125 responses so far ↓

• 1 Terry M // Feb 17, 2013 at 3:44 pm

  Brilliant @95
  Adrienne Carr… Mayoral material she is not.
  For that we need an IKEA monkey dressed accordingly, oh wait… 🙂

• 2 Bill // Feb 17, 2013 at 4:47 pm

  I am not a Green Party supporter but kudos to Adriane Carr for taking up this issue. And best of luck to the CCA’s in their “negotiations” with the PB because at the very least their success will be a small victory against the continued efforts of the bureaucracy to control and regulate all aspects of our lives no matter how small the issue.

• 3 gman // Feb 17, 2013 at 5:06 pm

  This Vision attack on Carr really shows that they are really the fake “Green” party and only use the word green to sway the propagandized voters and push the real agenda forward.Or on the lighter side one could say they are beginning to eat their own.

• 4 Dan Cooper // Feb 17, 2013 at 10:47 pm

  Now HERE is an interesting thing:

  The other day, I put information about Trevor Loke’s speech at Killarney Community Centre on his Wikipedia page. Then the addition was deleted in its entirety by a user with the name Donburiland who made the following comment: “Edit removes irrelevant information which is of opinion, not fact.” If you go to the pages for user “Donburiland” you find that the only thing this user has ever done in the past is to create and edit pages about Trevor Loke and his company Weeve.

  Hmmm….I wonder who it could be that takes a sole interest in these two topics, and deleted what I wrote – every bit of it written in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and supported by external sources – in its entirety rather than editing it if he or she felt it had somehow been slanted?

  For the record the following is what I wrote (and what I have now added back in) in its entirety and along with its references. Observe that the quotes are all taken verbatim from the Canada.com article:

  “At a January 29, 2013 public meeting at Killarney Community Centre, Loke spoke on the topic of Park Board and community centre financing, addressing an audience ‘made up largely of blue-collar workers, seniors, immigrants and young families’ with a ‘tirade [or] rant about the inequalities between poor associations and their rich counterparts in communities like Killarney,’ drawing a disapproving response from the audience.”

  References:

  http://www.canada.com/news/Community+centres+protest+Vancouver+park+board+plan/7895803/story.html |title=
  Community centres protest Vancouver park board plan; Public meeting at Killarney turns ugly after commissioner’s rant|publisher=Canada.com

  http://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/killarney-cca-emergency-meeting-january-29-2013-highlights/ |title= Killarney CCA Emergency Meeting January 29, 2013 highlights

  —

  Again, wonder who could be the person so interested in Trevor Loke and Weeve (and nothing else) that they would try to take factual information off his web page? I will certainly not speculate, but it could be an interesting thing for, say, a journalist.

  Come to think of it, maybe someone with good sense needs to have a little talk with someone else about bad political optics?

• 5 Cheezwiz // Feb 18, 2013 at 11:15 am

  @Everyman #91: “I’d suggest Vision tread carefully going down this road. Cllr. Carr has been very good at expressing neighbourhood concerns on several contentious issues. Attacking her will not put Vision in a good light.”

  EXACTLY. Although I’m not a Green Party fan, I was impressed by Cllr. Carr during the hearings I’ve attended. She was engaged (unlike the rest of council) and asked intelligent and balanced questions from speakers on both sides of the issue.

  This just looks like an attempt to muzzle dissent in a bullying manner.

• 6 Sandy Garossino // Feb 18, 2013 at 12:50 pm

  Ms. Carr is a sole councillor who raised a material governance issue. In the heat of conflict she over-stepped and has since apologized. It’s disconcerting to see Vision adopt such a pugilistic approach.

  The City Manager is so closely identified with the Parks Board policy that for her to rule on an opposition motion inevitably created or added to the perception of both conflict and politicization.

  Ms. Carr’s apology should be the end of this.

• 7 Ned // Feb 18, 2013 at 1:22 pm

  Dan Cooper #104
  LOL!
  Good job. I( would have dome the same thing and even more. Delete what that punk signing as “Donburiland” have put in. This Vision guys are nothing but a bunch of liars, pumping up their resumes and backgrounds the very moment they get the occasion to do it. Look what happens inside City Hall these days. look who these new hires are, where they come from and their affiliations.
  BTW FWIW your addition is correct and of relevance.
  Trevor Joke should delete himself from politics altogether. He’s a full of himself punk. Period.

• 8 B // Feb 18, 2013 at 4:37 pm

  @ A Dave:

  Perhaps if you read what I wrote and took it at face value rather than taking it wildly out of context, discussions on here wouldn’t be so polarized.

