Focused Capture - Flickr Creative Commons

[ This is copied from the Occupy Vancouver forum on 'Demands' -- apparently the working group meets every day at 5:30pm at the Ice Rink @ Robson + Howe.  These demands will be ratified by the General Assembly sometime soon. I'm hoping to check it out in the next few days to confirm the support for this list. ] 

Rough Draft of Demands

There has been a call for a broad over-reaching demand that sums up the rest of the demands and is easily quotable in the mass media:

We demand the creation of a just and sustainable society.

Of course people will want to know the specifics of such a demand.
With that in mind we have created this list of “sub-demands” which more clearly outlines what exactly we mean by our one demand.

Economic demands

1. We demand that the wealthiest 1% pay their fair share by the closing of tax loopholes such as dark pools of liquidity and employer-side payroll taxes. Progressive taxation principles must prevail, income from capital must be taxed at the same level as wage income.
2. We demand that the banks be nationalized and limit interest payments to 1%. The Board of Directors of the Bank of Canada and top tier of management must now include at least 50% representatives for Labour/wage earners and the balance must contain a mix of academics, as well as business people. The mandate of the Bank of Canada must now include the pursuit of low unemployment in addition to low inflation. (An alternative demand to nationalization of the banks is: “We demand a cap on interest rates at 5% plus prime.”)
3. We demand that crimes committed by banks and corporations be prosecuted more rigorously – a dedicated justice fund for white-collar crimes must be created. Canadian corporations must also be held accountable for crimes (such as bribery and pollution) committed abroad.
4. We demand that all income tax for those who make less than the living wage be eliminated.
5. We demand that a “ministry of whistle-blowing” be created with the power to protect any whistle blower – corporate or otherwise – from harm of any kind. We need to be able to safely call attention to injustice. Previous failed attempts to do this should be learned from.
6. We demand a higher minimum wage – one that equals a living wage. Those unable to work due to disability or infirmity should have a guaranteed income which will allow a dignified existence.
7. We demand that Canada pulls out of all free trade agreements – including repealing NAFTA – which are actually “investors rights” agreements and have little to do with trade. We demand an end to future attempts at “free trade” agreements and/or the North American Union. All monopolies – national or international – must be prohibited.
8. We demand that EI payments for people not eligible to receive from the program be eliminated.
9. We demand that supply management of agricultural products be ended.
10. We demand that the federal government keep out of private sector union negotiations.
11. We demand the prohibition of self-regulation by large-scale industries.

Political demands

12. We demand the influence of lobbyists and influence peddlers be reduced by requiring all lobbyists and corporate representatives conduct all meetings with representatives out in the open, with records of what was said and what was spent easily accessible to the public.
13. We demand the electoral playing field be leveled by limiting each political party to equal small amounts of taxpayer money. We demand the elimination of campaign contributions entirely.
14. We demand the installation of a proportional representation system in all municipal, provincial and federal elections. We demand the adoption of Swiss-style direct democracy and Nunavut-style consensus-decision-making into all political processes.
15. We demand an immediate end to Canada’s role in the war in Afghanistan. We demand Canada pulls out of NATO.
16. We demand the government makes sure the CBC is independent from influence by powerful groups by getting enough funding so it can go commercial free so it no longer must depend on big business for advertizing, and that it becomes immune from future budget cuts.
17. We demand the elimination of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001, which criminalizes activities similar to the ones conducted by the French Resistance in WW2 and Nelson Mandela’s ANC in South Africa.
18. We demand Canada pulls out of the SPP – the “Security and Prosperity Partnership” – the military and economic harmonization between Canada and the United States. Canada must remain sovereign.
19. We demand the return of the long form census and an end to the practice of outsourcing census work to multinationals such as Lockheed Martin.
20. We demand that Statistics Canada and the Parliamentary Budget Office be made arms-length organizations outside the direct jurisdiction of partisans.
21. We demand that publicly funded science be made available to the public. No tax-payer-funded scientists should be gagged or censored in any way.
22. We demand that the science minister be replaced with an MP who recognizes the realities of evolution and global human-caused climate change.
23. We demand an end to all gag-orders on public servants.
24. We demand an independent investigation into 9/11 which will examine all evidence including that which would support a false-flag explanation.
25. We demand that “none of the above” be an option on all electoral ballots.

