Archive for the ‘politics’ Category
I do try to get out to the often SFU organized public lectures and similar events, partly just to keep my brain engaged but also because the existence of a blog demands content. And it should not all be pointing to other web pages. Well, not all the time anyway. I usually go in person, but on this occasion there was a webcast. It was a live event and I do not know if at some later stage it will be on the web as a video.
However, I do think that the webcast itself says a lot about the process.
Greenest City Conversations, an innovative, interdisciplinary and wide-scale research project aimed at developing multiple channels for public engagement on municipal sustainability policies. Its two main goals were to facilitate discussion with the public on a variety of sustainability policies, and to provide a comprehensive understanding of the content and impact of different modes of public engagement.
Some of those modes involve “social media” – or information technology if you will. And on this occasion new technology was showing both its best and worst sides. Things got started on time with the usual throat clearing and acknowledgements which always seem to me to be protracted but, grudgingly, necessary. A lot of people were involved, and a lot of material was going to be covered. Some of it was already of questionable value as it had “failed to meet its objectives”. It is not clear quite what that was about as the first speaker is already showing that she was unaware that there was a webcast. Instead of the right laptop (there were two) she has her own tablet and she is talking about how much time children already spend with tablets. The people at the Wosk Centre are being shown pictures, but these are not being broadcast despite a split screen arrangement.
Then the whole screen goes blank – for quite a long time – and when the webcast restarts someone else is talking about land use and how to use “stamps” to create Utopia. What she has been dealing with is the standard problem in public consultation. The only people who come out to open houses or public meetings are the people who come out to open houses and public meetings. You feel you are talking to the same five people. The issue is one of engagement – how to reach a more significant number of people. It is also cleat that what we are currently facing is not simply a top down “education” program, where the experts who know what must be done convince the unwashed of the necessity of cooperation in a predetermined solution. They found, unsurprisingly that of they used new media like Facebook, more women wanted to be involved. If they used smart phones more young people got involved. I was especially frustrated to miss much of the talk on the City’s transportation plan which engaged people by asking them if they were happy with their commute and if not what they thought could be done about it. (Exploring Vancouver’s Transportation Future) Apparently there was a “heat map” which answered the question “Is Facebook Useful” but I didn’t get to see that: all I saw was a talking head.
The next presenter had managed to persuade people to be tracked by using their smart phones to study their travel patterns and modes. They tried getting them to answer questions like “paper or plastic?” when they went shopping but – not surprisingly – people seem to be a little tired with that one. I think it would really have helped me stay interested if this presentation had not been mostly him reading great grey slabs of text – and apologizing to the audience for the tiny size of his illustrations which were not visible at all on line.
Then we got into land use. They tried to engage citizens in place based design. In fact the city had already decided to update the Grandview-Woodlands and Marpole neighbourhood plans. We have of course discussed those at length here. They did this by creating a “sandbox” – a generic neighbourhood of as a 2D and 3D board game. They had only three variables – Land Use, Energy and Quality of Life. The City has, of course, already set its goal of a 33% reduction in GHG by 2020 so the only question is what does that do for our quality of life. I cannot tell you the answer as the PhD candidate is still working on his thesis – so watch for more on the next webcast.
The workshop materials are available online at http://gcc.sites.olt.ubc.ca/findings-and-results/exploring-neighbourhood…
The last speaker was actually in Newfoundland and joined in by Skype and managed to illustrate all the the things you should not do during a live webcast – including setting up an infinite feedback loop, and allowing the dial tone to be heard while someone else was speaking. I think that they might be better off giving the professionals at the SFU Creative Centre the evening off and bringing in a bunch of Grade 12 students to handle the technology. He was the presenter who had the enviable task of introducing art into the proceedings. He managed to use the words epistemologies, disingenuous and disenchantment all in the same sentence without creating poetry. Apparently we have to “shift away from linear engagement”. He asked how do we arrive at “truth” and “value” – and to help in that had hired a poet, an architect, a composer and a theatrical troupe. They produced “You Are Very Star” at the Space Centre which I told you about when I covered Northern Voice.
