Vancouver used to be among the best of the world's cities in terms of having public access to community television. There were local facilities very near if not actually in Mt. Pleasant back then. Now, many parts of the world, including in Asia, the US, and Latin America, have passed us as we went backwards. Here's the story from one who was there. - FW
Current State of Community Television in Metro Vancouver
By Sid Chow Tan, August 13, 2009
A dozen years ago, government regulators and cable companies delivered a near lethal blow to community television. The government ruling and self-serving interpretation by dominant cable operators Rogers and Shaw led to the dismantling of community television thousands strong volunteer networks and local office infrastructure and resources in Metro Vancouver. This near death scenario continues, seemingly with government and corporate collusion, and begs for a judicial review. As well, the Auditor General should review the $800-million in public money handed to cable companies across Canada on behalf of community television the past ten years. That’s $60-million to Rogers and Shaw in Metro Vancouver the last ten years. In 2003, a Senate (the Lincoln) report stated its “frustration” and “dismay” that no information exists on what happens to cable company expenditures on behalf of community television. There’s no way to find out if citizens got their money’s worth!
In Public Broadcasting Notice 1997-25:131, the government regulator - the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) - handed community television to cable companies. It boldly and trustingly states: “This policy reflects the Commission's belief that opportunities for local expression would continue to be provided in the absence of a regulatory requirement. In the Commission's view, after more than twenty-five years of operation, the community channel has achieved a level of maturity and success such that it no longer needs to be mandated. Apart from its benefits to the public through local reflection, the community channel provides cable operators with a highly effective medium to establish a local presence and to promote a positive corporate image for themselves.”
The Commission’s boldness was mistaken and its trust misplaced. On November 19, 1996, more than three months before the new policy announcement, Rogers began shutting down its neighbourhood television offices, beginning with 1010 Commercial Drive. Thousands of volunteers and dozens of staff worked in this and another sixteen or so community television studios and offices throughout Metro Vancouver. In Vancouver alone, there was a full studio along with four neighbourhood community television offices – two in Kitsilano, one in the West End and the Commercial Drive location. Volunteer community-based productions such as Complaint Department, Production Parade, Metro Magazine, Chinatown Today, Global Justice, Pressure Point and East Side Story dominated the then Rogers cable community channel. The programming opportunities, production training in local offices, mentorship and extensive volunteer networks are all but gone from Shaw, now the dominant cable operator in the region through a swap of assets with Rogers in 2001.
Shortly after Rogers announced the closure of the Commercial Drive office, the volunteers there hastily constituted a not-for-profit society to weather the anticipated corporate assault on community television. Rogers, taking flak for the closures, agreed to support the volunteers for two years while Community Media Education Society was organised to safeguard the spirit and legacy of community television. Two workgroups developed. One to work on regulatory and public education efforts and the other to continued the production of community television programs. The production workgroup begat three not-for-profit community television corporations. First came Independent Community Television Co-operative, then Vancouver Community Television Association and ACCESS TV (Association of Chinese Canadians for Equality and Solidarity Society), which initiated and helps produce FearlessTV and Saltwater City Television. Along with the Slim Evans Society, best known for its Working TV. All now have regular timeslots on Shaw’s local cable community channel. None receives any financial support from the public funds collected by Shaw - an estimated $6-million annually in Metro Vancouver.
Now Shaw’s cable community channel is called Shaw TV and its community television in Metro Vancouver is directed from the Shaw tower at Coal Harbour. Ironically, with a studio there, volunteers from Vancouver need to go to Surrey for studio production. Volunteers from Port Moody need to come to downtown Vancouver to pick up a camera to do a shoot in Port Moody and then return the gear. Shaw’s appreciation of community-based volunteers is underscored by their miserly ways towards them. Volunteers and non-profit groups pay for all transportation, parking, refreshment and tape expenses for their productions. Yet Shaw has the public money to provide the same to its production personnel, including company vehicles. More miserly and destructive was the shutdown of local offices and studios and laying off production staff over the past eight years. Shaw continues to believe and explain community television is better after cuts to local offices and staff and loss of the volunteer network. These are dastardly deeds and show Shaw’s corporate greed trumping community need.
A judicial review is in order. The Broadcasting Act clearly states the Canadian broadcast system is comprised of public, private and community elements providing a public service essential to the maintenance and enhancement of national identity and cultural sovereignty. Yet the CRTC, our broadcast regulator mandated to uphold the Broadcasting Act, believes the community element no longer needs to be a regulatory requirement for cable operators. The resultant confusion allowed cable companies such as Shaw to refuse broadcast of programs produced by not-for-profits. This was a clear violation of CRTC rules and the spirit of community television. A judicial review may explain why cable companies receive and control the entire cable community channel levy, leaving not-for-profit groups to fundraise for their community television needs. There is no logic when community programming produced by volunteers is only available by subscribing to a corporate service. Unbelievably, the CRTC says Vancouver cannot have a low power community television is because there is no room on the broadcast spectrum. There’s room for public and private broadcasters but none for a community broadcaster, one of three elements in the Canadian broadcasting system. How is that fair?
