CANADIAN POLITICS-VANCOUVER:

GRANDVIEW PARK; REDEVELOP OR LEAVE ALONE:

Here's an interesting quandary, or at least it is for libertarian socialists as opposed to vague leftists. Out in Vancouver there is a park called 'Grandview Park' in the East End. There's a conflict in the neighbourhood about the park's future. On the one side are the authors of the following item, Defend Grandview. On the other side are the 'Friends of Grandview Park', allied with the local business improvement association.

What do I find problematic about this--besides the fact that it is doubtful in the extreme whether any infrastructure projects in the park will do anything whatsoever to address the concerns of the 'Friends' ? Such a hope seems rather fanciful to me and one wonders about other motives. Or perhaps the rather disingenuous claim by the Defend Grandview groups that "hard drugs" are "consciously excluded" from the park ? By whom ? How ? Isn't this park located in (ahem) Vancouver ? Seems like a hard claim to swallow.

What I find questionable in all this is the way it is couched in rather simplistic "class warfare" terms. I have no immediate knowledge of the area in question. It's been many years since I was visiting Vancouver, and at the time there were indeed "islands of yuppification" in the area around Commercial Drive. Situated in an ocean of ordinary working class neighbourhoods. I also have no doubt that the process of gentrification has proceeded apace. I do however have very profound doubts about the implied idea that "only the yuppies" are concerned with certain activities that go on in the park. I actually have no doubt that the 'Friends' have broad support amongst the working class population resident in the area.

That's the crux of the matter. I may be wrong about the character of the area, and I stand ready to be corrected. I do not, however, automatically jump to support each and every 'anti-development' initiative are some are prone to do. Neither do I automatically leap in on the side of what was once known as the "lumpenproletariat" when their interests conflict with those of ordinary working class people. I am well aware that for some people such side taking is a reflex action, untroubled by any thought process.

All across the world the process whereby ordinary people try to get more control over their neighbourhoods and hence their lives is marked by campaigns to "clean up" the area in which they live. It may be (probably is) that the residents near the park have legitimate safety concerns. If I am personally inclined to take sides at all I would tend to favour the interests of say working class residents over those of say drug dealers or other criminals who actually have victims.

OK, so I'm uncertain about this one. Here's one side of the story. I'm afraid that I cannot find a website for the 'Friends' to give theirs.

GPGPGPGPGPGPGP
ON THE REDEVELOPMENT OF GRANDVIEW PARK

A group that calls themselves the “Friends of Grandview Park” has called for the park’s redevelopment. They made a presentation to the Vancouver Parks Board under the title “Reclaim, Renovate, and Reinvent.” The proposed renovations are to take place in spring/summer 2010. Without a deeper look, the changes seem like an uncontroversial proposal. The “Friends” want a “new functionality” and to “create a space worthy of acclaim and notoriety.” But a closer inspection of the group’s complaints, goals and supporters reveals their actual vision – not just the gentrification of the park, but ultimately the creation of a neighbourhood only for those who can afford it.

Who are the “Friends of Grandview Park”
and who supports them?

The “Friends” of Grandview Park are a group of homeowners who live around or by Grandview Park, and who originally formed in order to stop the serving of free food to homeless people on Tuesday nights (the Chili Wagon).
The “Friends” of Grandview Park are supported by the Business Improvement Association (BIA), which stated “The BIA supports the renovation to Grandview Park and believes it will contribute to the business development, as well as security and safety in the area.” You might better know the BIA as the organization that pays for the Fusion security guards who patrol Commercial Drive in packs of two or four, harassing buskers, panhandlers and people selling their wares in the park.

The Friends of Grandview Park’s
official complaints:

In the section below we have listed the complaints laid out by the “Friends” of Grandview Park in their presentation to the Parks Board. Following each point is a counter-point or explanation of the implications of their statements, and what we think they really mean.

The Friends of Grandview Park say…

the park is…

1. “Chronically overrun by illegal inhabitants.”

To the “Friends” of Grandview Park there are too many homeless people in the park. This statement calls out for the criminalization of poverty, or at the very least pushing the homeless out of the park. The use of the term “illegal inhabitants” to describe the homeless is doubly absurd due to the fact that Grandview Park is native land; if anyone should technically be named “illegal inhabitants” it should be the city of Vancouver.

2. Used for “drug dealing and hard drugs.”

The “Friends” of Grandview Park assume the mantle of morality police over the park, above anyone who has used the park to purchase, sell or consume any type of drug. In reality, hard drugs are consciously excluded from Grandview, and members of the community – including parents of children who use the park – use the area to sell or purchase soft drugs. Maybe you have a friend who has bought, sold or smoked pot in the park?

