In the 2008 election, Vision Vancouver and Gregor Robertson recognized that to win an election in progressive Vancouver, politicians needed to talk the talk of progressive politics. For Vision this meant rallying Vancouver around the bold idea of addressing the housing crisis and Ending Homelessness. Electorally, it meant a compromise with COPE, Vancouver’s traditional progressive party. COPE and Vision would work together under the “big umbrella” of progressive change, with COPE running only two councilors.
Today, after three years of a Vision majority on City Council, the progressive spirit chosen in the 2008 municipal elections is nowhere to be found. The party who promised to end homelessness and address affordability has turned out to be its mirror opposite, giving millions in tax breaks to developers, decreasing the corporate tax rate to the lowest in the world, forcibly closing homeless shelters, cutting services, hiring millions of dollars of additional police officers, and deepening the affordability crisis at every possible turn.
This month, the members of COPE will have to decide whether or not to enter into another electoral deal with Vision. Members will be presented with that choice at a COPE general meeting on June 26, 2011. Here are ten reasons COPE members ought to reject the deal as proposed, and instead support an independent progressive party in the 2011 municipal elections:
1. Affordable Housing.
Vancouver has become the most unaffordable city on the continent, and one of the most unaffordable in the world. Renovictions, demolitions, and rent increases out of proportion to income increases have become a constant reality amidst unregulated development and neighborhood gentrification. Middle-income and working-class people can no longer afford to live in the city, and low-income renters are being pushed out the bottom and onto the streets.
All of the tools required to create affordability are available to City Council, but Vision has continually decided to side with the market. Zero measures have been taken to protect renters in a climate of property speculation and housing demolitions. Similarly, no measures have been taken to increase the affordable housing supply or build new social housing in Vancouver. Vision has cut social housing at the Olympic Village and granted destruction permits for the demolition of adequate affordable housing throughout the city, including the historic destruction of Little Mountain. STIR (Short Term Incentives for Rental) gives property developers fee exemptions and tax breaks in exchange for luxury rental units, with no requirement that new developments be affordable. As a result of inaction on affordability, homelessness has increased every single year since the election of Vision Vancouver.
2. Corporate tax haven.
Vancouver now has the lowest corporate taxes in the world. Since the 2008 election, taxes have been shifted from businesses to residents three times. In COPE’s most recent platform, Sam Sullivan’s NPA government was criticized for “giving a break to their big business pals.” Vision has only continued this practice. Vision has put profits before people by turning Vancouver into a global tax shelter while closing homeless shelters, selling off social housing, and cutting services. COPE has long promoted a progressive business tax structure that promotes small business but avoids creating a tax-haven for global elites.
3. Civil liberties.
Vision have attempted to pass laws restricting our basic civil liberties. During the Olympics the BC Civil Liberties Association allied with activists to fight hard against city hall and ensure our basic rights. More recently, Vision forced through a “structures” by-law already ruled unconstitutional by the BC Court of Appeal. The by-law is universally condemned by civil liberties organizations and will hurt the homeless. COPE defended civil liberties during the 2010 Olympic Games, and both COPE councillors criticized and voted against the new by-law.
4. Homelessness.
Vision Vancouver was elected on the promise to End Homelessness. The goal of ending homelessness has since changed to “ending street homelessness by 2015.” Ending street homelessness is an important goal that can be achieved immediately and does not need to wait until 2015 – but it avoids the important issue of homelessness. The reality is that Vision has now closed the majority of emergency shelters and enforced the provincial government’s austerity agenda for the city of Vancouver. In lockstep with the provincial government’s refusal to fund Vancouver’s much-needed shelters, Vision Vancouver has cut corporate taxes and essential services, while refusing to use the billion dollar Property Endowment Fund when it is most needed. COPE’s most recent platform promised to use the Property Endowment Fund to build much-needed social housing throughout the city. Homelessness is about affordable housing, not just temporary shelters.
