Fundamental Role of Park Board

In all cities, there is an inherent tension between the need to develop land and the need to provide parks and recreational services. 

To address that tension, our ancestors set up an independent elected Park Board whose sole focus is to provide, preserve and advocate for parks and recreation services, thereby providing a safeguard against unrestricted development. The elected Park Board has been performing that role for 136 years. 

The purpose of the Park Board is not to prevent development but rather to ensure that the development is done wisely – that it is done in a manner that promotes healthy liveable cities. 

There are two aspects to the role of the Park Board. It is not only to provide and preserve green spaces and recreational services but it is also to ensure as much as possible, that these spaces are accessible to people – both physically and financially.

Overall Organizational Structure

Although the City owns all the park land (regardless of whether the parkland is permanent, temporary or other), the Park Board has possession, control and jurisdiction over all of this land. This division of power gives the Park Board a significant voice in how our city develops.  

Carrying out this role includes planning and developing both short and long term projects; preserving and advocating for the preservation of green spaces; considering climate change and what steps need to be taken to address and mitigate its effects; and ensuring that the parks and the recreational services are physically and financially accessible to the public.

For example, it took 60 years to acquire all the land that is now the park space in English Bay. Acquiring the land for the Seawall (the longest public access coast in North America) also took years. Unique recreation opportunities, like skate parks and seniors’ centres have been delivered in Vancouver’s unique and vibrant neighbourhoods.

 The VanPlay:https://vancouver.ca/parks-recreation-culture/63472.aspx is a good example of the type of study that the Park Board will engage in to determine the present situation and the way forward. Public consultation plays a significant role in this study. 

Parks and Recreational Facilities

The Park Board currently looks after 250 public parks and beaches, the Van Dusen Botanical Garden, Bloedel Conservatory and a large public recreation system including: 24 Community Centres, pools, rinks, fitness centres, 3 public golf courses, street trees, sports fields, marinas and playgrounds.

Public parks are divided into three categories – those designated as “permanent” parks, those designated as “temporary” parks and “other lands that are in the care, custody and management of the Park Board” but that do not have a “park“ designation.  Approximately 40% of these public parks are temporary. ( Appendix A in this link sets out which parks are Permanent and which are Temporary.)   https://search.app/B1AwPzHYPuSjX9C39 )

All of these lands can, theoretically, be sold by the City and developed. Presently, the Park Board provides safeguards against such action. 

“Permanent” Parks

Although the designation as a “permanent” park can be revoked, such a revocation presently requires the support of a 2/3 majority of the Park Board.

If the Park Board is abolished, that safeguard is gone. Mayor Sim has proposed that this process be changed to allow a “permanent” park designation to be revoked by “a unanimous vote of all council members, along with a provision for a referendum.” 

This provides little, if any, protection for “permanent” parks. 

A unanimous vote of all council does not require that all 11 City Council Members (City Councillors and the Mayor) have to be unanimous. Rather, it only means that the City Council members who are present when the vote is taken, have to be unanimous. 

Further, City Council Members have an obvious conflict of interest as they are dealing both with the need to develop land on the one hand and the need to provide and preserve green spaces and recreational services, on the other. 

And what does Mayor Sim’s proposal for a “referendum” mean in this context? Assuming that it means that there is to be a referendum each time that a revocation of a “permanent” park designation is proposed, the public consultation and debate will be extremely time consuming and onerous. Where will the informed counter-arguments come from? Only one side (the City side) will be fully informed. Also will the result of the referendum be binding on City Council or just a factor to be considered? 

“Temporary” Parks and “Other Lands in the Care, Custody and Management of the Park Board”

Presently, “temporary” park designation can be revoked with a 2/3 majority of City Council. The “other lands in the care, custody and management of the Park Board” do not even require that. Although these lands do not have the same degree of protection as “permanent” parks, the Park Board nevertheless provides some protection. It has knowledge of what is going on with these properties and thus is aware of proposed designation revocations, sales and/or developments. It can inform the public and advocate for the retention of these lands as parks if that is appropriate. The Park Commissioners are elected officials, not staff.  These are powerful tools.

All of these protections will be lost if the Park Board is abolished. 

