After the Non-Partisan Association sent out a news release yesterday claiming that Mayor Gregor Robertson had “over-ruled” its own Large Events Oversight Committee’s recommendations not to allow tents at the Occupy Vancouver protest, media jumped on the story.

Turned out that was a teensy-weensy bit of over-hype. The committee didn’t make any recommendations, only heard various updates from the city about its plans for Occupy Vancouver.

But the misleading news release allowed us all, as we did more research, to get a glimpse into what was going on at city hall in the days leading up to Occupy Vancouver, as city managers first planned to stick to the city’s long-time policy of not allowing tents to a realization that it was going to be impossible to prevent it without a major confrontation.

Unions have been one of the groups most interested in how the Occupy camps are faring around the world. These unaffiliated protest camps were not a union idea and they certainly don’t preach a labour-influenced message.

But they do talk about something union leaders are often trying to get a public conversation going on: income inequality between regular working people and those at the top.

(I realize this will cue some of you to dump on well-paid union members who get cushy jobs with benefits and pensions that non-union schlubs don’t. Fill your boots. I happen to be rather grateful to unions for the work they’ve done in the past 100 years or so in getting five-day work weeks, minimum wages, and all kinds of other things that benefit the working population as a whole.)

The Occupy Vancouver camp has been a dilemma for them, as a result, as I write here. You have a union-supported party like Vision Vancouver now taking a much harder-line position. The camp itself has generated an enormous amount of negative reaction among the very 99 per cent it’s supposedly protesting on behalf of.

And all that has resulted in uncertainty about what line to take on it, as what seemed like the start of a general rising up — with the potential to provoke some real changes in the system — degenerating into a squabble over the right to camp out on public property.

Oh bruther, just when you think things are calming down.This news release from the Vancouver police.

“Run on the Developers” March

Vancouver – Vancouver Police will be keeping a close eye on the Occupy Vancouver “Run On The Developers” march this Saturday. The march is scheduled to leave the Vancouver Art Gallery at noon and head around the downtown core in protest of financial institutions.

The possibility exists that protesters may try to occupy one or more banks however, the exact route the marchers will take is unknown.

In advance of the march, the VPD is liaising with banks in the immediate area of the Vancouver Art Gallery to review safety and security protocols with staff in the event of a disruption in business.

Firefighters have issued their list of endorsements for council. I’m a bit surprised — thought they might be leaning a little more to the Non-Partisan Association, but apparently not.

Here’s what they had to say.

“In these demanding times, we are convinced Mayor Robertson understands the incredible challenges facing the Vancouver Fire Department,” says Union President Gordon Ditchburn. “A commitment to public safety begins with a clear understanding of the issues. Vancouver fire fighters are dedicated to keeping the citizens of Vancouver safe, and we need Vancouver City
Council members with that same commitment. We believe this is the team to lead Vancouver over the next three years.”

The full slate of candidates being endorsed include:
• Gregor Robertson, Vision Vancouver
• Heather Deal, Vision Vancouver
• Kerry Jang, Vision Vancouver
• Raymond Louie, Vision Vancouver
• Geoff Meggs, Vision Vancouver
• Andrea Reimer, Vision Vancouver
• Tim Stevenson, Vision Vancouver
• Tony Tang, Vision Vancouver
• Sean Bickerton, Non Partisan Association
• Adriane Carr, Green Party
• Ellen Woodsworth, COPE

Okay, a bit confusing that a council candidate is opposing the laneway houses that the NPA’s mayoral candidate is supporting, but anyway, this ought to get Bill some support from irate residents in Dunbar and Point Grey.

McCreery, an architect, says: “This is necessary because of the negative impacts these new homes are having on their neighbours.

McCreery suggests: “Vancouver needs to research how laneway housing is being done more successfully in other cities – such as Seattle.  If Vancouver laneway housing is to continue in a way that is acceptable to local residents, we need to improve the end product because current practices are not working and are not acceptable.

Yahoo, just got a call from a polling firm. Can’t believe I haven’t been contacted before, with all the polling that’s been going on in town.

But today got the robo-call from Forum Research with only a key few questions.

That’s the same firm that did a Canada-wide poll on mayors recently and came up with somewhat weird results, i.e.  that only 54 per cent of people in Surrey would vote for Dianne Watts again, although she had a 68 per cent approval rating. That’s even though 85 per cent voted for her in the last Surrey election.

Anyway, I digress.

1. Who are you voting for? Suzanne Anton, Gregor Robertson, Randy Helten, another or undecided

2. Which party are you leaning to? Anton’s NPA, Robertson’s Vision, Helton’s NSV or other

3. Do you approve or disapprove of Gregor Robertson’s handling of the Occupy Vancouver protest?

4. Who did you vote for in the last election?

And then some demographic questions. (Clue to you pollsters: I didn’t answer a single question on the poll truthfully. Check out the answers from the 25- to 34-year-old males and you’ll find me. Or not.)

So we can expect the results out sometime just before the election. Just remember, you heard it here first. These results will be absolutely reliable.