Canada has played a central role in the development of community television and is considered by many to be the birthplace of community broadcasting. The community element was developed to provide local groups with training to access the broadcasting system. Community broadcasting, which is local, volunteer-based and largely not-for-profit, is often able to broadcast a diverse range of voices, alternative points of view, and innovative programming ideas. In January 2008, CRTC Broadcasting Public Notice 2008-4 announced a comprehensive review of its policies with respect to community-based radio and television. The objective of this review will be to ensure that the Commission’s regulatory policy supports the development of a healthy community broadcasting sector. Over two months have passed and there is still no information available on when the review will begin.
Given the community television carnage wrought by Shaw and Rogers in Metro Vancouver, one could say the CRTC’s review is too little to late. It would be better to have a judicial review of the current state of community television. At the least, the Auditor General should let citizens know what happened to the $800-million in public money given to cable companies. The worrisome lesson here is that the federal government can hand the public trust of community television to cable companies, who want citizens to be passive consumers and not active makers of media.
For more on community television, go to www.crtc.gc.ca and see CRTC Broadcasting Public Notices 1991-59, 1997-25 and 2002-61. You can email cmes @ vcn.bc.ca if you want to get involved in community television.
n.
Sid Chow Tan has been a community television volunteer for over twenty years. He help found and has been or currently is a director of Community Media Education Society, Independent Community Television Co-operative (Vancouver and Victoria), ACCESS TV (Association of Chinese Canadians for Equality and Solidarity Society), W2 Community Media Arts Society and Slim Evans Society, which produces workingTV.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Your Help Needed to Reinstate Community TV in Vancouver
Yesterday, I met Sid Chow Tan, who is one of the elders of community media in Vancouver. He told me more about what excellent community TV access Vancouver used to have, and about the many groups that are coalescing to ask to have this service restored. Here's a website and a letter he forwarded to me - I'll also blog his history of the Vancouver community TV:
http://cactus.independentmedia.ca/node/11
Dear Friends of community-access TV:
CACTUS needs your help to prepare for the review of the community TV
sector. The hearings are scheduled for Feb. 1st, and the call for
comments is likely to be posted in late September.
We need your help now, to contact and ask support from many
organizations and individuals across the country. We'd like to
familiarize them with CACTUS' position before the call for comments is
published, and are asking for help for members willing to make phone
calls during the last week of August and September.
In a nutshell, CACTUS is asking that:
1) a new production fund be established to which independent community
production groups can apply to set up their own community-access
channels.
2) that these channels will be multi-platform access centres that may
hold a radio and television license simultaneously, broadcast over the
air, teach web design and webstream programming, and share resources
with other community organizations that specialize in communications;
for example, community newspapers, libraries, theatres. The idea is
that the community should be able to "one-stop-shop" if they have a
project that they want to get the message out about. We envision that
this model will leverage existing infrastructure, be efficient, is
flexible enough to evolve in the future, and will enhance the
understanding of media literacy in the community. It is becoming more
and more common around the world.
3) We will ask that the programming produced have must-carry status
on cable, Telcos, and any other distributors that serve the area so
that the signal will be truly accessible to all.
Here are some of the groups that we want to contact during the next 6
weeks. If you have a particular interest or already have good
contacts with any of these groups and are willing to spend time on the
phone, please contact Cathy Edwards ASAP:
- video and filmmaking co-operatives, including IFVA, the Independent
Film and Video Alliance
- municipalities and town councils
- university closed circuit television channels
- well-known people who got their start on community TV (e.g. Mike
Meyers, Dan Ackroyd, Tom Green, Guy Madden)
- other organizations that have intervened at recent hearings in
support of community media and diversity; for example, Friends of
Canadian Broadcasting, the Canadian Conference on the Arts, guilds and
professional associations whose members historically received training
at community-access channels.
- MPs
- community service organizations, non-profits, etc. that benefit from
exposure on community TV
- organizations that promote media literacy, equal access to IT,
Internet access, etc.
- others that you can think of
What would help is if you are willing to take on one category to
contact. We will help prepare you with the phone script, sample
letters of support that the contactees might send in, etc. Aside from
helping out the sector now that we've finally got a committed hearing,
it's an opportunity for you to network with like-minded individuals.
If you can help, please call Cathy at (819) 772-2862.
The CACTUS Team.
www.cactus.independentmedia.ca
http://cactus.independentmedia.ca/node/11
Dear Friends of community-access TV:
CACTUS needs your help to prepare for the review of the community TV
sector. The hearings are scheduled for Feb. 1st, and the call for
comments is likely to be posted in late September.
We need your help now, to contact and ask support from many
organizations and individuals across the country. We'd like to
familiarize them with CACTUS' position before the call for comments is
published, and are asking for help for members willing to make phone
calls during the last week of August and September.
In a nutshell, CACTUS is asking that:
1) a new production fund be established to which independent community
production groups can apply to set up their own community-access
channels.
2) that these channels will be multi-platform access centres that may
hold a radio and television license simultaneously, broadcast over the
air, teach web design and webstream programming, and share resources
with other community organizations that specialize in communications;
for example, community newspapers, libraries, theatres. The idea is
that the community should be able to "one-stop-shop" if they have a
project that they want to get the message out about. We envision that
this model will leverage existing infrastructure, be efficient, is
flexible enough to evolve in the future, and will enhance the
understanding of media literacy in the community. It is becoming more
and more common around the world.
3) We will ask that the programming produced have must-carry status
on cable, Telcos, and any other distributors that serve the area so
that the signal will be truly accessible to all.
