Doug Leung, the NPA, and the Mount Pleasant Skatepark

In 2011, the Vancouver Park Board installed a skateboard park in Mount Pleasant Park. During the construction, residents opposed it. The only resident to go on record (in that article) as being opposed was Doug Leung. At that time, the Vancouver Park Board had a majority of commissioners from the Vision Vancouver party.

In 2014 Vancouver held a municipal election to elect, amongst others, seven Park Board commissioners. A Douglas C. Leung of 54 West 16th Avenue, Vancouver, appears on the nomination papers for Non-Partisan Alliance Park Board commissioner candidates John Coupar, Erin Shum, and Sarah Kirby-Yung, all of whom were elected to the Vancouver Park Board. The fourth NPA member elected to the Park Board, Casey Crawford does not list Douglas Leung as a nominator. As an aside, Douglas Leung does appear on the nomination papers of George Affleck, NPA Vancouver City councilor, and a Douglas Lee of the same address appears on the nomination papers of Kirk LaPointe, NPA candidate for Vancouver mayor. Interestingly enough, the signatures for Douglas Leung and Douglas Lee appear to match as pointed out in this comment on Reddit

Remember, Douglas C. Leung lives at 54 West 16th Ave, directly across from Mount Pleasant Park, home of the skatepark that Doug Leung complained about in 2011.

During the 2014 municipal election, Douglas Leung was the campaign manager for the NPA as evidenced in this story and this story and this story.

In the 2014 municipal election the NPA took control of the Park Board from Vision Vancouver.

In 2015 the NPA-lead Vancouver Park Board is voting on removing the skatepark based on complaints from nearby residents.

So, to recap, Doug Leung complained about the skatepark at Mount Pleasant Park in 2011. In 2014 Doug Leung nominated numerous NPA candidates and was the NPA campaign manager, and now in 2015 the NPA-lead Park Board is responding to neighbour complaints about the skatepark?

Huh.

On the Royal Lancers

New Westminster has a tradition where old men dance with twelve-year old girls.

Depending on where you live, you’ll either find that strange or delightful.

If you live in New Westminster, are white, and are over the age of 50, odds are you’ll find it delightful.

Otherwise, you’ll probably find this tradition a little strange and perhaps a little off-putting. I’m in this camp, and I am just fine with this tradition being cancelled.

To give a little background, the Royal Lancers, a fairly secret society of older men (I say this because I’ve been unable to find out who exactly is a Royal Lancer, or what it takes to become a Royal Lancer) have a dance each year with the May Queen Suite at the May Day banquet. The May Queen Suite is made up of Grade 5 girls from New Westminster school.

The City has said that the dance will no longer be part of the banquet, and this has rustled all kinds of jimmies around town.

(Aside: Take a look at this tweet as an example of what I mean by “white and over the age of 50” for who’s angriest about this whole thing. Fully one third of New Westminster residents have neither English nor French as a mother tongue, and they’re woefully under-represented in this “tradition”.)

The only argument I’ve seen towards keeping the dance the way it is is “it’s tradition”. Okay, I’ve also seen the “it strengthens bonds between generations” arguments, which is about the only one that I’ll accept as valid. “Tradition” is not a reason to keep it. There are an awful lot of things in our past that count as “tradition” that should be remembered but not celebrated, and I think this dance, in its current form, is one of them.

I read stories like this where the lancers say things like “I don’t believe council realizes the implications of their action” and I can’t help but think of a petulant child upset that his parents have taken his ball away from him. Their actions are taking away the whole spirit of the celebrations, which is to celebrate children. Instead, by stamping their feet they’re taking the attention away from the children that they profess to celebrate.

(Another aside: read that story again and note how the actual specifics of the dance aren’t mentioned. The only hint that old men might be dancing with young girls is in the “10 hours of cooperative participation” phrase — other than that it looks like the Lancers are just dancing by themselves. Why this subterfuge?)

In fact, that’s my biggest problem with the Royal Lancers: they say they’re respectable men but they act like petulant children.

Why aren’t the Royal Lancers saying anything about changing the dance? Why is the dance restricted to old men dancing with prepubescent girls? Why not include female business leaders? Why do the boys have to sit on the sidelines?

And why hasn’t anybody asked any of the kids currently in Grades 4 and 5 about it? Everything is from the viewpoint of the Lancers. Nothing is from the viewpoint of the children. There have been quotes from May Queens of past, but they’re a biased sample (and memories can change over time).

