TEAM intends to toss Vision Vancouver out of City Hall

by Carlito Pablo on May 30th, 2013 at 4:10 AM

1 of 1 2 of 1

It’s neither right nor left. It’s moderate yet progressive, according to one person who’s involved in assembling this civic organization.

Unlike the ruling Vision Vancouver and the opposition Non-Partisan Association, its bylaws don’t allow donations from developers or corporations. Nor will it receive union contributions like the left-leaning Coalition of Progressive Electors does.

It’s said to be erecting a big tent, attracting members who are supposedly deserting established civic parties. It’s also drawing people from neighbourhoods across the city. And although its name is rather clunky—The Electors Action Movement of the Lower Mainland Association—the group will simply go by the acronym TEAM when it fields candidates in next year’s municipal election.

If that name reminds you of The Electors’ Action Movement, or TEAM, which was cofounded by the late Vancouver mayor Art Phillips (1973 to 1977), that isn’t surprising. It’s a revival of sorts. The new group seeks to embody the old TEAM’s philosophy, which placed a strong emphasis on community participation and neighbourhood involvement in city affairs, according to Jonathan Baker.

Baker, an NPA city councillor during the 1980s and ’90s, has attended some of the meetings of the new TEAM. He believes change is afoot following Vision Vancouver’s domination in the last two municipal elections.

“Vancouver is ready to throw out the incumbent,” Baker told the Georgia Straight in a phone interview. “The spirit is, ‘Throw the bastards out.’ ”

Baker, who was a member of the city staff before and during Phillips’s term, recalled that the TEAM administration reformed the top-down planning process of the city and gave citizens a voice in charting the future of Vancouver.

“It stood for localized planning,” Baker said about the old TEAM. “Things wouldn’t be done unless neighbourhoods had a say in the matter at the start—not at the end.”

According to Baker, Vision has changed all that, largely ignoring neighbourhood opposition to rezoning applications by developers. “Vision is engaging people by enraging people,” he said. He believes that Vancouverites are looking for an option other than Vision and the NPA.

“What we have today is fundamentally undemocratic,” he said. “When you have two parties of the same persuasion and no choice, no real alternative, that’s an antidemocratic abomination.”

In its bylaws, the new TEAM pledges to engage in “responsible civic governance”. It intends to accomplish this by, among other things, “adhering to transparent processes”. It also promises to develop and implement “land use, transportation, economic, social, and environmental policies that respect and accommodate neighbourhood, community, residential, commercial, and industrial interests”.

Bill McCreery was elected as a park commissioner in 1972, becoming part of the first TEAM administration.

“What city issues really fundamentally should be are what’s good for the city and what’s good for the people of Vancouver,” McCreery told the Straight in a phone interview. “That’s the way you should be looking at city politics, not from an ideological perspective. That’s what TEAM will do.”

According to McCreery, he’s encouraged by the “positive response” he and other current TEAM organizers are getting. Having campaigned and lost as an NPA candidate for council in 2011, he believes that the NPA is a “spent force”.

Vision mayor Gregor Robertson is going to have a fight on his hands in 2014: McCreery said TEAM will field a mayoral candidate.

Dave Pasin didn’t win as an NPA candidate for park board in 2011. He’s now part of the organizing effort for the new TEAM and claims that Vancouverites from various political persuasions and geographic locations are coming onboard.

“They’re looking for a moderate, progressive alternative for the city,” Pasin told the Straight in a phone interview.

To ensure that no one exerts undue influence over city hall under a TEAM administration, the association will accept a maximum donation of $1,200 from individuals per year, according to Pasin. “Buying influence is what is being eliminated, so that everybody is on an even keel,” he said.

In his inaugural speech as mayor in 1973, Phillips stated that his incoming TEAM administration would “guide the development of the city according to the wishes of the people”.

According to Pasin, the new TEAM is about a return to what the old one represented: respect for the people of Vancouver.

Comments

30 Comments

Michael

May 30, 2013 at 8:49am

TEAM v. 2.0 = NPA re-branding effort.

out at night

May 30, 2013 at 9:47am

I completely agree with Michael (previous comment)

Remarkably similar narrative to Social Credit imploding and members fleeing to the dormant shell that was BC Liberal Party. Same old Fraser Institute types, same old ideas, new name. As cheap marketing ploys go it was/is quite effective.