3. “The chosen location of illegal protesters.”

In reality, protests in the park are rare. However, what better way for people to use a park than to come together to confront common concerns?

and, that …

4. “The design of the playground encourages loitering of non-families.”

This statement is ridiculous. Parks are for loitering. What are “non-families” and why are they not allowed to use the park?

5. “The unsanctioned use of tennis courts by the bi¬cycle polo club” means that the “… tennis courts (are) no longer available for parents to teach their kids how to ride bikes.”

This – and other parts of their presentation that call for “order” in the park – illustrate the “Friends’” broader goal of assuming total control. Teaching kids how to ride bikes us also an unsanctioned use of the tennis courts. The “Friends” would like to see the park used as they see fit, rather than how others already use it – even when its current use is positive and social.

6. The park has “poor drainage”

It is true that the park has poor drainage, but it is also interesting to point out that the drainage of Victoria Park was targeted in recent renovations with little to no improvement.

Stopping The Redevelopment

The “Friends” want “to bring order, safety and new functionality to the park.” Order in the sense of control over what happens in the park. The illusion of safety through removing homeless people and eliminating petty victimless crime. New functionality through the explicitly stated goal of turning the park into a “destination for shoppers and tourists.”

We want East Vancouver to be a community where you don’t have to be rich to exist, and where we don’t criminalize our neighbours. Because the redevelopment of Grandview Park is a step towards the further elimination of the poorer people from our neighbourhood, we say

NO REDEVELOPMENT
OF GRANDVIEW
PARK!

LOCAL POLITICS-WINNIPEG:

THE DOOR TO PRIVATIZATION:

The issue discussed below may, to be punish, seem like "water under the bridge" now that Winnipeg City Council has voted to create its "arms length utility" that is predestined to enter into private/public partnerships with corporate interests interested in expanding into the municipal utility field. It is, however, useful to bring it up just for the record, and it may be especially useful should any of the municipal politicians who voted for this measure receive any "favours" from interested parties in the future. Here's Maude barlow and Meera Karunananthan on Winnipeg's "privatization by stealth" from the Public Values website.

LPLPLPLPLPLPLP

Municipal privatization: What Winnipeg can learn from elsewhere:
Corporatizing utilities brings risks to public, but rewards private interests.
by Maude Barlow and Meera Karunananthan, for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives – Manitoba
July 21, 2009 — On July 22, the city of Winnipeg will be voting on a proposal to create an arms-length corporate water utility. (already passed-Molly)As far as Mayor Sam Katz and his allies on city council are concerned, the decision on the new corporate utility was made before the public ever had a chance to weigh in.

The city invested $1.25 Million to explore the idea and put $250,000 toward a public relations campaign to promote the creation of an arms-length corporate water utility.

Supporters on city council had committed to the issue even before hearing the concerns of the general public. Many participants in the so-called public consultation have reported that it was designed to promote the proposal rather than record public input.

Yet experience from around the world shows that the model being rushed through is likely to have detrimental impacts on access to water and public control over water services and resources.

The corporatization of Winnipeg's water and waste utility is the first step toward greater privatization. An arms-length corporation would limit the ability of elected representatives to oversee operations and make decisions in the public interest. Experiences in other cities like Edmonton have shown that corporate utilities whose primary function is to make profits can lead to the sale of public assets, a loss of public control and transparency, rate hikes and lower quality services.

It is time to slow things down and examine the serious threats posed by the proposed model.
Mayor Sam Katz sticks to the soundbite that the utility is 100 percent city-owned while downplaying the fact that the city is seeking partnerships with private corporations for water and waste services.

The corporatization of electric and water utilities in Edmonton have proven to pave the way for the sale and privatization of vital services.

There was a blurring of lines when councillors acted as shareholders rather than as protectors of the public interest by hatching a deal to sell off $5 billion of publicly-owned assets behind closed doors. Rather than maintaining the public interest, the mandate of Epcor, the arms-length corporate utility is to increase profits. This has had impacts on communities outside Edmonton as the corporation makes its profits through the privatization of utilities in communities throughout the continent.

Similarly, in Europe, "Municipal Corporate Utilities " were first sold as a compromise between fully public and fully private control of water systems. Big water companies used their public utility assets to raise money to move into poor countries in the global South where they operate on a for-profit basis, charging high rates and denying service to those who cannot pay. Human rights and social justice organizations in the global South argue that some of the worst private water companies operating in their communities are tied to so-called public utilities in Europe and use this status to gain access to water contracts in the South.

