Vision Vancouver politicians can bring down hammer on community centre associations
The City of Vancouver has the means to put down dissident neighbourhood associations in the ongoing standoff over community centres.
It’s found in the 26th and last provision of the joint operating agreements entered into by city hall and community centre associations back in 1979. It states that either party can terminate the deal through a written 90-day notice.
However, the big question is whether or not the ruling Vision Vancouver party believes that it has enough political capital to pull the trigger and get away with it.
“That would be a decision that would have to come to the board,” Vision park commissioner Niki Sharma told the Straight in a phone interview.
Sharma, a lawyer and first-term commissioner, is the lead trustee in negotiations for a new agreement with community associations.
The city wants to centralize planning and pool revenues of community centres, a move that is being opposed by six of the 20 associations with which it has an agreement.
Asked what are the chances of city hall invoking the 90-day dissolution clause on rebel associations in Kerrisdale, Kensington, Hillcrest, Kilarney, Sunset, and Hastings, Sharma replied: “I can’t say what’s the likelihood of that.”
“What I can say right now is that there is a commitment from all of the commissioners to work with the volunteers in the system,” Sharma also said.
Jesse Johl is the president of Riley Park HIllcrest Community Association. It’s one of the insurgent groups that have refused to sit at the negotiating table on the grounds that the city’s plan is nothing less than a power and cash grab.
Johl warned of “serious repercussions” to Vision Vancouver if the city decides to sweep aside the associations.
According to Johl, the drive to centralize planning and pool revenues is part of a grand design to render community centre associations powerless as a step toward the eventual abolition of the park board—the only elected park board in Canada.
“If you get rid of the associations and everything is centralized, why would you need park board commissioners?” Johl told the Straight in a phone interview. “Because right now, the commissioners are supposed to be listening to the community centres. They’re supposed to be bringing issues back to the park board to discuss and develop issues around. And if you don’t have the associations, it eliminates the need for the commissioners.”
It’s a claim that Sharma strongly denies. “That’s absolutely false,” she said.
Jonathan Baker, an expert on municipal law, can’t say whether Vision can afford to antagonize the associations that are run by community-based volunteers.
“Vision has enough troubles as it is,” Baker told the Straight by phone, alluding to anger in many communities that has been caused by council’s approval of many applications for massive developments. “I don’t know that they want to make any more.”
But the former city councillor isn’t discounting the possibility that the ruling party may just do it.
“I think Vision loves to be hated,” Baker said. “I think they just get off on it, on doing things to irritate people.”
Comments
20 Comments
Blondie
Jul 1, 2013 at 4:16pm
Jesse Johl was ditched by the NPA and is now desperately trying to make his way back in to politics by scaring the public to believe in a non reality. Sorry Jesse you will soon find out the public is too smart for that. And Jonathan Baker just another politician taking a kick at the can. Don't believe the hype.
DCCA Dave
Jul 1, 2013 at 6:29pm
Today's Georgia Straight article reiterates (as have other local papers) the incorrect statement that only 6 CCAs oppose Park Board. The article states, "The city wants to centralize planning and pool revenues of community centres, a move that is being opposed by six of the 20 associations with which it has an agreement."
ALL CCAs oppose the centralization of planning and pooling of revenues.
For a full statement of the DCCA's position you can go to the Dunbar Community Centre's website and click on DCCA news.
Martin Dunphy
Jul 1, 2013 at 7:23pm
DCAA Dave:
You might be technically correct about the feelings of the members of all the community centres, but when the whole confrontation started with Vision, 12 centres ended up negotiating (for an agreement that was due to take effect today, although that date may have changed), two (Strathcona and Roundhouse) hadn't stated an official position, and six (undoubtedly the six that Carlito Pablo and yourself refer to) were adamantly opposed, to the point that they pooled funds to take out ads.
They were: Hillcrest, Sunset, Marpole, Kerrisdale, Killarney, and Hastings.
So it is really nitpicking to state that his statement is in error.
G
Jul 1, 2013 at 7:26pm
The Vision Parks Board has been a farce: questionable spending, perks and a desire to centralize all the cash they can under their control. When Vision cut $5 million from field & facility maintenance they officially blamed the Olympics and most of the media sang the same bogus song. What it took local media to uncover was that Vsion spent slightly more than that $5 million on Emery Barnes Park as a favour to their developer friends. Vision cut services to citizens who paid for using the fields and other facilities in order to build a tiny park in Yaletown. Developers used to pay a set range of costs for local public facilities & services, like parks & schools, but Vision "adjusted" the regulations for one of their key groups of donors. Funnily enough the daughter of Emery Barnes was Board Chair when the park in his name was funded.