5. Public Sector.
COPE has traditionally been a working class party, defending the rights of workers and organized labour, and advocating full employment. Vision Vancouver originated out of the privatized construction of the Canada Line in a split with COPE over support for P3’s (public-private partnerships). One of the first Vision decisions was a mass layoff of City staff, and they have made service cuts ever since. Vision is a pro-business party that seeks private solutions to public problems. Vision privatized almost all the remaining subsidized housing at the Olympic Village, eliminating any chance of delivering promised affordable housing at the site. Likewise, the NPA has proposed the privatization of important public services, such as garbage collection. Only COPE, with a strong pro-labour history and platform, can stand up for the rights of public workers.
6. Democracy.
The current community planning process is thoroughly undemocratic. In a process skewed by unlimited campaign donations, rezonings serve only to put automatic money in the bank accounts of the wealthiest developers and speculators. We need campaign finance disclosure and limitations on corporate donations. Vision has been all talk and no action on this issue.
Vision has also continued the NPA’s blanket upzonings around the city, threatening neighbourhoods including the West End, the DTES, Mount Pleasant, Cambie corridor, Norquay, and Hastings-Sunrise. Council’s job is to make land-use and zoning decisions in the interest of the public, and residents are restless for real participatory neighbourhood planning. COPE was founded in the halls of Vancouver’s tenants associations and has always supported resident self-determination against private interests.
We have waited over 40 years to implement a ward system capable of replacing the current member-at-large system. The current system benefits candidates with enough money to run city-wide campaigns, while discriminating against representation for minority communities. After decades of Provincial obstruction of COPE-led pro-ward referendums, including two successful ones, it really is time to implement the change. In 2008, Vision Vancouver’s Gregor Robertson promised to hold a ward referendum in 2011, but has now abandoned the promise.
7. Save Downtown Eastside Housing.
Vision Vancouver has continued the NPA’s development agenda for the Downtown Eastside, pushing through a gentrification plan in the face of overwhelming community opposition. Meanwhile, the city’s Director of Planning has suggested plans for eliminating inclusionary zoning in the DEOD (Downtown Eastside Oppenheimer District). The DEOD neighbourhood is vulnerable to real-estate speculation, and unless action is taken to curb gentrification, the city’s last major stock of low-income housing will be lost. The next five years will be crucial to the low-income community’s survival, and we cannot afford another term of the developer status quo. The Downtown Eastide is a vibrant low-income community that needs support from city hall. Instead of addressing affordability, Vision has hired extra police and ramped up market pressures on an already stressed community.
8. Environment.
One of Vision’s few successful initiatives in office has been the creation of bike lanes in the urban centre. The environmental gains of bike lanes have been far off-set by the creation of a city unaffordable for the people who work here, and who now commute to Vancouver from cities throughout the Lower Mainland and beyond. A city of unaffordable condos means a city of commuters who live in places too far to bike. Meanwhile, the glass buildings at the centre of the condo boom are the single least environmentally friendly form of highrise. Similarly, two houses are demolished per day in Vancouver, with no consideration for the environment amidst a build-and-demolish mentality that benefits only the real-estate industry. More sustainable solutions are needed for the real environmental problems that face humanity.
9. Party politics.
Vision staffers and politicians are closely connected with the BC Liberals and Christy Clark, while COPE is still a left-wing, working class party with connections to labour. Now is the best time to take advantage of the orange surge that recently swept across Vancouver in the federal election.
10. NPA advantage.
A silent COPE helps the NPA win the municipal election. The 2011 campaign is underway and NPA candidates have already begun making hard criticisms of Vision for their failed promises. If the elections of November 2011 see a COPE-Vision alliance, only the NPA will be able to take a strong stance against Vision’s broken promises and squandered term. Furthermore, a constrained and docile COPE is already forcing grassroots resident organizations to create alternative pro-tenant municipal parties.
David Chudnovsky
June 17, 2011 at 11:17 am
An analysis without a plan of action is simply self indulgence. And that’s what your article presents.
Virtually all of the criticisms you make of Vision have been made repeatedly by COPE elected representatives and our organization over the last 3 years. Your suggestion that COPE is or has been silent is nonsense.