Societal demands

26. We demand – as Bertrand Russell suggested – there be two police forces – one to prove your guilt and another to prove your innocence. We demand lawyers be required to work in pairs so that a lack of resources won’t be a factor in deciding a case. (Alternative: We demand increased funding for legal aid.)
27. We demand a majority of the defense budget be redistributed to health, education and housing.
28. We demand massage, dental and eye care be covered under the health care system.
29. We demand an end to gender and racial discrimination in the workplace. We demand pay equity and employment equity. We demand equal pay for different but equivalent work.
30. We demand the right of self-determination for all indigenous nations. We demand a speedy resolutions to all outstanding land claims acceptable to all parties concerned.
31. We demand the repeal of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. All synthetic drugs and hard drugs (including cocaine and heroin) must be distributed by prescription through a pharmacist.
32. We demand that all botanical drugs be distributed like coffee beans. Human medical autonomy must now be respected by all.
33. We demand that all harmless people be protected in the constitution. If a new law is written and a new set of people are to be criminalized, the burden of proof will now be on the government to provide evidence that this new group of criminals is inherently harmful to others. This will end scapegoating.
34. We demand that post-secondary education be free with no hidden user fees. We demand that most outstanding student loans should be forgiven based upon income.
35. We demand that herbalists and naturopaths have their services covered by the health-care system.
36. We demand that judicial sentencing discretion should be preserved.
37. We demand that the omnibus crime bill be eliminated.
38. We demand that prostitution be legalized and regulated as it is in New Zealand.

Environmental demands

39. We demand that subsidies shift from fossil fuel and nuclear energy to renewable resources such as sun, wind, wave, geothermal and cellulose-based ethanol.
40. We demand that GMO’s – extra-natural genetic modification – be banned because there is no consensus that they increase yield, are safe to consume, are safe for the environment and pose no threat to global food security but there is general agreement that they allow seed monopolies and lawsuits based upon pollen drift. The patenting of life must be illegal and terminator seeds banned from sale in Canada.
41. We demand that chemical fertilizers and pesticides be phased out over the next five years while farmers learn to use organic methods because chemical fertilizers and pesticides are unnecessary and kill the soil vitality needed for human survival.
42. We demand that “open-net/open water” fish farming be banned.
43. We demand that environmental laws be enforced more rigorously.
44. We demand that soil vitality be a priority.
45. We demand that the nuclear industry be phased out.
46. We demand that the health and environmental costs be factored into the cost of each product, and taxed appropriately.
47. We demand the shutting down of the Tar Sands project.
48. We demand that fracking – hydraulic fracturing – be prohibited.
49. We demand the removal of all the red tape around the growing of industrial hemp.
50. We demand Canada pull out of the Keystone Pipeline.
51. We demand the prohibition of all off-shore drilling. We demand maximum liability on all oil spills.
52. We demand a national ban on products and packaging that can’t be recycled locally.
53. We demand a ban on factory farming or CAFO’s (concentrated animal feeding operations).
54. We demand an end to all logging in old-growth forests and an end to clear-cutting everywhere.
55. We demand protection of water rights and transparency in all Canadian water deals.
56. We demand Canada adopts the Bolivian Earth Charter.

[I will not editorialize here, other than to say that the 99% need a better marketing consultant.  Reduce, refine, simplify.  My Occupy brainspace does not have time for a debate on industrialized hemp.  Thoughts?]

Throughout his journey the only truth he finds is that there is no such thing. All ideology is suspect to him. His companions and teachers gladly embrace self-denial, meditation, lust, familial love and pleasure in the pursuit of a virtuous life. Siddartha becomes fully involved with all of these actions, yet some small part of him maintains a restless search for something more.