The City is also seeking partnerships with corporations for waste-water plant upgrade.

Experience in other parts of Canada and the rest of the world show that these arrangements mean that the public takes all the risk while the private corporations use their contracts to leverage capital accumulation for private investment and expansion.

It is important to note that many of the companies bidding for the Winnipeg contract are big transnationals whose sole motive is profit and growth.

One company, American Water, is the largest investor-owned US water and wastewater utility. The corporation has a history of imposing exorbitant rate hikes on communities where they operate. In Hingham and Hull Massachusetts, the corporation doubled rates over a five-year period claiming the funds were needed to build a new treatment facility. Evidence has shown that the costs of the facility were inflated by American Water to increase profits.

Another company, Black &Veatch, is an American engineering giant which claims to be in the "Top 500 Largest Private Companies in the US.." They have a huge water division and claim that "20 percent of the world's population served by community systems drinks potable water through systems designed, constructed or supported by Black & Veatch".

If the City of Winnipeg chooses an American company, that company will have rights under NAFTA to sue for compensation if a future city council decides to return to a public system or bring about legislation that would restrict its profits.

Also on the list is Veolia Environment - the "environment" arm of the French giant Veolia - which has 272,000 employees, 70,000 of whom work only in water and has annual revenues of US$34 billion, and with Suez, controls almost two-thirds of the global private water services sector. Veolia is very controversial in the global South, where, along with Suez, it has jacked up water rates, broken contracts and cut off water to people who cannot pay.

These big corporations are for-profit, private companies required to find profits for their shareholders and will be forced to raise water rates for this purpose.

Councillor Harry Lazarenko's motion to ensure that privatization is not sought without a referendum does not allay concerns about the loss of public control over water services, hikes in water rates and the global impacts of creating a for-profit utility. The potential harm should be carefully weighed and publicly debated - not rushed through without full public consultation.
Ed. note: on July 22, Winnipeg City Council voted in favour of forming an arm's length corporate utility. See links below for more information.

Maude Barlow is the national chairperson of the Council of Canadians, Senior advisor on water to the President of the UN General Assembly and the author of 16 books including Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming Battle for the Right to Water.
Meera Karunananthan is the national water campaigner at the Council of Canadians
Links and sources

Winnipeg city council votes 10-6 for water utility, by the Council of Canadians, July 23 2009 City council approves new utility, by Bartley Kives, Winnipeg Free Press, July 22 2009 Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

Council of Canadians - Water

CANADIAN ANARCHIST MOVEMENT-TORONTO:

PROTEST AGAINST GENTRIFICATION:

Coming up this Saturday, June 13, join the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) and their allies in protesting the "condofication" of Toronto's Cabbagetown neighbourhood. Here's the notice.

@@@@@@@@@@

Saturday June 13th- WE WON'T BE PUSHED OUT!:‏
WE WON'T BE PUSHED OUT!

Condos in Regent Park go on sale Saturday June 13th-come out & help make the 'gentrification' crowd unwelcome to the neighborhood!

Where:

Parliament & Dundas, South-East Corner (in front of Regent Park Health clinic)

When:

Saturday June 13th - 11:30 AM

Challenging the Lie of the 'Mixed Neighbourhood'

The Cabbagetown area has been a low income community for a hundred years. At the end of the Second World War, a large part of the area was demolished to make way for Regent Park, the largest public housing project in Canada.Today, David Miller and the developers are working to gentrify this area and destroy it as a home for poor people. They have similar plans for other Toronto Housing communities.

The condo development that is being created in place of Regent Park, is being billed as a 'mixed neighbourhood' where low income people will live side by side with middle class condo owners. Yet already, the number of rent geared to income units in this first phase of 'redeveloped' Regent Park is less than was promised and the continuing gentrification of this area will only increase the pressure to push out public housing tenants. In US cities, where similar plans have been put into effect, this has been the experience.

The destruction of Regent Park has been carried out as part of a developer led drive to make profits by pushing the poor out the central part of the City and building upscale housing on the land they take from them. We must defend public housing from this attack. Instead of letting housing projects fall into disrepair, we must demand they be repaired and maintained. In place of an oversupply of housing for higher income families, we need to fight for the creation of social housing for the tens of thousands on the waiting lists. We must defend the communities we live in and stop their being obliterated by developers and the politicians that serve their interests. The Ontario Coalition Against Poverty

(416) 925-6939

COMMUNITY POLITICS/ENVIRONMENT-IRELAND:

FIGHTING SHELL IN ROSSPORT:

Molly heard about this community struggle while visiting Ireland last summer. In brief the people in the area of Rossport in County Mayo, Ireland have been fighting the plans of the Anglo-Dutch international energy company Shell to build a gas pipeline and refinery in their area. The following article is from the Irish Shell to Sea website.