We opposed the tax shift from business to homeowners and renters. We opposed the Chinatown towers. We, together with large segments of the community, rejected the limitations on civil liberties introduced before the Olympics. We supported and support the residents of Little Mountain and demanded their homes and community not be destroyed. We have supported real community democracy in the West End, Downtown Eastside, Marpole, Norquay and across the city. We introduced amendments to the city budget which would have saved public service unionized jobs. We demanded city council pressure the province to come through on its oft-repeated promise of social housing. The COPE-Vision School Board saved schools, mostly east-side schools, from closing and led a successful resistance to the provincial Minister of Education. And that’s just a short summary list. There’s lots more.
Some silence!
But what you propose WILL guarantee silence on the left at city council and guarantee the LOSS OF OUR PROGRESSIVE SCHOOL BOARD, precisely because it will strengthen the right and make it extremely difficult to elect COPE candidates.
And then you wrap yourself in the flag of the working class and its trade union movement. COPE has had a longstanding and close relationship with the trade unions – and continues to have that relationship. Have you checked what their position is on the proposed agreement for electoral cooperation? Maybe you should. COPE members are trade union members. COPE activists are trade union activists. COPE leaders are trade union leaders. It would be disastrous to put that relationship into jeopardy by rejecting the very tactic that the trade unions support – electoral cooperation to defeat the right.
By the way, have you got a plan for raising the hundreds of thousands of dollars we need to run even a bare-bones election campaign as we did last time without electoral cooperation? I’d be interested to see that plan, but I don’t think it exists.
The tactic of electoral cooperation, while continuing to be the independent party of the left, has been working. COPE has grown substantially over the last 3 years. We have attracted hundreds of young activists, people who have left Vision, and folks who have had no previous involvement in politics. Your article suggests we reject what works and embrace the politics of “the righteous flame out”. Sorry, those of us who have worked for decades to build the municipal left, and those of us who are newer to COPE actually want to have an impact at Council, School Board and Park Board. We feel a responsibility to the thousands of Vancouver residents who depend on us to advocate for them.
The members of COPE elected a leadership at our last AGM which ran on a platform of seeking cooperation with Vision, the Greens and others. Nobody ran against us. We have a proposed agreement that does just that. It is substantially improved from the 2008 deal.
You’re entitled to oppose that agreement. But remember, analysis without a plan of action is simply self indulgence.
Tristan Markle
June 17, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Hi David, Thanks for your comment. I think you make 5 main points.
1. You argue that COPE has taken good positions on the issues I raised in the article. And for the most part I agree. In fact that was one of my main points, and I gave many examples!
Perhaps you were confused by the last paragraph, where I mention that COPE has been a relatively “silent” opposition voice compared to the NPA. Perhaps silence is not the best word, but I don’t think there is any question that the NPA, with only one council member, has got their angle out far more often.
2. You mention several times that analysis/criticism without a plan of action is problematic. And again, rhetoric aside (“self-righteous, self-indulgent, etc”), I agree whole-heartedly. Many of us doing grassroots activism are tired of hitting the brick-wall of City Hall, which refuses to implement any progressive plan of action. Yes, we need a progressive party with a bold plan of action, and the courage and inspiration to make it happen. Now.
As for a fundraising plan, surely the executive has contingency plans in the event that they could not negotiate appropriate terms of agreement for a coalition with the disagreeable Vision party.
3. You mention that many labour leaders continue to advocate “electoral cooperation” between COPE and Vision. That is an extremely important problem. Thankfully, the confidence in that approach is not as strong as last time. I think as more rank-and-file members are informed about what’s been going on, that will continue to change, as it should.
4. You mention that this year’s COPE executive was elected by acclamation and given a mandate to seek cooperation with Vision. Fair enough. I would rather us not be distracted from the urgent issues affecting our city, so I’ll save my take on that AGM (the internal candidate pre-screening procedures involved, the level of discussion, etc) for another day.
5. Here, and in your previous comment on this blog, you come to the conclusion (assumption?) that I (or people like me?), are defeatists or something (“Your article suggests we reject what works and embrace the politics of “the righteous flame out”…etc). I have no idea where you got that from, but it is simply not true (it makes it hard to respond, because I don’t know where it is coming from).