Here’s what the Royal Lancers should have done instead of throwing a tantrum: open it up. Make your little society a little less secret. Allow anybody to become a Royal Lancer. Change the dance to allow boys to dance. Allow anybody to dance with whoever they want (we don’t want “tradition” to push away anybody, right?). Get grandparents in there to dance with their grandchildren. Uncles, aunts, whoever, and name them Honourary Royal Lancers for the evening. Whatever you do, change it.

And remember the motto of New Westminster’s May Day: “For the Children, By the Children and of the Children.” Because that’s what’s most important, and that’s what the Royal Lancers have forgot.

Update: I found this article from September 2013 that talks about modernizing the Royal Lancers dance. I’d like to highlight two quotes:

[Councilor Chuck] Puchmayr said when the city introduced the Royal Knights—Grade 5 boys to accompany the May Queen Suite—he assumed they eventually would be the ones to dance with the girls. But that hasn’t happened. Instead they sit on the floor while the girls dance with the men. One father suggested to Puchmayr the Lancers could teach the boys how to dance with the girls.

And:

“When the Lancers come in with the May Queen suite I must admit it’s quite stirring, it looks like they’re the protectors of the young girls. But then I thought about it and I went, ‘wait a minute,’ ” said Coun. Lorrie Williams, who also didn’t like seeing the boys sitting on the floor during the dance.

“It bothered me. I took a picture of that, they just watched and they almost looked like they were pushed aside. That was the illusion.”

Williams suggested the Lancers become the guardians of both the girls and the boys.

“It would be a welcome change. In adding the Knights when we did, we made a change to our tradition,” said Williams. “That way nobody steps down and nobody is offended.”

New Westminster City Council has been talking about this since then. In the August 26, 2013 minutes (thank you Rick!), on page 18 there is a motion resolving that “the City of New Westminster enters into discussion with Stakeholders and the School District for the purpose of modernizing this event.”

So two councilors are on the record for saying the dance should be changed, and yet no changes came about. Why not?

New Westminster Rumour Mill

This is first of what will hopefully be a monthly post here, where I report back on all of the rumours that are floating around the lovely city of New Westminster.

First up: the parkade. Rumour has it that Council has seen the light and they will not be tearing down half the parkade. Instead they are doubling-down and adding an extra three levels of parking! They will also be taking Columbia Street off its diet (come on people, everybody knows that diets don’t work) by removing the bike lanes and angled parking. It is expected that this will appeal to the mobile baby boomer, and the increased vehicle traffic and parking will return downtown New Westminster to the glory years of the 70s and 80s!

The canceling of the Royal Lancers dance has ruffled some feathers recently. While this is a sad end to a 100-year old tradition of grown men knocking on doors to ask fathers to turn over their 12-year old girls to go for a dance, some have felt that the dance has seen better days. Instead, the Royal Lancers will turn to the 1916 May Day celebrations for inspiration, where a demonstration of military maneuvers replaced the folk dance. Rumour has it that for the 100th anniversary of these celebrations, the Royal Lancers will shoot 12-year old girls out of cannons.

The Braid Street Bailey Bridge is open! As it is a new crossing, a modest toll of $5 for Coquitlam residents will apply.

The 2015 Metro Vancouver Transportation and Transit Plebiscite is underway, although you wouldn’t know it because nobody has been talking about it lately. Has anybody heard anything about this thing?

That’s all for now from the New Westminster Rumour Mill!

Why I Voted ‘Yes’

Today I voted ‘yes’.

Every morning I and my wife walk our daughter to school. We have to cross one of New Westminster’s truck routes at Eighth Avenue and Cumberland Street. It’s a relatively busy intersection, especially during the morning and evening rush hours. It gts filled with trucks, as you’d expect, but also from commuters dodging the tolls on the Port Mann Bridge.

In our first three months of walking to and from school we were nearly hit by cars twice, both by drivers who were inattentive and probably pissed off from being stuck in so much traffic. This morning we saw a minor fender bender at the intersection. I talked with a crossing guard at that intersection, and she sees near-misses all the time. It’s not a very safe intersection for pedestrians.

With a ‘no’ vote this only gets worse. Traffic will get worse, we’ll have more inattentive drivers on the streets, and even worse, we’ll have more angry drivers on the streets. Drivers get angrier as their commutes lengthen. Increased traffic leads to higher stress.

Yes, there are other benefits to improving our transporation system. Thousands of people every day won’t be passed up by buses. Low wage earners will have a cheaper and more reliable transportation option. Seniors and handicapped people will have better HandiDart service.

