The last mayoral debate

Last night Gregor Robertson and Peter Ladner squared off in the last mayoral election before Saturday's civic election. With the CBC's Rick Kluff moderating and Stephen Quinn and Frances Bula asking the questions, our two hopefuls took the gloves off and got dirty.

The debate was separated into three broad themes: Housing, crime and transportation. Unfortunately the topics were overshadowed somewhat by the $100-million loan fiasco, and Peter was obviously frustrated by the spotlight on it, but it is something that Vancouverites are talking about. He opened the can in his opening address, so fair game. Is Gregor "playing politics", as Peter claims? Um, he's a politician, that's what they do. Running city hall is politics. Loaning $100-million to a developer while in an in-camera meeting? Pretty sure that's politics.

The candidates dutifully plowed through some generic questions about homelessness, bike lanes and policing. Judging by crowd response (but how can you?), Gregor won this one with some clear statements of intent. Both candidates let the accusations fly: Peter challenging Gregor on his provincial voting record and Gregor attacking Peter's lack of action over the past three years.

Project Civil City (how Orwellian is that?) and the Ambassadors program were contentious issues, ones that clearly separate the two candidates (Peter for, Gregor against, in case you were wondering). More than a few times both men's answers were to lobby higher levels of government, a difficult political position for the candidates, but one that illustrates well the lack of power and influence that civic politicians have.

For someone who is running for the top job in Vancouver, Peter Ladner didn't show so much enthusiasm. The loan fiasco is probably taking a toll, but I got the feeling he thinks the city just needs a competent manager, not a bold leader. Given the events of the past few days, I tend to agree with the need for competence, but surely a little vision and leadership are needed if we're to deal with the raft of issues Vancouver is facing.

The strangest question of the night came right at the end, from the CBC's Stephen Quinn. The question was really just a lengthy rambling outline of just how unlikeable Peter is. It made me uncomfortable, to be honest. Peter made a joke about his wife but then strangely engaged with the question, even admitting that his handlers constantly worked on the issue.

A bizarre end to a normal (even predictable) if lively election event.

Nomination campaign donations

The NPA and Vision have just disclosed the amounts that each of their mayoral candidates spent in their nomination battles (thanks, Frances and Irwin).

Peter Ladner raised $158,137 from 193 donors. And according to Frances, "He’s also said a number of times that Gregor’s campaign is reputed to have cost $400,000."

I don't quite understand what was being suggested by Ladner. That Gregor spent too much? That he wasted money convincing thousands of people to choose him as the best candidate to lead Vision in the election? That he had to spend so much to convince people to vote for him? His logic escapes me.

Anyway, Gregor's nomination campaign raised $180,281.50 from 273 donors; nowhere near the $400,000 that Ladner was suggesting.

In the NPA msayoral nomination battle, Ladner beat Sullivan, 1066 votes to 986. Ladner spent $148.35 on each vote. In the Vision mayoral nomination battle, Gregor beat Raymond Louie and Allen De Genova, 3495 to 2244 and 981 respectively. Gregor spent $51.58 on each of his votes. Good value, it seems to me.

Not much of a surprise here: more people donated to Gregor's campaign (273 to 193). The ratio of Ladner to Gregor donors increases as the amount increases: basically, Ladner received fewer but larger donations. The exception is the largest category, $5000+.

Edit: a better graph would have included the amounts that each received from the different donor groupings, but Ladner's disclosure did not include totals from each group.

Gregor supports VCC UPass; City on hook for 100m

Did everyone read the furor over the news that the city is on the hook for another 100 million dollars for the Olympic Athletes Village/condo development? A little more important than a transit fine, no? Lost in the kerfuffle was a mini-campaign announcement:

Gregor Robertson and a host of other Vision candidates were at VCC this afternoon to announce their support for VCC's campaign to get a UPass for their students. A fair-ta-middlin' crowd* took in the short announcement, after which Gregor and council candidate Geoff Meggs visited a few classrooms to present their support directly to students. VCC has been trying for years to get a fair-priced UPass for their students, who still pay the full $73/month for a FareCard while UBC students pay only $23.75/month for their Upasses. Fair? Doesn't seem so.

What can a pro-UPass council do to further VCC students' aim? I'm not sure, actually. I don't quite get how the new Translink Board is formed/structured, and what role the Mayor of Vancouver has in the new formation. Time to do some research.

* It's difficult to get students interested in anything, which might seem counterintuitive, but it's true.

Obama-rama-rama

Well, there you have it, folks. James is 31. What a night: great friends, beer, an energetic crowd, it had everything but strippers.

Also last night, Barack Obama won the US Presidential election. You thought he was America's first black president, didn't you? Think again. In a speech that moved some friends to tears, Obama graciously accepted our (yes, our) belief that the US can be a better place, that it isn't all NASCAR and Joe Six-Pack, and "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job."