Finances

The City is in control of the Park Board’s budget. All expenditures made by the Park Board must be approved by the City. The Park Board submits a budget annually and a capital plan every four years. Underfunding the Park Board is the City’s responsibility. 

Maintenance of Parks, Recreational Facilities and Their Infrastructure.  

In understanding what the Park Board does, it is also important to know what the Park Board has not been able to do and the consequences. 

About 15 years ago, as a cost saving measure the City took over responsibility for the maintenance of recreational facilities such as community centres, rinks and pools, and their infrastructure. Prior to this change, the Park Board had developed a specialized maintenance staff to do this work. The City merged this specialized staff with the City’s general maintenance department called Real Estate and Facilities Management (REFM).

The centralization of these services has not worked. There has been a steady deterioration in the recreational facilities and their infrastructure – they have not been properly maintained. They are in poor shape. 

The maintenance of the parks and gardens has remained with the Park Board. These have been maintained despite reduced budget allocations from the City.

The Park Board is composed of 7 Park Board Commissioners. Presently those Commissioners are Chair Brennan Bastyovansky, Vice Chair Scott Jensen, Laura Christensen, Tom Digby, Angela Haer, Marie Claire Howard, and Jas Virdi.  

How has the Park Board changed since the abolition announcement? 

When these Park Commissioners were elected in October 2022, all but Tom Digby (who is a member of the Green Party) were members of the ABC Party – Mayor Sim’s Party.

The Park Board Commissioners were advised of Mayor Sim’s intention to abolish the Park Board on December 5th – the day before it was publically announced.

Very soon after that, three of the Park Board Commissioners – Bastyovansky, Jensen, and Christensen – resigned from the ABC party and now sit as Independents. They did this because the promise of the ABC Party and Mayor Sim during the election was to support an independent elected Park Board. 

The members of the ABC Party are now a minority on the Park Board. 

Overview of Process

Under the Vancouver Charter (the statute that sets out how Vancouver is to be governed), the City is required to have a seven person “elected” Park Board. 

To abolish that requirement, the Mayor and Council must pass a motion requesting the Provincial Government to pass legislation repealing requirement. If the Premier decides to proceed with that request, the necessary legislation is presented to the Legislature and all of MLAs vote on it, deciding whether the Park Board will be abolished or not. 

The City has made the request and the Premier has indicated that he will proceed with it but not until after the Provincial election on October 19, 2024. In other words, it is not finished yet. 

What has happened so far?

On December 5, 2023, Mayor Sim met with all of the Park Commissioners and, for the first time, advised them of his intention to abolish the Park Board and roll its responsibilities into a City department under the direct control of City Council. 

The next day, Mayor Sim notified the public of this decision. (There had been no public consultation before making this decision to abolish the Park Board.)

In response to this decision, three of the 6 ABC Park Board Commissioners resigned from the ABC party and are now sitting as independents. They did this because when they and Mayor Sim were elected, the position of ABC Party and the position that they ran on was that the ABC Party supported an independent elected Park Board.

A week later on December 13, 2023, City Council passed the motion requesting that Vancouver Charter be amended to repeal the requirement that Vancouver have an elected Park Board.  It was passed by a vote of 8 to 3. (The 8 who voted for it were Mayor Sim and the 7 ABC Council members. The 3 who voted against it were Christine Boyle of One City; Adriane Carr of the Green Party, and Pete Fry of the Green Party.)

Although people were allowed to speak to City Council about their concerns with the Motion before it was passed, it was not a meaningful public consultation. People were limited to 3 minutes and no one (neither the councillors nor the speakers) could ask questions.  

City Councillor Adriane Carr presented a motion seeking to have a binding public referendum on the issue of the abolition of the Park Board before any further steps were taken. That motion was defeated.

After City Council passed the Motion, the request to abolish the Park Board was forwarded to Premier Eby. 

Premier Eby refused to proceed further until Mayor Sim ascertained whether 3 First Nations with territories in Vancouver (namely, the Musqueam Indian Band, the Squamish Nation and the Tsleil- Waututh Nation) supported the Motion.

