Vancouver no-smoking laws…start..NOW

On March 31st...

Pubs and restaurants and…any public place with a window and door…
No smoking within 6 meters of them. (which would bring you to the curb)
No more patio smoking.
No more smoking rooms
No more smoking 6 m of a public establishment open window or door
Oh..and bus shelters too.

I think it might even be illegal to show packs of tobacco in stores- I see them cover them up now.

I like the law because I don’t smoke.

But I bet it’ll start a lot of confrontation because as if cops are going to walk around with a measuring tapes and enforce it. And bar owners risk losing their license and a $2500 fine.

BUT, in the NIMBY spirit, I still want to reserve my right to smoke in Montreal where they have a beautiful culture of hot summers, wine, patios and the cigarette.

So no smoking in Vancouver but lets forget about this ridiculous ban in Montreal.

Vancouver anti-smoking city- what will it mean for you?

hookah bars? cigar lounges? patios? summer bar business? olympics (where the world is more or less pro-smoke)?

And will it really make you quit smoking?

RECOMMEND this Post on Progressive Bloggers CLICK HERE!

Gay education

I love reading the opinion letters in newspapers. I love how they show incredible intelligence AND incredible ignorance in such a small space that, hopefully the latter doesn't, represent Vancovouver citizens.
I've been published a few times in the letters pages, and I must say it IS kind of hard to get a letter published there- it has to be some sort of sensational, of course and once I got the hang of knowing how to be sensational wriing letters to newspapers got old.

Anyhow, two letters in particular got me interested enough to dicuss here.

I read this one first:

Gay taxpayers tired of subsidizng their critics:
It is bad enough that we gay British Columbians subsidize private Catholic schools with our tax dollars, but they now object to gays being included in diversity programs in public schools. Our thousands of dollars are gleefully accepted, but we are considered inferior and unworthy. I don't think so. It's time all taxpayers took a close look at private schools that inevitably teach that they are the only ones worthy of anything.
Hugh (Bart) Vincelette, Vancouver

I had a "huh..that's interesting" moment.
Ad at first I agreed whole heartely- WHY do we as taxpayers pay for things that will demoralize our community and/or bash and/or potentially spread hate?

But also at the same time a taxpayers we fund a lot of public programming that we may not personally believe is morally justifiable (help me out here..I can't hink of any at the moment). I think it is safe to say though that we should respect other people's thoughts and opinions even though they may be against our own. Isn't that what Canada is all about? We're a mosaic right? meaning that there is a lot of diversity but we still exist in segregated "tiles" and retain our uniqueness within a broader picture (unlike the below 49th parallel melting pot).

BUT this is different because education is PUBLIC, and yes, even though private schools can teach with different philosophies or different curiculum even private schools are supported by public tax dollars to some extent- if you want me to explain the reason why I can, but for now that discussion is best saved for if you really give a damn.

So if education is PUBLIC, then we should be giving children content that will make our society more cohesive, supportive and tolerant- no?
That being said I don't believe Catholic schools are teaching HATE or anti-gay messages per se, I think they may just be staying quiet on the issue- (I'm not sure..I'll have to ask my Cath teacher friend)- but even if they do stay quiet on the issue that may be spreading ignorance.

But what if some segments of Catholicism DO believe that homosexuality gets in the way of cohesiveness in a functional society? There's an argument to be made there, one that I can make, but I don't believe in so I won't make it.

(Ok, that's a lot of thinking out loud). I totally understand these points raised by Vincelette (what a name, by the way..).

But say he is right, how would it be feasible to NOT have gay people, or any minority, special rights groups, not pay towards a public program? First you would have to justify why you should not pay, and then you would have to uh...check off "gay- don't want my money in Catholic schools" box on you tax form? yeah...and that would begin to breed MAJOR inequalities in funding in ANY publicprogram if minority groups were able to do that.

...i don't think the word "minority" is quite correct..I'm beginning to think we should be inclusive of any group n o matter what size..but then stakeholder models...ok.. NEXT

SO, I THEN read this:

Powerful minorities shouldn't influence school courses:
Diversity? Nothing could be farther from the truth of what the guide Making Space, Giving Voice suggests. The "guide," which is the result of the Corren agreement with the ministry of education that gave two homosexuals the special privilege of reviewing the K-12 curriculum, is focused on advancing an agenda including approval of homosexual lifestyles, using "social justice" as a convenient publicly accepted concurrence. No other group, "diverse" or conventional, has been given the licence to promote their beliefs within the curriculum as has been accorded to the Correns.
Of course, homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as all other Canadians, but it should not be at the expense of an already time-challenging curriculum, nor should a curriculum be so powerfully influenced by a special minority. The guide advances the ethics of homosexuals at variance with the ethics of other majority and minority groups, be they Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostics or Canuck fans. Having carefully read Catholic Civil Rights League director Sean Murphy's Making Sense of Making Space, Giving Voice, noting the misinformation and exclusion of facts not in harmony with the Corren Creed, and all its negative consequences, I believe it is imperative that parents take action to prevent the creed from becoming the "guide" for the education of their children.
Walter Szetela, Delta

Now I get this person's point- there are SO many groups that can influence or curriculum so when does it get so far that we're being TOO inclusive such that we have a horribly broad curriculum?

I agree it may get TOO much, but it's not right to close the doors and say no minority group can TRY to influence the curriculum. We have to be able to at least give groups a process where they can show grievance and go through a process inclusion in curriculum. It is our right to be able to influence the curriculum- any taxpayer ad citizen has a right to say what we teach our yout and we should not take away that process of expressing disapproval and subsequent revision of the curriculum.

The curriculum IS time consuming, but good teachers will figure out a way to hear minority voices- remember that teaching has gone FAR since the days of old person lecturing in front of rows of kids- Kids can pick minority groups that they are interested in, do group projects on it and present them to the class much like we do with different cultures/countries, and even different systems in the body.

I dunno, just an issue I thought was interesting- what do you think? who's right? and is it even feasible to be inclusive of ALL minority groups?
RECOMMEND this Post on Progressive Bloggers CLICK HERE!

Peter Ladner, I like you so run as an independent

The Vancouver Sun columnist and blogger Miro Cernetig wrote a lovely piece that suggested a debate between Coucillor Peter Ladner and Sam Sullivan. I am very much in support of this idea.

TheVancouverManifesto, as you may know, lies pretty liberal when it comes to politics. But I’m just going to put it out there: If Peter Ladner represented the NPA against Vision and COPE candidates I would vote for him. In struggling to explain myself to my lefty friends, Miro Cernetig explains it beautifully

After years in the game, Peter Ladner is learning something new about himself and politics.
He's an ideas guy at heart, an introspective sort. He likes the thinking part of city politics, the mulling over of policy -- whether it's the big stuff, such as making Vancouver a high-tech city, or the small, smart stuff, say putting a better bicycle lane over a bridge to downtown.
Here's the problem. As he challenges Mayor Sam Sullivan for their civic party's nomination, Ladner's now caught in the nasty grind of machine politics.