In the end (spoiler!), he finds himself back at the river where he started, this time as a student of the ultimate teacher — the river. Like the movement of river to sea to rain to river, truth is found in the flows of existence. Truth is round. It is a narrative cycle, not the specifics of content or the final sentence.

Circle of Literary Judgement (COLJ) activities are generally competitive, reflecting the divinely-granted free market of ideas, skills and labour that underpins Canadian society. This is natural and healthy, at least so we are taught. Taking a lesson from our literary companion Mr Hesse, this book club both questioned and affirmed that impulse: a small amount of food (bodily-denial) was followed by meditation (a struggle with the ideologies of the self), a sharing of religious experiences (collaborative community-building) and finally a hilarious re-telling of the narrative through interpretative dance and acting (competitively marked by all viewers for the trophy).

The ‘winner’ of the trophy was our very own Australian walkabout, Natasha Moore.

We experience the Wonderful World of Nature / our Rental Car

driving is king

Driving is fun.  There is relatively little traffic in town and the main highway between Kelowna and Penticton swoops widely around the lake shore.  A speed of 100 km/h or more is easy to safely maintain.  The average resident drives 35000 km/year [vs. a 14100 km/year as a province-wide average!].

Recent urban growth has focused on highway-oriented strip malls with panhandle suburbs on the hillsides, two of the worst culprits for massively increasing greenhouse gas emissions.  Human-to-human community building is difficult at best with these ex-urban patterns.

An individualist political agenda that minimizes personal income taxes and social expenditure makes sense to isolated monocultures of individuals.

Big White People with Golf Shirts looking at Big Boats

big boats are good; bigger boats are better

The lake has a huge psychological presence; boats are a huge part of life.  Boating does not mean sailing, kayaking, or rowing.  Massive rigs are required to wakeboard or booze cruise.  The faster and bigger the better.  The poor ride dirt bikes or ATVs.  A carbon-centric lifestyle means an average individual carries additional kilograms of body weight; mass that makes low-carbon walking or biking still more difficult.

A population that depends on the hyper-consumption of fossil fuels for daily routine and recreation does not appreciate a carbon tax, or understand subsidizing public transit.

golf shirts = fashion

Male fashion is dominated by misshapen corporate golf shirts and khakis.  Pop the collar if you want to be authentic.  Organic cotton shirts, re-used vintage pants or locally-tailored, trim suits are verbodden.

Golf shirts should be worn when golfing.  Corporate golf shirts should be worn when golfing with that corporation.  Wearing this outside of these important moments indicates a lack of imagination and creativity.

Imagination is not typically associated with political conservatism.

Kelowna is Anglo-Canadian white

Racial and cultural diversity is low in Kelowna.  The only non-Anglo Canadian culture I observed was drunken separatist Quebec fruit pickers.  This is unlikely to encourage cross-cultural tolerance, immigration friendly policies or support for a distinct french presence within a united Canada.

In short, this Vancouverite now understands why progressive politics have a hard time in the interior.  Urban patterns encourage isolation from the community of human suffering and facilitates the influence of traditional media.  An excessive personal dependence on fossil fuels derails the environmental agenda.  Low cultural diversity confirms long-held beliefs in the correctness of ones opinions.

And boy, does Ron Cannon, the Conservative MP for Kelowna look good in a golf shirt.

[This is the final piece in a multi-part series examining the city through the lens of the Green Metropolis, by David Owen]

A dynamically balanced ecosystem does not use less.  On the surface, an ecology is blatantly wasteful; how many seeds dropped from a tree take root?  How much seawater surrounds a single whale?  Why do birds need to fly thousands of miles to a warm spot for the winter, when they could hibernate in one spot?

On the contrary, ecosystems use more, but in an extremely efficient way; each surplus or waste product is reprocessed into something else.  The ‘wasted’ seeds are food for animals, seawater contains thousands of micro-organisms that convert CO2 or sunlight into energy which are then eaten by the whale, birds transport biomass and seeds as they migrate.  Each consumptive act is matched by a productive outcome.

In an ecology, yes is more.