The issue you see is that no-one actually knows what a sustainable community is: what it looks like or what it might be like to live in. One of the things that artists are supposed to be good at is imagining possibilities. What baffled me is why no-one thought of bringing in some science fiction writers. I suppose they thought that might be too depressing for words. Certainly a recent collection of stories about a warmed up planet is not proving to be useful bedtime reading for me.
The final speaker was supposed to have produced “Cross Channel Evaluation” which he characterized as “herding academic cats”. In the end he decided to concentrate on the outreach to various age groups – as long as they were over 19 (something to do with the ethics of market research) which sadly left out all the kids involved in the first project. The people reached by this research were by no means representative of the population of the City but this is apparently not a Big Issue. The – very unsurprising – conclusion – digital channels attract younger people compared to public meetings and web based surveys. He compared processes and not outcomes since those are “emergent” and “contingent”. Because the process is pluralistic and poses open ended questions.
In the sum up John Robinson said that his intention was to scale up the process so that it could reach a significant number of “citizens of all stripes” – 200,000 would be good – in an interactive dialogue. The issue is no longer a one way flow outward as “we don’t know the story” that we have to get out to the people. They have to be engaged in creating the story – What Can Sustainability Really Mean?
Q & A
The first question related to the “white coat” (expert) syndrome – apparently participants in the studies did not see the researchers in that light.
The second commenter noted that none of the proposal to reduce GHG emissions seemed to aimed at big business “They got us into this mess”. The response was that people who participated did not share that view and were interested in learning about what they could do.
The City had already established its goal, so that framed the problem which meant the studies were about which levers you can pull. In some respect this created a “sense of security for government folks” concerned about an open ended process.
The distinction has to be made between “persuasive communication” versus an “emergent dialogue”. We do not know what a sustainble community is, and therefore we have to work with people in deciding what kind of community we want.
PICS wanted to encourage questions from those watching on line and suggested they use @PICSCanada as the twitter feed. They did not specify a hashtag. I subscribed to that feed and saw no activity – in fact they still have not said anything since I subscribed and the only commentary on it last night was from @carbontalks. Do you really think these folks know enough about how social media works?
In response to another question the response about the attitude of children was that they did not see “some predetermined world that their parents had messed up.”
A very keen observation was by someone who had seen the ”Fantastic Four” movie and the enthusiastic public response to it. He compared that to participation in in local government planning consultation. But conceded the movie cost $100m to make. “Does it take that much to get people involved?”
The response was withering. The people who saw the movie plunked down $12 and gave up two hours of their time to be entertained. The commitment was wide but very shallow. This contrasts with the high level of commitment required in the processes they had been studying – the questions were not so much about cost but motivation and payback. Much of this came from the researcher who had worked on the transportation channel and I wish now that i had been able to hear more of her presentation.
The final question (and by now we were well into overtime) “Will the real and the imaginary use the same arithmetic?”
John Robinson: Getting the real into people’s heads won’t stop but we are looking at something emergent. It is worth noting that in mathematics the elegance of a solution is also an important consideration. We need to wary of the Dragnet theory of truth “Just the facts, ma’am. Just the facts.”
The next webcast will be on October 23rd at 6pm check the PICS website.
That has been my view for a long time – but the title is taken from a “Friday Feature” in the Richmond News. Although I no longer live there, I still find that I go there quite a lot. The airport, picking up parcels from couriers who did not find me at home, car servicing, the doctor … the list is quite long. I have not tried to get there by bike. Though it would be straightforward enough, and with bike racks on buses, easy to avoid Vancouver’s hilly bits. But if I am going to use transit anyway, why hamper myself with a bike? We also still like walking on the dyke. And at one time we used to put the bikes on the car rack and go further. I am not sure why that has not been happening of late. I feel a Bicycle Diary coming on but I will leave that for later.
