'Attack dog' politics backfiring for Vision Vancouver
One of the pleasures for me since City Caucus devoted itself to covering municipal politics is getting to know community leaders like John Coupar. Many will remember John for his successful campaign to save the Bloedel Conservatory from oblivion after the Vancouver Park Board proposed they would close it. John rallied several members of the community, getting the Park Board to reconsider and push forward with a plan to keep the Conservatory as a vital Vancouver attraction.
Fast forward to 2011 when John threw his hat into the ring for a park commissioner's job. With two term NPA councillor Ian Robertson and COPE's Loretta Woodcock exiting politics, Coupar and fellow Commissioner Melissa De Genova would have some very big shoes to fill once elected. During our many weeks together on the NPA campaign I was particularly impressed by John's friendly demeanour, his teamwork and his passion for parks. Once he was elected I had high hopes for the political neophyte, and judging by the last week I see him living up to expectations.
Last weekend John was all over the media regarding a proposal to change the naming rules for parks. Our readers will recall the commentary by former park commissioner Stuart Mackinnon here on City Caucus. Coupar garnered considerable coverage for his concerns in several newspaper, radio and TV reports. The result was the Park Board pulled the proposal down off their website on Monday morning. Park Board staff have not explained the 11th hour decision to kill the motion. There is a broad concern that the policy changes were being driven by the Mayor's office.
Coupar was not finished with the park renaming file, however. At the end of a meeting which ran until past midnight last Monday evening (described as "bizarre" by several observers), Commissioner Coupar read out a notice of motion that asked Vision Commissioner Aaron Jasper to apologize for remarks he had made to the Georgia Straight, or otherwise face censure and resign his position. Jasper had said:
“We don’t want to return to the days where park commissioners are naming parks after themselves, which is really what we saw with George Wainborn Park and Andy Livingstone [Park]—a bunch of commissioners sitting around deciding which park they were going to name after themselves.”
Coupar explains that he took time to visit the Vancouver Archives to research the accomplishments of Wainborn and Livingstone, while getting the background on how the parks were actually named. Not only were Jasper's remarks inaccurate, they denigrated some of Vancouver's most exemplary citizens. Wainborn, for example, was a Park Board commissioner for thirty-three years who became a member of the Order of Canada, and received Vancouver's Freedom of the City medal. Using Wainborn and Livingstone as examples of political self-interest is a slap against their legacy and to the honour of their ancestors. Commissioners are being asked to vote on Coupar's motion at their April 16th meeting.
Aaron Jasper
“I’m not making any excuses,” said Jasper. “My comments were not well thought out, and I apologize for that.”
However, there is a "but" in Jasper's statement:
“If the role had been reversed I would have called John up and told him how wrong I thought he was,” said Jasper. “I wish he’d given me the benefit of the doubt and gave me a call.”
In other words, Jasper is saying he holds himself to a higher standard than Coupar. It's the kind of remark Park Board observers tell me has marred the ambitious commissioner's record in office.
Jasper's "sort of" mea culpa comes only a few weeks after Stepan Vdovine, Co-Chair of Vision Vancouver's executive, submitted a letter of apology for remarks he made about NPA School Board Trustee Ken Denike.
“In light of these circumstances, and now having the benefit of additional information about the two referenced videos, I do not think that my characterization of Dr. Denike’s actions as being ‘homophobic mongering’ and as ‘attacks on individuals fighting discrimination and seeking a more tolerant society’ were appropriate. Nor do I think it was appropriate to state that ‘[i]t is clear that trustee Denike does not share values of inclusion and tolerance.’ I wish to withdraw those statements, and apologize to Dr. Denike.”
Politics can be a rough and tumble game, but it's the lack of decorum that turns off many voters. Hopefully this will be the last apologies we'll hear from Vancouver politicos for a while.
- post by Mike
Print 
PDF
“…this will be the last apologies we hear…”
Wishful thinking my friend. Wishful thinking.
Sorry to inform the readers but to me these are "crocodile tears" and I think Jasper cannot be trusted. Vision's record is well known… back room dealings, bullying.
As in so many things, it is important to know and remember history.
In 2008, I was asked, and accepted, the invitation to serve on the Park Board’s Park Naming Committee. This Committee was struck by Park Board Commission, as a result of a park naming controversy in 2008, when a Commissioner proposed naming a park after a living citizen of Vancouver. This was apparently not in keeping with Park Board naming tradition, and as such, a citizen committee was formed to determine a new, and hopefully improved, process.