Here are some of the groups that we want to contact during the next 6
weeks. If you have a particular interest or already have good
contacts with any of these groups and are willing to spend time on the
phone, please contact Cathy Edwards ASAP:
- video and filmmaking co-operatives, including IFVA, the Independent
Film and Video Alliance
- municipalities and town councils
- university closed circuit television channels
- well-known people who got their start on community TV (e.g. Mike
Meyers, Dan Ackroyd, Tom Green, Guy Madden)
- other organizations that have intervened at recent hearings in
support of community media and diversity; for example, Friends of
Canadian Broadcasting, the Canadian Conference on the Arts, guilds and
professional associations whose members historically received training
at community-access channels.
- MPs
- community service organizations, non-profits, etc. that benefit from
exposure on community TV
- organizations that promote media literacy, equal access to IT,
Internet access, etc.
- others that you can think of
What would help is if you are willing to take on one category to
contact. We will help prepare you with the phone script, sample
letters of support that the contactees might send in, etc. Aside from
helping out the sector now that we've finally got a committed hearing,
it's an opportunity for you to network with like-minded individuals.
If you can help, please call Cathy at (819) 772-2862.
The CACTUS Team.
www.cactus.independentmedia.ca
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
front porch farmers' markets
CO-OP EXPANDS FARMERS' REACH WITH FRONT PORCH FARMERS' MARKETS
A farmer's life is feast or famine. During the long hot days of summer, crops are flourishing and farmers' markets gathering twice a week to sell the bounty. Any harvest a farm can't sell now, will go to waste, or if another few hours can be found at the end of a 16hr day, maybe a few surplus raspberries will get frozen for winter sale. Come winter though, farmers markets dwindle and local fresh food becomes less abundant—what a farmer makes in the summer better carry the cost of farm and family through the rest of the year.
Front porches all over Greater Vancouver are joining a movement to smooth out the feast and the famine farmers experience by becoming 'mini farmers markets' every week. Yes, that's right, front porches--and car ports and even play houses are being converted for a few hours every week into pick-up spots for those ordering their foods through an on-line farmers market. Established by a group of loyal local foodies and farmers market groupies, NOWBC Co-op (Neighbours Organic Weekly) has organized this on-line farmers market and neighbourhood delivery system. By scooping the summer's excess and bringing farmers' bounty to any neighbourhood in the city where it is wanted, when the feast is on, the co-op can help farmers reach more people and get all of their food sold.
“There is no farmers market here, the closest is Kits, but with the kids and busy weekends, I just don't get there.” says Joanna Michal of Dunbar, who gets food through NOWBC. Now it doesn't matter whether there's a farmers market near a person, or if a person is available during the hours a market is open, they can still get food from these small local farms through a front porch near them. And it doesn't stop at the end of the summer. When the feast is over, the on-line farmers market continues running year round--because farmers keep farming, even in winter here. “We're getting ready to to transplant our fall and winter crops of cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, collards and brussels sprouts” Christopher Bodnar of Glen Valley Organic Farm reports. Though winter crops may be less plentiful, there is still harvest, just very few places to sell it. “One of the challenges for small-scale farms is finding appropriate outlets to market their products.” says Bodnar.
NOWBC Co-op is a 50% volunteer run co-op interested in sustainable foods, the 100 mile diet and supporting our local organic growers. There are currently 25 of these pick-up spots around and about the city, and the number is growing. Front porches have been volunteered in Mt Pleasant, Riley Park, North Van, Dunbar, UBC, Fairview, Renfrew Heights, Commercial Drive, Coquitlam, New West—you name it. To check-out the on-line market and look for one of these farmers market drop-offs, or start one in your own neighbourhood, go to www.nowbc.ca or email joannam@nowbc.ca.
PHOTO CAPTION:
Meg O'Shea orders food from NOWBC's on-line farmers market, “I choose to buy through NOWBC because I know the organization has done my homework for me, selecting farmers and producers who supply local, organic, REAL food.”
For more information contact:
Joanna Michal - 604-222-0262
NOWBC Co-op Community Outreach
A farmer's life is feast or famine. During the long hot days of summer, crops are flourishing and farmers' markets gathering twice a week to sell the bounty. Any harvest a farm can't sell now, will go to waste, or if another few hours can be found at the end of a 16hr day, maybe a few surplus raspberries will get frozen for winter sale. Come winter though, farmers markets dwindle and local fresh food becomes less abundant—what a farmer makes in the summer better carry the cost of farm and family through the rest of the year.
Front porches all over Greater Vancouver are joining a movement to smooth out the feast and the famine farmers experience by becoming 'mini farmers markets' every week. Yes, that's right, front porches--and car ports and even play houses are being converted for a few hours every week into pick-up spots for those ordering their foods through an on-line farmers market. Established by a group of loyal local foodies and farmers market groupies, NOWBC Co-op (Neighbours Organic Weekly) has organized this on-line farmers market and neighbourhood delivery system. By scooping the summer's excess and bringing farmers' bounty to any neighbourhood in the city where it is wanted, when the feast is on, the co-op can help farmers reach more people and get all of their food sold.
“There is no farmers market here, the closest is Kits, but with the kids and busy weekends, I just don't get there.” says Joanna Michal of Dunbar, who gets food through NOWBC. Now it doesn't matter whether there's a farmers market near a person, or if a person is available during the hours a market is open, they can still get food from these small local farms through a front porch near them. And it doesn't stop at the end of the summer. When the feast is over, the on-line farmers market continues running year round--because farmers keep farming, even in winter here. “We're getting ready to to transplant our fall and winter crops of cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, collards and brussels sprouts” Christopher Bodnar of Glen Valley Organic Farm reports. Though winter crops may be less plentiful, there is still harvest, just very few places to sell it. “One of the challenges for small-scale farms is finding appropriate outlets to market their products.” says Bodnar.