I have seen enough of Ladner to know he is a stand up guy. He is engaged in the community and often shows his face on panel presentations on city ideas. Out of city hall he has proven himself an intelligent, engaged and concerned citizen.

IN city hall he has done the same. Throughout EcoDensity debates he has been an ideas man, supporting the idea of EcoDensity but probably not supporting the process of EcoDensity. The Tyee wrote an article on a confrontation between Ladner and a citizen presenting to coucil during the EcoDensity public hearings:

With Vancouver's city councillors listening, a citizen of upper Kitsilano took the lectern and offered a plea against the controversial Eco-Density Charter. The gist of his complaint: Eco-densification has so far been a rash, hasty and seemingly undemocratic process.
Then councillor and mayoral hopeful Peter Ladner posed one simple question: What ideal outcome would you envision for the Vancouver of the future?
Mr. Upper Kits replied something about wanting a city nurtured by a grassroots process and community input and . . .
"Let's just leave process out of it for the moment," clarified Ladner. "What outcome do you want?"
An outcome that is formed by the views and needs of residents . . .
"Not process -- outcome," repeated Ladner, his voice growing crisp.
The now-stammering presenter wound up his manifesto not with a bang but a whimper. He seemed to know what kind of process he wanted, but not what kind of outcome

The point is not to show Ladner can shut people up- but to prove the point that most people who oppose EcoDensity don’t oppose the plan itself (number 12 on the DTES notwithstanding), they just oppose the PROCESS and Sullivan’s knack for being a publicity whore and trying to patent the name “EcoDensity” for his own fame.

Ladner is decisive and knows a good idea when he hears one. The problem is that he can’t CHAMPION that idea with the proper PROCESS because of party politics, or what Cernetig refers to as machine politics.

Even on the issue of widening to Burrard Bridge for bike lanes (rather than allocating the side lanes to preserve the beauty and heritage of the bridge), Ladner had to stay, officially, mum. In a head to head debate Ladner would no doubt be able to prove that he is a strong advocate for the city of Vancouver. I believe Ladner would be an incredible Leader and we need to separate his Leadship ability from NPA party politics.

Which brings me to my plea- Peter Ladner, please run as an independent. You are much too talented to be gagged by a party that is holding you back. RECOMMEND this Post on Progressive Bloggers CLICK HERE!

Awareness test

I heart Gordon Price for putting this up:

RECOMMEND this Post on Progressive Bloggers CLICK HERE!

Are kids getting dumber, teachers getting lazier or both?

None of the above.

After David Berner became a fan of my "distinct point of view" (http://thebernermonologues.blogspot.com/2008/03/attentione-amici.html) I have received some online attacks (along with online support) on my comments.
Always a good sign that I'm doing a good job on this blog.

But alas, raising a ruckus is not the sole job of my blog (although I am proud it has started debate because no issue should be left unquestioned).
And it is definitely poor practice to have tension between parents and teachers. Believe me, it was never my intention to do so and, in fact, I believe tension between parents and teachers, or even lack of communication, is one of the evils that is growing out of the education system (private and public) nowadays. Communication is important because when we act as a community to raise our children we do a better job of giving them a holistic education. Seriously, all sappiness aside, I mean that.

by the way, the title "teacher strike" was not to mean that I was calling for one- I was just saying that in case the BCTF was going to strike I would support it (which I'm legally obligated to do anyway because I'm a union worker, but I mean I personally support it beyond my union face).

So one of the points raised by a critic was that teachers spend little time with the kids in the class and, in fact, parents have to pick up the slack for the job that teachers are not doing by hiring tutors and sitting down with their children to teach concepts teachers should have done themselves.

"Quite frankly we parents spend a great deal of time making up at home for the work that wasn't covered at school (this is particularly true for math). And why are there currently so many students with tutors, if the teaching is so superior?" -anonymous

Valid are some of anonymous's points. I understand how a parent must feel when their child is shortchanged of time and energy of a teacher. I too am frustrated with this system. And the key is it is the system which is at fault and not your teacher (although I AM able to be the bigger person and admit not ALL teachers are time-giving saints- but with that said, the vast majority wittle away their salary such that they are making the equivalent of minimum wage on an hourly basis..much as I did when I had my full-time contract).

So, what's the deal with the system? Well, public schools are underfunded, have the most children with special needs but the least resources to assist students with special needs. That is the clear public/private split. Next, class sizes are such that teachers must attend to the kids that need the most attention rather than the kid who always behaves. It is a sad truth but kids that raise shit are kids that will get the most attention and often the ones that are little angels will get the least. So there's a time allocation problem, that is actually usually solved if we could lower the class size to maybe 20-24 (my personal opinion on optimal size). And really, that is/was the battle with many a job action- class size. It is just too big. Unfortunately, most money for education goes towards teacher's salaries (not saying that teacher's get paid a lot, but saying proportionally most of education spending goes to salaries) so the best way for the province to reduce cost is to increase class sizes so that we use less teachers.
(FYI, another way is to close schools- the next highest proportion of spending is on the cost to maintain an open school).

Okay, but beyond those struggles, is your kid getting dumber? Is your teacher getting damn lazy? If it it isn't one of the two then WHY oh WHY do kids come home NOT knowing what they are supposed to know and not doing well on tests?

This is a list, not exhausted, of the reasons why you m ay think kids are getting dumber or teachers aren't doing their job:

1) Children are less healthy. Yes, there is an increase in obesity. Does that mean fat kids are dumb? Certainly not. I was a fat kid and I seem to think I did pretty darn well in school. But when we are talking about a health epidemic where children are not as physically fit, they are feeding their bodies with crap (hopefully to end soon now that there is a ban on junk in vending machines) then their minds are not functioning properly. It is just very recently that there has been advocacy towards healthy bodies and healthy minds- recognizing there is a connection. So let this campaign get through, lets wait it out, see healthier kids and I guarantee we will see better minds.

2) Kids are busy with extra curricular activities AND they are expected to be good at everything. I think extracurricular activities are SO good for children, don't get me wrong, but TOO often I see parents that put the pressure on their kids to be good at ALL of the activities they put their kid into. This is not good. kids constantly come in at lunch and cut off their lunch time play (by the way, decreasing their amt of exercise at the same time) to finish homework they have in and outside of school. I don't know what we're doing to our children such that they have SO little time in their day that they need to take time out of lunch and play to scramble and finish work. Parents want the best out of their children, understandable, but when kids are put into so many extracurricular activities AND expected to excel in ALL of them it is really tough on the kid. Yes, put them into extracurriculars to expand their minds and expand their appreciation for different activities outside of school, BUT don't put TOO much pressure on them to be excellent at everything. Let them explore and just have fun with it.