Ecological urbanism applies this methodology to the natural and anthropological networks that make up the city; how can the waste product from one process become productive for another?  Somehow, rather than living smaller, closer and driving less, we need to figure out how to make consuming more ecologically reproductive.  More is more. How can a toilet actually make more food?

Ecological thinking is scientifically holistic.  It exploits data to apply creative solutions.  It must quantify the energy and material flows of a city from cradle to cradle; yet also account for any social or political consequences from those flows.  It needs to apply the counter-intuitive, broad-spectrum analysis and notions of convenience or cost suggested by the Green Metropolis.

For example: composting.  Reprocessing our organic wastes is an easy way to re-create the soil from which the food came.

Shallow green urbanism might say: therefore let us collect compost from a city and make more soil, as we do with recycling or garbage pick-up.  Yet if this done by massive, fossil fuel burning trucks, this may be actually counter-productive.  If suddenly apartment dwellers have to grapple smelly buckets of slop through tight hallways, they might rebel.  We might be better to devote fossil fuels to fertilizing existing soil.

The ecological urbanist method needs to be deeper.

Systems thinking prioritizes the connection between objects, rather than the objects themselves. By examining the connections between activities, flows emerge:  What is wrong with the existing garbage collection system that disincentives composting? Why are current flows of material and energy ending up as a semi-toxic, mixed landfill, not healthy soil?    Does it need to take place in the city, or can it be a process that is applied to the landfill itself?

Ecologies hybridize species for resilience. Cross-breeding ideas can also be fruitful: the destitute spend a whole lot of time and energy to collect cans and bottles as they have monetary value.  How can food waste become valuable?  Do groceries need a deposit?  Do we need to put a price on garbage?

A degree of decentralization is also critical to an ecology. The base-inputs of low-quality energy are slowly converted into larger and larger organisms:
Do we need to provide individual apartments with vermi-composting?  Does it need to be de-centralized? Is it enough to unlock the composting boxes at existing neighbourhood gardens and advertise?  How can composting emerge as a day-to-day, convenient activity for our citizenry?

A creative, scientifically informed analysis of material flows creates a picture of a system’s energy inputs and outputs.  Ecological urbanism uses this knowledge to make subtle shifts in an urban fabric that will allow a dynamically balanced, resilient urban ecology to express itself.

Less is not more; Yes is not more.  More is more.

How can you make your personal flows of energy and materials fuel for another productive process?  How could your community as a whole become more efficient, ecologically speaking?

[Hope you have enjoyed reading these posts; go do something!]

[This is the fourth piece in a multi-part series examining the city through the lens of the Green Metropolis, by David Owen]

As a fundamentally descriptive work, the Green Metropolis does not elaborate a detailed panacea to the problem of the contemporary city.

In fact, it implicitly suggests that the quick implementation of comprehensive solutions for housing and transportation are worse than no change at all.  It was a post-war belief in the future of the automobile that created the suburbs and automobile city.  The slow, bloody incrementalism of democratically oriented civic change is more ultimately more resilient than than the sweeping manifestos of ego-driven master planners.

The Green Metropolis suggests that this incremental change should be driven by living smaller, living closer and driving less.

The problem with living smaller, living closer and driving less is the word less.  Less is not very attractive for most of us.  Outside of the very rich and the aesthetically inclined culture classes, less is not more.  Sure, we can dream of living in the sparkling pages of a Dwell magazine, but in reality we have to have sex, raise children, keep mementos of the past, store our bikes and the rest of the minutiae that make up our daily existence.  We love our ‘bit of ground’.

Think about it.  In North America, most of live in comfortable, temperature controlled homes that do not leak.  Our cupboards have enough sustenance.  We are not being tortured or pursued by an enemy (most of us at least…).  Yet we still kind of need that new set of skiis, or a bigger apartment, or our own garden.  Happiness is a dynamic state.  This is why a less-is-more, no-growth society is untenable in the face of human desire and a world of plentiful resources.

Danish architect Bjark Ingels has proposed an alternative phrase: hedonistic sustainability, or yes is more.

He suggests that a development can provide innovative design, public space, affordable dwellings, wildlife refuge, energy generation and employment.  And it can make money.  While it is unclear if his projects actually achieve these goals, the phrase remains compelling: yes is more.