When you say the following, though, I sympathize very much:
“Sorry, those of us who have worked for decades to build the municipal left, and those of us who are newer to COPE actually want to have an impact at Council, School Board and Park Board. We feel a responsibility to the thousands of Vancouver residents who depend on us to advocate for them.”
The proof is in the pudding. We need action, and action now. (With a little bit of confidence, courage, and even inspiration).
Peace :)
Tristan
David Chudnovsky
June 17, 2011 at 5:10 pm
Hi Tristan,
I appreciate your thoughtful response to my posting. Nevertheless, I think that you’re simply wrong about a number of important tactical and strategic issues.
For instance, as for confidence and courage there is no lack of that among the members and leadership of COPE. I know that you didn’t mean to insult anybody, but among the people whose position you criticize (and whose courage and confidence you question)are those who have led strikes, including so-called illegal strikes, organized unorganized workers into unions, re-energized and reorganized COPE after disastrous electoral defeats, been at the forefront of the child care advocacy movement, the lgbt movement, the anti-racism movement, been central to the organization of the peace movement in Vancouver for decades, organized anti-poverty campaigns and organizations, organized Insite, – and on and on. All of that was done at times against enormous odds when it seemed no one was listening and no one cared or when the opposition was vicious and overwhelming. I think there are heroes and heroines among the COPE leadership which is recommending the agreement and that we can all learn from them. So it’s not a question of courage and confidence. I’m sure you are a courageous and confident person. The issue is what are the appropriate tactics for the progressive political party in Vancouver – COPE – to adopt in this period.
I have confidence, for instance, that the electoral tactic we have chosen will continue to allow us to be completely independent in our political positions and action. For some reason you seem not to have the same confidence, notwithstanding your view that we have taken “good positions”. Why do you lack confidence that we will be able to continue to do that and continue to grow?
Of course the NPA gets its message out. And of course they have an easier time of it in the media than we do in COPE. And you certainly know why that is. I would never argue that our communications capacity in COPE is as good as it should be. In fact, I, among many others, have pushed for a much more creative and non-traditional communications strategy. We did some very interesting things in the last election campaign which contributed to our success – and it was a success. Most observers before the 2008 election, on the left and right, said COPE was done. We were a spent force. We would disappear. It didn’t happen.
But our communications challenges – in comparison, for instance to the NPA – have much less to do with our capacity, and much more to do with the mainstream media’s preference for the NPA and antipathy to us – and you know it.
You suggest we need a bold plan of action at City Hall. Couldn’t agree more. But what does that mean? Have a look at our platform from last election. Have a look at the positions we’ve taken since. Again, all of that is a long way from perfect, and I for one would love to have your input on these things and the input of others like you. But I really think that your disagreement is much more a question of tactics than substantive policy positions. You’re not comfortable with our electoral tactic, and you’re not comfortable with our tactic of couching our criticisms of Vision in respectful and non-personalist terms. Fair enough, let’s debate that. I ask again. What’s your plan? To be bold. To reject electoral cooperation with Vision and the Greens. That’s not a plan.
As for money, yes of course we will figure out what to do if the membership rejects the agreement. But you can’t simply wish resources into being. I’m open to another plan to raise the hundreds of thousands of dollars we need, but I can’t think of one. That’s why I asked you in my original post. You seem to be saying that we who recommend the agreement are responsible to solve the problem that you who reject the agreement will bring on if you prevail, and that it is not your responsibility to deal with that very real problem. I think it is your responsibility.
You talk about yourself and those who agree with you as doing grassroots activism. And you suggest it’s that experience that brings you to your current position regarding COPE’s tactics. But Tristan, I do grassroots activism. And have been doing it much longer than you. And have come up against many more brick walls than you have. I hope that your life as an activist will be as long and as rich as mine has been. But it is precisely that experience that brings me to my current understandings. And the rest of the COPE executive that is unanimously recommending the agreement have hundreds of years of grassroots activist experience. The difference is not who is an activist and who isn’t. The difference is what one learns and concludes from that experience.