Race this, race that. According to an exit poll I saw today, 98% of blacks in Florida voted for Obama. Makes me think back to this great line from Jon Stewart, at his best on March 19th, 2008, after Obama's great speech on race in America: “And so, at 11 o’clock AM on a Tuesday, a prominent politician spoke to Americans about race as though they were adults.” The clip is lost in interwebspace, or I would link to it. Thanks, Comedy Central.

Carbon tax Re-revisited - the $47 EP

Excuse the obscure Metallica reference. And how I forced the subject into the structure of the reference imperfectly (What does EP have to do with the tax?).

Think the BC Liberals' carbon tax is a great environmental plan that is fair and aimed at reducing carbon consumption? Apparently it's also disproportionally aimed at lower-income Canadians, who will end up paying more as the scheme progresses: $47 more than they'll get back on their taxes by the third year of the program. Meanwhile "those in the top income group will end up an average of $311 better off in year three."

As my friend just wrote to me: "Could it be that: Environmental policy - class analysis = poor environmental policy?" Indeed.

And this has just started to bother me: How does a consumptive tax that is refunded on your taxes curb consumption? I thought the point was to increase the cost so that people would use less, but if we all know we're getting the money back on our taxes, why will we consume less?

There is a place for prohibitive consumptive taxes, or consumptive taxes that are used to fix the problems created by the consumption. This one, however, just doesn't make sense.

YVR - a tale of two arrivals

On Friday I went to YVR (Vancouver's Int'l Airport) to pick up a friend returning from abroad. I had picked up the same friend eight months previous at the same place. The arrivals area has changed a bit since last time.

The first picture is from the arrival in February. I walked in and was struck with a sense of deja vu (not that odd, as I had been there before). I realized that it wasn't deja vu but simply familiarity from having seen it recently. Where? The Robert Dziekanski* taser death video. I was standing right where the video had been shot. Eerie, let me tell you.

This time around the room has changed significantly. There is no longer a plate-glass wall between the waiting area and the inner arrival area. Instead there is a large information centre open to both rooms in the arrivals area. Friendly staff eagerly asked if they could help me. Above the info booth there are several tv screens, one of which shows the second image on the right: A welcome sign in English, French and Chinese and a rotating selection of greetings from other countries, one of them Polish. Much more friendly than a taser.

* For those that don't know, Robert Dziekanski was a Polish immigrant that died after being tasered by RCMP who were trying to subdue him after YVR security called for assistance to deal with the distraught (and belligerent) man.

The Book of History

More than a few years ago I purchased a complete set of the Book of History. I fancied myself a history guy, and thought they would be kinda cool to have. Two moves later, and they are still in my possession, all 18 volumes.

In the hopes of ridding myself of these weighty tomes via craigslist, I brought one inside and took some photos. And skimmed the first volume to see what it was about. What an odd set of books. There is zero information about its publication: no date, no company, no copyright. There is a list of authors, though, and tonight I Googled the most prominent, Viscount Bryce.

Turns out the books were written between 1915 and 1921. And they're quite progressive for their time, as you can see: "It is very possible that they are mentally inferior to the whites; but not so inferior as is commonly believed." The black races are potentially not that inferior to white races. Virtually open-minded these men were.

Okay, kidding aside, I wonder just how progressive this thinking was. Relating it to football (like I tend to do on occasion):

It may have been possible to have seen the first black footballer playing for England back in the 1920's with London-born Jack Leslie, a prolific striker for Plymouth Argyle between 1920 & 1935, scoring over 400 goals. Leslie had been informed by his manager Bob Jack that he had been selected to play for England. He later received communication cancelling his call up to the England team stating that they didn't realise he was ‘a man of colour’. Jack Leslie later remarked in 1982 to Brian Woolnough: “They must have forgotten I was a coloured boy.”

Racism was fairly common at the time in England. Even considering the possibility that "the black races" weren't inferior to white folk must have been fairly forward thinking. It's so difficult to judge historical attitudes.

Bartolomé de las Casas is often cited as a person who knew better at the time. He was a Spanish priest who, after witnessing the crazy exploitation of Native Americans by the Spanish, became a staunch defender of the rights of natives. He famously defended their... (have to publish to get around my failing autosave; watch for part II).

I just realized this topic is way too huge. Suffice it to say that de las Casas might not have been the paragon of virtue that he is at times made out to be. I have read that he did not feel as strongly about African slaves as he did Native Americans, though I really do need to back up this rumour with fact if I'm going to continue spreading it.

The Myth of Vancouver's Downtown Density

Capitalized, like it's a title of a Hardy Boys mystery.

After the Pride Parade a friend and I were walking back up through the West End and as we walked past a park on a treed avenue she expressed amazement that we were walking through the densest neighbourhood in North America. I had heard this a few times, and was at first sceptical but accepted it. But it raised two questions for me tonight as I walked around downtown Vancouver: 1) What exactly is the myth of Vancouver's density? and 2) Is it true?

I've just returned from a Google chat with that friend, and she says that the West End (or the downtown peninsula) is the densest neighbourhood in North America. Hmmmm, will check that.