  What I said was I can’t see the negative side of the motion the Park Board approved at their meeting. It was to adopt bland motherhood principles of equity, etc, to continue negotiations and to engage in public consultation.

  If you want to interpret that as bullying tactics, fill yer boots. I read that and see that the PB will now continue negotiations and staff will organize public consultations, because that’s what it says. Seems simple.

• 9 spartikus // Feb 18, 2013 at 5:48 pm

  Ms. Carr’s apology should be the end of this.
  There seems to have been a climb-down on that.

  It’s the wise move, but damage has been done.

• 10 boohoo // Feb 18, 2013 at 7:07 pm

  He said, she said, whatever. Both sides look like childish idiots.

• 11 gman // Feb 19, 2013 at 2:05 am

  Boo that’s so disappointing from you,this isn’t about the usual Vision rolling over one neighborhood at a time for another tower ,this is a shot at every community in the city and a display of the vindictiveness of Vision.Boo this is our city not Visions city and these people who care enough to get involved in their community and sacrifice their time for the good of their community for no gain other than the betterment of the community are a very rare breed and if we loose these people we loose something that our kids will never see again,this is a very big deal.

• 12 gman // Feb 19, 2013 at 2:50 am

  Spartikus #109,
  I wonder how much this fiasco has cost taxpayers with all the consulting fees and the use of city staff,to their embarrassment I’m sure,before they realized the lawyers were telling them they were wrong? Why else would they backpedal on such an important issue as It appeared to be to the Mayor and Meggs.

• 13 A Dave // Feb 19, 2013 at 9:35 am

  B @ 108 “if you read what I wrote and took it at face value rather than taking it wildly out of context”

  You mean wildly out of context, like, say, characterizing a vote that occurred at 3:00 am, at a marathon meeting that featured Parks commissioner Trevor Loke ranting like a goon at the audience, as a decision that was made in good faith by a caring, loving mother?

• 14 boohoo // Feb 19, 2013 at 10:11 am

  gman,

  I didn’t say it was a big deal. I said the amount of misinformation from both sides makes this ‘discussion’ pointless. We have people in this thread and involved in the process basically saying ‘liar liar pants on fire’ and you have the parks board just towing the party line. It’s dumb.

  This whole thing needs to be put on hold for awhile so everyone, on both sides can chill the hell out.

  Again, I don’t know why this would impact your initiative to volunteer, but that’s a different discussion.

• 15 boohoo // Feb 19, 2013 at 10:25 am

  ‘wasn’t a big deal’.

• 16 waltyss // Feb 19, 2013 at 12:00 pm

  @ADave. The meeting at which Trevor Loke made a fool of himself was not the meeting that went on until 3:00 am. Unfortunately, your post is an example of what boohoo is getting at.
  I also think that boohoo is correct when he says that its time for everyone, but particularly the PB and the CCA’s to shut up and get on with negotiating a new JOA.
  That doesn’t mean that the antiVisionistas won’t continue to slag; that is what they do; it is their raison d’etre, after all. For everyone else, time to move on. Who cares anymore who screwed up when. The situation is as it is and for the CCA’s that means they have more leverage in negotiations than they did a month ago. Now if they only manage not to overplay their hand, we may have an overall good result for the city.

• 17 Glissando Remmy // Feb 19, 2013 at 1:28 pm

  Waltyss #116

  What are you saying ma’ man?

  ” its time for everyone, but particularly the PB and the CCA’s to shut up and get on with negotiating a new JOA.”

  So, let me rephrase that, I come to your house, take over your living room, pocket the TV remote, put a padlock on the Spirits cabinet… then from lying down on ‘your couch’ I say “Shut up and get with the program. Oh, and you may use the kitchen from 9AM to 6 PM when I’m out, and I expect vacuuming to be done during that interval …”

  First. In your reverse psychology shtick, the message is basically directed to CCAs not the PB.
  Second. There was/ is no need for negotiations. Unless you are the one holding the TV remote.

  “That doesn’t mean that the antiVisionistas won’t continue to slag; that is what they do; it is their raison d’etre, after all.”

  Sure thing. After a delicate Vision gang banging like this, why don’t people accept it as a ‘valuable experience’, wash their thoughts with a bit of water, and move on. Right?

  ” For everyone else, time to move on. Who cares anymore who screwed up when.”

  Oh, that’s rich!
  Suuuree!
  Let me tell you. Vancouverits care. And they realized they screwed up twice. Once in 2008 and again in 2011!

  ” The situation is as it is and for the CCA’s that means they have more leverage in negotiations than they did a month ago. Now if they only manage not to overplay their hand, we may have an overall good result for the city.”