But I voted ‘yes’ to ensure our streets don’t become more dangerous than they already are for pedestrians. I voted ‘yes’ in hopes that a near-miss doesn’t become a hit. I voted ‘yes’ so I won’t hopefully have to explain to my daughter why a driver nearly ran her down again.

Down With the Parkade!

For some reason New Westminster’s Front Street Parkade is back in the news. It appears that some people missed the years and years of public debate and consultation about the parkade’s removal and think that now’s the time to re-open that debate.

It isn’t.

The parkade is still a waste of money. The parking isn’t needed. It turns Front Street into a noisy, fume-laden disaster of a road. Visiting businesses on Front Street is, well, something nobody does. You don’t go for a stroll down Front Street like you would down any other street in New Westminster.

And now people want to save it? Hogwash.

Sure, turn it into a park. That sounds like a grand idea. A park that celebrates the disaster fifty feet below. A park commemorating the failed businesses of Front Street, perhaps. A park reminiscing about what Front Street could have been, if only the parkade had been torn down.

No. This nonsense has gone on long enough. Down with the parkade!

Reasons to Vote ‘No’

I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve been a little harsh on the ‘no’ side of the upcoming transportation plebiscite. To give a little bit of extra press and coverage for them, I’m going to list the valid reasons for voting ‘no’.

Here they are:

The Astoundingly Bad Logic of Jordan Bateman

Today BC Transportation Minister Todd Stone announced a ten-year transportation plan for BC. During the press conference he was asked about the Metro Vancouver transportation plebiscite, and if the province is considering reforming TransLink, because this is one of the reasons why people are considering voting ‘no’. His answer?

At this point in time, the province has no plans to make any further improvements to governance at TransLink.

So vote ‘yes’ or vote ‘no’, no matter what happens in the plebiscite the province has no plans to change TransLink’s governance.

And what does Jordan Bateman have to say about this?

Stone killed yes side claim that change will come to TransLink either way. Voting NO the best way to show gov’t we want this fixed.

He’s saying that you should vote ‘no’ so TransLink’s governance will be fixed, using Todd Stone’s statement of “no plans to make any further improvements to governance at TransLink” as support.

What kind of crazy logic is running through Mr. Bateman’s mind? It’s mind-boggling just how bad this logic is!

Seriously, that’s pretty weak, Jordan.

Vancouver Tops Again Thanks, in Part, to TransLink

The Mercer 2015 Quality of Living rankings were released today, and Vancouver slotted in at the best place to live in North America, and #5 in the world.

Hooray, Vancouver!

You might be asking yourself how they come up with these rankings. It looks like the exact methodology is secret, but you can get some sense of what makes a city have a high quality of living:

Is your city regionally and globally connected with public infrastructure, transport, and talent flow?

Is your city competitive economically, socially, culturally, and environmentally?

Is your city attractive to foreigners, tourists, and globally mobile talent, for capital investments, and for major multinational companies?

How can you leverage your city’s unique strengths to differentiate it from others?

Look at that first one again:

Is your city regionally and globally connected with public infrastructure, transport, and talent flow?

Put more simply, improving transportation in your city gives it a better quality of living. This allows talent (i.e. workers) to flow better to and from their jobs, making the city more attractive to employees and employers. It also allows goods to flow through your city better, improving on costs to get goods to markets, and improving profits to businesses.

And Vancouver’s doing a bang-up job on this. Vancouver International Aiport is the best airport in North America. Port Metro Vancouver is Canada’s largest port, handling 19% of the value of Canada’s total trade in goods, and TransLink is top of the charts for service efficiency, cost per trip, and cost efficiency when you compare it with its peers.

And here 61% of us want that to change. That’s a shame.

A Response to Laila Yuile’s ‘Why I Am Voting No’ Post

Laila Yuile is a blogger and contributor to 24hrs Vancouver. She wrote a post explaining why she will be voting ‘no’ in the upcoming Metro Vancouver Transportation and Transit Plebiscite.

I’m writing this as a response to Ms. Yuile in hopes of persuading her to think about changing her mind and voting ‘yes’. I also hope that this response will persuade some people who are leaning ‘no’ into thinking about voting ‘yes’.

First and foremost, a sales tax increase is a punitive, regressive form of taxation.

I absolutely agree. Sales taxes unfairly punish those who are living in or just above poverty the most. They definitely are regressive. And in BC, in 2011 the poorest 10% paid roughly 11% of their income to sales and commodity taxes (source) while the richest 10% paid roughly 3% of their income. That’s not fair for people making lower-than-average income.