At the beginning of March, these 3 First Nations wrote to the Provincial Government and Mayor Sim advising that they supported the Motion. They also wished to secure a commitment to modernize the Vancouver Charter and to make it consistent with the United Nations Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the requirements of the Declaration of Indigenous Peoples Act. 

After this response from these 3 First Nations, Premier Eby announced that he was committed to passing legislation as requested in Mayor Sim’s Motion. However, he would not do that until after the Provincial Election in October 2024.

Further, he required that the City provide a transition plan that included consultation with First Nations. 

To date, the Premier has not announced any plans for public consultation with the Vancouver electorate. 

What are the possible steps left to take?

There are two possible steps that the Premier (whomever that is after the fall election) might take – namely: 

1. the Premier decides to proceed with the Motion to abolish the Park Board. The necessary legislation would be prepared and it would be voted on by all of the MLAs. To abolish the Park Board, it would have to receive the support of the majority of them. Depending on the make-up of the Legislature it might be defeated but that is unlikely. The party in power would be sure it had the votes before it presented it. Members usually vote along party lines. It is very unusual for a member of the legislature to depart from that.

It is probable that the proposed legislation would pass and that the Park Board would be abolished.

OR

1. the Premier decides not to proceed with the Motion to abolish the Park Board unless requested to do so by the voters of Vancouver in a municipal election. If the Provincial Government does not receive that request from the Vancouver electorate, the Motion to abolish the Park Board would not proceed. The elected Vancouver Park Board would  remain in place.

The seven Park Board Commissioners were elected by tens of thousands of Vancouver voters during the municipal election in October, 2022. We believe it is the Vancouver voters who must decide on the fate of the elected Park Board, not 8 City Councillors. If Mayor Sim wants to abolish the elected Board, he can campaign to be Mayor at the next civic election in October, 2026, clearly stating his intention to abolish the Board and ask for the support of Vancouver voters.

Under the Vancouver Charter (the statute that sets out how Vancouver is to be governed), the City is required to have a seven person “elected” Park Board. 

To abolish that requirement, the Mayor and Council must pass a motion requesting the Provincial Government to pass legislation repealing requirement. If the Premier decides to proceed with that request, the necessary legislation is presented to the Legislature and all of MLAs vote on it, deciding whether the Park Board will be abolished or not. 

The City has made the request and the Premier has indicated that he will proceed with it but not until after the Provincial election on October 19, 2024. In other words, it is not finished yet. 

The process being used to abolish the Park Board is undemocratic.

For the last 136 years, the people of Vancouver have had the right to elect their Park Board. Through the election of these Park Commissioners, the people of Vancouver have had a direct say in the type of city that they want to live in. 

The Mayor wants to take away this right from the people of Vancouver. He thinks he and seven City Councillors have the right to abolish the Park Board that was elected by tens of thousands of Vancouver voters in October, 2022. We say their effort is fundamentally undemocratic and it is being done:    

• without any public consultation

There has been no public consultation on the issue of whether the Park Board should be abolished. The Park Commissioners were not consulted. Rather they were advised on December 5th 2023 by Mayor Sim that he would be making an announcement the next day that he was going to abolish the Park Board. On December 6th Mayor Sim made that announcement.

A week later on December 13th, 2023, Mayor Sim presented the Motion to Council requesting that the Provincial government abolish the Park Board. Although many people came to speak against it, this was hardly a public consultation as they were only allowed to speak for 3 minutes and neither they nor the Council members were permitted to ask any questions.

City Councillor Adriane Carr presented a motion to City Council that there be a public referendum on the issue of whether the Park Board be abolished. That motion was defeated by Mayor Sim and City Council, 8 votes to 3.

To date, although Premier Eby has asked that Mayor Sim consult with the 3 First Nations owning large tracts of land in Vancouver regarding the abolition of the Park Board, Premier Eby has not requested that there be any consultation with the Vancouver public in general.  

• without Mayor Sim having a mandate to abolish the Park Board

When he was elected in 2022, Mayor Sim ran on the basis that if elected his administration “would strengthen and support an independent elected Park Board.” His mandate was to retain the elected Park Board. 

Mayor Sim had stated on earlier occasions (for example when he ran for mayor in 2018) that he would abolish the Park Board so his reassurances in the 2022 election that this was no longer his position were very important. 