This is a kind of third-wave urbanism. In politics, yes we can. In the city, yes is more.  Yet as Barack Obama has discovered, implementing compelling slogans is always more difficult than saying them.  This is why ‘yes is more’ needs the help of ecological urbanism.

Ecological urbanism is not a manifesto specifying the geometric shape and colour of a city; it does not prescribe densities or zoning.  It does not require a blank slate or greenfield site to be built.

It is a process, with an outcome that feeds another process, that feeds another process, that feeds another process…and so on.

[Look for Ecological Urbanism, part five of this series]

[This is the third piece in a multi-part series examining the city through the lens of the Green Metropolis, by David Owen]

The book ends by describing a trip the author took to Beijing, where he found a walkable, dense city being rapidly eaten by the automobile.  A particularly engaging set of paragraphs notes the compulsive driving habits of a population that now has access to the cheap, mass-produced automobile.  The gleaming eyes of his taxi driver insist on driving three blocks, when David is happy to walk one.

The rest of the world wants the good life, just like us.  This is the crux of the problem: can our world assume the additional burden of 1 or 2 billion more private automobiles and the attendant urban patterns they create?

Even if North America wakes up and embraces living smaller, living closer and driving less, the massively urbanizing populations of the Asia are not waiting.  Entire cities are being built based on the ‘best practices’ of North American automobile urbanism.  Growth is happening in a way we cannot imagine.

All of this seems very paralyzing; how can my individual life-decisions stop a billion cars driving in China?

David suggests that small actions are better than none.

Ask yourself: what can I do to make my neighbourhood more walkable?  Do we need day-to-day shopping facilities nearby?  A stoplight to safely cross a busy street?  Road-calming to slow traffic?  A new bike lane or more convenient bus stop?  Write a letter to your city hall, asking for these things.

Advocate for denser living patterns.  Don’t call that multi-storey apartment or workplace proposed for your neighbourhood an ‘eyesore’ and organize a petition to stop its construction; rather demand that it is attractively designed and includes a library, hairdresser, doctor’s office or cafe to help make your community denser, more connected, more walkable.

The gleam in the eye of the Chinese taxi driver can also be present in you.

[Look for Yes is More, part four of this series]

Should Manhattan move to us?

When offered the magic wand which to transform Vancouver, David declined.  ‘Sweeping changes always leads to unintended consequences’, he says.  Omniscient decision-making led our cities to where we are today; GM’s 1933 Futurama city-building model based on the mobility of the automobile has made our communities unwalkable and heavily reliant on lifestyle-subsidizing oil.  Instead, incremental shifts in the urban environment can start to move our urban patterns to something approximating the densities of Manhattan.

Change, he suggests, happens most effectively because of economic hard times, inconvenience, or high costs.  A big reduction in aggregate greenhouse gas emissions of the United States have occurred as a result of the 2008 recession.  Public transit ridership was at an all-time high (a hefty 5.5% on average) when oil peaked at 4$US/gallon [1.05$US/litre].  New Yorkers drive less because it is more convenient to walk.

It is at this point that the book becomes still more compelling.  A frequently cited solution for climate change is the development of increasingly efficient technologies and renewable energy sources.  The Green Metropolis directs our attention to the Jevons Paradox to spoil this dream.

The Jevons Paradox was articulated in the late 19th century to explain why increasingly efficient steam engines were leading to more and more coal consumption.  This is because energy efficiencies are rarely translated into reduced resource consumption.  Rather, they are used to extract more performance from the same unit of energy.

For example: webpages are not significantly faster today because of increasing bandwidth, they are more content-rich.  The more efficient engines of the Toyota Land Cruiser of today does not use significantly less fuel than it used to; it now has a DVD player, more horsepower and a huge towing capacity.  The driver still only represents 2% of the vehicle’s total load.  98% of its power is still being used to transport the vehicle itself (albeit now containing personal media screens, a champagne bar and ultra-lux heated seats).