Richmond ought to be great for cyclists as it is as flat as a billiard table. There has long been a cycling committee there – and I am afraid that they have not achieved very much. If you remove the use of the dyke – which is much more about recreation than transportation – then there is actually not much cycling in Richmond. It is still very much a car oriented suburb and what facilities there are, were grudgingly conceded. Or pushed by the availability of funding from Translink or extracted from developers. Few bike lanes – lots of sharrows. And one or two paths shared with pedestrians and unpaved.
There is a pretty fair summation in the News piece. It would not have gone amiss to have pointed out that the No 3 Road lane was separated and raised – for some of its length, but ruined by incompetent paving and never corrected. The best example of arterial road reorganization is still Williams Road. For much of its length the traditional four lanes of traffic has been reduced to two with a centre turn lane and bike lanes each side. This gets altered at intersections, with no priority for bikes, and actually improves traffic flow, just as separated bike lanes have done in Vancouver. It also should stop on street parking – but is not well enforced.
The biggest issue for me is that after twenty years of “demonstration” it has not been replicated and should have been. Critical intersections like Granville at Garden City, or Shell at Hwy 99 remain diabolical for cyclists.
The News does not expect much to change any time soon and I think they are right. The City Council is very secure and is unlikely to face any great challenge at the ballot box, so smugness rules. They will not change and no-one seems likely to make them.
This post appears today on Island Tides and her own web site. Because of its significance I am copying it here in its entirety, but closing comments.
The very idea that the federal government, having slashed scientific research into climate change, freshwater science, ozone depletion and contamination of marine mammals (to provide an incomplete list) would be running a gold-plated research project called “the Northern Gateway project” is a stunner. The fact that $78 million is to be spent in 2013-14 on research as to how bitumen mixed with diluent will disperse in the marine environment, as well as better weather forecasting along proposed tanker routes in and out of Kitimat, with $42 million set for next year was shocking. The documents leaked from sources inside the federal government included numbers never made public.
I suppose I should not have been surprised that the response from Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver was to say that somehow Dr Andrew Weaver, Green MLA from Oak Bay–Gordon Head and I had simply missed a public announcement of the funding.
It is marginally better than denying that what we revealed to the press was true. Instead, Oliver said we had not done our homework. He claimed this was all in the public domain, announced on March 18, 2013. I remember that press conference vividly. Natural Resources minister Joe Oliver and then Transport Minister Denis Lebel stood against the background of the Vancouver waterfront to announce their ‘World-Class Tanker Safety System.’ I actually watched their whole press conference on CPAC and had gone through the Natural Resources website to correct errors. It was bizarre to hear Joe Oliver claim that we had simply missed that the federal government was spending over $100 million on something called ‘the Northern Gateway project.’
I went back and reviewed that file. True, the press release said that ‘The government will conduct scientific research on non-conventional petroleum products, such as diluted bitumen, to enhance understanding of these substances and how they behave when spilled in the marine environment.’ In fact, the only substance they are studying is dilbit in the research programme called the Northern Gateway project – no ‘such as’ about it. The research is essentially a disguised subsidy to Enbridge which was supposed to have done this work and presented it to the Joint Review Panel. The key reason that the BC government submitted its objections to the project in the hearings was the failure of Enbridge to provide any evidence of the environmental fate and persistence of dilbit, either in a pipeline (terrestrial) or tanker (marine) spills.
Oliver managed to get a good chunk of media to accept that we were scandalized by something that was well-known. Nothing in the Vancouver event this spring suggested to those of us paying the most attention that the federal government was trying to fill the gaps in Enbridge’s evidence.
Nor was there anything in the announcement to suggest infrastructure investments in better weather forecasting for tanker traffic routes in and out of Kitimat.
We have placed the key documents on the Green Party of Canada website. I hope that people will go to the original documents and decide for themselves if this was something we all knew.