After Mayor Sim announced that he was going to abolish the Park Board, three Park Board Commissioners resigned from the ABC party (Mayor Sim’s party) and are now sitting as independents. They did this because he had assured them that he would not abolish the Park Board and they, in turn, had assured the people that voted for them, and for him, that he would not do it. 

• without any substantive reasons 

Mayor Sim has given general statements such as that the problems with the Park Board are “unfixable”; that the Park Board is outdated; and that the governance needs to be changed but he has not provided any substantive reasons to support these general statements. 

To abolish an “elected board” without public consultation; without a mandate to do that; and without any substantive reasons for taking such a step is undemocratic. 

In this case, the situation is made even worse because it is the Mayor and City Council, (the very body that the Park Board is intended to hold in check) that is orchestrating its (the Park Board’s) abolition.

If there was ever a situation in which the safeguards of democracy should be maintained, this is it. 

Yes, there is still time to restore a democratic process   

The Provincial Government can say “No”!

Whomever is elected as our next Premier can say “No, the government will not proceed with the request of Mayor Sim to abolish the Vancouver Park Board unless requested to do so by the voters of Vancouver in a municipal election”.

The voters of Vancouver elected the Park Board during the municipal election; it is the voters of Vancouver who should decide if the elected Board should be abolished, not the Mayor and seven Councillors.

The upcoming October 19th provincial election provides an opportunity to put this important issue to the prospective MLA candidates. What is their position on the City’s efforts to abolish the elected Park Board? The citizens of Vancouver who elected the Park Board want to know.

The most probable reason why Mayor Sim wants to abolish the Park Board is because he wants to centralize the power over the development of city land (including park land) so that it is fully controlled by City Council. He does not want to have to deal with the independent elected Park Board and its role in insisting that the provision and maintenance of green spaces and recreational services be included in the development. 

Mayor Sim has not provided any substantive reasons for why he wants to abolish the Park Board. Rather, he made general statements such as that the problems with the Park Board are “unfixable”; that the Park Board is “outdated”; that the governance needs to be changed but he has not provided any basis for these contentions. 

From the outset, his only plan for the Park Board has been the centralization of power – to “roll it [ the Park Board] into regular city operations” under “the direct control of City Council”. 

Though Mayor Sim contends that this centralization will be more efficient and effective and will be money saving, he has not provided any specifics supporting these contentions. 

To the contrary, there is evidence to show that centralization doesn’t work. Some years ago, the City centralized the Park Board maintenance services for the community centres, recreational facilities such as pools and rinks, and infrastructure with the City’s maintenance services into a department called Real Estate and Facilities Management (REFM). Since then, there has been a steady deterioration in the maintenance of these facilities and infrastructure. The costs to address this deferred maintenance runs into the millions of dollars. 

Given that there are no substantive reasons for abolishing the Park Board and given that the centralization of services has not been effective, efficient or money saving in the past and that there is no evidence to show that that is going to change, the only explanation remaining for abolishing it is to provide the City with unrestricted access to develop. There will no longer be an independent elected Park Board pushing it to include the provision and maintenance of green spaces and recreational services as it develops. It is exactly the situation that our ancestors were trying to prevent.

No, it is unfair.

When Mayor Sim announced that he was going to abolish the Park Board, he said it was because it was “unfixable” and “no amount of tweaking would fix it”. He did not elaborate. 

However, in the Motion requesting that the Park Board be abolished, the grounds set out are “the poor state of the parks, recreation services, and infrastructure” and “two excerpts from the November 2023 Report of the Vancouver Auditor General”. Given that these are the grounds of the Motion, these must be the “unfixable” problems. 

None of these matters are unfixable and one of them has nothing to do with the Park Board. 

The poor state of the parks, recreational facilities and their infrastructure:

The Park Board has nothing to do with the maintenance of the recreational facilities (e.g.community centres, pools, rinks) and their infrastructure. Rather, as a cost saving measure the City assumed sole responsibility for these maintenance services approximately 15 years ago. It merged the Park Board’s specialized facility maintenance staff into the City’s general maintenance department. Since then, these facilities have steadily deteriorated. They have not been maintained adequately.