The other frequently cited solution to climate change debunked by the Green Metropolis are ‘market forces’.  As oil increases in cost, driving will decrease and the suburbs will be abandoned due to decreasing land values.  ‘Market forces also include famine and civil unrest’, Mr. Owen reminds me.  Personally, I am in favour of hybrid density over famine.

The book notes that driving a market-reactive, efficient car the same distance simply prolongs the moment until we have to start boiling dirt for oil (actually we already are). Market-driven efficient technologies will not have a long-term effect on our collective carbon outputs, but efficient cities can.

By this point the world is looking pretty grim.

I explain this feeling to David, and he points to Australian thinker Saul Griffin: ‘We need heroin and prostitutes: high cost, low-climate impact entertainment,‘ he paraphrases.  We need something that can occupy the day without necessitating a lot of extra energy inputs.  We have to stop hustling.  We have to stop collectively growing in size and desire.

Although not directly articulated, both the book and our conversation danced obliquely around this idea of no-growth; Manhattan is a dense, expensive, efficient place to dwell because it cannot grow anywhere but up.

[Look for The Extension of the Good Life, part three of this series]

[Editor's Note: This is the first piece in a multi-part series examining the City through the lens of the Green Metropolis, by David Owen]

David Owen’s book Green Metropolis has been described as ‘controversial’, yet perhaps ‘counterintuitive’ is a better moniker.

The city and its structures of transportation and economic exchange are inseparable from the lives of most North Americans.  Our work, pleasure and dwelling are guided by the civic infrastructures in which we find ourselves.  Our bodies are shaping and being shaped by these constructs.  Quite literally we gain weight as our car-commutes grow longer or healthy food less available. We get cold without shelter, and hungry without income.  Metaphorically our desires for emotional permanence are expressed through outings to the park, time at home with family, or kisses on the rooftops and bars.  Every moment we impact and are impacted by our surroundings.

With some exceptions, these structures of the contemporary North American lifestyle have been determined by the automobile.  Highways allow suburbs, strip malls and business parks to spread themselves thin.  The car connects this dispersion and in doing so becomes a powerful symbol of freedom.  Freedom from the smells and forced collectivity of the city.  The car is a beautiful, independent ‘nation of one’.  Just you (and maybe your equally well-dressed boyfriend/girlfriend in the seat beside you).

David Owen suggests that this model is fundamentally flawed, or at least outdated, especially given the ongoing challenges of peak-oil and resource shortages.  In order to move the North American lifestyle towards something approaching long-term stability and security, he suggests we need to live smaller, live closer and drive less.

This is achieved through hybrid densities of housing, services, and workplaces,  connected by low-emission, effective public transit and safe, walkable streets.  Basically, we need to live like New Yorkers.

This is where the ‘counterintuitive’ comes in: Mr Owen suggests New York is the greenest city in the United States. This seems absurd when we are confronted with the fact every 24 hours the city generates a pile of trash as big as a 70 storey building and that the vast majority of its ‘landscape’ is concrete or glass.  However, Green Metropolis backs this idea up with a set of highly considered, nuanced arguments that also systematically deconstruct notions typically considered ‘sustainable’.  For example:

Dedicated High Occupancy Vehicle [HOV] lanes reduce single-occupancy vehicle use.

Every vehicle that uses a dedicated, two-person HOV lane on a highway effectively removes two cars from the other lanes.  This makes traffic flow smoother and faster therefore encouraging more people to drive on the highway.   A congested highway discourages people from driving, the HOV does the opposite.  Does this mean the HOV lane is not an effective long-term car-use reduction strategy?

Greenery and open spaces encourage walking.

In suburban and rural areas the distance people are willing to walk is much lower than in dense urban areas.  This is not necessarily because of lack of sidewalks or curbs(although this does not help).  Rather, distance is perceived as longer, because there are no shop windows, offices, street signs, or other people to occupy your attention during the journey.  Does this mean open spaces and greenery actually discourage walking?
Small, low-emission or electric ‘urban cars’ such will allow us to keep driving and stop climate change.
Smaller cars allow more vehicles to occupy an urban environment in a less congested way, encouraging people who might have used public transit or walked to drive.  Parking becomes more available, encouraging more people to use cars.  Where is all of that new electricity coming from?