The Vision Parks Board is merely an extension of the city council and eager to obey directives from above. They are the people who can transfer land from the park system to the city to sell to their developer friends. One example of this will be some of the land that is currently part of Langara Golf Course. Vision have already begun the process of dividing the electorate between over the "elitist" nature of golf, relying upon basic class prejudices to give then a base of support. Claiming the land will become a park will gain plenty of support and prepare the electorate for the closure of the golf course.
Following that change the city will claim they can't afford to remove the vestiges of the golf course without selling of a "small" parcel of land along Cambie near Langara Station. Naturally the Vision drones will spin it as still being a net increase in "park" even though it will be a net loss of greenspace. The pool of potential developers, those with "most favoured" status, can be determined with a simple search for donors to the Vision coffers. There will be development on at least some of the Langara land and the city will end up short changed while developers and Vision make a healthy profit. Most likely the major portion of the paving in Langara will take place after the next civic election giving Vision some breathing space but the seeds have been sown.
Stick to the issues
Jul 1, 2013 at 8:10pm
@BBlondie you are clearly another Vision Troll on this and most likely other sites
Johl and Baker are right and anyone who has volunteered at a community centre knows that they are right.
Keep up the good fight you guys
Mr. Sexton
Jul 1, 2013 at 8:49pm
The lead negotiator for the community centre was a former city employee (Kate Perkins) and worked on the same floor as city manager Ballem. Perkins was on an email list with Vision councillours. No conflict of interest here. City of Van negotiations with City of Van. Lol
Bert Massiah
Jul 1, 2013 at 9:39pm
As a citizen who has spent some time in several of our community centers at various meetings I have been strongly impressed with how they reflect the populations of their areas. Centralization would be a terrible step backwards and ruin much of what the various centers achievs. Bert
Thompson D
Jul 1, 2013 at 9:55pm
These negotiations are flawed from the beginner. A bunch of moles on the 12 community Centres association over the past few years. The group of 12 high jacking the Kits AGM to Ex President David Sexton getting elected to a board to where he does not even live in that community. Dunbar can't even ratify anything without an SGM. The Group of Seven need to keep the Pressure on these politician. People need to be careful before disrepecting individuals. Jesse Johl is a great advocate for the indo Canadians and his community. It takes a leader to stick up to Vision.
Emile Att
Jul 1, 2013 at 10:47pm
What a totally biased piece of bad writing by Carlito Pablo!
Is the Jonathan Baker quoted here the same Jonathan Baker who Carlito Pablo identified as a former NPA council member in an article published about a month ago?
http://www.straight.com/news/386321/team-intends-toss-vision-vancouver-o...
Is the Jesse Johl quoted here the same Jesse John who Carlito Pablo identified as an NPA party member in an article published about 3 weeks ago:
http://www.straight.com/news/389316/npa-forced-address-suzanne-anton-res...
Hmm, so lemme get this straight... A former NPA councilman who will soon be running against Vision Vancouver under a new political banner, and a current member of the NPA are both bashing Vision Vancouver?
I am stunned.
For the record, I'm a former Vision supporter who has soured on them over recent years, but if you're going to criticize them, please don't rely on quotes from people who have a very clear ulterior motive for knocking Vision.
Martin Dunphy
Jul 1, 2013 at 11:18pm
Emile:
Wow! Claws in!
"Totally biased" and "bad writing"? I'm not sure what you would recommend. That reporters only interview party turncoats or disillusioned former supporters (like yourself)?
It is standard practice to question political opponents on issues pursued by governing parties. That way you don't get only fawning or entirely predictable quotes by people ordered to toe the party line.
In this case, Baker ran successfully for the NPA more than two decades ago and is now dissatisfied with that party and affiliated with a new party today. Johl was decertified as a candidate by the NPA prior to the 2011 municipal election after winning his spot by acclamation.
Wait a minute. Wouldn't that make them turncoats or disillusioned former supporters?
Maybe you should be thanking Carlito instead!