NOWBC Co-op is a 50% volunteer run co-op interested in sustainable foods, the 100 mile diet and supporting our local organic growers. There are currently 25 of these pick-up spots around and about the city, and the number is growing. Front porches have been volunteered in Mt Pleasant, Riley Park, North Van, Dunbar, UBC, Fairview, Renfrew Heights, Commercial Drive, Coquitlam, New West—you name it. To check-out the on-line market and look for one of these farmers market drop-offs, or start one in your own neighbourhood, go to www.nowbc.ca or email joannam@nowbc.ca.
PHOTO CAPTION:
Meg O'Shea orders food from NOWBC's on-line farmers market, “I choose to buy through NOWBC because I know the organization has done my homework for me, selecting farmers and producers who supply local, organic, REAL food.”
For more information contact:
Joanna Michal - 604-222-0262
NOWBC Co-op Community Outreach
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Ask Shaw for Community TV Channel(s)
Shaw Cable/Telephone/Internet Broadband company is one of the businesses located in Mt. Pleasant. You can see a building with their name of it on Great Northern Way near the VCC Clark Sky Train Station.
Shaw is really pushing to get subscribers for the digital service. I looked at what they offer, but all I saw was more and more channels of the same to me irrelevant stuff. I decided to call their number and put in my request for community TV channels. The place to talk about this turns out to be by calling their 1-800-950-7429 and choosing the options for cable service and change or order new service. A woman on the line took my request, said she'd pass it on, and said if enough people asked for that, they might offer it. Here's what I asked for:
Community TV channels.
As someone who is very interested in local events and issues, I have long wished that Vancouver was like other major cities in having dedicated cable channels for community TV programming. Years ago Vancouver had a community TV production facility and at least one dedicated cable channel, but subsequent cable company owners dumped that service in the interest of using those channels to make more money. There is some "community" programming on Shaw Channel 4, because community program access is mandated by the CRTC, but very little of it comes from the community video production companies (Vancouver now has 6 of them, I've heard), and it's only half an hour at a time, and editorially controlled by Shaw.
Now that digital TV is coming in, there is the possibility to offer way more channels than anybody could ever watch. What this means is that "narrowcasting" - content for smaller segments of the audience, is going to be much more important. If you have some of those hundreds of channels for community programming, you can have a meaningful share of the audience for a skilled amateur production about iris gardening or speeches from a conference or storytelling or bicycle repair.
Shaw Channel 4 is supposedly a community channel - they have some shows of their own that cover people in the community, and because of a court case they also now allow little half-hour blocks scattered here and there for the work of local community TV production groups that are not part of Shaw. You will see Shaw's disclaimer before each of these segments airs, saying that they are forced by the CRTC to offer this time.
But there are at least six well-established independent television production companies in this town. They go to all sorts of events and videotape them, and I really love to watch these things. Right now, I have to watch online or go to a special screening if I want to watch, for example, the keynote speakers from the Canadian Federation of Nurses Convention, or panelists from the Where's the Money in the Media? event held at Vivo in May (both recorded by Working TV). I would like to be able to turn on the TV any time of day and see local community events and ideas.
In a related trend, community video groups have joined up with the W2 project and will be putting a multimedia centre into the old Woodwards building on Hastings Street, downtown, where members of the public will be able to video events and get production training.
What is most lacking is to get the channel space for community people to air their work.
Why don't you phone up Shaw, too, and ask for some community TV channels? You dial 1-800-950-7429 and press 1 for English (or choose Chinese), 1 for residential service, and then 1 to order or change your service. Tell them what you want, and let's see if we can get it.
Shaw is really pushing to get subscribers for the digital service. I looked at what they offer, but all I saw was more and more channels of the same to me irrelevant stuff. I decided to call their number and put in my request for community TV channels. The place to talk about this turns out to be by calling their 1-800-950-7429 and choosing the options for cable service and change or order new service. A woman on the line took my request, said she'd pass it on, and said if enough people asked for that, they might offer it. Here's what I asked for:
Community TV channels.
As someone who is very interested in local events and issues, I have long wished that Vancouver was like other major cities in having dedicated cable channels for community TV programming. Years ago Vancouver had a community TV production facility and at least one dedicated cable channel, but subsequent cable company owners dumped that service in the interest of using those channels to make more money. There is some "community" programming on Shaw Channel 4, because community program access is mandated by the CRTC, but very little of it comes from the community video production companies (Vancouver now has 6 of them, I've heard), and it's only half an hour at a time, and editorially controlled by Shaw.
Now that digital TV is coming in, there is the possibility to offer way more channels than anybody could ever watch. What this means is that "narrowcasting" - content for smaller segments of the audience, is going to be much more important. If you have some of those hundreds of channels for community programming, you can have a meaningful share of the audience for a skilled amateur production about iris gardening or speeches from a conference or storytelling or bicycle repair.
Shaw Channel 4 is supposedly a community channel - they have some shows of their own that cover people in the community, and because of a court case they also now allow little half-hour blocks scattered here and there for the work of local community TV production groups that are not part of Shaw. You will see Shaw's disclaimer before each of these segments airs, saying that they are forced by the CRTC to offer this time.