And so on (read the book yourself).

In the book, New York is positioned as the anti-suburb, and therefore its citizens have no choice but to live a relatively low-energy lifestyle.  Its extreme congestion, so hated by car-owners means that around 80% of New Yorkers take transit on a regular basis; a significant portion of the remainder walk.  All of this occurs not because of an ideological commitment to a greener world, or regulation, or a carbon-trading scheme, but just because of density.

Sheer numbers of people packed into a tiny island require highly efficient social and civic infrastructures to co-exist.  Mahattan refined itself, and in doing so created a relatively low-emission city.

While compelling, Mr. Owen’s arguments in favour of hybrid density are not too different than those found in the City of Vancouver’s Eco-density Charter or one of the many academic manifestos on the sustainable city found on any ecologically-aware urbanist’s bookshelf.  And while the arguments he makes are watertight in themselves, other utopian ‘sustainability‘ issues such as increasing ratios of social and economic equity, access to healthy food, or education and housing for the poor are not directly addressed.

It is clear that the book does not intend to be a prescriptive manifesto on the future-city; it simply describes the problem [sprawl and consequently an excessive reliance on fossil fuels] and offers Manhattan as the alternative.

So let’s all move to Manhattan?

‘No way’, he says.  This simply ‘shuffles the pieces’.

Selling the suburban home and moving to the city does not stop the suburban lifestyle, it only de-guilts the former suburbanite.

[Look for Heroin and Prostitutes, part two of this series]

PARKing-day, San Fransisco 2005

Six weeks from now, greenspace will resurface the city streets across the world.  September 17th is PARK(ing) day, the moment when both socially concerned and more simple fun-seeking citizens will unroll sod and set up benches in metered parking spots.

Originating in San Fransisco in 2005, PARK(ing) day was initiated to draw municipal and media attention to the lack of green space in a particularly gritty part of the urban core.  It lasted just two hours, the maximum amount of time cars are legally allowed to occupy a parking meter.  A single photo was taken, circulated online, and five years later the movement has spread across the continent.

PARK(ing) day in five sentences:

• choose a nice bit of street that has a parking meter
• feed the meter up to the allowable maximum time (generally 2hrs in Vancouver)
• unroll your sod, put up your tent, fill-up your wading pool, fire up the bbq, hang your hammock, do your greenspace thing
• be prepared to explain your presence to passers-by and by-law enforcement officers
• when your meter expires, calmly and carefully remove your chattels, sweep the curb and move on with your day

The idea of feeding a meter, legally occupying a space typically reserved for the automobile, and having a little greenspace goodtimes is captivating.  If on average, concrete and pavement occupy fully half the area of most urban cores, why not playfully suggest a little change to this ratio?

Originally PARK(ing) day was a political statement.  Personally, I think the City of Vancouver is doing a pretty good job of promoting mixed-use streets in the pursuit of the woonerf ideal, so I’m not sure that a Gumboot PARK(ing) need be politically active.  However, it can be fun.

A lunch bench with a lush little patch of grass at the corner of Granville and Robson (comes with free copies of the Daily Gumboot)?

A wading pool filled with gumboot-clad bathers at Main and Hastings?

How about a micro-soccer tournament for the Portland FC?  Two minutes in a fenced-off parking spot, the ball cannot leave the ground and the highest score wins?  Passer-bys can enter, ‘feed the meter’ by donating a little change.

So, my dear Gumbooteers, where would you park yourself?  And what would your intervention be? Does your city have space that needs a little PARK(ing)? And most importantly — what are we doing on September 17th?

PS — Perhaps it is time to hook-up with the Vancouver Public Space Network?

PARK(ing) day can be fun

PARK(ing) day can be wet and fun

PARK(ing) day can be wierd and cow-filled

At the micro-level, the traditional weight-lifting muscle-douche is a literal powerhouse of testorone; at the macro-level political power can cause extreme community-related douchebaggery.  The muscle-douche is foiled by the anti-douche (thank you Mr Slooth).  How can a community react to political douchebaggery?