It’s not just the labour leaders who I said support the agreement. It’s rank and file union members. There’s a difference between criticizing Vision (as you have done and I have done and many union members have done), being frustrated with Vision (as you are and I am and many union members are) and rejecting the tactic of electoral cooperation. Especially when it’s working.
Your seeming criticisms of the democratic processes of COPE are a bit vague and murky. For 5 years running the membership has elected leaders who have stated clearly and unambiguously that they favour electoral cooperation. This year nobody ran against us. If that’s not democratic enough for you then suggest a better process. Why do you think such a discussion is a distraction? When do I get a vote, if I want one, on the leadership and political positions of The Mainlander?
I have been a member of COPE for more than 30 years. I haven’t seen our organization in as good shape for two decades or more. Our membership has grown. Our financial situation is stable, our leadership is engaged, intelligent, courageous, getting younger all the time, our membership is active.
Come and join us. Put forward your perspectives. We’ll listen to what you have to say and respect your experience. We’re certainly not afraid of democratic and respectful political debate. Quite the contrary. All I ask is that you listen to what we have to say and respect our experience as well. We’ve thought very carefully about our tactical positions. They are based on real experience and hard struggles. And the proof is in the pudding. COPE is dynamic and growing. If it weren’t, you wouldn’t bother to take us on in the way you have.
David Chudnovsky
Bob
June 17, 2011 at 11:44 pm
David, if you’re in such great shape, why is the public perception that COPE is playing handmaiden to Vision? To be honest, when you mention your strategy, all I could think of was what if Jack Layton had decided to play second fiddle to the federal Liberals in such a manner?
Other than Ellen Woodsworth, who puts her points across eloquently and comes across as genuinely listening to the concerns of citizens, you just ain’t got that much going on in the public eye. Sorry.
David Chudnovsky
June 18, 2011 at 12:07 am
Bob,
Your perception, not the public perception, isn’t based on reality. Ask the West End renters if COPE is anybody’s handmaiden. Ask the Little Mountain residents. Ask the Downtown Eastside activists. Ask the Hastings Park advocates. Ask the Chinatown residents opposed to the towers. Ask the civil libertarians we worked with during the Olympics. Ask the arts community organizers against the casino. Ask the Living Wage Coalition. Ask the families whose schools were saved. Ask the community groups that struggled to save the Bloedel Conservatory. Ask the members of CUPE 1004 and 15 and 391 and the members of the IUOE. Ask the Firefighters and the CAW. Ask the members of VESTA and VSTA. That’s the public we’ve been working with and thousands more like them. They have a very different view than the one you put forward.
I’ll put our elected people – Woodsworth, Cadman, Woodcock, Blakey, Wong, Bouey – up against any electeds in the city and be quite content to ask the public what they think.
With less than 20% of the funding of either Vision or the NPA in 2008 we elected 6 of 9 candidates. Since then COPE has grown dramatically precisely because we have been doing the day to day, slogging work among the public – work that you seem not to have noticed.
David Chudnovsky
Randy Chatterjee
June 18, 2011 at 12:51 am
Welcome to the David-Tristan mutual admiration society!
David, quit whining about the media being against COPE. After all, we are blogging here on The Mainlander, which is fine media and which treats COPE fairly and regularly. Then comes the Straight and Tyee, among the best print and web news sources around. There is the Media Coop, the Observer, the Courier, The Dependent, Pasifikost, Public Eye Online, AhaMedia,and Rabble.ca. For a daily, 24 is not bad and I rarely see an unkind swipe against COPE there.
I know I am missing some more real gems, but it is fair to say that not one of these ignore COPE or single it out unfairly for attack.
What other news source is there? Or at least one that any real person would read?
Now David, also do not criticize Tristan’s activism, or anyone’s? Never assume anything about anyone whom you don’t know intimately. And even then. Only the insecure are ever self-righteous.
Also don’t try to oversell a party whose first time in power was its most crushing defeat, from within. COPE couldn’t make it to Game 4, let alone Game 7. And then it seemed the franchise was sold to Phoenix.
But rise it will, not from Phoenix but as a Phoenix.