But there are at least six well-established independent television production companies in this town. They go to all sorts of events and videotape them, and I really love to watch these things. Right now, I have to watch online or go to a special screening if I want to watch, for example, the keynote speakers from the Canadian Federation of Nurses Convention, or panelists from the Where's the Money in the Media? event held at Vivo in May (both recorded by Working TV). I would like to be able to turn on the TV any time of day and see local community events and ideas.
In a related trend, community video groups have joined up with the W2 project and will be putting a multimedia centre into the old Woodwards building on Hastings Street, downtown, where members of the public will be able to video events and get production training.
What is most lacking is to get the channel space for community people to air their work.
Why don't you phone up Shaw, too, and ask for some community TV channels? You dial 1-800-950-7429 and press 1 for English (or choose Chinese), 1 for residential service, and then 1 to order or change your service. Tell them what you want, and let's see if we can get it.
Monday, July 20, 2009
A look beneath the surface
Marcus Bingham of the Forest Science Department, University of British Columbia, was telling me about the role of fungi in linking the roots of different kinds of plants under the surface of the soil, and actually transferring carbon from one kind of plant to another. He sent me this link, from which the photo below was taken: http://sarcozona.org/tag/mycorrhizae/ He says it's an "ectomycorrhizal (‘ecto’ is a particular classification of mycorrhiza) root system of a conifer seedling."
Mycorrhizae. ALBERTON, O., & KUYPER, T. (2009). Ectomycorrhizal fungi associated with seedlings respond differently to increased carbon and nitrogen availability: implications for ecosystem responses to global change. Global Change Biology, 15 (1), 166-175 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01714.x
The site at the link also has interesting things to say about how excess carbon affects the relationship of plants to each other. For example, an excess proportionally of carbon turns into excess sugar in plants and reduces the percentage of nitrogen in their diet (nitrogen, which builds protein). So, the more carbon we put into the environment, the more we put the plants (and ourselves, as plant-eaters, as well as the plant-eaters we eat) into sugar shock and protein deficiency.
Time to stop driving and start walking!
Here's another link related to the problem of excess carbon in the atmosphere - it's a radio program and you can download it by right-clicking your mouse on the link and choosing save-as. Play it in your ipod while you're walking, eh?
WINGS #12-09 The Atmosphere Trust Time: 28:40. Protecting the atmosphere is a trust for future generations.
http://wings.org/ftp/WINGS%20shows%202009%20series/wings12-09MaryWood-Climate-28_40-128kbps.mp3
Mycorrhizae. ALBERTON, O., & KUYPER, T. (2009). Ectomycorrhizal fungi associated with seedlings respond differently to increased carbon and nitrogen availability: implications for ecosystem responses to global change. Global Change Biology, 15 (1), 166-175 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01714.x
The site at the link also has interesting things to say about how excess carbon affects the relationship of plants to each other. For example, an excess proportionally of carbon turns into excess sugar in plants and reduces the percentage of nitrogen in their diet (nitrogen, which builds protein). So, the more carbon we put into the environment, the more we put the plants (and ourselves, as plant-eaters, as well as the plant-eaters we eat) into sugar shock and protein deficiency.
Time to stop driving and start walking!
Here's another link related to the problem of excess carbon in the atmosphere - it's a radio program and you can download it by right-clicking your mouse on the link and choosing save-as. Play it in your ipod while you're walking, eh?
WINGS #12-09 The Atmosphere Trust Time: 28:40. Protecting the atmosphere is a trust for future generations.
http://wings.org/ftp/WINGS%20shows%202009%20series/wings12-09MaryWood-Climate-28_40-128kbps.mp3
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Translink Survey on Funding Closes June 30
This is their consultation. - FW
Important Choices - Transportation Projects and Funding - Survey Closes June 30
from support@translinklistens.ca
Dear TransLink Listens Advisor,
You are cordially invited to participate in TransLink's "It's Your Move" on-line public consultation exercise (which takes about 15 minutes or more) and then complete a short survey about the transportation plan for the next 10 years.
This is your opportunity to tell us what you think regional transportation planning priorities should be over the next ten years and how you think we should pay for them.
As an added incentive to participate - those who participate in the exercise and complete the survey by June 30, 2009 will be entered into a contest to win one of five cash prizes:
- Two prizes of $500 cash
- Three prizes of $100 cash
We are increasing the prizes to acknowledge panelists' time in becoming familiar with Transport 2040, the 30-year vision for the region. In addition, TransLink Listens provides significant research cost savings.
The proposed 10-year Plan, and ways to pay for it, is just the start. Your decisions will be instrumental in setting the course for the liveability of the Region, and we hope that providing this information will assist you in making informed decisions. The results of this consultation will be reported to TransLink's Board of Directors.
Watch for the most important survey in TransLink's history, on TransLink Listens July 3, 2009. We hope you'll be a part of it.
CLICK HERE TO BEGIN: https://join.translinklistens.ca/R.aspx?r=ITuvB1BOMEiYtOAoAosVwg&m=600000173
Sincerely
The TransLink Listens Team
Important Choices - Transportation Projects and Funding - Survey Closes June 30
from support@translinklistens.ca
Dear TransLink Listens Advisor,
You are cordially invited to participate in TransLink's "It's Your Move" on-line public consultation exercise (which takes about 15 minutes or more) and then complete a short survey about the transportation plan for the next 10 years.