Molly is reprinting this because it points out an essential thing about the way that our present states operate- the so-called "public consultations". Now it is no doubt quite laudatory that the powers that be, whether corporate or government, are these days pretty much obliged to go through the motions of "consulting" local communities before initiating a project. Canada, of course, may be the homeland of this sort of thing. the ultimate government "solution" to any problem here is the dreaded 'Royal Commission', and the RCs sit on top of a massive body of "hearings".

The problem is that these exercises are so framed that their conclusion is almost inevitably that project a to z should go ahead. To my knowledge the only Canadian example of where a project was actually stopped was the Mckenzie valley Pipeline hearings. To say the least the almost 100% success rate whereby projects are given the go-ahead can hardly come about by chance.Even minor changes in the plans already made are quite rare. Molly is old enough to remember this system in its infancy, and the "justification" for it in those days was a lot more honest than it is today when the system has had decades to perfect itself. Safety valve plain and simple. Not that it is always a waste of time to participate in such things, but any participants should be fully aware that such things are a sideshow at best and devote the vast majority of their energies elsewhere.

Yes, various projects of the ruling class can be successfully opposed in our present society. The pessimists are wrong. They can ,however, only be opposed by political pressure from outside of the regular channels set up by governments to deflect opposition. Here's an example from Ireland where people refuse to participate in the environmental equivalent of a kangaroo court.

.........................

Our Gas Our National Interest (O.G.O.N.I.):

'No other country in the world has given such favourable terms as Ireland...' Mike Cunningham, former Statoil director, Ireland.
"Time to impose windfall profits tax on Shell’s Corrib find as Government plans to give away all of the Rockall offshore area" says Colm Rapple - Economist and Journalist ... Read Colm's full article here

Shell To Sea Press Release: Friday 5th December 2008:
Shell to Sea will not attend the Forum for Development in North West Mayo because of its refusal to deal with the manner in which the existing consents for the Corrib Gas Project were given to Shell. This event should not be called a Forum as attendance is by invitation only.

The Ministers have refused to address the substantive issues involved which are:
***Building a refinery within the catchment area of our regional water supply.
***The imposition of Shell's raw gas pipeline upon a non-consenting community
***The continued giveaway of our oil & gas to private companies, at a time of great public need.

Instead Shell to Sea will attend a People's Forum also to be held in Broadhaven Bay at 10am on Friday 5th of December. The People's Forum will be open to the public, to discuss their views on the Corrib Gas Project.

Shell to Sea would wholeheartedly welcome any open forum if it was willing to deal with Corrib Gas Project in its totality. Shell to Sea also object to the pressure various community & development groups in the area have been put under to take part in the Government sponsored event.

Shell to Sea spokesperson Maura Harrington stated "While Minster Eamon Ryan accepted that undoubted mistakes have been made in relation to this project, it seems that he doesn't want these mistakes to be discussed and corrected. This forum is not allowed to address the health concerns of the people of the area, the unsuitability of Bellanaboy as a refinery site or the great giveaway of our gas and oil".

Ms Harrington continued "This media event tries to intrinsically link Shell's Corrib Gas with the proper and sustainable development of the North West Mayo region, not only is no link possible, they are mutually exclusive".

Terence Conway stated "We have been seeking proper dialogue for 8 years now, and the only dialogue the Government have sent our way, is the boot and the baton of An Garda Siochana. The local community has been raising the issue of Shell polluting the local water supply for over 3 years, and yet State authorities are turning a blind eye to all Shell breaches of environmental law."
For verification contact:

Maura Harrington - 087 9591474

Terence Conway - 086 0866264

COMMUNITY POLITICS-GREECE:

MORE CLASHES IN CORFU OVER OPEN WASTE DUMP:

There have been more clashes on the Greek island of Corfu as residents demonstrate over the construction of an open waste dump near their community. Here's the story from the British Libcom site.

..........................