  I don’t believe that will ever happen, not for a… millisecond!
  Vancouver City, its Council/Park Board/ VSB are already … Damaged Goods!
  All at the hands of this insane Visionless bunch.

  Anything else you want me to clarify for you…
  leave me a note. 🙂

• 18 waltyss // Feb 19, 2013 at 2:46 pm

  Ah, Glissy, my favourite NPA troll, you behaved true to form and won’t let it go. And of course, as per your particular modus operendi, the facts such as they are, aren’t good enough; you have to make them up.
  For example, the analogy is false. This is not about someone invading the CCA’s house. The PB owns the house (facts are such a bugger, trolly, aren’t they), not the CCA. And the owner of the house wants some of the money the CCA’s make from rening out the house for various functions, etc.
  The truth is that what the CCA tenant does provides value to the community but by the same token, the PB is entitled to more of the revenue for the other “houses” it owns through the city.
  You may think that the tenant keeping all the money. You being an NPA troll would believe geese shat gold if Vision took another position.
  However, the PB begs to differ and there is more than a little legitimacy to its position.
  Did they f*ck up the way they handled it? Yes, absolutely. That should make you happy.
  Did they have a point to begin with? Most people, excepting the Vision haters like you, would say yes. What they don’t want however is the CCA tenant tossed out and the City having to pay for their replacement.
  You’re welcome, Glissy my troll. Hope that got through the cloud.
  Oh and by the way, you forgot a pointless Soviet reference in your response. I so depend on them.
  Is that clear enough, moy dorogoy trollchik
  As for 2014, if the best your fellow NPA trolls can come up with is the bunch they ran the last time, well, prepare for the voters of Vancouver to make another “mistake”. Just sayin’.

• 19 waltyss // Feb 19, 2013 at 2:52 pm

  Glissy the troll, Corrigendum:
  You may think that the tenant keeping all the money is fair. You being an NPA troll would believe geese shat gold if Vision took a contrary position.
  However, the PB begs to differ and there is more than a little legitimacy to its position. And, well, they were elected by the citizens of Vancouver. I know that according to your rizable math they have no mandate but they have more mandate that your NPAistas. And in our democracy that is all that matters, even if they do things differently in the gulag.

• 20 Glissando Remmy // Feb 19, 2013 at 4:06 pm

  Waltyss dearest,

  “Well, ain’t that nice?”

  Overlooking your cursive onomatopoeia you ask:
  “Did they f*ck up the way they handled it?”
  I answer:
  “And, boy, oh boy, how are the Vision veterans kicking themselves in the arse right now, for that little lack of concentration!”

  Hey, I hope your Vision buoys do know how to spell “Conflict-Of-Interest” though…

  http://vimeo.com/59812071

  Enjoy!

• 21 waltyss // Feb 19, 2013 at 4:58 pm

  Ah, glissy your trollship, let me borrow a page from your book and copy what I said on another thread in case your trollship didn’t get it.
  “Why am I not surprised that Glissy the troll would enlist the support of Mark Hasiuk the nasty, a diatribe long on innuendo and short on facts. Wasn’t Hasiuk a columnist at the Courier for a short time where he never used a fact if an innuendo would do. And gee, I guess the Courier decided that he was, well, a bit too far out there. But for the troll. What can I say except it figures.”
  For all I know Hasiuk and you are the same person: both nasty, both strangers to fact and lovers of innuendo; both unable to comprehend what makes a conflict of interest and both wrong more often that would be the case by chance.

• 22 jenables // Feb 20, 2013 at 12:25 am

  you two are quite adorable when you banter, didja know?

• 23 Michelle // Feb 20, 2013 at 10:10 am

  LOL,
  jenables #122
  I totally agree, however I like Glissy better. 🙂
  Sorry Waltyss but I do!
  Glissando’s comments got panache, a very funny sophisticated writing, on the other hand, yours…

• 24 waltyss // Feb 20, 2013 at 12:31 pm

  @Michelle, #123. I am so hurt, I really am.
  But just to show that, despite being hurt, I take no offense, I extend to you une deuxieme grosse baisse. Salut, ma belle.

• 25 B // Feb 20, 2013 at 4:44 pm

  @A Dave:

  First, Commissioner Loke didn’t rant at the audience at the Park Board meeting. Ask anyone that was there. Zero ranting. I assume you mean some other meeting.

  Second, a motherhood statement or a motherhood principle refers to bland, easily agreeable things. It’s not meant to refer to anyone as particularly caring or loving.