That said, the vast majority of the improvements that will be funded by the 0.5% increase will be to Metro Vancouver’s transit system. Lower-income people are more likely to use transit (source: “The median household income of public transit users is $39,000 while for the population as a whole it is $44,389.”). The Surrey Poverty Reduction Coalition states “public transit can reduce transportation costs for Surrey residents with a three-zone transit pass costing significantly less than owning and operating a vehicle.” Without that viable public transit in place, these savings cannot be made. The SPRC is backing the ‘yes’ side for exactly that reason.

There can also be ways to mitigate the regressive nature of sales taxes. In BC, this is partially done by not taxing the vast majority of essential items. Food and housing are major expenses, and these are not taxed under the PST. There is a PST credit for low-income households, and with enough political pressure this could be increased. Seattle is lowering fares for low-income households, which is something that could be done in Metro Vancouver by extending the U-Pass system to lower-income households.

In the end, there are absolutely no guarantees to anything but paying more sales tax- if the province honours the results of a YES majority.

That’s true. This money could go into a general revenue fund. However, that would be political suicide for the BC Liberal party. They’ve set this referendum up for the sole intention of funding TransLink’s expansion plans. And yes, they could very well say that they’re not going to put the 0.5% increase in place even if Metro Vancouver votes 100% ‘yes’. But again, that would be political suicide. There are 24 Liberal MLAs in Metro Vancouver. If the provincial government were to say “sorry, we know you voted ‘yes’ but we’re not raising taxes”, those 24 Liberal MLAs just got thrown under the bus. The plebiscite is non-binding, yes, but only in the strictest sense of the term.

Why does the ballot not include independent audits and public reporting?

It does: “Revenues and expenditures would be subject to annual independent audits and public reporting.” Further, Jimmy Pattison will be overseeing the expenditures, heading up a “blue ribbon public accountability committee.”

Why so vague on the specifics of the projects?

This is because the ballot is one piece of paper. The specifics are available on the Mayors’ Council website. There’s 48 pages of specifics, including when each portion of the plan will be implemented and how much each will cost, right down to the individual proposed B-Line routes.

We haven’t even gotten into the fact that this tax increase doesn’t fund the entire cost of any of these projects, and neither the provincial or federal government has committed to dedicating those funds… but trust us they say. Trust us…

Stephen Harper has said that infrastructure money is available from the federal government. However, this money is only available if local money is available as well. Without the money raised from the 0.5% increase, we can guarantee that there will be no federal funds. Remember, they’re typically called “matching funds”, and they’re pretty much like “matching donations” in fundraising campaigns — you need to put the money up first before they’ll be matched.

There is no Plan B.

Fair enough, given this plan is already Plan C. Plan A would have been “province properly funds transit in Metro Vancouver.” Plan B was “Mayorss’ Council proposes carbon tax increase and mobility pricing”, which they did, but that was rejected by the province. So now we’re with Plan C.

Research shows in other cities and countries, that improved transit alone doesn’t cut congestion without road pricing.

Agreed! And the Mayors’ Council agrees too! If you look on Page 36 of their vision document you’ll see that “the Mayors’ Council is committed to implementing time-and-distance based mobility pricing on the road network as an efficient, fair and sustainable method of helping to pay for the transportation system.” This is a longer-term goal though, because “developing and implementing a system that meets the needs of this region and province will likely take five to eight years.” Unfortunately the Broadway corridor can’t wait five to eight years. Unfortunately the Pattullo Bridge can’t wait five to eight years. Unfortunately communities in Surrey can’t wait five to eight years for adequate bus service.

Improving transit isn’t going to improve congestion on its own, you’re absolutely right. It isn’t a cure-all. But it will help, at least a little, unlike not improving transit. Like you say, “transit improvements alone do little to ease congestion, but that paired with road pricing as a dis-incentive to drivers, it will have an impact.” Does that mean that we need to roll out transit improvements and road pricing at the same time, or can we improve our transit first and have a small impact on congestion, then introduce road pricing later to further improve congestion?

As an aside, the mayors point out that road pricing will help shift funding away from current sources of TransLink funding, particularly the fuel sales tax. With road pricing generating $250 million a year, it could easily replace the 0.5% increase at the end of its ten-year plan (or even earlier, depending on how quickly they can get road pricing up and running).

I’ve had enough of the premier and our mayors playing with people’s lives… and livelihoods.