You want an alternative to Vision or NPA? How about COPE? Don't be fooled by see-through rebranding, go with COPE.

Bill McCreery

May 30, 2013 at 10:54am

Dear Spin Doctors above:

Maybe you should actually find out more about what TEAM is about and find out what we actually stand for. For instance, as per the article: we limit donations to $1200/year/person and don't take donations from corporations or unions. And, unlike Vision Vancouver and the NPA, TEAM is an inclusive, grassroots civic political movement committed to making the best possible decisions for Vancouver and its citizens.

Joseph Jones

May 30, 2013 at 10:54am

Bill McCreery and Dave Pasin have shown genuine support to Norquay residents in their years of struggle against a top-down planning regime started by Sam Sullivan's NPA and steroidized by the Vision Vancouver bloc. One difference is apparent: the Vision Vancouver-NPA axis is a party beholden to developer money, and it's hard to see how TEAM could be related to those Siamese twins.

hmmmmm

May 30, 2013 at 11:14am

"NPA" accompanies the description of everyone interviewed. Where are the former Vision, COPE, or independents in this so-called alternative?

Lynne Kent

May 30, 2013 at 11:38am

I welcome the opportunity for Vancouver to have a political organization that is both socially responsive and fiscally responsible, never afraid to actively engage and seriously include the ideas and wishes of its citizens.

James G

May 30, 2013 at 11:47am

COPE is my municipal vehicle of choice and will continue to be so long as it continues to distance itself from Vision. Considering the people involved in this new effort, I think it has a chance to become a serious contender.

Imagine a Vancouver civic election where we chose between reputable centrist citizens whose main focus was neighbourhoods and a revitalized left unimpeded by developer funded NDP nomenclature.

Maybe a deal could even be worked out with COPE, NSV and TEAM to sweep out the incumbent councillors? Look at the 'Straight slate' from the last municipal election. I believe that would be a better city administration is presently in office.

Stephen

May 30, 2013 at 12:17pm

Neighbourhood democracy sounds good but under the at-large system, some neighbourhoods are more equal than others. Thanks to the creme de la creme of Kerrisdale, a sensible surface rail line to YVR was rejected in favour of the colossally expensive Cambie line.

The best hope for a City Council free of the baleful influence of monied interests is COPE.

G

May 30, 2013 at 12:31pm

COPE have up the ghost when they decided to work for Vision, dividing the party and allowing Vision to sell themselves as a "social justice" party to a segment of the electorate. Vision is the best friend developers in this city have had since Tom Campbell but they adorn themselves with a green cape. In many ways Vision is "NPA 2.0" with their acquiescence to developers.

The Waldorf is a perfect example of how Vision manages to play the various segments of the electorate. Solterra, the developer of the site, is a Vision donor and will benefit from the heritage designation of the property. Under the "rules" Vision follows they will be able to reward Solterra with bonuses worth millions of dollars above what they would make if the old hotel was demolished. This reward will come whilst Vision is portraying themselves as "standing up to developers" by saving The Waldorf and Solterra's next donation to Vision will soon follow.

Tim Louis is one of the few COPE members who is worth supporting because of his stance against being co-opted by Vision. COPE members who supported the move have become part of the developers' crowd and are the reason COPE's voice has been lost. Those folks traded core COPE beliefs for a little power and less of a voice. Unless COPE can break free of domination by Vision there is little reason to support their candidates who don't disavow the situation.

The rebirth of TEAM isn't necessarily a bad thing except to Vision hacks. Decrying the party as being inherently a successor to the NPA is naive and shows an ignorance of civic politics in Vancouver. The original TEAM was an umbrella that included people from a range of ideological persuasions, including Mike Harcourt. They managed a brief period of power before other issues that divided the party became more important in the city. Returning power to neighbourhoods and reversing the Vision trend of centralization and rampant development is something that unites people of a range of political persuasions.

That would be the ideal but there is a while to go before the next civic election. The rebirth of TEAM is just beginning and only the most conditioned minds will have been made up with respect to just what the party will be. If they can bring together neighbourhood groups Vision may have problems.