NEWS: City Launches Citizen Summit

How convenient - a citizens summit once most of the major decisions have been made ignoring citizen input. Most of the decisons are being left to the discretion of the director of planning to the detriment of our neighbourhood planning process!

I appreciate the coverage (and thoughtful responses from bloggers) that Think City is giving to the “Citizens Summits” initiated by City Council, including the link to my recent Georgia Straight commentary. That said, I do take exception to the characterization of my views as “cynical”—not because I am immune to cynicism (who is?) —but because in this case I think it misses the mark. Cynics say: “The government will always find ways to serve the big moneyed interests, not citizens. Why should I waste my time?” If I were given to cynicism I would not attend meetings of my local City Plan Committee, advocate for sustainable transportation and affordable housing, or serve as a spokesperson for a network of community groups (Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver). Given that a dynamic balance of preservation and development is crucial for cultural and environmental sustainability, public involvement in decision making has never been more important. I am very concerned about cynicism undercutting democracy (e.g. low voter turnout), and the extent to which Vancouver’s current council are contributing to the problem. Vision Vancouver, like the NPA, is indebted to developers, realtors and others whose interests depend on policies under municipal control, such as land use and licenses. To demonstrate support for municipal democracy and neighbourhood voice, and to show that these would not be held hostage to such interests, Vision Vancouver made a number of election promises regarding public process and planning policies. It has been extremely disturbing to see these commitments discarded, one after another, following the 2008 election. Like the NPA, Vision councillors insist that campaign contributions would never colour their decisions. The donors (whose gifts are not tax deductible) obviously think otherwise. Cynicism? No, that’s realism. This mutually dependent relationship is particularly problematic when it comes to protection and production of affordable housing. There is nothing the real estate development industry wants more than swift re-inflation of the housing bubble. There is nothing they want less than broad “inclusionary” rental policies which would constrain land speculation. The result is a city-funded stimulus package thinly disguised as an “affordable” rental program (there is nothing affordable about a 400 square foot “studio” apartment that rents for $1000 a month and can be stratified and sold in 20 years). The latest broken promise is a complete about-face on a firm commitment not to use Vancouver neighbourhoods outside the Central Area as landing sites for density bonuses awarded to property owners within the Central Area in exchange for heritage retention. The issue is complex, and I won’t attempt to go into it in detail here; but the consequence of this decision, approved at a special council meeting on July 28 (while the COPE councillors were on a Leave of Absence), will, if allowed to stand, encourage continued misuse of the Heritage Density Bank by providing financial benefits well beyond what is needed to protect heritage buildings, at the expense of public amenities and/or affordable housing. This policy would also arbitrarily override local area plans and City Plan Community Visions (voiding another promise), and was made especially egregious by an amendment moved by Councillor Louie to remove the words “in consultation with stakeholders" for establishing targets to land heritage density outside the Central Area. In short, at the same meeting that council approved a citizens’ summit series for “improving citizen engagement on public policy and planning decisions” they voted to eliminate consultation on a matter of vital importance to public policy and planning, and in doing so broke at least three election promises. Not exactly confidence-inspiring. Funding of municipal elections by special interests is by no means our only systemic problem. In 1886, a mayor and ten councillors were thought adequate to govern Vancouver. That number hasn’t changed, but the population and number of neighbourhoods certainly has! Engaging with communities and understanding complex issues well enough to make considered decisions is time-consuming. Consequently, the dominant group on council delegates whole areas of policy to just one or two of their members. This is compounded by the fact that rules intended to limit the influence of special interests in regard to rezoning applications make it difficult or impossible for councillors to directly obtain public input on many planning policy proposals. Additionally, “block” voting means that in practice decisions are almost always made prior to presentations by public delegations at council meetings. Our councils also have increasingly come to rely on the city manager and senior staff, routinely rubberstamping recommendations—often despite well-considered public dissent. Exceptions are rare, and apt to be in response to interests such as billboard companies and large developers. For their part, city staff exploit council’s over-reliance by distorting and misrepresenting public input to support predetermined outcomes. For example, the director of planning gives equal weight to input from individuals and community groups, and has characterized submissions that included significant objections to what was being proposed as “favourable” to staff recommendations. Both the system and how it is used serve cynicism, which in turn feeds both apathy and backlash at the expense of the community-based collaborative process intended by City Plan, now suffocating under the top-down EcoDensity Charter and Initial Actions. Let us not confuse cynicism with skepticism, a prerequisite for meaningful reform. If this proposal for a series of citizens’ summits had been brought forward at the beginning of the year, I would have been unreservedly enthusiastic. But given the subsequent string of broken commitments and mounting evidence that the majority on council is politically dependent on funding from interests that frequently conflict with local area plans, approved Community Vision Directions and other areas of public concern, it would be naïve not to regard this citizens’ summit series, and their potential for facilitating reforms, with a healthy dose of skepticism. Calgary launched a similar initiative in 2005, the results of which, many feel, have not been meaningful (it may or may not be germane, but Vancouver’s current planning director was Calgary’s chief planner at the time). While I would encourage participation in these summits, public-spirited citizens must not let them act as a distraction—a placebo—while the current malaise continues to worsen. If the majority on council are genuinely motivated to overcome these limitations, dependencies and systemic conflicts of interest and are genuinely committed to restoring meaningful public participation in policy making (rather than engaging in denial and damage control), they will take decisive action now by honouring the commitments they made to the electorate regarding public process and planning policy, and by remediating a number of flawed decisions that clearly contravene those commitments.

