Dispute over Kitsilano bike path scheduled to enter the B.C. Supreme Court in March

A date is set for the next round in the fight over a bicycle path proposed for Kitsilano.

On March 12 and 13, a petition that seeks to permanently halt the project will be the focus of a hearing at the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

The case was brought forward by neighbourhood resident Megan Carvell Davis. Davis’s lawyer, Robert Kasting, told the Straight that while criticism of the project has mostly pertained to a perceived lack of consultation, the court case will revolve around the terms of a trust agreed upon when the land in question was donated to the city in 1928.

The trust says that you should keep the park in its natural state,” Kasting said in a telephone interview. “So the argument is probably going to come down to whether the words of the trust are wide enough to permit what they want to build.”

In defending the path proposed for Hadden and Kitsilano beach parks, the City of Vancouver will therefore have to convince a judge that the proposed bike path would not break its commitment to keep the area “near as possible in its present state of nature”.

“They say that a bicycle lane of the sort that is being proposed is effectively what’s part of a park,” Kasting explained, “that it is necessarily incidental to the creation of a park.”

Separated bike paths through Kits Beach and Hadden parks are part of the City of Vancouver's plans for a route that runs from Canada Place to Jericho Beach.
City of Vancouver

The Vancouver park board approved plans to spend $2.2 million on the construction of the separated bike path in October 2013. The lane was designed to complete a continuous path from Canada Place to Jericho Beach.

On November 8, 2013, the Straight reported that the City of Vancouver had agreed to a B.C. Supreme Court injunction halting any construction on the path until a hearing was held on the suit.

Comments (19) Add New Comment
Mark Bowen
Good luck with that, Kits Point upper crusters. Pretty sure the precedent has already been set regarding the "natural state" of the park.
Rating: +10
Confused In Vancouver
What about the parking and other amenities that have been built in the park? Don't those contravene the intent of the trust and shouldn't they be removed?
Rating: +22
Please show disdain in your dismissal, Supreme Court.
Rating: +16
Past trasgressions of the Trust don't provide a pass to break it again. Sorry Mark, your classist animosity isn't going to be satisfied unless the judge shares your ignorance of jurisprudence.

Rating: -11
Richard Campbell
The deed states in part, “… my motive in making a gift to the City of Vancouver of Blocks 136 and 137 Kitsilano, is chiefly to afford recreation and pleasure to the public generally, but especially for women and children". When I walk along the water by Kits, I notice that many people are slowly cycling with their children enjoying the view. All the fast cyclists use the road and will continue to use the road.

Hopefully the court will realize this path "is chiefly to afford recreation and pleasure to the public generally, but especially for women and children." and will able thousands of people from Vancouver to enjoy Kits Beach by bicycle. After all, cycling is one of the most popular forms of recreation.
Rating: +1
Well Richard, Mr. Hadden then went on to specify that the park be kept in a natural state, so clearly he wasnt't intending the "recreation" it provide be of the type that required fascilities or the altering of nature.

The road way is currently a designated cycling route and is very quiet and well suited for that purpose. Why are you so intent on paving this park when it doesn't need to happen?
Rating: -9
One prominent "Save Kits Pointer" insists the Maritime Museum & parking lot are not located on the Hadden parcel. We'll let the judge decide. But what is located on the Hadden parcel is the Park Ranger's house and public washrooms. Presumably these will be removed, as well as the fencing along the cliff. Landscaping and grounds-keeping will cease, as that is the "altering of nature".

This is one of the most mind-boggling selfish and hypocritical stands by a Nimby group I can remember. Selfish because in civic parks filled with parking lots, basketball, volleyball & tennis courts, an enormous swimming pool, a stage, a restaurant and paved sidewalks it is apparently preferable to these people to make children ride on the road* (and isn't it interesting that many of these same people feel road space is so precious that they oppose the Point Grey Road cycle lane, yet here, apparently, it isn't). Hypocritical because they wave their "No more asphalt" signs while their spokesman says things like the parking spots in Kits Point Park "are like gold" - as Howard Kelsey said in the October 14th edition of the Vancouver Sun.

And yes, despite your sanctimonious attempted tut-tutting to the contrary, you are Nimbys. When your neighbourhood has a long history of opposing every proposal, you're Nimbys. And Vancouver remembers.

*Actually they won't. They'll just continue to use the current shared pathway to the ongoing discomfort of everyone. Clap clap.
Rating: +5
collarbone o'hare
ned, get a rabies shot.
Rating: +1
If the park is to be kept in a natural state, I guess Park Board should stop cutting the grass. Richard is correct, families will use the path while serious cyclists will use the road as a much faster alternative. Furthermore, the worst blight upon the "natural state" of the park is all the traffic and the parking lots we provide for them not to mention the air pollution! Maybe more amenities for cyclists will eliminate the need for all those asphalt parking lots.