3) Academic expectations are higher. This is really no joke. There has been a movement down in the curriculum, meaning that things you might have learned in grade 11 or 12, kids nowadays are learning in grade 9 and 10. For example, meiosis and mitosis (remember that?? sure you do, reproduction of cells..yeah, you don't remember that..). Anyway, when I was in high school (remember I'm young so it wasn't that long ago), we learned meiosis and mitosis in grade 12 Biology. This year I am tutoring a girl in grade 9 meiosis and mitosis. Seriously, that is an incredible shift down in curriculum. So we are PACKING these kids minds with high level stuff. In my opinion, these kids can learn it, but they aren't given the TIME to absorb the steps and foundation before we give them that content. And that is happening in every subject, ESPECIALLY math and sciences. So, you pack in more to teach you can't spend as much time teaching the foundational concepts. I'm a big believer in strong foundations and it takes TIME to develop a strong foundation so kids can take in more complicated concepts later. If you have a crap foundation, you can't build upon anything.

4) The curriculum has changed. So not only has the curriculum moved down, the curriculum has changed. And so it should, but I'll explain to you the problem. It takes years for a teacher to really master the curriculum and teach it in a meaningful way (meaning that you can teach it, but it takes years to really know how to teach it in the best way possible and understand how to teach it to the different learners in your classroom). So when you change the curriculum you have to learn a whole new process. But that's what teaching is and you gotta roll with the punches.
MORE problematic though is when you change the curriculum because the philosophy of the subject has changed. For example, you and I used to learn mathematics in grade school. Kids dont' learn math anymore, they learn NUMERACY. Which means less rote learning and drills and more understanding of patterns and the REAL understanding and philosphy of how numbers work. So the philosphy of the subject has changed yet we have teachers that have not instilled taht philosophy. Background knowledge on teaching pedagogy: when you teach something to somebody else you will try to teach it to them the way you yourself learned it. It's teaching 101, that's just how people try to teach somebody else a skill or concept. SO, when you have teachers that have NEVER learned NUMERACY in their life and you try to get them to teach it it is just bad news. And this is just a generational difference. We will get to the point where teachers will have the numeracy background to teach numeracy well, but right now we have an older generation of teachers who haven't a clue how to teach something that THEY themselves were never taught.

I will admit taht I have difficulty teaching numeracy to kids because I personally learned math using drills. And even though understand numeracy doesn't mean I can teach it. It's like knowing how to speak the language but not being able to teach it to somebody else (the best case in point is professors at universities. They know their subject inside and out but professors are terrible TEACHERS because they were never meant to be teachers, they were just meant to know the subject). Teaching is a skill SEPARATE from the actual SUBJECT. And your teaching skill is largely determined by the way you were taught as a student. So there are just some generational divides that we have to get over. It'll come.

So that's my list. kids aren't dumb, teachers are not lazy. we have some hurdles to get through with the education system and we have some generational divides we have to wait out. But it'll come.


OH, and by the way- to Anonymous (and everybody else) who said that I disapprove of FSAs because I just don't want teachers accountable- how do you explain TEACHERS that are ALSO PARENTS which take their children out of FSA testing? Believe it or not, there are some teachers that are also parents and still oppose the FSA for the aforementioned reasons. Many teachers know all they have to do is write a note or keep their kid at home on FSA day, and most do, because teachers know, personally, the farce that is the FSA exam and teachers choose not to waste their own children's time. RECOMMEND this Post on Progressive Bloggers CLICK HERE!

Front page news points out the obvious: Homelessness costs us money

The front page of The Vancouver Sun posted a story entitled, “The cost of homelessness”. (Note that the online equivalent reads, “The high cost of homelessness”- which was published earlier on Friday, March 21, 2008- the word "high" a bit much for the front page?).
The Vancouver Sun, Saturday, March 22, 2008.
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=11fdf74c-9130-41b3-b902-4273591ce59d&k=77775

"Every homeless person costs system $55,000, an amount that could buy supported
housing for each of them…annual total of $644.3 million in health,
corrections and social services spending for all the homeless in B.C."

Thanks to the Homeless Count (see http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/homelessness/whatsnew.htm) and researches from SFU, UBC and U of Calg, there has been a 150pg report written about the REAL cost of homelessness. I am so glad it reached the front page because advocacy groups have been saying for forever about the real cost of what happens when you don’t care for the most at-risk in our communities/society. It costs taxpayers MUCH more to criminalize homelessness and pretend its an individual problem rather than admit that it is a SOCIAL problem and result of a number of social forces (including the roll-back/ roll-out of the welfare state, closure of supportive/social/affordable housing, closure of mental health institutions, decline in Fordist manufacturing, increased professionalization and income polarization.. to name a few off the top of my head).

The resultant report is a great step towards getting citizens and governments to admit that what they are doing NOW is NOT working. Instead of shelling out millions of dollars to MAINTAIN our homeless problem we could be putting good money, towards state-led programs and supporting (and I mean REALLY truly supporting) current service providers to deliver services with a guaranteed and sufficient budget, to actually SOLVE the homeless problem. This report gives cold hard numbers (the only thing government bureaucracy responds to) to support the proper implementation of a program that will properly address homelessness.

The study estimated the number of people with severe addictions and/or mental illness who are homeless in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority jurisdiction is between 2,000 and 4,000.
Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan said in an interview Friday that he believes those numbers are accurate, and said more needs to be done to help them.
"It's a real problem," he said.
However, Sullivan noted the city is working with the province to create more housing units and that the federal government recently committed $10 million to Vancouver in drug treatment funding.

Sam really knows how to pass the buck. And you can thank Sullivan for addressing our homeless problem with the awesomeness that is Project Civil City (See http://www.mayorsamsullivan.ca/pdf/project-civil-city.pdf), the best homeless-hating document that ever existed in the City of Vancouver.

Speaking of passing the buck..
Also in news was “Mayor seeks church exemption: Churches would not need permits to shelter and feed homeless” http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=ef7e7a74-f50b-49df-a112-393c9f5c3097&k=16814&p=1)

Sounds all good, but how about we properly support our service providers and give them real money to work with instead of taking it away? This is something Sullivan should have done a long time ago, along with supporting funding towards these programs that do good work. I smell an election… RECOMMEND this Post on Progressive Bloggers CLICK HERE!