Rather than demonstrating that the Park Board should be abolished, the present state of these facilities and their infrastructure supports its retention. This problem is not attributable to the Park Board. But it is fixable by them. These maintenance tasks should be transferred back to it. Otherwise, they will continue to deteriorate as more and more responsibilities are placed on the City’s already over-extended staff.   

As far as the parks are concerned, their maintenance and the maintenance of the gardens has remained the responsibility of the Park Board. They are not in a poor state, despite reduced budget allocations from the City. 

The two excerpts from the Vancouver Auditor General’s Report:

To put this in context, in January 2023, the Park Board unanimously invited the Vancouver Auditor General to do an audit. (Upon request, the Vancouver Auditor General will do an independent examination of the financial management practices being used and, if they are not the best practices, he will make recommendations as to how they can be improved.)

The focus of the audit done on the Park Board was specific – namely, to determine whether the Park Board “operated an effective framework to achieve its revenue generating objectives for its assets and services that generate income.”  The Auditor General found that the Park Board’s framework was not effective. (This finding was one of the grounds cited by Mayor Sim, supposedly as an “unfixable” situation.) 

However, in the Report after making this finding the Auditor General made 5 recommendations as to how it might be remedied. In other words, the problem could be fixed and is being fixed. 

Prior to the release of the Report, the Park Board had a chance to review it. They immediately developed an Action Plan as to how and when they would implement each of the recommendations. (Most are in place or will be in place by the end of 2024.) Their Action Plan was included as Appendix A of the Report. 

The other excerpt included by Mayor Sim as an unfixable situation was a further recommendation of the Auditor General. To put this in context, the Park Board cannot make any expenditures without the approval of the City. 

Given this situation, the Auditor General recommended that with respect to future projects that will require funding from the City, the Park Board should proactively engage with City Council as they develop these projects to ensure that those projects will have the financial support of City Council when they are presented to them for funding. The Park Board is implementing this recommendation. There is nothing unfixable about this situation.

No, it is not.

The Park Board is not responsible for the Looper moth infestation that has returned multiple times over several decades.

Modern forest practices no longer allow harmful pesticides to be applied. The impacts of climate change, including a 4 year drought in Stanley Park have exacerbated the problem.

No, they won’t.

Although the City owns all the park land, the Park Board provides safeguards to protect the public from the City from developing and/or selling at will. If the Park Board is abolished, those safeguards will be gone.

The public parks are divided into three categories – those designated as
“permanent” parks, those designated as “temporary” parks and other lands that are in the care, custody and management of the Park Board” but that do not have a “park“ designation. Approximately 40% of these public parks are temporary. ( Appendix A in this link sets out which parks are Permanent and which are Temporary.)

 “Permanent” Parks

Although the designation as a “permanent” park can be revoked, such a revocation presently requires the support of a 2/3 majority of the Park Board.

If the Park Board is abolished, that safeguard is gone. Mayor Sim has
proposed that this process be changed to allow a “permanent” park designation to be revoked by “a unanimous vote of all council
members, along with a provision for a referendum.”

This provides little, if any, protection for “permanent” parks. A unanimous vote of all council does not require that all 11 City Council Members (City Councillors and the Mayor) have to be unanimous. It means that the City Council members who are present when the vote is taken, have to be unanimous.

Further, City Council Members have an obvious conflict of interest as they are dealing both with the need to develop land on the one hand and the need to provide and preserve green spaces and recreational
services, on the other.

And what does Mayor Sim’s proposal for a “referendum” mean in this context? Assuming that it means that there is to be a referendum each time that a revocation of a “permanent” park designation is proposed, the public consultation and debate will be less that it would have been had we still had an elected Park Board. Where will the informed counter-arguments come from? Only one side (the City side) will be fully informed. Also, will the result of the referendum be binding on City Council or just a factor to be considered?

“Temporary” Parks and “Other Lands in the Care, Custody and Management of the Park Board”

Presently, “temporary” park designation can be revoked with a 2/3
majority of City Council. The “other lands in the care, custody and
management of the Park Board” do not even require that. Although
these lands do not have the same degree of protection as
“permanent” parks, the Park Board nevertheless provides some
protection. It has knowledge of what is going on with these properties
and thus is aware of proposed designation revocations, sales and/or
developments. It can inform the public and advocate for the retention
of these lands as parks if that is appropriate. They are speaking as
elected officials, not as staff. These are powerful tools.
All of these protections will be lost if the Park Board is abolished.