Tristan, David is right to advocate playing with Vision. After all, Sun Tsu recommends holding your friends close, and your enemies closer.
David is also right about why he thinks you took on COPE (which you didn’t); the fiercest critics are the truest believers. COPE has many, and all are assets.
As for the future, Vision is doomed to be eaten alive from both sides as was Vision Quebec (Quebec City) a decade ago. Not to worry; the economy will eventually take care of spendthrift and debt-laden Vision, but Vision will unfortunately leave not just Vancouver bankrupt, but many of its residents as well. So it goes with all neoliberal regimes.
But I am not concerned; I know COPE will take care of the most vulnerable and strive to put Vancouver back to right…er…I mean left. OK, how about back onto a straight path…oops…and gay?
Honesty is really all we need, and commitment to neighbourhoods and neighbourliness.
Bob is right to sing Ellen’s praise, and she struggles daily to promote honestly and real community. COPE stalwarts need to follow her model, and get out there.
Now, the real question is: can COPE find a mayoral candidate without the surname Campbell?
David, you’re not a Campbell, are you? Tristan, are you a Campbell?
– Once a Mac, but not a MacDonald
Kim Hearty
June 19, 2011 at 2:25 pm
This has been an enlightening and exciting debate, up until Randy’s comment.
Randy, unfortunately most people don’t read the news sources you listed, and I can name some others: the Globe and Mail, the Vancouver Sun, radio and television(!). And “real person”? C’mon.
When has telling people what to do and what not to do in a condescending, self-righteous tone gotten you anywhere? You contributed nothing new to the debate by listing who is right and who is wrong on which points as though you are an authority. You say you aren’t ‘concerned’ about this issue, so why not put your energy somewhere else?
Tim Louis
June 19, 2011 at 7:04 pm
Been following this exchange with keen interest. David, would you be interested in a live friendly debate on the proposed COPE-Vision deal? Place and time totally at your convenience. I think this would benefit all of the COPE membership as it would allow for a fuller and more interactive exchange than is ever possible online.
Tim
Bob
June 19, 2011 at 8:51 pm
I’ll have to disagree David, in terms of public perception. I pay more attention to civic politics than the average resident, and as mentioned earlier, in the public eye, Ellen seems to be the only one carrying the COPE standard when it comes to responding to issues. And frequently it seems those issues are ones involving Vision governing as if there was nobody but them on Council. I’m sure Cadman is working on worthy things, but frankly they seem to be more federal level issues, and he’s been nearly invisible down at the civic level.
Paul Houle
June 20, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Thanks to Tristan and The Mainlander for the excellent and in-depth coverage of Vancouver’s neo-liberal Vision government.
I will be supporting an independent COPE at the general membership meeting on June 26. I cannot believe the arrogance of Vision in already nominating it’s mayoralty and other candidate slates prior to us “little” COPE members getting to vote on the so-called “cooperative” alliance with Vision. What arrogance! How undemocratic! This does not sound like much of a partnership to me. It sounds more like the proverbial story of the elephant trying to share a room with the mouse. The little COPE mouse must be meek and submissive on pain of being crushed.
As a former member of the COPE executive board who was elected seven times, I can tell you that David Chudnovsky represents the NDP and labour elites who did their best to eviscerate COPE prior to the 2008 election. It is part of the philosophy of moving to the right and getting into bed with developers and big business as the perceived way of getting elected. Unfortunately, there are many Vancouverites who lose in that process – especially those on low and moderate income.
David is right when he talks about the cost of election campaigns. Vision has led the race to the top in garnering massive support from big developers and business. Vision has made phoney noises about campaign spending reform, but does not want real reform as long as it is successful in attracting the most dough.
COPE must not be beholden to developer and business interests the way Vision is. We need genuine campaign finance reform that will ensure a level of public funding for all municipal political organizations and place a cap on contributions by any one group.
Vision’s alliance with developers has led to a city that is more and more unaffordable and unliveable and where the city is dominated by glass towers filled with teeny-weeny over-priced condos.