Hansard: June 6th, 2013
To the contrary, I asked very directly in the House if the Prime Minister planned to push the Enbridge project through:
Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, in 2001, the Prime Minister wrote a famous letter to the former premier of Alberta in which he urged him to act “to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction”. Six days ago, the provincial government of British Columbia said no to the Enbridge project. It said that Enbridge had completely failed to demonstrate any evidence that it knew how to clean up a spill or even knew what would happen with the bitumen and diluent.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that under no circumstances will the federal government become the aggressive and hostile government that approves a project as long British Columbians say no?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the project in question, of course, is subject to a joint review panel process. Obviously, we believe in the rule of law and in adjudicating these things based on scientific and policy concerns. The government will obviously withhold its decision on the matter until we see the results of the panel and its work.
Many may conclude it was only prudent of the federal government to spend over $100 million on ‘world class’ work in support of a project which is subject to a review process not yet completed. On the other hand, I think Stephen Harper’s claim that (as he said twice) “obviously” he will wait for the panel recommendation before deciding about Enbridge is undermined by this spending. When one follows the money, it all leads to supporting Enbridge.
Having looked at Glasgow for a comparison on Compass, here’s another very instructive comparison, a bit closer to home. This op-ed piece appears in the Toronto Sun and is by R. Michael Warren who is a “former corporate director, Ontario deputy minister, Toronto Transit Commission chief general manager and Canada Post CEO”. He was present when the decision was made to buy “the province’s untested “Intermediate Capacity Transit System” (ICTS)” which we know as SkyTrain.
The parallels between us and them are obvious. The tussle between city and suburbs, the choice of technology – it’s all exactly the same
Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has been on the wrong side of this issue longer than anyone. “Stopping the war on cars” to him means putting rapid transit below ground or making it grade-separated. Out of the way of cars.
It seems to me that an endorsement by Rob Ford should be enough to deter anyone. But Vision Vancouver wants a subway under Broadway. And for very similar reasons. What is even more striking is the way that the link has been made in local planning for Grandview - where towers were suddenly added to the plan, much to the surprise and dismay of those who had been consulted. And one suggestion has been this is necessary to show that Vancouver is committed to increasing density (in the form of high rise towers) at subway stations. The quid pro quo being that if the City wants rapid transit then there has to be supporting denser land use. No repeat of what happened along the Expo Line – with no development happening at all at Broadway, Namaimo or 29th Avenue stations. By the way exactly the same effect was seen along the second subway in Toronto. The Bloor-Danforth line cannot be seen as clusters of towers around stations the way the Yonge line can be.
It is also worth re-iterating that the idea that a subway can be inserted underneath an existing street without interfering with it is foolish. Sure cut and cover subways and surface light rail create disturbance all along the street, but subway stations are significant objects at major intersections and have to have connections to the surface. And despite the nonsense that was peddled by the Canada Line constructors, entrances are needed at all street corners, not just one of them. If only to handle transfers to other transit effectively.
But also if you build very expensive subways, and you want fast services, there are going to be fewer stations – and most development is going to have to occur within a short walk of the station entrance. Do not think you can do that without upsetting the neighbours. Or you can have enough new development without increasing building heights significantly.
To make the headline a bit clearer, politics is always going to decide how public money is spent on major infrastructure projects. There is no way this can decided simply by technical considerations. These are not engineering decisions. They are planning decisions. They are about place making. We have already plenty of experience of what happens to places when decision making is based on engineering standards. It is absolutely right that both politicians and communities get involved. The important thing is that the final outcome is not decided on short term political advantage.
The Scarborough RT was supposed to have been extended north and then east from Scarborough Town Centre to serve a new area of affordable housing known as Malvern. But the route, protected from development, ran though a neighbourhood that got built before the line did. When the TTC got ready to start building the local politicians listened to the protests of the neighbours who did not want trains running past the end of their backyards. Malvern, by the way, is now one of the greatest concentrations of visible minorities in Toronto – and one of the poorer and most troublesome areas for crime and social problems. Which cannot be blamed on SkyTrain!
