am trying to find out what people in the maritime-law industry think of that number and whether it’s accurate. There has been some fuzzy reporting in this area. Some environmental groups have claimed that the liability is actually capped at around $40 million. As it turns out, it’s only capped at that much by Canadian law if the industry and/or tanker is deemed to be not responsible for the spill. If they are, the cap goes much higher.

For those wondering why there is a cap at all, I’ve discovered through my forays online that it was put in place after the Exxon Valdez accident. There’s an article here explaining the concept behind it, which was to limit the liability of an individual company or tanker but provide more money from a kind of general industry pool.

Finally, in my still-incomplete research on this topic, I’ve been in touch with the president of the Canadian Maritime Law Association, Vancouver lawyer Chris Giaschi. He’s at a conference in New York but had this to say by email:

The city (and province) have no constitutional jurisdiction whatsoever. 

Only the feds can address this and it is, in large measure, already addressed in excruciating detail. 

There are multiple levels of compensation available. They begin with the shipowner. 

When that fund us exhausted there are two levels of international funds and then yet another level provided by the canadian ship source oil pollution fund(the "SSOPF"). 

The annual report of the ssopf always has a table setting the compensation available.

The University of B.C. professor who drove the creation of UBC’s Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability makes you feel like there’s hope after all, when you sit down with him for even 10 minutes.

John Robinson is an environmentalist, but not the doomsayer kind that warns you to lie in bed quietly with the lights off so as not to use energy or destroy the planet. He says that message isn’t going to fly anyway, especially with younger people.

His whole mission in work, and life, is to find ways for human activity to improve the planet’s environment.

The latest result: the CIRS building, which he worked on with architects Peter Busby and Martin Nielsen for 10 years.

I wrote about it here, (along with a too-brief highlight on SFU’s new Living Building childcare centre here) recently. They’re both inspiring symbols of the way universities are driving innovation in an area that desperately needs it. Unfortunately, the two biggest projects in B.C. that were meant to symbolize the new wave of green architecture — the Olympic Village in Vancouver and Dockside Green in Victoria — have both been hobbled by some financial clouds that have made people dubious about green building.

But SFU, which managed to bring its building at a lower cost than normal construction, and UBC, which will monitor how people use the building and how it performs to provide a serious evaluation of green building, are both working to demonstrate how green can work, not just environmentally, but financially.

The latest from city hall. As just an average person, I’d like to hear some explanations from those in opposition about how and where oil and gas should be transported.

I’m an agnostic on this issue, but, as someone who observes that it takes oil/gas to run the modern world and even build bicycles, I’d like to hear more than just “Not here, thanks.”

Anyway, the news release:

(Vancouver) – Vision Vancouver is introducing two motions, one at City Council and one at Park Board, opposing the massive expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline and outlining next steps to protect Vancouver.

Mayor Gregor Robertson is bringing forward a motion for next Tuesday’s Council meeting that formally opposes the expansion, and asks staff to prepare a by-law requiring pipeline operators and oil tankers using Burrard Inlet, Vancouver Harbour and/or the Fraser River to indemnify the City of Vancouver at levels equivalent to a worst-case spill.

“I am very strongly opposed to Kinder Morgan’s plans for a five-fold increase in oil tanker traffic through Vancouver,” said Mayor Gregor Robertson. “We will use absolutely every tool at our disposal to protect Vancouver’s vibrant local economy and natural environment from the enormous risks posed by the threat of a catastrophic oil spill.”

Vision Vancouver park commissioner Niki Sharma has introduced a motion, scheduled for next Monday’s Park Board meeting, for the Board to formally state its strong opposition to any expansion of the pipeline and fulfill its mandate to preserve and protect our green spaces.

“Future generations deserve the same opportunities we have today to enjoy Vancouver’s treasured beaches, parks, and natural environment – especially Vancouver jewels such as Stanley Park,” said Commissioner Sharma. “A five-fold increase in super-tankers through Vancouver simply poses too extreme a risk to our sensitive local coastline and the strong Vancouver
economy it supports.”

Mayor Robertson outlines his opposition to the pipeline expansion proposal in detail in an op-ed in today’s Vancouver Sun.

Nothing like talking about how to make housing more affordable to get people going on everything they think is wrong with the world.

One target in the talks: Vancouver’s community-amenity contributions — that money the city asks developers to give back to the city when their land is rezoned to allow them to build more on it than the previous zoning. For about the last year, developers have been grumbling about this practice in Vancouver, even as other municipalities are starting to extract it as well to pay for community services.

Architect/development consultant Michael Geller took a run at this in a Vancouver Sun news story here.

Former city planner Brent Toderian swings back at one of Geller’s main arguments in this message, which he’s sent out to various people:

The main thing to be refuted, is the notion that municipal costs “just
get added onto the price”. Do private sector costs get added on?
Marketing fees? Design fees? No, they get factored into land price
(bringing land price down, as it should be), get dealt with thru
contingencies in the budget it they are higher than expected, or they
dip into profits (usually beyond the 15%). By definition they can’t
just be added to the price, as people will only pay what supply and
demand will determine the value to be. Costs affect profit (especially
if they’ve overpaid for land) and land cost (if they’ve paid a
reasonable price), and viability in weaker markets, NOT price.

This notion, I believe, is a campaign to have ordinary people turn
against public benefits by suggesting they are contributing to
unaffordability. And its working to some degree – amazingly I’m
hearing some ordinary people saying that public benefits should be
waived. Not private sector costs, like high marketing fees in this
city. Only public costs going to the commonwealth. When i remind them
such fees pay for rental and social housing, heritage, parks, daycare,
culture, etc – many of the things that make density livable and
diverse, they usually change their mind, or say something like
“perhaps taxes should be raised instead.” The whole debate is based on
the premise that CAC’s get passed on to buyers. They don’t. This
campaign should be refuted.

As an aside, not sure where they got CAC’s at 85%. Range is typically 70-80%.