So, I will be supporting an independent COPE on June 26. I will not be supporting the David Chudnovky group that wants to maintain a COPE alliance with the bully. Vancouver is at a critical juncture in it’s history as a city where average citizens can afford to live and to thrive. A strong, independent COPE is needed more than ever.
Really, Mainlander?
June 21, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Mainlander is becoming evidently more of a blog that is hell bent on slandering Vision Vancouver and to ascend the NPA back to the mayoral throne.
Look what happened in the federal election. The NDP guaranteed a Conservative majority much like these “progressive” blog ideologues so jaded from reality.
The Left is dead – beyond resuscitating. Why vindicate the Centre to guarantee the victory of the Right?
It seems counter-intuitive, no?
david hadaway
June 21, 2011 at 10:44 pm
Mr Chudnovsky’s comprehensive list of COPE speaking out in his first comment is surely also a comprehensive list of failures. In every one of these instances Vision got its way. Even with the school board there are plenty of questions about what the budget situation really was and whether they played us all.
Though not politically active I have, to some people’s surprise, been a consistent COPE voter. However this becomes more and more difficult to justify when the only real beneficiary appears to be Vision, a party which successfully combines the worst features of all the others. I want to vote for good policies and good people, not Gregor Robertson’s fig leaf!
Richard
June 22, 2011 at 2:39 pm
You’ve sure got the NPA back room boys over at City Caucus all excited about this.
These are the people that wanted to sell all the social housing at the Olympic Village at market prices.
The real work on housing needs to be done at the provincial and federal level. There is only so much that can be done by a city. Property taxes are cities’ main source of funding. Raising a tax on homes to pay for housing is probably counter productive. I really recommend that for people to get more active politically at the provincial and federal levels rather than create a local political battle that will not solve the problem no matter which way it turns out.
Sean Antrim
June 22, 2011 at 10:10 pm
I agree that housing should be a priority of the province and federal government.
That being said, in other cities, the municipal government does take action to solve homelessness and improve housing affordability. 41% of the social housing in Toronto is owned and run by the City.
Also, there about a billion ways a municipal government can raise money without raising residential property taxes. In Vancouver, business taxes are the lowest in the world. We could tax businesses. We could also stop subsidizing real-estate developers through STIR, or use the billion dollar Property Endowment Fund. The list goes on. We have ways of raising money, and we need to catch up with other major cities on the affordable housing front.
david hadaway
June 23, 2011 at 11:56 am
“The left is dead”
Surely the success of the NDP shows the opposite and points to COPE’s potential in Vancouver. Also, criticism backed by fact is not slander.
I really look forward to an election where there is an honest choice, not one where money and slick PR mask hidden agendas.
Tim Louis
June 23, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Social Housing used to be a requirement in all new developments. Developers were required to set aside 20% of the development for social housing. Unfortunately, the current Vision Council has done away with this requirement. Even the NPA were not prepared to do away with this progressive solution to our housing crisis. This is because COPE would never have allowed them to do so. Unfortunately when it is Vision that acts in a regressive manner, COPE couches its criticisms which allows Vision to get away with what the NPA could not get away with.
Tim
Richard
June 24, 2011 at 12:18 am
Hear hear !!!!
Richard
June 24, 2011 at 12:21 am
Randy….I only learned about The Mainlander a few days ago; virtually no one I know reads Tyee unless I sent them articles. Give your head a shake; people in Vancouver are informed by The Province and The Sun; the more adventurous by The Globe and Mail and The National Post. Some read the Straight.
Ian Mass
June 25, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Decisions are difficult when both sides are correct but the bottom line is clear – to vote against the COPE/Vision deal, splits the progressive vote and likely gets us Suzanne Anton and friends.
Our time will come.
Tim Louis
June 26, 2011 at 11:09 am
Ian,
Hats off for being so respectful to both sides.
You say “Our time will come.” Just wondered if you could elaborate. Just a thought but if there were a handful of objective measures that both sides could agree upon, then we could all vote to approve or reject future deals based on these objective measures. I hope you understand I do not mean to be putting you on the spot – I’m just trying to look for areas/ways both sides can reach agreement.
Look forward to seeing you today at the meeting.
Tim