What the headline means is that politicians tend to make decisions based on what is best for their party, or will be most popular with current voters. Politicians who act with an eye to the long term future are much rarer. But the decision to build the Canada Line underground beneath Cambie was based on those kinds of calculation. Or rather, the decision to refuse to consider light rail – either along the existing CP right of way in the Arbutus corridor or along the “heritage boulevard” of Cambie Street – was all about placating the existing voters, not about accommodating the people who were going to move to the Vancouver region. Or looking at something like “the best benefit-for-cost solution”.
At the Vancouver Public Library today.
I wanted to record my impressions of the event, while it was still fresh in my mind. This is not intended to be a record – there are places for that and it’s not here. I did not run in the last election, but like everyone in the Green Party I was very encouraged by our showing and especially electing the first ever Green MLA. In fact the first Green in any Canadian provincial legislature. There are now also Green Party representatives in parliament and Vancouver City Council. In fact these are all three different but overlapping parties. I have a feeling that the withdrawal of federal funding based on votes cast may well herald a closer relationship between federal and provincial parties. There have also, apparently, been dirty deeds at the municipal level, where some have tried to limit Green influence by joining the municipal party under a false flag. So the first thing I did was sign up for the vangreens. I have also paid my dues to the feds too.
I was not the only one present to note how fast the Green Party of BC is changing. This was my third AGM and the attendance was noticeably different. There were still a lot of old white guys – and they took most of the seats on Provincial Council again. But there are more females, and more visible minorities present now, and an important contribution is being made by First Nations.
Jane Sterk has been a transformative leader: when she took over the party was in financial difficulty and risked de-registration. I must say as a new member and candidate I was completely unaware of those issues. A bit like a duck swimming, I could see we were making progress but I could not see the frantic paddling underneath the surface. Her speech was more than the usual acknowledgements (though they were there too). It was a sober and candid review of the last six years, with a clear analysis of why we had been successful in the last election, and what was now needed to do very much better next time. Given the paucity of resources the GPBC has compared to the two major parties, her achievement has been significant. But a tribute to her wisdom and clarity of thought is shown by her choice to quit while she was ahead.
I did scribble down some notes – which resurfaced some time after this blog post first appeared. One of the things that Jane revealed is that she has at least three job applications on the go, as well as the intent to run in the next municipal election and starting a new blog (which, as soon as I see it, will go on the blogroll). One of the critical reforms she introduced was the notion that loans were not to be treated as donations – even if that is allowed under the Elections BC rules. She convinced the provincial council that the concept of cash flow was critical – donations tend to come in lumps but expenses stretch throughout the year. It is also essential to distinguish between “wants” and “needs”. We currently have only two paid full time officials (Leader and Executive Director) but what we need are 15 regional organizers. We have to view ourselves as a political party, not a protest group. That means our job is to get people elected. The objective has to be not just a few MLAs but to become the official opposition then the government. The most successful Green parties in the world are those that have created partnerships with like minded parties and co-operated with them in government. That is the way that green policies get adopted. The job now is to find ways of putting our members into positions where they can do what we propose.
Andrew Weaver gave an inspiring speech. I hope that it becomes widely available as a transcript or video. It certainly deserves it. He observed that the job of a politician and a scientist ought not to be very different. There is a problem, which we recognize, search for evidence and then analyze that for its solution. Evidence based decision making is what ought to guide our political leaders. Far too often what happens is we have decision driven evidence research. And – far too often – not even that. He also described how he won his campaign and paid tribute to his team. There’s the difference, I thought. When I ran for MLA I did not have a team. Or even any real understanding of what is required of a campaign. That will now change as there is, it turns out, quite a lot of Green Party experience on how to do such things and we will get much better at running campaigns in future. For other candidates, I might add. Not me.
The real difference between 2009 and 2013 was that the Green Party did not try to recruit a candidate for every riding. The intention was to concentrate resources – very much in the way that the national party had concentrated on getting Elizabeth May elected. That did give rise to some discontent. People feel they have the right to vote Green – even if that means the candidate is simply a name on a ballot. There could have been more candidates if more had volunteered, and there was some local organization to back them. But the reason that there was no Green Party name on so many ballots is that neither candidates nor local organization were in place. That should change now as a lot of effort is going into building regional organizations to galvanize Green Party support in groups of ridings.