Teacher strike: Shirley Bond needs to go

Shirley Bond decided to write a little diddy for the Vancouver Sun today. I didn’t know she was so pro-FSA.
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/letters/story.html?id=cc28e40c-7b74-4f34-ae83-8fc8c3b4483e

Letter
Published: Thursday, March 20, 2008
It is disappointing to read that some members of the BCTF may be contemplating job action to express their opposition to the Foundation Skills Assessment (FSA), an important tool in assessing children's learning outcomes.
The FSA is an annual assessment of how students in Grades 4 and 7 are performing in reading, writing and math. It is a valuable tool for measuring individual student achievement and it allows us to address learning challenges early before they become real barriers to student success.
This form of assessment has been in place for almost 10 years and experts, including B.C.'s own representative for children and youth, have found it to be a useful tool. Over the last year, I also travelled to school districts around the province where I heard from numerous parents, teachers and students about the importance of this assessment.
Let's be clear: These are B.C. assessments, developed by our teachers and linked to our curriculum. Neither student grades nor district funding are affected by FSA results. The assessment simply shows how B.C. students are performing in key areas.
I welcome discussion around how to make the assessment more effective. In fact, in 2005 we established the learning roundtable, a body which brings together all education partners to discuss educational issues. If the BCTF has ideas on how the FSA could be made more effective, this would be the appropriate body for that discussion.
But for the BCTF to continue to oppose the FSA and put students' education in jeopardy by threatening job action over an assessment that is solely aimed at improving students learning outcomes is disappointing.
SHIRLEY BOND
Minister of Education

The Foundation Skills Assessment (FSA) Test, written in grade 4 and grade 7 is a province wide standardized test. It is used by the Fraser Institute to give unfair rankings of schools. It is a horrid way to assess our children and a horrid way to assess out schools.
As a public school teacher, I am armed with the experience to speak in support of job action against the FSAs:

Some things you need to know about FSAs:

1) The FSA is an assessment of how well children understand the FORMAT of standardized test taking and speaks nothing towards their comprehension or skills. I have marked the test in several different school districts for a couple years now and I can say for a fact that a child can have a perfectly good answer but still be given a zero (out of a marking rubric of 4) for interpreting the question in a different manner. Children are blank slates and have the amazing ability to interpret things in wild and wonderful ways. Sometimes different interpretations are inappropriate because they are clearly not accomplishing a straightforward task, but often times they are beautiful expressions of diversity and unique ways to interpret the same problem. The FSA is built so that it FORCES a child to think in ONE way and it expects them to conform to a streamlined way of thinking. This is so inhibiting for our children.

And yes, the FSA questions ARE made by teachers. But honestly, if you have read some of these questions you would see how ridiculous they are. I challenge the Vancouver Sun to put up a copy of the FSA questions and let citizens answer them. They are only grade 4 and 7 level so they shouldn’t be that hard, but you will see that there are so many different ways to interpret the questions and there are so many different ways of answering them. I bet you almost 50% of Vancouver Sun readers would minimally meet expectations (2), not yet meet expectations (1), or worst of all, the dreaded 0 which shows absolute profanity, and erased answer, or refusal to take the test.

2) Now BECAUSE the FSA will only reward you for a very specific defined and streamlined answer, students must be taught towards the test. Many people don’t realize that children don’t know HOW to take standardized tests yet and they have to build that skill over time. Not that I am saying they should not have that skill whatsoever, but when we are assessing foundational skills of reading, writing and numeracy those results should not be affected by the simple fact that kids don’t know how to take tests. For example, if you don’t know the answer on a multiple choice exam you just take a guess and fill in a bubble (when in doubt pick “C”, right? Or over the years it became B). Kids don’t think that way. When I began teaching intermediate level kids I was surprised at how many kids didn’t’ want to answer the question at all for fear that they would be penalized for a wrong answer or wrong step in an answer. And this is not something you can just tell them once and it’ll be fixed. It takes YEARS of telling these kids to make educated guesses when you aren’t quite sure and to give your best try because they won’t lose MORE marks on a wrong answer. The SMALLEST thing such as that makes a world of difference on a 6 question FSA.

3) Furthermore, now that we have to TEACH TOWARDS taking the FSA it takes away from precious classtime. We must spend days, up to a week practicing how to take standardized tests and teaching them the “accepted way to answer” in these tests. This is a terrible lesson for our children- to teach them that there is only ONE acceptable way to solve a problem. FSAs stifle children’s natural creativity.

BUT, as teachers we HAVE to waste weeks to teach these kids how to take tests and take up valuable teaching and learning time to teach towards these tests because organizations such as the Fraser Institute http://www.fraserinstitute.org/ (a neoliberal organization) will take this information and distil it into unjustified rankings of schools. They will start off with the private schools ranking above and beyond (forgetting that students at private schools don’t have to admit, and don’t admit, special needs children or children under par performance- and incidentally public schools must take on these children with LESS ability because we have LESS resources and LESS money to support special needs). And at the very worst schools who do amazing organizing with the community to ensure children don’t’ waste their time writing these exams, will rank last because not taking the test will not take you out of rankings, it will just give you a big fat ZERO. There is no “omit” on FSAs, there is only a zero. And zeros make people fearful and want to shame a school that may be doing a perfectly fine job.

4) Which brings me to the point of accountability. So you want to know how your school is doing or perhaps if your teacher is actually doing their job? I will tell you that standardized tests tell you nothing of a child’s ability and TEACHERS tell you everything about a kids ability. The most important part of report cards is not the letter grade, it’s not even really the teacher’s comments, it is YOU as a parent taking the time to come in and speak to the teacher about your child’s progress. That is the MOST important indicator of a student’s success, parent, teacher, and community involvement. When we are ALL involved in the success of our students and when we ALL make it our personal business to get to know how our children are doing we do MUCH better as a school, community and society.

And by the way, many teachers spend more time productive time with kids than often parents do. Children are at school 830-3, do sports and after school clubs and classes which teachers are involved in and must also supervise (3-5). That is 8 hours out of a 16 hour day (8 hours for sleep) that we spend time with your children and BELIEVE me, we do NOT do it for the money. Teachers are talented people, if we wanted money we’d go into finance like every other person who graduates with more than one degree. Teachers do it because we CARE, believe it or not. Teachers work incredible hours (My first year of teaching I was in that high school from 730 in the morning to 8pm and night and THEN a I brought marking home). I still do those kinds of hours when I choose to take on a full-time teaching contract.

My point is that I spend almost 8 hours a day with your child. I KNOW them. Your teachers KNOW your children and we know where they need to be at their grade and age. And not to say we don’t need standardized tests all, but let teachers build in assessment into their own classrooms and their own school structure. I deal with the word “assessment” on a daily basis and I ensure that children are always being assessed. Let’s not stifle our children, waste their productive time, and give them stress (to the point of stomach cramps- I’ve seen this) unnecessarily for a stupid test that assesses nothing but how well you can conform.

To end, Shirley Bond needs to go.
RECOMMEND this Post on Progressive Bloggers CLICK HERE!

I want to want to like public services

Today the bus driver almost made me cry.

I love the 3-door entrance on the B-Line but today, as I was running towards the back door my arm was the only thing that was going to fit so I quickly gave up my chances of getting in the front and ran to the front entrance as the bus doors were about to close. I stood there and waved and the driver opened the door.