What a craaazy night at St. Andrew’s-Wesley, for a night that included threats of a riot inside the church, hymn-singing, multiple requests to people to PLEASE STOP YELLING, and some actual information about what the two main candidates have to say about homelessness and affordable housing in the city.

The tweetreporting by my various colleagues — Ian Bailey and Rod Mickelburgh at the Globe, Jeff Lee at the Sun, Stephanie Ip at 24 Hours, political gadabout Michael Geller and various others I can’t remember — was spectacular. You should check it out at #vanelxn.

It’s hard to sum up the event with so much going on at some many levels, but one comment I do have: It was hard to understand why people from Occupy Vancouver were at the event. They demanded to be let in.

They frequently yelled so much when Gregor Robertson and Suzanne Anton were talking that we couldn’t hear them, occasionally chanting “Why are we listening?” and shouting “Liar.” (Tip 1: If you don’t think people have anything worthwhile to say, perhaps don’t come to events where they are speaking.)

Then they were furious and threatened to riot when they didn’t get to ask all the questions they had lined up to ask at the end of the night. (Tip 2: If you want to have time to ask questions, don’t take up so much of it disrupting the evening.)

Okay, that digression aside, here’s some actual information from the evening, which Wendy Pedersen from Carnegie Community Action Project asked if I’d put up, since people couldn’t hear what was going on sometimes, especially at the beginning when we were asking them  for yes/no answers.

Here are those questions and answers: (Could the candidate teams please correct me if I’m wrong on any of these?)

[Read more →]

Gordon Campbell had to deal with a protest camp on the Vancouver Art Gallery Plaza. It took him a month to get rid of it. Then it moved to city hall.

That was just one interesting historical factoid that I discovered when I looked at the city’s past history of getting injunctions to clear protest camps — and why they did what they did with this one.

(If you want to look at one of the legal decisions connected to the 1991 camp-out, here’s this link.

This is Survivor Civic Election like we’ve never seen before.

As I’ve been saying here and there, we get to watch the politicians react to new developments every day and decide whether they’re reflecting our values.

That has made this election unlike anything I can remember. Bob Ransford, who’s been watching politics for a long time, talked to me about the complex dynamics of it all for this story.

One was at the Bayshore. The other was at the Greek community centre. In the old days, the first fundraiser would have been the Non-Partisan Association’s, the second would have been COPE’s (except it would have been held in a community centre of some eastern European nationality).

But the tables have turned and it was Vision Vancouver, where almost 1,000 gathered at an upscale downtown hotel to donate money for the party, eat some kind of chicken thing, listen to Steve Burgess try to crack some jokes over the sound of 1,000 voices gossiping, wander around and sample desserts from three food carts brought in for the occasion, and more.

The Non-Partisan Association, on the other hand, held the most downscale annual fundraiser that I’ve been to in 15 years of covering city hall. Although the organizers put their hearts into jazzing up the space, the $275-a-ticket event was in a room that felt like a high-school gym, with a mishmash of various dishes (sushi, pasta) on tables at the side, and red, white and blue balloons rising from few tables available. (Most of the 600-some people who attended stood.)

There was a huge difference in the presentations too. Someone said to me that he and a friend were talking and the friend said, “Who do you think wrote Suzanne Anton’s speech?” He answered: “Suzanne.” “And who do you think wrote Gregor’s speech?” “About 10 people, who worked hard to come up with something new that would convey a lot of big ideas.”

Suzanne’s speech was a re-iteration of much she has said before on the campaign trail: A streetcar, a tall building for St. Paul’s, the party that says Yes, not the party that says No like Vision.

Gregor’s speech, on the other hand, tried to reach for some bigger themes. (You can see the speech somewhere on YouTube, or at least the zingers, i.e. talking about people in the city that see “calamity in a new bike lane, apocalypse in a chicken coop, that reads Winnie the Pooh and thinks, ‘Eeyore, that’s a role model for me.'”)

What does it all mean? Well, one could argue that the NPA could have splashed out on a big hotel dinner but is working hard to keep its expenses low.

However, since fundraisers are not just about raising money, but about projecting an image of  momentum and confidence in the party, it looked to many attending as though the NPA just isn’t getting much support.

It is collecting money from its diehard base and from those groups who have wisely learned (ever since Larry Campbell and COPE surprised everyone in 2002 with a near-complete sweep of council) to put some money down on both sides of the election race.

Party organizer Norman Stowe put a good face on this, saying something along the lines of “People who were at Vision Vancouver HAD to be there; people here tonight WANT to be here.”

Of course, this all leads to the burning question of who was buying tickets/tables at each fundraiser: vital information for every unhappy critic who will use the information to decide that one party or the other is in thrall to developers. (Reality check, folks: Until there is campaign-financing reform, developers will always be significant donors to the winning party. They’re the ones with money. It takes money to win. If you turn it down, you guarantee that you won’t be on council.)

So here’s who was where:

[Read more →]