Adriane Carr was one of the founders of the provincial Green Party – and its leader on two separate occasions. She is one of the party’s better orators, and got the room on its feet. She is also clearly enjoying her time as a Vancouver City Councillor. She had some very wise words to say about the importance of starting the campaign now: not just for next year’s municipal elections but for the next provincial and federal elections. We cannot expect to elect anyone who has only run a two week campaign.
There was also a very remarkable speech by Sjeng Derkx. The Greens in general are always positive in presenting policy and election strategy. His was the first public assault I had heard on the NDP. Firstly on their dismal election record in BC, and secondly on their readiness to blame others for their own failings. The myth of vote splitting had already been very effectively dealt with by others: in ridings where there was no Green candidate running, those votes went mainly to the Liberals, not the NDP. “They haven’t had a new thought since Tommy Douglas!” got a round of applause. As it happens, I think we will do much better when we stop worrying about NDP voters, and try to get those people who do not vote at all to vote Green as we are not like the other parties. Far too often all politicians are lumped together: “they’re all the same” is a refrain heard all the time on the campaign trail as the reason for not voting. It is significant that Jane Sterk was the only party leader where the majority of those polled chose “trust” over “distrust”.
Much attention should be paid to a motion – that was approved without dissent – to review Green Party “branding”. At one time the use of terms like “brand” or “marketing” would have been anathema to a grass roots party born of protests in the woods. The people now coming to the party understand what is meant by those terms, and why it is much more important to understand how voters perceive the Green Party than what we have in our policy manual. Which has always been about a lot more than just environmental issues, though you would not know that from the mainstream media. At the very least you, reader of this blog, ought to be aware of the Ten Core Principles.
Andrew Weaver pointed out that the current government “plan” to expand LNG is simply not feasible. It makes no sense to “go all in and then double down” on a market that is already oversupplied and by places much better positioned to serve that demand. This is no longer the party that thinks first of lying down in front of logging trucks. Sure we object to the wasteful and damaging extraction and over exploitation of resources. But we have very good reasons for thinking that no responsible government, that claims to be the best steward of our province, could possibly deliver on the present “promises”. And we also happen to have a very much better alternative based on a locally vibrant economy. Not just “digging up BC and selling it to China” as Jane put it.
I really enjoyed this meeting. Perhaps the high spot was the good natured joshing between Adam Olsen and Andrew Weaver. Which became moving when Adam presented Andrew with a traditional blanket – that Andrew was asked to put in his office at the leg. to remind him that “this family” [the Green Party of BC] is behind him to support and protect him from the inevitable storms he will have to face.
I left feeling optimistic. There is hope. Things can change. Just because the BC electorate was once again fooled by advertising and slick communications, does not mean that we are on this path indefinitely. There is indeed a different way to run this province, and it does not have to be a choice between capitalism or socialism, between the economy and the environment, or between Tweedledum and Tweedledummer. We can and will do better. We must. The alternative is too awful to contemplate.
“Politicians are not taking account of the affordability challenge in their policy making, continuing whenever the mood strikes to raise government fees and taxes.”
Read more: Columnist Babara Yaffe of the Vancouver Sun behind a paywall
Fees, yes – taxes? Really??
The whole thing stinks from sloppy writing, I think deliberately sloppy, which is worse. For instance the headline alone misleads since she is talking about Vancouver house prices – and there is data within the article to support that concern. But also the useful information that you can buy two houses in Kitimat as investments and still rent here. Kitimat is in BC too you know.
By the way, there are real issues up there too. Both Hawkair and Air Canada have increased flights to Terrace due to the numbers of people commuting between there and Vancouver. Not on a daily basis, of course, but finding somewhere to rent up there when that is where work takes you is really difficult.