As I got on I flashed my bus pass and the driver said to me in a snooty voice, “what was wrong with the other bus?” (I guess I should mention now that two B-line busses came at the same time and half the crowd opted to run up to the 1st one to spread out, as did I- I just didn’t run as fast in my heels). Anyhow, I tried to reply and say that the backdoor just closed on me and etc, not that there was anything wrong with that 2nd bus but naturally, when 2 buses come at the same time people try to spread out so they don’t’ have to be packed on one bus. I started to explain myself and then he CUT ME OFF and said, “pshh, yeah..whatever..”
I seriously felt angry, upset and embarrassed all at once. And the rest of the morning I was in a rotten mood. And I even woke up in a good mood.

A few things to draw out of my anecdote:

1) Bus drivers have an effect your day and the mood you will carry. Remember that nice 25 UBC driver who used to tell stories about the history of each building in UBC as he passed by them? He was so freaking nice. And he’d always jam the buses in with more people saying, “we can’t be late, we have to fill all your minds with knowledge!” What a damn nice guy. And nobody cared that the bus was packed and nobody could breathe because we were too busy being entertained with the driver’s stories. Everybody laughed and got off the bus in a good mood and that good mood probably spread throughout the rest of the day to other people. On the other hand, if you are an asshole of a driver you’re going to add to the annoyance of taking the bus in the first place. That brings me to my next point,

2) Transit is a service. As a service you have customers. The two words I’m looking for you to connect is “customer” and “service”. I think Translink has to remember that transit is a service and if you do not provide satisfactory customer service then the customers will not come back. It is basic, really. I pay for the bus. And as fares are going these days it is quite a high price. The service is not simply to get me from point A to point B, but as a service you have to compete with other services that do the same thing. Naturally, I expect to get from point A to point B comfortably. Now all of us that take transit, we make certain concessions. We realize we’re going to be in a public space where somebody is going to invade your personal bubble space, or perhaps there may be that person lacking in personal hygiene and you must plug your nose until you or they get off, or the annoying loud music some teenager blasts (today was Kelly Clarkson basting in the ears of some 15 year old boy- I won’t even get started on that…), or, and I feel is the worst, some person is clipping their nails on the bus (that is by FAR the most disgusting and those people should be banned from all public spaces until they learn it is just not cool to be removing tissue from yourself in ANY public setting). So the point is that I make certain concessions when I ride transit and I know it will not be nearly as comfortable or quick as a car would be. However I’ll make that sacrifice not only because it is better for the environment, but I like public services and I want to support them. And by the way, I am a DAMN fine bus passenger and do all the right things (I.e. move to the back when asked, give up my seat for anybody over 60, pregnant, or any people that might have a gimpy leg), and I almost ALWAYS say thank you. (by the way, you say “thank you” to a bus driver in ANY other city and they know you are a foreigner because people by and large only do that in Vancouver).
So please provide me with good customer service or else I will go for other options. And by the way, I was going to drive today too but I told myself that I really need to get back into the habit of bussing. After that experience I was angry that I had not chosen to drive.
Finally, my last point,

3) Similar to my second point, it is not enough to provide me with services- you must do it well. So to bring this back to the lovely discussion of EcoDensity, I want to WANT to use public services and amenities provided for me. There are enough people with a moderate income that can provide these same services privately if they are not happy with the public services given to them. So you have to do the services WELL so people WANT to use them. For example, it is cheaper to have a community fitness centre than build a gym in every condo tower. Overall it is a cheaper if everybody buys into (or puts their taxes towards) a public amenity such as a fitness centre. But if that fitness centre sucks people will pay that small premium to go with other options. I really do WANT to like transit and most days I do. But these experiences really turn me off.
and it should be noted that it is worse off for everyone when people don't buy into a community amenity. Beyond ocial reasons, it is financially smarter to provide a central public amenity that is wll maintained and provides excellent services than everybody doing this separately. And when people provide these things separately for themselves the community amenity goes to shit and loses more dollars because the City will pawn off responsibility to developers ot make swanky condos that you basically never have to/need to/ want to leave.
And 3b) I guess would be for people who CAN’T afford to pay that premium to get the condo gym. It is not fair to those people to give them subpar public amenity. Give use public amenity and services AND do it well. RECOMMEND this Post on Progressive Bloggers CLICK HERE!

Vancouver Quadra by-election: We almost became conservatives...

I'm speechless. How did we almost become conservatives? Do you hate Joyce Murray so much that you must vote Conservative?
Honestly, I thought Van Quadra would vote progressive or at the very least with the status quo.

check it out:
http://enr.elections.ca/ElectoralDistricts_e.aspx?ed=1323

Liberal 36.1%
Conserv 35.5% (seems incredibly high)
NDP 14.4%
Green 13.5%
Rhino 0.4%
CAP 0.1%

How did Liberals win by only 0.6%?
Ridiculous. I'm s ashamed of Vancouver Quadra.

Voter Turnout: 28 121 out of 83 121.
33.9% voter turnout.
What's the deal? You think it's the weather's fault? RECOMMEND this Post on Progressive Bloggers CLICK HERE!

Vancouver Quadra By-election: Who do I vote for?

Yes, I live in Vancouver Quadra and I do plan to vote on March 17, 2008.

Now I have only been a serious voter for a few years now. I'll be honest, I used to know zero politics and I really never used to care. But I'm getting used to being serious about my civic duties as I get older. I don't know who's bright idea it was to let me vote when I was 18. I seriously didn't deserve it. I basically picked the best, or funniest, name on the ballot and went with it. Yeah, that's right..I voted based on name. For example, in the last civic election I voted for Loretta Woodcock. Come on, Woodcock? How could I NOT vote for her if all I do is go by name? That's a funny name. I also was willing to vote for unnecessary long names or names I had no hope in pronouncing. Good times..

But those times are over. I'm taking my elections seriously. No more Woodcock. Wood... cock.
Ok, get over it. Let's put my serious face on.

So I'll give you a breakdown of Vancouver Quadra, info care of CBC http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/riding/302
-Bound by Arbutus St., 16th Ave., Oak St., 41st Ave. and Granville Street, and UBC
-6th Wealthiest riding in Canada
-2001 Census found that 36% were immigrants (largest proportion Chinese)
-39% Hold a university degree (because we're rich and Chinese..)
-We have UBC included- good and bad- students who live on campus often don't know how get counted on the vote so I think the vote may be skewed to the conservative side a little.
-Liberals always win (Conservatives haven't touched this riding since 1949)

I think I may have voted Liberal last time.. I don't remember.
I think there's a study out there that a resounding proportion vote the way their parents did.
I KNOW there's a study out there that says that people use the same banks that their parents did. Related? Maybe, maybe not. I don't care. Point is that we are more like our parents than we care to admit.

Anyhow, back on topic. These are the candidates that are vying for Stephen Owen's spot:

Liberal -Joyce Murray http://www.joycemurray.com/
Conservative -Deborah Meredith http://www.deborahmeredith.ca/
NDP -Rebecca Coad http://www.rebeccacoad.ca/
Green -Dan Grice http://www.dangrice.com/
Cdn Action Party -Psamuel Frank can't find a website
Neorhino.ca -John Turner http://www.neorhino.ca/splash.html
(Successor of Rhinoceros Party)

Now this isn't a post on each of the candidates so I'm just going to evaluate my decision on the platforms that I can truly vote for, which includes Liberal, NDP and Green.