This is your opportunity to tell us what you think regional transportation planning priorities should be over the next ten years and how you think we should pay for them.
As an added incentive to participate - those who participate in the exercise and complete the survey by June 30, 2009 will be entered into a contest to win one of five cash prizes:
- Two prizes of $500 cash
- Three prizes of $100 cash
We are increasing the prizes to acknowledge panelists' time in becoming familiar with Transport 2040, the 30-year vision for the region. In addition, TransLink Listens provides significant research cost savings.
The proposed 10-year Plan, and ways to pay for it, is just the start. Your decisions will be instrumental in setting the course for the liveability of the Region, and we hope that providing this information will assist you in making informed decisions. The results of this consultation will be reported to TransLink's Board of Directors.
Watch for the most important survey in TransLink's history, on TransLink Listens July 3, 2009. We hope you'll be a part of it.
CLICK HERE TO BEGIN: https://join.translinklistens.ca/R.aspx?r=ITuvB1BOMEiYtOAoAosVwg&m=600000173
Sincerely
The TransLink Listens Team
Neighbourhoods Pissed at Translink Planning
Copies of this letter are circulating in email. It challenges the notion that public "consultation" means giving the public time to hear and object but not any time to get their heads together and to effectively raise alternatives. Maybe with Kevin Falcon moving from the Transportation Ministry to Health, his heavy-handed style will be lifted from Transportation? (But moved to Health? - shudder) -FW:
Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver
June 24, 2009
TransLink Board of Directors
1600 - 4720 Kingsway
Burnaby, BC V5H 4N2
Attention: Mr. Tom Prendergast, CEO
Re: TransLink’s Transport 2040 - Consultation on the 10 yr. Funding Plan
Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver is a City of Vancouver wide organization of neighbourhood groups that includes about 30 residents' associations, CityPlan Vision implementation committees, ratepayers’ associations and community groups. We are commenting on the current and proposed TransLink funding models. Since TransLink's Transport 2040 and Metro Vancouver's 2040 Regional Growth Strategy were drafted in parallel, we are also including some of our comments on Metro's 2040 proposal which is interrelated with TransLink. Please consider this letter as part of our comments to TransLink under your consultation process.
Our concerns are mainly related to TransLink using real estate development, rezoning and land speculation to fund transit. The substantial change to use real estate to fund transit was done without public consultation and we adamantly oppose this direction. We support TransLink having a stable source of funding from Provincial and Federal taxation sources and abandoning the use of real estate speculation.
Our comments to date for TransLink funding sources are as follows:
1) Do not use property taxes or real estate development - Transit is a responsibility of the Provincial and Federal governments, so the funding sources
should be from those senior level sources of taxation not from the few civic sources of taxation. Therefore, property taxes and real estate development / rezoning / land lift should all be off the table as they are sources for civic fund raising for civic amenities. If these sources are used to fund transit then the Province is downloading onto the municipalities. There is a systemic conflict of interest for Translink to be both a regulator of land use policy and a real estate speculator / developer. There has been no public consultation to date to justify this direction or to having an unelected appointed Board of Directors.
2) Transit funding should be based on polluter-pay rather than user-pay principals[sic]- Transit fares should be lowered to encourage transit ridership. Those who pollute should pay more for transit through increased gas taxes, carbon taxes, variable vehicle levies, road user fees, parking fees, goods movement fees, or other polluter based charges.
3) The balance of funds should come from Provincial and Federal taxation sources-The municipalities only collect 10% of taxes while Provincial and Federal governments collect the remaining 90%. Senior governments must stop downloading onto municipalities as described above in #1. Any shortfall in funding should be provided by the Province and the Feds.
4) Increase and improve TransLink’s public consultation process -
There has not been broad public consultation on TransLink’s direction or funding. We think that one rather confused workshop for the whole City of Vancouver is not adequate. Most residents do not know what the options are or that TransLink is proposing to use real estate development as the future main Transit funding source based on a Honk Kong model. This has never been publicly debated.
The main comments we have on TransLink's involvement in the Metro Regional Growth Strategy are as follows:
Our concerns with this proposal are mainly related to a substantial change of governance for municipal planning process, lack of clarity in the Metro proposal, and using the Regional Growth Strategy to give TransLink, which is now in the land development business, undo influence in municipal planning.
1) We oppose Metro, Provincial and TransLink regulation of municipal Official Community Plans (OCP): Unlike previous regional growth plans, this draft proposes shifting the authority over land use decisions. The Regional Context Statements and the Official Community Plans (OCP) would require Metro Board approval for compliance to the Regional Growth Strategy; TransLink approval of the OCP and large developments for implications to the regional transportation system; and
Provincial approval for developments along highways. This is an attack on the principle of subsidiarity; it would make municipal officials less accountable and public involvement in planning virtually meaningless. Municipalities should retain control over land use planning and approvals within their boundaries.
If Metro's intent is to protect green zones and industrial areas, then any regional authority should be restricted to absolute protection for green zones and qualified protection for industrial areas and only these should be required to be shown on a map. Metro should have no authority over or formal input into land use policy other than green zones and industrial areas. We do not support the City of Vancouver's motion amendment D that proposes regional land use 'input' for Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Corridors, as the wording is ambiguous and could be
construed as adoption of policies or plans that have not been subject to local area planning and Community Vision implementation under City Plan. Also, because of TransLink’s real estate development conflict of interest, TransLink should be allowed to review and comment only, without any authority over land use policy.