In addition to myself, there were 3 other citizen representatives (from related community centres, and the Vancouver Historical Society), working in partnership with Staff and Commissioners on a transparent naming process and procedure.
We invited public input and naming suggestions to be submitted for consideration. The Committee members (including myself, on our own time) did research on suitable names as well. In our Marpole park case, this invovled going through the Marpole Historical Society archives at Colburne House – a treasure trove of our community history.
We spent hours culling the submissions, working with Staff, and proposing the final top 3 recommendations to Park Board for their final decision. The successful names were Oak Meadows and Ebisu Parks.
In my humble opinion, the process was a tremendous success. It involved the public and the community as a whole, working with the Park Board and Staff in a big picture approach to honour our history, our natural surroundings, and cultural identity.
I trust the reports & files remain at Park Board HQ for anyone to see wishing for template to follow or learn from. Did it involve Staff & Board time and resources? Yes. Did it involve the public? Yes. Did it have value? I believe that it did.
Thought of The Night
“IMHO, the best name for a park in Vancouver, after a three years Vision reign, would be… Tutankhamun Park.”
Or any variation of dead Pharaohs.
Naming parks after people… hmm, imagine New York’s Central Park suddenly renamed… Trump Park after the big mouthed billionaire Donald that owns his own name tower on the edge of the park. Popular culture though, would change it in ‘The Comb-over’ Park in a heart beat.
Same way here in Vancouver, where Vision, by pushing in the wrong direction, and by pressing the wrong buttons, risks to have their man, Jim Green, immortalized in the public memory, as the popular ‘crime fighter’ Diego de la Vega aka ‘Zorro’… Park, as it is well known, the former community advocate liked to wear ‘all black’ during the middle of the day, so…
As for Aaron Jasper, oh, well, the commissioner suffers from Acute Mountain Sickness, the result of him moving only in circles at the very top, and from a past due date of three years long exposure to an Oxygen depleted environment.
Mike, excellent post, and Kudos to John for showing us all how a Commissioner should be doing his job!
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
Seconding Mike and Glissando on this John Coupar adventure.
Having written the Park Naming Policies as a Park Staffer, new and old, I can attest that we were never influenced by serving Park Commissioners. Our criteria generally emphasized that individuals who had significantly contributed to the betterment of parks in their community be a guiding principle. Of course, other attributes also applied but that was the first. There are bigger problems looming. Parks in Vancouver did not come about by accident or by some benificent City Council deeming it. Parks, greenspace and recreation facilities were created because there is a separately elected Park Board and staff, created under the City Charter. The Global Budget from the COV has made it possible for Park Board and staff to continue to contribute its specific expertise in these areas without influence from City Hall. That is all changing and the staff is being gutted and authority shifted from 2099 Beach Avenue to The City Manager’s Office. It is the first sinister step in emasculating the Park Board and making it some arcane rubber stamper in the future.
And when the COV finally has total control of previously protected park places, they will fall to the developers’ mesmerizing plans and we will have lost something never to be regained again.
It makes me personally feel like I have let down all those great park employees who came before, ones who helped establish one of the best Park & Recreation systems in North America.
Thanks for this Mike. It is encouraging to read that there are still people here who offer their services to local governments because they have a serious commitment to our region and to their neighborhoods. We see far too many becoming involved simply because of the powers given to politicians.
Thank you Mr Coupar.
Bravo John!
Mike thanks for writing about this. I too second, third… whatever all the comments in here!
Thank you Terri for shedding light on the whys and whats of the park naming procedure. Did Jim Green “significantly contribute to the betterment of parks”? Art Phillips certainly did and didn’t that name change happen with the existing system? Vision Vancouver has not demonstrated why this procedure needs to be changed. Names of parks are important. If they have to come back to the Board 3 times that’s OK, it offers opportunity for due consideration and public input. Isn’t that the rationale for 1st, 2nd and 3rd readings of public hearing motions.
There are indeed bigger issues facing this Park Board. “Emasculating the Park Board” is certainly the most important. In addition, there are other planning issues such as the Cambie Plan Report, which is adding 16,000 people along this corridor but has no provision for providing more park space. Where is the Park Board on this matter?