Providing a cycle path is tantamount to paving the park??? Get serious Ned and by the way maybe you should acquaint yourself with spell-check.
Rating: 0
No the ostensible reason for this intrusion was clearly stated by Barnes when she said it was a "Safety" issue but did not provide any data to back that up.

I note the Parks Board Partially DESTROYED the crow habitat on South False Creek Seawall (currently rear of Cavalia) removing a lot of plants, flattening and removing small hill/bump and I think some trees without ANY consultation nor notice.

They are doing this not for us but for tourists.

It is an outrage and it can and should be stopped.
Rating: -3
...and yes I too would like to point out the hate in the commentors as did Ned quite correctly.

They are not doing this for the citizens of Vancouver but for tourists, get a grip people.

As a cyclist who uses the current route along the shore then goes around the restaurant a the beach via rear then back to path after bike racks, we are all good.

Frightened people should never be determining the behaviour of those of us who are exercising. City sidewalks are for you, parks are art of Nature and should always be inherently dangerous, not turned into velvet prisons.
Rating: -4
I cycle, but don't want to be associated with "cyclists."
Rabies shots would be for the rabid, and that seems to be a label fit for the angry, hard core cyclists, who are emboldened by the kid glove treatment that Moonbeam and his politicized City staff have given them. One measure of this is that they think they can drive a bike path through the busiest park in the city, and anyone who opposes the plan better be ready for the name calling.

Anyone who attended the Park Board meeting several weeks ago certainly saw the bug eyed, frothing at the mouth madness of the few who spoke in favour of this plan. Is that the typical "cyclist" in ths city?! I don't think so.
Rating: -7
Alan Layton
Whenever people who automatically condemn an action merely because 'some' of the people involved may be well off, I just see them as losers who haven't achieved their goals and are bitter than others have. Suck it up losers.
Rating: -5
"MichaelHere's" comment above epitomizes the abuse of the concept of public consultation & the rabbit hole we've gone down here in Vancouver politics - where the expectation of some is that City needs to conduct public consultation to cut down some blackberry bushes and trim some trees on the seawall, on a piece of land long-slated for development (which will start soon).

What's an appropriate amount of time to conduct the consultation for cutting down of blackberry bushes? 2 weeks? 6 months? Is it only SE False Creek residents who are consulted, or should survey's be conducted all over the City? What's an appropriate amount of money to spend? $10k? $200k? Even if you hired people at minimum wage, the costs add up.

As for the crows, they've adapted to the disruption of their "habitat" (which is actually a waystation on their daily commute to their actual roost in Burnaby). Some have moved back to the trees that were there. Some have moved to new trees...by my house. They're clever.
Rating: +1
Canadian Veggie
Rating: +7
Mark Bowen
Just a visual reference here for anyone not familiar with the path in question, (and I've got a sneaking suspect a lot of the Kits Point anti everything residents don't actually use the park, or they would be well aware how dangerous the current setup is)... Here is a pic from the existing path on a cold cloudy day this November.


Doesn't exactly look like a safe place to have kids learning to ride bikes, or people out for a casual ride to cruise along does it? In the summer, it's a thousand times busier than that.

Peds and bikes don't mix.
Rating: +3
I see the usual on-line bike issue trolls are active here. Richard, Mark, Veggie, spartkus. Do you guys really think you represent public opinion? And why are you all so obtuse in regards to this issue? It's like you haven't listened to the Save Kits Beach arguments that there's a perfectly reasonable third option; a safe, functional bike route that doesn't run through the center of the Park? Any reason for your unreasonableness?
Rating: -2
The entire bike issue is a red herring that Vision have used effectively to keep the herds distracted from their ongoing gifts to developers. Even the closure of Point Grey Road was portrayed as "pro-bike" when reality is far different. The upcoming zoning changes for areas near main roads and shopping areas would have allowed the construction of buildings up to 4 floors along parts of PGR which would have upset such folks as the Mayor and the yoga people. By closing the street for fake safety concerns the mayor paid off some non-developer donors and himself.
Rating: +1
your hatred of other creatures habitat says it all s.

hateful stop killing Nature Vancouver. The end. "City does not have to consult" RIGHT see how far that gets you when they come for you.

And removing trees is considered a very grave offense in Vancouver, just fyi. One rule for parks board members another for everyone else?

Anyone with a mind and not full of hatred coming back day after day voting down sensible remarks will see how stupid that is, yet you promote it repeatedly.
Rating: +2
Add new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.


PDF (361.07 KB)