I think the provincial government should be the biggest target of your scorn. They could very easily approve the mayors’ plan. Instead they opened us up to this divisive plebiscite that pits one city against another. Yes, you’re pissed off. I’m pissed off. We shouldn’t even be having this discussion. The provincial government should do what it was elected to do: govern. The mayors are caught in this as well because they’re relatively powerless. The only thing they can do is propose plans to the province.

Frankly I’m very tired of people who live,work and play in Vancouver telling me how this plan will benefit me, when they haven’t even been out to this part of Surrey! There is a complete disconnect. One fellow I know recently took a planning bus tour in Surrey and was shocked to discover how much sprawl planning has occurred.

I grew up in Surrey (Clayton, to be exact). Would I move back? No. Why? Because the transit there sucks and I don’t want to be forced to own a car. Do you enjoy being forced to own a car just because of where you live? It doesn’t sound like it.

With improved transit in Surrey (and I’m not just talking about the LRT, I’m talking more about actual bus routes) more people in Surrey will have another option. Even if you never have to cross a bridge to get to work, transit should be an option for you regardless of what side of the Fraser you live on. Right now that’s an option north of the Fraser, but it isn’t south of the Fraser. With the funding in place from a ‘yes’ vote, leaving the car at home becomes an option. With a ‘no’ vote, there’s no option.

This is probably going to be a crappy analogy, but compare it to the healthcare systems in Canada and the US. The US’s healthcare system sucks (I know, I lived there for eight years). Canada’s is way better. As Canadians we’re pretty smug about it, and can’t understand why Americans got so up-in-arms about their Affordable Care Act. “You don’t know how good it will be!” we said. “Why are you cutting off your nose to spite your face?” when some people tried to get rid of it.

Vancouver has excellent transit (this is the Canadian side of the healthcare analogy). Surrey’s is crappy (this is the American side). When people in Vancouver see people in Surrey saying they’re going to vote ‘no’, they’re dumbfounded. “Why wouldn’t you want to have good transit? It’s actually quite nice!”

Surrey is growing, and growing fast. It’ll soon be BC’s largest city. And Surrey doesn’t want to improve its transit to catch up to Vancouver’s because… Vancouverites are smug?

Ms. Yuile, I hope that since you wrote your post, some of your questions have been answered. A lot has changed in the month since you wrote it, and I hope that you reconsider your position and vote ‘yes’.

Referendum Myths: A ‘No’ Vote Is a Vote Against TransLink

At this point in the Metro Vancouver transportation plebiscite, the biggest myth is that by voting ‘no’ you’re voting for a reform of TransLink’s governance structure.

Plain and simple, that is wrong. If you vote ‘no’, you’re voting against the proposed tax. Nothing more.

The actual question posed to voters is

Do you support a new 0.5% Metro Vancouver Congestion Improvement Tax, to be dedicated to the Mayors’ Transportation and Transit Plan?

If you look at the actual ballot, there’s nothing on there about governance or how TransLink has an unelected board. That’s because TransLink governance isn’t on the ballot.

I can understand the frustration out there. TransLink is run by an unelected board. Mayors are only given a nominal role in suggesting action plans. The Ministry of Transportation might play some role, but that’s unclear too. It doesn’t look like there’s anybody captaining the ship, and that’s frustrating.

All of this is laid out in provincial law and, as such, can only be changed by the provincial government. Nobody else has the power to change this, regardless of what Christy Clark might think.

But if you think that by voting ‘no’ you’re sending a message that you’re frustrated, you’d be wrong. This plebiscite is the entirely wrong way to send that message. By voting ‘no’ you’re only voting against the proposed tax increase. In fact, by voting ‘yes’ you’re actually making TransLink more accountable, as the money raised will be subject to annual independent audits and public reporting. The money raised will also be dedicated to the projects listed in the plan, and nothing more, so absolutely zero dollars will be going towards executive salaries, to use a particular pain-point as an example. All of the money will be going directly towards improving our transportation and transit systems.

If you are really upset about how TransLink is run and want to send the proper message, email your MLA. Email Christy Clark at premier@gov.bc.ca. Email your mayor and city council. Get involved in the next provincial election and make sure that TransLink governance is on the agenda.

But by voting ‘no’, you’re not sending this message. It’s not ‘no, but…’, it’s not ‘no, and…’, it’s ‘no, I do not want this tax’. That’s the only message being sent if you vote ‘no’.

So if you want to see improved transportation and transit in Metro Vancouver, vote ‘yes’. If you want to make sure that this money gets spent on improving transportation and transit, and not on executive salaries, vote ‘yes’.