(I don't ideologically support Conservatives; Canadian Action Party and Neorhino.ca are thrown away votes although I DO like the idea of voting for somebody whose name is “Psamuel” (see above for stupid name requirement) and a party which is clearly a joke (I'm a fan of people undertaking projects that they have absolutely no investment in))

So that leaves me with criticizing Libs, NDP and Green.

Let's start with Green, Mr. Grice. Now I heard from a little birdy that Dan Grice is a tool. And I know for a fact that he is a shameless Facebook friend slut as well (see http://thevancouvermanifesto.blogspot.com/2008/02/facebook-friend-sluts.html) so he's definitely a no go. Haha, that was shallow. But seriously, other than looking like a bit of a tool I don't usually vote Green unless the NDP has a complete throwaway.
(I have to admit though, Grice has the best website out of the three. Good work, Dan.)

Rebecca Coad of NDP- She looks approximately 12 years old, and when looking at her bio she can't be much older than that either. But you know, I like her platform. She uses all they key words lefties need to see, including “no money for childcare, housing...”, “banks and oil companies gouge us..”, “big corporations making huge profits..”.

The only thing that turns me off is the young and idealistic sounding bit. But if we zero in on her platform we can see that she has some very realistic goals.
They list them as quotes but I'll distill them for you (something the website should have done more properly)

1) Access to post-secondary (for all SES background)
2) High quality, accessible public healthcare
3) Respect for the environment

The first two are good. The third is a little general. She's got no real platform on the specifics of what she will do to respect the environment, sh ereally only says that we should. But meh..good enough for me (this is probably the reason why I'm not a Green).

Joyce Murray of the Liberals- She..doesn't look like she's 12 years old. She looks seasoned. Funny enough, she also has two pictures that are actually pretty telling.. The first is of her with Justin Trudeau. J.Trudeau is, arguably, an attractive man, and young. The second picture is of three little kids holding up “vote for Murray” signs. So, Murray doesn't have youth but she's counting on the fact that you think she's still cool and hip because she can take a photo with young Trudeau, and little children like holding up signs with her name on it.

Murray boasts a lot of experience (cabinet minister, entrepreneur (go business interests!), blahblah)
She blahblahs about how great the liberals are but she doesn't really go into what SHE will do for Quadra. I'm assuming this list is of her own creation:

1) Support post sec education
2) Foreign policy
3) Clean environment for children
4) Enhance universal healthcare
5) Safe communities

Her platform is comprehensive, but a little too comprehensive. I am suspicious of people who try to accomplish everything because you set yourself up to fail. Can you divide your attention to all these issues and succeed? And plans that touch on too many things start sounding like they are just paying lip service. And once you start reading her shindig you realize that it is more about the Liberals attacking the Conservatives and not about the constructive things the Liberals will do. Okay, I'm over Joyce Murray.

So it really is in between young idealistic girl who focusses on a few points or old experienced woman who has a comprehensive general platform.

Who should TheVancouverManifesto vote for on March 17^th?

RECOMMEND this Post on Progressive Bloggers CLICK HERE!

Promising Organizations Series: Roak Vancouver

Roak Vancouver recently requested my friendship on Facebook. I looked into the profile and found out that it was actually a neat little organization that I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge.

Roak Vancouver stands for "Random Acts of Kindness Vancouver" and can be found at http://www.raok.doodlekit.com/home

Roak Vancouver is "a committee of youth aged 13-24 creating a powerful, synergistic action throughout Vancouver. We are self governed and self-empowered. (No adults here!) But they are welcome to volunteer for us..."

Roak Vancouver have organized some great activities like distribution of foodpacks, participation in soup kitchens and handing out clean socks in the DTES (for those of you who know anything about living on the streets you know that socks are actually quite important during winter time because 1) your feet are at your body's extremity and thus difficult to keep warm, b) the poor have rather tattered shoes with poor insulation ,and c) people never really think of socks during clothing drives).

The day that they asked for my friendship confirmation I perused their Facebook profile and discovered they were having a demonstration on Broadway and Commercial:

Event Name: STAND FOR HOUSING
Event Venue: Protest
Venue Address: Broadway Station
Event Date: March 8, 2008
Hosts: R.A.O.K
For Guestlist:
Email:raok_vancouver@hotmail.com
URL: http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=1&view=page&name=htmlcompose&ver=1chdyj2lqwlxk

Info:
R.A.O.K is now putting on a Stand for housing rally every Saturday @ 1:00 @ Broadway station!!!

Raising awareness and starting some dialogue on homeless issues in Vancouver!!!

The Three Biggest Causes of Homelessness in Vancouver:

1. The federal government pulling out of an annual social
housing program that brought as many as 2,000 units
of affordable housing to BC

2. Welfare rates that do not meet basic needs. A single
person receives $375 for rent and $235 for everything
else. The average rent for a bachelor apartment in
Vancouver is: $735. In the Downtown Eastside, buginfested
hotel rooms without private bathrooms or
cooking facilities, range between $400 and $600 a
month. The vacancy rate is between 0 and .5 per cent.

3. The loss of affordable rental housing due to
redevelopment, speculation and gentrification.

Come join us in our STAND for housing, and raise awareness on these issues and more!!!


I promptly got myself ready to observe/participate in this demonstration.
You know TheVancouverManifesto is all about affordable/social/supportive housing initiatives

I arrived quite early to see only half a dozen people on the street corner holding up a couple signs. They had quite a passive look to them. I had this image of exuberant youth (13-24) huddled at all corners of the Broadway and Commercial intersection voicing housing concerns to every person who would pass by and encouraging increased participation from anybody who seemed interested. Instead I found a handful of people, who seemed quite a bit older than the 13-24 age group, sitting on the sidelines with a large sign which was the only evidence they were protesting anything. Ironically the large sign diminished the presence of the few who held it up. I was disappointed to say the least.

But I think this group is really promising. All startups struggle. The website fails to mention how long they have been in operation and does not state whether ot not they have non-profit status yet (although I’m assuming the lack of info means that they don’t) so I’m not sure how “established” they are.

The group seemed to gain more momentum as passerbyers stopped and said thanks to the group for bringing up the issues. But Roak Vancouver members didn’t do all they could to encourage membership or participation. I myself approached the group and I found it a little painful trying to solicit information from them. At times I even felt a bit ignored and eventually I got uncomfortable and slowly backed away. I don’t know if it is their goal to increase their membership (although I think all struggling groups should always have that goal because membership inevitabley just means supporters on the sidelines to get the word out).

So all in all it wasn’t the most successful attempt, but TheVancouverManifesto has thing for struggling, up and coming organizations like Roak Vancouver. They show incredible promise and I think that, if they stay true to a set of goals and a membership that represents the youth advocacy voice, they will do just fine.