“Politicians” is nice and wide reaching too. After all as a columnist for the Sun you would not want to go after Christy Clark too obviously. This way she can take aim slyly at the Mayors who are doing all they can to hold the line on property taxes. Those are the only taxes they are responsible for, and the increases we have seen in them have been due mostly to downloading from the province. The whole battle with the Province over transit funding is due to the province’s determination that property taxes must be raised to pay for any expansion: not taxes the province might be held accountable for. Which is why the idea of a referendum is so appealing. That way she (Christy Clark) can still talk about the “lowest income tax in Canada” since that does not have to include the MSP. Which no other province levies, but here applies equally to seniors on fixed incomes as much as people with well paid employment. And whose employer probably picks up the tab anyway.
“Whenever the mood strikes” is as close to lying as you can get. The idea that politicians in general are indifferent to public opinion and vote for tax increases on a whim is simply unsupportable, though it is a very popular line that right wing commentators like to adopt.
Let us be clear. There is a very good argument for increasing taxes, but not just any tax and not just for any project. Ever since Thatcher and Regan started swinging their axes, progressive income tax on the wealthy has fallen. That was supposed to produce increased revenues, since it was going to stimulate the economy. It never did. The math for austerity was flawed – but instinctively the right wing still clings to it. Slash social programs, cut spending that goes to the poor, the sick, the needy. But make sure our friends are taken care of. The optics of wheelchair fees at the same time as increasing the salary of political advisers could not be worse, but there’s a long time before the next election. And even when the top tax rates fell, the rush to hide income offshore increased.
Barbara Yaffe makes a very unconvincing champion for those facing affordability challenges. I am sorry that I broke my own rule about pointing to a source behind a paywall. But really, if the decline of PNG and its like is going to continue and there is less money to pay for right wing propagandists like her, then two cheers for that.
And, in all decency, I should point out that this bit is worth reading
Those in the know say the market lately is moderating, with slower sales, but prices are barely budging.
The cost of housing could be one reason why many are leaving — more Canadians have been leaving than moving to B.C. since 2011.
On a net basis, reports BC Stats, the province lost 2,234 residents in the last three months of 2012 alone.
Still, politicians are looking the other way, focusing interest and efforts on the desperately needy and homeless.
The province so far has refused to reduce the Property Transfer Tax, or forgive PST on realty fees.
That Conservative MPs and Liberal MLAs in B.C. failed utterly to foresee taxpayer ire over the imposition of a costlier HST speaks to their lack of attention to the affordability crisis.
You can read that here for free since it is “fair comment” . My experience of a price drop in Richmond is, I am told, not unique. Apparently a lot of people are getting very nervous about living on a mud flat in the middle of the Fraser and are moving to higher ground – like Metrotown. Something to do with extreme weather events, and sea level rise apparently.
UPDATE From a different source a different story but the same data. BC is losing people to other provinces but more than making that up by international immigration. And the reason people have been leaving, steadily, for some time is the need to find work.
Judy Graves, the City of Vancouver’s homeless advocate, retires after more than two decades on the job
The CBC interviewed her on The Current and The Early Edition – you can read a condensed version here - but this question and answer seemed to hit the crux of the matter
Q: Why were so many people on the streets and in the doorways?
A: We had several people collide in the early 90s. We had the federal government pull out of supplying subsidized housing for the very poor. We had been developing rapidly in Vancouver so the old rooming houses had been torn down and the apartments that had been built weren’t affordable for anybody with a low income.
Judy Graves, the City of Vancouver’s homeless advocate, retires after more than two decades on the job. (CBC )
We had welfare cutbacks, and the system became so difficult that people with any kind of brain injury or mental illness could not navigate the system.
There were government programs – but they were cut. Homelessness was the result. I would say that the result was inevitable. I would go further. I would say that homelessness was created deliberately.