Example For Discussion_ONE: the erection of a new Vancouver Art Gallery (VAG) + the douchebaggery-actions of the Vancouver Art Gallery Board of Directors.

Firstly, I want to make clear it that this article is not a discussion of the VAG relocation and should not be interpreted as such (although this should be discussed soon).  Rather, this topic is an example of how douchey too much money or power in politics can be.

Moving the gallery has been on the agenda of the Gallery for many years.  Legitimate studies have been carried out, and conclusions have been drawn.  And then the douchbaggery starts:

1. On April 28th, 2010 at the Fairmont Empress, the Vancouver Board of Trade hosts a ‘panel discussion’ on a new gallery.  Present at the ‘debate’:  representatives of the VAG Board of Directors Michael Audain + David Alsenstat // VAG director Kathleen Bartels // moderated by CTV news anchor Coleen Christie.  They promote the relocation of the Gallery to the site of the former bus depot/Larwill Park at W Georgia St and Cambie, 150 Dunsmuir St.  This site would be donated by the City of Vancouver (estimated value of site, $60 million).
2. The VAG then pays a (rumoured) $80K for a double-wide, centre page spread in the May 13-20 issue of the Georgia Straight in which the move is presented as a done deal.
3. Pissed off, an actual public debate is then organized by UBC, SFU and the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada at Robson Square.  It is moderated by SFU’s Gordon Price and invited speakers are: Artist Ian Wallace // VAG BOD Michael Audain // Architect Joost Bakker // City Councillor Heather Deal // Vancouver Public Space Network’s Director Andrew Pask // moderated by SFU Professor Gordan Price.

At this event, a price tag of $350 million is mentioned for the new building.   $50 million from the province, $40 million in private pledges and the rest….TBD (most likely from the City, province or feds)

Did they think that an arrogant ‘it has all been decided’, douchebag attitude would endear the project to the media, City of Vancouver and interested citizenry?  $80K is more than most Vancouverites dream of earning in a year, let alone the prospect of spending another few hundred million dollars of taxes on yet another grandiose civic project (have we even cleared the olympic debt?).   How can they think ‘Panel discussions’ that are limited to the business elite increase the chances of gaining public support for a new publicly-funded gallery?  The douchebag at the club who says “like my muscles, want to come home with me?” has a better chance!!

Example For Discussion_TWO: the HST and the provincial budget deficit fiasco

Again, I want to make it clear that this article is not a critical discussion of the HST/budget deficit fiasco and should not be interpreted as such.

At the provincial level, another example of political douchebaggery:

1. Pre-election budget figures indicated a $495 million provincial budget deficit as likely.
2. Post-election budget deficit figures show a $2.8 billion provincial budget deficit.  Evidence suggests this second, larger figure was known prior to the election campaign.
3. HST harmonization talks begin a mere three days after the BC liberal’s May 12th election win, after not mentioning it in any campaign material.  A bill making the transition official is then speedily passed.  Included in the HST harmonization are huge, upfront transfer payments from the Federal authorities.
4. A massive, nearly unprecedented public outcry at all of this causes a former politician to head up a (successful-so-far) anti-HST petition.

Political douchebaggery at its best.  No public or industry consultation for a new tax?  Let’s do it, we have power (a majority in the legislature) and a massive public relations disaster of a budget.  The good citizens of BC will not care.

Let us be clear that these examples are process-related political douchebaggery, and that the individuals involved may or may not be douchebags. For discussion:

1. Can we define political decisions that do not account for the public as ‘political douchebaggery’?
2. Is political douchebaggery a direct consequence of too much power?
3. Or do hard political decisions necessitate a douchebag attitude (even though we hate douchebags, we respect their dedication to the gym/hipsterism/whatever the current douchebag trend is)?
4. Can you think of any douchebag political decisions that have been effectively anti-douched?  How can one fight political douchebaggery?
5. Or is political douchebaggery simply bad advice from your communications consultant?