Roak Vancouver currently runs out of the End Café on Commercial (one of my own favourite writing spots) and doesn’t have an official meeting space. I can’t tell you how important a meeting space is to a struggling advocacy group. Advocacy groups, like people, need homes. They need a base for operation for all those little things (a mailing address, phone line, ability to mimic a bureacracy when needed) plus provide a meeting space for the organization’s members. It’s not enough to have a coffee shop to meet in (even though the coffee shop is supportive) because in the end you can’t start gathering and building upon information. While it’s getting easier to be a nomadic advocacy group, it still doesn’t even come close to having a physical home base. So if anybody out there has a lead for this up and coming group for office space, or a donated board room I would take it upon myself to find some sort of way to assist funding for this group.

It is so rare to find a youth group who wants to take on these big issues. Vancouver needs, more than anything, youth to take on these issues. Going to ANY meeting on advocacy for affordable/social/supportive housing in Vancouver (whether it is City Hall, lectures at SFU, or community presentations) I find the population of young people under 25 years to be diminished- it’s sad, really- all these old people at meetings talk about where their kids are going to live in unaffordable-Vancouver when their kids are old enough to be at the mic themselves voicing their own opinions on this fight. I myself feel quite disempowered as a young woman and that really is a damn shame. Forces are sort of against taking youth seriously and youth know that and feel that. It’s amazing that such a group like Roak Vancouver has survived to organize more than one event. Vancouver needs to nurture and support that.

You'll notice that this post is titled "Promising Organizations Series". I plan to write on some organizations that Vancouver needs pay attn to and support.

RECOMMEND this Post on Progressive Bloggers CLICK HERE!

EcoDensity Meeting Part IV: ...come again?

All the interesting groups already presented to council. I suspect this may be the last EcoDensity council meeting I write about. The entertainment value is just getting too low. There is seriously nothing memorable..other than the slight change of wardrobe for Councillor Elizabeth Ball. But really, Ball's format was the same, the colours were just different. Maybe she buys the same blazer, skirt, scarfe and blouse but just in different colours and attempts to mix and match. I'm not going to hate on that strategy because I find it exceedingly difficult to show variety in my own business attire. Infact, had it been a man I would not even be bringing this up because every black suit looks the same and really.. guys can get away with wearing the same suit everyday without notice. That does not go for Gordon Price though...unless black turtlenecks are considered the new suit... (see http://www.pricetags.ca/ in every press photo too!) He looks like he's getting ready to do a dramatic tableau of some sort... I want to put a beret on him and call him a beatnik. He's do awesome spoken word with that broadcaster-type voice of his.

Good lord, do you see what EcoDensity boredom has reduced me to?

March 4th had so little meat to write about so this is just going to be a post about pronunciation. Yeah, that’s right, you heard me.. I want to start shit about the way people have been pronouncing words. It’s okay, I’m also a teacher so I can do that.

1) EcoDensity
a) ee –koh- density
b) ek- oh- density
I personally go with the ee-koh pronouciation and it bothers me quite a bit that people go as far to CORRECT a person when they use version A rather than version B.

2) Brent Toderian
a) tawd - er - en
b) toad - er – en
c) tawd – ary – ahn
d) toad – ary – en
Now I most sympathize with version d, as the spelling would indicate. But after hearing the name pronounced on council I think the correct form is version a.
If you’re not sure I’d just avoid the last name altogether and call the guy “Brent”.

3) The next point isn’t a pronunciation foible but just an annoyance. Since when were we calling the Mayor “Your Worship”. Is that seriously how we address the Mayor? And are we seriously comfortable adressing Sam Sullivan as “your worship”? ick. Now I’m no civic politic buff so I don’t know the protocol. But really, let’s just stick with “Mayor”..it’s painful enough…

4) Does anybody else go crazy when Cadman says “ameenity”? instead of amenity
Good lord, most people make a mistake pronouncing somebody and then correct themself when they hear everybody else pronounce it the proper way. Is there any debate as to how to pronounce “amenity”? There’s really only one way to pronounce it and it makes me cringe everytime Cadman refuses to accept it and conform.

*Stay tuned for a summary, or really MY summary, of the EcoDensity debate.* RECOMMEND this Post on Progressive Bloggers CLICK HERE!

EcoDensity Meeting Part III: I want the last four hours of my life back

Monday night's EcoDensity public hearing event started at 6 and ended just past 10. It didn’t help that the last speaker from SmartGrowth BC was a horrid speaker that stumbled and stuttered his way into saying absolutely nothing. This post will be equally as boring so I don’t blame you if you want to close the window now. But just in case you were wondering what went on in Part III I’ll give you the 10 highlights of the evening (highlights being a very generous word for what transpired).

1)Patrick Condon- (always fun to see in person somebody you quote a lot. ) Had discussion with Toderian about the hateration with developers. I don’t know if Cadman is right, or if he’s just milking the tension for all its worth but it seems like people are more in hate with developers than ever before. See http://www.ctvbc.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20080227/BC_Cadman_Candidate_080227/20080227/?hub=BritishColumbiaHome
Discussion a) Allocating 20% to affordable/social housing does not guarantee the construction. Buying land and construction are two separate entities and processes.
Discussion b) Tradeoff between affordable/social housing and public amenities?

2) I’m happy there were people who brought up Elvin Wyly. For those of you who don’t’ know him he’s an amazing Professor at UBC Geography and he does gentrification studies. He’s really one of the only people who have successfully combined quantitative and qualitative gentrification data. See http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~ewyly/ and he has just put out a book with Tom Slater and Loretta Lees titled Gentrification. (Tom Slater is easily one of my favourite academic writers- see for a sharply written critical paper on gentrification: “The eviction of critical perspectives from gentrification research” http://www2.fmg.uva.nl/assr/conferences/documents/PaperdrTomSlater.pdf ) And Loretta Lees is doing research on new-build gentrification in London- one of the leaders in new gentrification research)

3) There was a woman with a painfully shaky voice. She looked like she was going to run away or cry on the spot, really. It hurt watching her speak. But one point she brought up was that, apparently, “affordable and social housing” is considered an amenity.
Then she went on to continue how shelter/housing is a basic human right etc.
No need to be scared, lady- you did fine. You’d make your point even better if people weren’t distracted by feeling like you needed a hug..or tissue.

4) Vancouver Public Space Network- one of the best new organizations that is completely volunteer run. Hopefully they can get non-profit status soon so donations, tax credits and all that jazz can be made/had.
http://www.vancouverpublicspace.ca/
They presented the outcome of a public event they had recently to discuss issues and assets of the city and develop questions/suggestions for the City of Vancouver. I’m disappointed Andrew Pask, unofficial leader, did not present the piece. He is a great speaker and has a good presence.