According to Wikipedia: "Vancouver's population density on the downtown peninsula is 121 people per hectare (or 49 people per acre), according to the 2001 census." (from a City of Vancouver info sheet)

Also from Wikipedia: "New York County (which contains Manhattan) had the highest population density with a calculated 104.218 persons per acre." (from the 2000 US census)

So, they myth is busted. According to Wikipedia. Or is it? Old data, right? High growth, right? And there was this odd bit to the City of Vancouver info sheet:

Downtown Local Area population change: +215% (1991 to 2001)

What does "local area" mean in regards to downtown Vancouver? I'll try to find that out.

Meanwhile... Density on the downtown peninsula is actually 63 persons per acre, according to a much newer fact sheet from the city, and the Downtown Local Area pop. change is +55%. Mad growth since 2001. Enough to surpass Manhattan's 104 persons per acre? (more on this below)

I've just found a few more info sheets on the City's website, and they make for interesting reading. According to the 2006 census, the "Downtown Local Area" has 43,415 residents (oddly, another sheet says 43,417) on 375 hectares of land. Sounds like a lot. The West End, at 44,560 residents on 204 hectares, is substantially more dense. Could this be it? With the conversion from hectares to acres (2.47 acres/hectare) we are left with a density of...wait for it....88.43 persons per acre, almost 16 persons/acre short of the US/Canada record.*

Is there any hope?

The downtown pop. growth has been substantial (+55% in the last five years), so is it possible that it has grown enough in two years to surpass Manhattan? Let's explore the possibility: 43,417 (taking the more generous figure) on 926.25 acres (375 hectares) gives us a measly 46.87 persons/acre. There is no way the population of the area has grown by more than 100% in two years.

What about the West End? Maybe it has experienced significant growth as well, and has overcome that 16 p/a gulf. Well, judging by census figures, chances are slim to none (with an emphasis on none). Population growth since 2001 was 5.8% (and was lower from 1996 to 2001), or about 500 people per year. Even with a generous estimate of an extra 1000 people/year, the density would only have reached 92.40 persons/acre, still more than 10 p/a short of Manhattan. And this is all assuming that Manhattan's density has remained constant, something I highly doubt. A glance at US census data shows Manhattan's population grew from 1990 to 2000, and according to Wikipedia it has continued to grow since then, and at a faster rate.

So, the Myth of Vancouver's Downtown Density has been busted. It is not the densest neighbourhood in North America, but it does come close.

* I am not delving into Mexican population statistics right now.

Edit: A Google search and some quick calculations showed the densest area of Mexico City with a density of 70.14 persons/acre.

Prediction results

I'll have some comments on the election later. For now, here are my prediction results:

Riding-------------My prediction-----------------Result
NW-Coq-----------Dawn Black by 1,800----------Black by 1,490
Burnaby-Doug----Bill Siksay by 500--------------Siksay by 798
Burnaby-NW------Peter Julian by 4500----------Julian by 6,994
Van Kingsway-----Wendy Yuan by 2,500------Don Davies by 2,799
Van Quadra-------Joyce Murray by 3,300--------Murray by 4,808
Van Centre--------Hedy Fry by 1,700--------------Fry by 5,214
Van East-----------Libby by 11,500----------------Libby by 15,379

Not a bad record, and decent numbers. I worked the first three, so had a bit more information to work with. I shortened Libby's margin a few days ago, should have left it (at 13,500), and I switched to Fry after a poorly thought-out Byers prediction. I put too much value in Kingsway as a Liberal riding (should have listened to friends in the Davies campaign). But I am quite happy with my Vancouver Quadra call. Some people were calling this one close, putting too much value on the by-election results last year.

Edit

What is the point of all this if the only difference is slightly more NDP and Bloc seats and slightly less Liberal and seats?

Significant aspects of this election:

1) NDP laying claim to the possibility of governing this great land. 20% of the popular vote isn't that far from 28%, where the Liberals sit. It's a far cry from 35-38%, true, but it does signify a change in the tone of the NDP leadership.

2) The Bloc is not a spent force. A while ago it seemed like the Bloc was on the way out. No new ideas. A lack of identity without any real move toward sovereignty, and so on. Harper gifted them this, but the readiness with which voters moved back to the Bloc means they are and will be a meaningful force in federal politics for a while.

3) Stephane Dion on the come-back trail. I'm not sure how much he actually did (good reviews in both debates), and there remains the possibility that he'll be canned after the election is over, but I think he has shown Canadians that he isn't just an acharismatic egghead.

4) Last but not least: The coming-out party (ultimately a disappointment) of the Green party. Did they think they would finally win a seat? Why did Adriane Carr run in Vancouver Centre? We'll have to see what the final numbers are, but I'm pretty sure they'll improve on their vote total of 2006. May did very well in the debates, but until the Greens establish a voter-base and expand their party identity, they will struggle to retain the numbers they poll in the weeks leading up to the final vote.