There is no “replacement” plan for the Park Board.

The plan is that the Park Board will be absorbed into the existing City departments. It is to “roll it [the Park Board] into regular city operations”.   under “the direct control of City Council”.  (Mayor Sim has appointed a Transition Team to facilitate this centralization of services.)

There has been a trial run of sorts on the centralization of Park Board services with City services. It was a failure.

Approximately, 15 years ago, as a cost saving measure the City took over responsibility for the maintenance of the Park Board buildings and infrastructure such as community centres, pools, rinks, and other building structures into a department called Real Estate and Facilities Management (REFM).

Since that centralization of services, recreational facilities and the infrastructure have steadily deteriorated from a lack of attention.

Although Mayor Sim contends that the integration of the Park Board with the City will be more efficient and effective and will save millions of dollars, he has not provided the facts on which he bases these contentions. 

The REFM centralization has been neither effective nor efficient.  It certainly has not been cost saving. 

To increase efficiency and effectiveness of Park Board services, the Park Board should be retained, not abolished, and the responsibility for the maintenance of its recreational facilities and infrastructure should be returned to it.

An “elected” Park Board is very rare. There are only three in the whole of North America – Vancouver, Cultus Lake and Minneapolis. Vancouver has had one for 136 years. 

Our ancestors recognized that in all cities there is an inherent tension between the need to develop land and the need to provide green spaces and recreational services for its citizens.

It is important to have an independent Park Board accountable to the voters whose sole focus is to provide, preserve and advocate for parks and recreational services, thereby providing a safeguard against development without restriction. 

The purpose of the Park Board is not to prevent development but rather it is to ensure that the development is done in a manner that promotes healthy liveable cities – that promotes wise development. 

Requiring that the Park Board be elected has 4 significant benefits: 

1. It is independent of City Council. It is accountable solely to the electorate. It can make decisions on the evidence, community input, and long-term vision rather than short term expediency. It can do independent research and studies and devise independent projects. It can advocate for or against policies of the City.

2. Its sole mandate or purpose is to focus on our green spaces and recreational areas, facilities and services – specifically, to preserve, provide and advocate for parks and recreational services to benefit all people, communities and the environment. They can devote all of their time to these important matters that make all the difference in the quality of the place in which we live.

   City councillors, on the other hand, have a much broader mandate. They are managing all aspects of City operations and development beyond parks and recreation. They barely have time to deal with their business now. It’s doubtful that they will prioritize parks and recreation ahead of other important business.

   In addition, there is an inherent conflict of interest between the need to develop land on the one hand, and the and the need to provide and preserve green spaces and recreational services, on the other. 

3. It provides the electorate with a direct say in the type of city that they want to live in.
   
   Because the Park Commissioners only have one mandate, the electorate can choose which Park Commissioners best reflect their view on how these green spaces and services are managed and developed. Only in cities with “elected” Park Boards does the electorate have that opportunity.

   In addition, the Park Board offers regular, open easy access for public debate at its meetings. 

4. It provides protection for the parks and recreational services.

   Through its capacity to prevent the revocation of a “permanent” park designation and through its knowledge of what is going on with “temporary” parks and “other lands in the care, custody and management of the Park Board” and its ability to advocate, the Park Board is able to provide a high degree of protection for the preservation of our parks and these lands.

Are those benefits still relevant today?

Yes, they are relevant today.

Given that Vancouver is experiencing a severe housing shortage and there is tremendous pressure on City Council to develop; and that Vancouver has limited land space and must build up (which, in turn, results in fewer and fewer people having individual green spaces – no back yards), if there ever was a need for an independent elected Park Board it is now.  

As Vancouver is developed, it needs to be done wisely; it needs to develop with parks and recreational services; it needs to develop as a healthy liveable city; it needs an independent elected Park Board.   

cfscA2 (1)

Click the link to open the pdf of his Motion to dissolve the Vancouver Park Board.