2) TransLink's conflicted roll [sic] as both planning regulator and developer: Land lift is a municipal asset that is used to provide amenities such as community centers, parks, and facilities. TransLink has been given a mandate to raise funds through real estate speculation, rezoning and land lift to pay for transit which is primarily a provincial responsibility. We strongly oppose this downloading onto municipal governments. It appears that the Province is using the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy to facilitate TransLink real estate dealings by giving this unelected board authority over land use decisions that could override municipalities. Since TransLink and their private development partners would have a financial stake in those decisions, conflicts of interest would be systemic.
3) Regional growth strategies are too prescriptive: The details outlined on pages 16-18 of the draft report are overly prescriptive in regard to density bonus provisions, variable development cost charges, reduced parking and other financial incentives for development. Although municipalities may choose to use such incentives from time to time, they involve significant trade-offs, and should not be prescribed in the Metro plan as they would be routinely used to fund transit and possibly other provincial responsibilities in place of amenities. The prescription for 'Large-scale, high density commercial office and retail uses' in the
Metro Core ignores and could conflict with the imperative to retain an adequate supply of old but functional buildings - essential for maintaining commercial diversity and affordable spaces for new ideas and enterprises.
4) Frequent Transit Development Corridors are too broad: The Frequent Transit Development Corridors as shown on Map 2 are described on Figure 2 (page 18) as 400 to 800 metres on both sides of the corridor for medium and high density development. In some municipal locations this may be reasonable if they have a generally large lot layout and only a few transit corridors. However, in Vancouver, 400 to 800 metres would result in mass upzoning of the entire city! The Metro plan should generally describe transit oriented development to be close to transit without specifying where it should be located. Detailed community planning
within municipal boundaries should be under the sole jurisdiction of the municipality.
5) Provincial control of developments along highways: Developments impacting highways should also be under municipal control. It is a concern that
requirements for provincial reviews of developments along highways could be a way for the Province to use land lift and rezoning to fund highway improvements. Again, this would constitute down-loading. While such authority might ostensibly be a check on car-dependant sprawl, it could actually facilitate environmentally destructive highway-oriented residential, commercial or industrial development.
6) Green zones would be more vulnerable: Under this proposal green zones would be more easily removed from protection, which would make them subject to “horse-trading” between municipalities, a practice we oppose. Exemptions from Green Zones should require unanimous support of the Metro Board, not just 2/3 support as
proposed. Also, some green zones are shown within Urban Containment boundaries and should be excluded so they cannot be developed (e.g. UBC Endowment Lands and the North Shore).
7) Timelines for public consultations are inadequate: We agree with the conclusions under 'Public input to date' in the CoV staff report. There has not
been enough time for the public or their elected representatives to understand the issues and to respond. We implore Council to insist on an extension of the Metro public consultation. The deadline for all input by May 22, 2009 is not acceptable.
These and other concerns raised at during the May 20th Metro public forum at the Wosk Centre confirmed that more work and substantive changes are required for the Regional Growth Strategy and Translink funding models. To this end we support a better opportunity for public participation in both the TransLink Transport 2040 funding proposals and the Metro Vancouver 2040 Regional Growth Strategy.
Regards,
Ned Jacobs
On behalf of the Steering Committee
Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver
Group contact email: nsvancouver@hotmail.com
Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver
June 24, 2009
TransLink Board of Directors
1600 - 4720 Kingsway
Burnaby, BC V5H 4N2
Attention: Mr. Tom Prendergast, CEO
Re: TransLink’s Transport 2040 - Consultation on the 10 yr. Funding Plan
Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver is a City of Vancouver wide organization of neighbourhood groups that includes about 30 residents' associations, CityPlan Vision implementation committees, ratepayers’ associations and community groups. We are commenting on the current and proposed TransLink funding models. Since TransLink's Transport 2040 and Metro Vancouver's 2040 Regional Growth Strategy were drafted in parallel, we are also including some of our comments on Metro's 2040 proposal which is interrelated with TransLink. Please consider this letter as part of our comments to TransLink under your consultation process.
Our concerns are mainly related to TransLink using real estate development, rezoning and land speculation to fund transit. The substantial change to use real estate to fund transit was done without public consultation and we adamantly oppose this direction. We support TransLink having a stable source of funding from Provincial and Federal taxation sources and abandoning the use of real estate speculation.
Our comments to date for TransLink funding sources are as follows:
1) Do not use property taxes or real estate development - Transit is a responsibility of the Provincial and Federal governments, so the funding sources
should be from those senior level sources of taxation not from the few civic sources of taxation. Therefore, property taxes and real estate development / rezoning / land lift should all be off the table as they are sources for civic fund raising for civic amenities. If these sources are used to fund transit then the Province is downloading onto the municipalities. There is a systemic conflict of interest for Translink to be both a regulator of land use policy and a real estate speculator / developer. There has been no public consultation to date to justify this direction or to having an unelected appointed Board of Directors.
2) Transit funding should be based on polluter-pay rather than user-pay principals[sic]- Transit fares should be lowered to encourage transit ridership. Those who pollute should pay more for transit through increased gas taxes, carbon taxes, variable vehicle levies, road user fees, parking fees, goods movement fees, or other polluter based charges.