5) Urban Development Institute (UDI): Asked, “What happens if we don’t move forward?”
UDI is a bit of a conundrum. I sway back and forth between liking them and disliking them. But at least they have done nothing to deserve my hate yet.
I can’t quite put my finger on it… but it could also be a function of who they choose to represent them I was not in like with the people they chose to present. They had such a “world city competition” urgency to their message to council. They were selling the image of “If Vancouver is not in it to the ‘race to the top’ then, de facto, it is on its way to the ‘race to the bottom’”. I don’t love that message even though people I highly respect often sell that message, most notable David Harvey (one of my favourite neo-Marxists).
Bottom line is that I don’t think fear should justify any of our actions. We should never move things forward because of fear of what will happen if we don’t. There should be solid justification FOR an action, not solid justification against inaction.

6) Planners Institute of BC. PIBC sent a nice looking young woman to the hearing (I only bring up the topic of her physical appearance because she seems to defy the general consensus of who shows up to these meetings - i.e. old white men.) She said a lot of nothing and I think just wanted to put in an official statement of where the organization stands with respect to EcoDensity. Basically, PIBC does not endorse EcoDensity but they support the City’s leadership. What the hell does that mean, you ask? Well, Kim Capri wanted to know that too. Further clarification, PIBC said that they support the city in addressing the issues but they do not support the plan. Ummm…ok..so you support the City of Vancouver for addressing issues..which is basically their job.. But you do not support the plan… and hence do not support the way they are doing their job…. I.. don’t quite get it. Anyhow, thanks for PIBC for saying nothing. I’m almost ashamed to be a member.

7) Lance Berlowitz- He wrote that book Dream City: Vancouver and the global imagination
I’m looking at my copy of the book now, it is an absolutely beautifully illustrated book. The book is great, one of my favourites. Sam Sullivan even took a minute to suck up and thank Berlowitz for his contribution to the city.
Lance Berlowitz as a person though?- not so much. And my argument for not liking the guy isn’t even based on the lack of a proper first name. Basically, Berlowitz told council to show leadership and go through the plan. “Do so in the face in opposition”. He said not to let partisan politics bring EcoDensity down. Yeah..that’s right..he said that..he said ignore the 150-something people that are clogging City Hall because they represent a partisan minority. Oh, Lance… such a no no.
After Berlowitz’s foible, I think it was Ladner who started asking what the perfect balance is: “Leadership and getting on with the process VS Community consultation and a drawn out process”
A usefully suggestion that I think should be seriously taken into consideration is “unbundling the package” of EcoDensity. Nobody trusts Sam Sullivan and many people are in hate with at least a third of the propositions. So why don’t we take the things we love about the charter and implement them? It’s not like people are 100% opposed to the Charter. Many are 100% opposed to Sullivan, many are 100% opposed to #12 (density in the DTES) of the charter, but those same people are fine with many points on the charter. It was stated that once a few things are implemented, and implemented RIGHT, there will be easement of distrust and people will come to know EcoDensity as a good thing.

8) Jim Green. He spoke. Perople listened. He’s in support. Ladner was all over him because Green failed to mention that he was in employ of a developer.
The news filmed it. Nobody cares.
Lame.
Sullivan thanked him at the end but Green walked out as Sullivan was saying thank you. Buuuuuurn.

9) SmarthGrowth BC. Jason Emmert is a bad speaker.
Said SmarthGrowth would support amenity mapping. VSPN said they would do that too.
He described poorly what an important contribution amenity mapping is. Basically, he was proposing not only traditional amenity maps such as day cares, parks, restaurants etc. But also non-traditional amenities aka things that we value in our everyday that we don’t even realize. It’s a tough job to do, because these amenities can be so obscure and its super difficult to see what has value and what doesn’t. For example, I know of a stinky old tire that hangs from the branch of a tree on..Balaclava and 14th ish. (Somewhere in that vicinity). And I would call that an amenity. It’s kind of a remanent of tenants that were long gone and nobody has ever taken it down. When walking home kids jump on for a swing and then keep walking. It’s seriously like a landmark that I know has real value but you wouldn’t know how much value it has until its gone. And even if it were gone nobody would say anything. People would just reminisce about the good times on the stinky tire.
Anyhow, it’s a great idea and an important contribution. I just wish it was said more eloquently.

10) Last but not least my rant on each of the councillors. I do this because attendance is getting low for councillors and they are also getting lazier I.e. coming in late, taking super long breaks in the middle of somebody’s speech to council, leaving early, playing around on Google while people are speaking. The only councillors that are always there and listening is Cadman, Capri, Deal, Chow , Anton and Sullivan. I would have said Ladner too but he takes way too many breaks and is gone for an inappropriate amount of time. If the other councillors can sit on their ass and listen for 4 hours straight you can too.

Anton- Her online picture does her too much justice. http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/councilmembers.htm Every now and then a speaker picks on her and uses one of her statements against her. But Anton is there, she listens, and isn’t useless with her question asking.

Ball- She needs to buy more than one outfit. I’m over her blazer, skirt and floral scarfe. She always comes in late, wasn’t present last night. Never asks questions. She’s overall 100% useless.

Cadman- I know I have said Cadman rocks on more than one occasion. I still think he does. But I’m starting to think he’s totally wasting time and trying to draw out the process so long so that it will never go through and he can just strike it down in then end and then blame Sullivan for wasting everybody’s time. I don’t know how constructive that is. He’s still my favourite on council because he champions the working poor, but I also have to admit, on some nights he says just as many useless things as he does useful things. When he gets it right though, he gets it right. So I’ll forgive him.
Has anybody also noticed that Cadman looks like Santa Claus? Seriously.. He’s so non-threatening and jolly with his big white beard and round tummy. I almost want to sit on his lap and tell him what I want for Christmas. I tell you, he’s one to watch out for for Mayor- who DOESN’T want to vote for Santa Claus? And FYI, Jim Green needs to do a LOT of smiling for him to look like a nice guy. I voted for him, but only because Sullivan was totally out of the question. This time around we’ll have some nice looking people to vote for. Remember, politics is all about rhetoric- looks included.

Capri- criminologist trained but still touts the ‘broken windows theory’ (See Civil City). That’s why I kind of hate her. But other than that she contributes to useful discussion and is always listening.

Chow- Who is he and why is he here? Yeah, completely not present even though he is present.

Deal- I like her. She has stopped prompting questions in the middle of speeches so that takes care of my only annoyance with her. She loves micro amenities. She’s specific, to the point, and she’s relevant. I’d vote for her.

Ladner- When he’s there he’s on..but he’s just not there enough. But he’s a smart, good looking gentleman and that’ll get him far in politics.

Lee- BC LEE can you please STOP asking such USELESS questions? You waste my time with your stuttery drawn out nothings.

Louie- meh.. He makes me so indifferent I fall asleep. Politicians shouldn’t do that. I have more respect for politicians who make me hate them than ones who make me feel completely unmoved and devoid of feeling.

Stevenson- ditto.

Speaker 65/151 on Tuesday March 4th @ 7:30 RECOMMEND this Post on Progressive Bloggers CLICK HERE!