There was a time before the information revolution and widespread and advanced public education, when the public was forced to cede control over public funds and neighbourhood planning to temporarily elected representatives and a professional civil service. Governmental accretion then expanded the range and cost of public services, challenging the ability of public sector managers to stay abreast of best practices and remain accountable for the most effective and efficient use of public funds. That era began to draw to an end, at least in the OECD countries, over 20 years ago. Participatory democracy led to a devolution of public authority to the lowest decision-making level practical, referred to in Europe as Subsidiarity or in North America as New Federalism. A surge in the number and competence of Local Area Councils, neighbourhood planning bodies with fiscal responsibilities and decision-making authority, reshaped municipal governance around the world. Such Councils, often elected, won new rights to direct spending in their communities and even control highway expansion, as is the law now in Los Angeles. When people took back control over local area decision-making, voter turnout ended its downward spiral and the capacity of community organizations to deliver critical social support and preventative services rose to ease the strain on municipal obligations and budgets. Participatory budgeting at the neighbourhood level forced people to recognize trade-offs, and spend on what they needed most. Vancouver's brief and historic affair with community-based planning in the early 1970s spared the city the scourge of highways, "urban renewal," and the ghettoization of urban North America. Participatory democracy not only saved Strathcona, but gave us the West End. Then the people fell silent, or were silenced. Lulled into complacency by a massive surge of foreign capital inflows into a "newly discovered" city, hundred-year-old neighbourhoods became less a place to live than shares on a new Vancouver Stock Exchange, the real estate market. It is high time to reassess, and recognize the experiences of both old-timers and new immigrants, who take pride in their homes and communities, as places to live, work, and raise the next generation. Building community starts with respect, respect that each of us has the unique perspective and capacity to help plan our own neighbourhood. We have seen what happens when we leave it up the "experts." Summits are rarely about democracy, but tend to lead to more one-size-fits-all, imposed solutions. The platform on which this new Mayor and Council were elected was to listen and defer to the community: local councils, organizations, and associations, who are closer to the people and have been providing neighbourhood-based services often for longer than this city has even been in existence. A simple direction to staff to let the people lead this city, which they own and fund, will re-engage the 70% of non-voters who have given up, will tap into untold local and global expertise, will rebuild neighbourhood-based governance capacity, and will transform Vancouver into the sustainable city it professes to be.

I really hope that the citizen summits go ahead. I am a person who is active in my community and several city wide committees. I truly believe in the value of involving citizens in the planning process. We have hundreds of extremely knowledgable and experienced citizens who can truly help the city move ahead and show and utilize our knowledge and strengths.

Great news regarding Vancouver City Council's recent decision to develop a series of citizen summits. Here's hoping that Vancouver's process revamps citizen engagement and sets new standards for municipal democracy that is truly transparent, collaborative, accountable and inclusive! We'll be watching with interest from Guelph and challenging our civic leaders to follow Vancouver's lead. Best, Annie O'Donoghue Guelph Civic League