3) The balance of funds should come from Provincial and Federal taxation sources-The municipalities only collect 10% of taxes while Provincial and Federal governments collect the remaining 90%. Senior governments must stop downloading onto municipalities as described above in #1. Any shortfall in funding should be provided by the Province and the Feds.
4) Increase and improve TransLink’s public consultation process -
There has not been broad public consultation on TransLink’s direction or funding. We think that one rather confused workshop for the whole City of Vancouver is not adequate. Most residents do not know what the options are or that TransLink is proposing to use real estate development as the future main Transit funding source based on a Honk Kong model. This has never been publicly debated.
The main comments we have on TransLink's involvement in the Metro Regional Growth Strategy are as follows:
Our concerns with this proposal are mainly related to a substantial change of governance for municipal planning process, lack of clarity in the Metro proposal, and using the Regional Growth Strategy to give TransLink, which is now in the land development business, undo influence in municipal planning.
1) We oppose Metro, Provincial and TransLink regulation of municipal Official Community Plans (OCP): Unlike previous regional growth plans, this draft proposes shifting the authority over land use decisions. The Regional Context Statements and the Official Community Plans (OCP) would require Metro Board approval for compliance to the Regional Growth Strategy; TransLink approval of the OCP and large developments for implications to the regional transportation system; and
Provincial approval for developments along highways. This is an attack on the principle of subsidiarity; it would make municipal officials less accountable and public involvement in planning virtually meaningless. Municipalities should retain control over land use planning and approvals within their boundaries.
If Metro's intent is to protect green zones and industrial areas, then any regional authority should be restricted to absolute protection for green zones and qualified protection for industrial areas and only these should be required to be shown on a map. Metro should have no authority over or formal input into land use policy other than green zones and industrial areas. We do not support the City of Vancouver's motion amendment D that proposes regional land use 'input' for Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Corridors, as the wording is ambiguous and could be
construed as adoption of policies or plans that have not been subject to local area planning and Community Vision implementation under City Plan. Also, because of TransLink’s real estate development conflict of interest, TransLink should be allowed to review and comment only, without any authority over land use policy.
2) TransLink's conflicted roll [sic] as both planning regulator and developer: Land lift is a municipal asset that is used to provide amenities such as community centers, parks, and facilities. TransLink has been given a mandate to raise funds through real estate speculation, rezoning and land lift to pay for transit which is primarily a provincial responsibility. We strongly oppose this downloading onto municipal governments. It appears that the Province is using the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy to facilitate TransLink real estate dealings by giving this unelected board authority over land use decisions that could override municipalities. Since TransLink and their private development partners would have a financial stake in those decisions, conflicts of interest would be systemic.
3) Regional growth strategies are too prescriptive: The details outlined on pages 16-18 of the draft report are overly prescriptive in regard to density bonus provisions, variable development cost charges, reduced parking and other financial incentives for development. Although municipalities may choose to use such incentives from time to time, they involve significant trade-offs, and should not be prescribed in the Metro plan as they would be routinely used to fund transit and possibly other provincial responsibilities in place of amenities. The prescription for 'Large-scale, high density commercial office and retail uses' in the
Metro Core ignores and could conflict with the imperative to retain an adequate supply of old but functional buildings - essential for maintaining commercial diversity and affordable spaces for new ideas and enterprises.
4) Frequent Transit Development Corridors are too broad: The Frequent Transit Development Corridors as shown on Map 2 are described on Figure 2 (page 18) as 400 to 800 metres on both sides of the corridor for medium and high density development. In some municipal locations this may be reasonable if they have a generally large lot layout and only a few transit corridors. However, in Vancouver, 400 to 800 metres would result in mass upzoning of the entire city! The Metro plan should generally describe transit oriented development to be close to transit without specifying where it should be located. Detailed community planning
within municipal boundaries should be under the sole jurisdiction of the municipality.
5) Provincial control of developments along highways: Developments impacting highways should also be under municipal control. It is a concern that
requirements for provincial reviews of developments along highways could be a way for the Province to use land lift and rezoning to fund highway improvements. Again, this would constitute down-loading. While such authority might ostensibly be a check on car-dependant sprawl, it could actually facilitate environmentally destructive highway-oriented residential, commercial or industrial development.
6) Green zones would be more vulnerable: Under this proposal green zones would be more easily removed from protection, which would make them subject to “horse-trading” between municipalities, a practice we oppose. Exemptions from Green Zones should require unanimous support of the Metro Board, not just 2/3 support as
proposed. Also, some green zones are shown within Urban Containment boundaries and should be excluded so they cannot be developed (e.g. UBC Endowment Lands and the North Shore).
7) Timelines for public consultations are inadequate: We agree with the conclusions under 'Public input to date' in the CoV staff report. There has not
been enough time for the public or their elected representatives to understand the issues and to respond. We implore Council to insist on an extension of the Metro public consultation. The deadline for all input by May 22, 2009 is not acceptable.
These and other concerns raised at during the May 20th Metro public forum at the Wosk Centre confirmed that more work and substantive changes are required for the Regional Growth Strategy and Translink funding models. To this end we support a better opportunity for public participation in both the TransLink Transport 2040 funding proposals and the Metro Vancouver 2040 Regional Growth Strategy.
Regards,
Ned Jacobs
On behalf of the Steering Committee
Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver
Group contact email: nsvancouver@hotmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)