There has been a steady drumbeat throughout my working life that taxes were too high, and that government spending was wasteful. Money should be left in peoples’ pockets so they could spend it – not some bureaucrat. And the market was a much more efficient system for ensuring a better outcome. There was a stream of people claiming that the intellectual foundations of the Chicago school of economists were far more intellectually respectable than “the left”. Friedrich Hayek – of whom I had never heard when studying political philosophy – was now canonized. There were a number of platitudes that were recited about the rising tide that raised all boats, that increasing economic growth would benefit everybody. That wealth would “trickle down”.
It was, of course, all nonsense. Mostly lies and half truths. What was actually happening was that the rich had decided they no longer wanted to pay taxes. They disapproved of the priorities of society and wanted to keep their wealth for their own indulgences. Only a few areas were to be protected – or possibly see increased spending. Defence, prisons and policing. After “One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest” it was easy and popular to close grim mental institutions. There was talk of “care in the community” but none was ever provided.
And even though tax rates for the wealthy plummeted, the expected increase in government revenues that was supposed to occur never did. The wealthy were no more willing to pay lower taxes than high ones, and came up with ever more creative ways of hiding their money. They moved it to tax havens. Tax avoidance became the major source of income for a number of small, independent countries that had very little else to generate foreign earnings. The Cayman Islands has a bit of tourism – but earns much more from looking after money than people.
I can clearly recall an economics lesson learned at East Ham Grammar School. The teacher had been a well paid Ford executive but left that job to teach there. And I can still see him sitting at the front of the room arguing with some conservative minded students. He said that he actually felt that he ought to pay taxes, because he appreciated what those taxes bought. Not the least of which was the room in which we were sitting.
There is no doubt at all that many publicly funded services are far more efficient than their private sector comparators. Healthcare is the most obvious. The management cost of the US private system – mostly insurance companies looking at ways to avoid paying for procedures – greatly exceeds that of the public systems like Canada or the UK. ICBC is actually a cheaper way to provide car insurance, with a better outcomes – especially when their collision data is used to drive road safety measures, something a private sector insurer would never consider. The privatization of British Rail resulted in public sector costs that were four times higher than they were in public ownership. Competition did not drive down costs.
In order to pull off this triumph, the elite have had to hijack democracy. We keep on voting for right wing governments, despite their obvious failures. Well, a lot of people no longer vote. That makes things a lot easier. The right wing has mastered the art of storytelling – the “narrative” now always trumps anything backed by objective research. And, just in case, those engaged in such activities will be silenced. Many willingly collude with these devices. The “buy in” to the myths and legends is quite impressive. And those of us who have facts and figures on our side are urged “don’t go negative” – with the result here we have recently seen.
The cure for homelessness has always been obvious and staring us in the face. House them. The private sector has a long and miserable record of housing the poor – since exploitation is always going to trump any other strategy for a rent seeking or profit maximizing entity. The public sector’s involvement is more problematic. The record is spotty, partly due to the way that its activities were always moderated by those who were less than enthusiastic about it succeeding – or being seen to succeed. It is only when there is fear of the lack of a social safety net that people will comply with requirements that are obviously against their own best interests – but they see little or no alternative. Homelessness – and people begging on the streets – serve as a useful minatory device. This is what will happen to you if you don’t co-operate.
The City, of course, has no powers that it could use to actually address the problem. Even the City of Vancouver, which has a Charter and thus has somewhat more ability than other lesser municipalities entirely subject the whims of the legislators. They may indeed hire another advocate. They may allow a few more shelters to open – but only in really bad weather, of course. Not all the time. And the shelter provision is minimal: it does not even pretend to be housing. And the shelter experience itself drives many to the streets as comparatively safer places.
Postscript – please also read the comment by MB: the last paragraph of this post is unfair to the City of Vancouver, and I apologize for that. But not everybody shares his opinions about these developments
UPDATE “30,000 Canadians are homeless every night, 200,000 Canadians are homeless in any given year, national report says” CBC from which we learn
“Vancouver, through a series of public and private partnerships, has achieved a 66 per cent reduction in street homelessness.”