New clashes with riot police in South Corfu over open refuse dump:

New clashes between locals and riot police erupt in the south Corfu town of Lefkimi over the construction of open refuse dump.
In the afternoon of Thursday 20/11/08, the residents of Lefkimi in south Corfu staged yet another demo against the construction of the open refuse dump (XYTA) imposed by Athens in the vicinity of their town. During the sit-in that blocked the way of the bulldozers to the construction site, the residents were attacked by large numbers of riot police forces (MAT) that have been stationed in the area since the beginning of the environmental struggle last year. When the riot police threatened to drive their armoured vehicle over the sit-in, local women stood up against them. The police responded with force and use of tear gas, attacking the women and arresting one. Enraged, the local protesters attacked the riot forces, torching a police van, while trapping two riot policemen, disarming them and stripping them naked in a move of public humiliation. In their call of defiance during the demo that ensued outside the local police station where the arrested woman is being held, the residents of Lefkimi declared: "It is time for a general uprising in the island of Corfu for the first time against actions that are no longer merely a threat to local interests, but to everyone's human rights".

COMMUNITY POLITICS-REGINA:

TENANTS VERSUS LANDLORDS AND THE CITY IN REGINA:

Here's a little item from the Act Up In Saskatchewan website about community politics in Molly's old neighbourhood there, the 'Cathedral Area'. It seems that some things never change.

..........................

Condo conversions proceed - mayor dismisses tenant concerns:

Written by Trish Elliott
Tuesday, 18 November 2008
Landlords tell the truth, while tenants and community associations make unfounded allegations, seems to be the message from a recent City of Regina planning commission decision. The commission voted to approve three condo conversions last night, despite the city staff's recommendation that the applications be denied.

In a presentation to the commission, Paul Dechene and Aaron Murray of the Cathedral Area Community Association outlined renters’ complaints about intimidation and unfair tactics during the conversion application process, and called on the city to follow its own condo conversion rules regarding vacancy rates and due process.

In remarks to the press following the meeting, Mayor Pat Fiacco referred to the complaints as “hearsay" and said it was unfortunate they had been brought forward.

Murray and Dechene said the CACA was not opposed in principle to conversions at first, but became alarmed when tenants began to tell stories of undue pressure from Nicor, the property management company. According to the rules, 75 per cent of tenants must agree to the conversion when city vacancy rates are less than three per cent.

“At a summer meeting at Connaught School between tenants, Nicor and the city, we listened to the testimony of many tenants who expressed deep mistrust of Nicor and who indicated that the hardships they would experience from their buildings being converted was not being satisfactorily remedied,” Murray said.

The community association felt the concerns had been addressed when the city administration, after further investigation, recommended on Nov. 5 that the applications be denied.

“We are surprised, then, to find ourselves at Council faced with a recommendation for acceptance of the conversion applications.”

The CACA also took issue with the landlord’s statement that the slumlike condition of the buildings would only be remedied by condo approval.

“We have a situation where a landlord has come before planning commission and confessed that their properties are dangerously decrepit. In such a situation, for the sake of the tenants still residing in these buildings, shouldn’t the first step be an inspection from Public Heath and City Bylaw Enforcement, not a condo conversion approval?”
Trish Elliott is a CACA board member

CACA PRESENTATION
CATHEDRAL AREAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION PRESENTATION BEFORE REGINA CITY COUNCIL
RE: REPORTS RPC 08-57, RPC 08-60 AND RPC 08-61

The Cathedral Area Community Association is here to urge council to accept the original recommendations of city staff in reports RPC 08 57 through 61 as presented to Planning Commission on November 5, and deny the three condo conversion applications: 2060 Lorne, 2358 Rae and 2125 Lorne. Also, we’d like to note that we are not in favour of approving the applications for the conversions of 2121 and 2141 Rae which have been tabled and will be considered at the Dec 3 Planning Commission meeting.

When the possibility of these condo conversions was brought to our association’s attention, we were somewhat concerned. However, we are not opposed to development in the Cathedral Area, nor are we in principal opposed to apartment blocks being converted to condominium dwellings. We do, however, want to ensure that when such conversions are being considered, the process that developers have to go through is fair both to them and to tenants, and that issues such as the availability of rental accommodation in our area be considered.

After discussions with city staff, we became convinced that the process they were going to enter into with Nicor in this case seemed to address most of our concerns. We opted to wait and see how the situation would develop.

Over the course of the process, we began to worry that all was not well with these conversions. And there seems to be a disconnect between the process that was laid out to us and the result.

Once it was underway, we began to hear complaints that Nicor was not conducting itself professionally and may in fact have been placing undue pressure upon tenants to get them to agree to the conversions. Moreover, at a summer meeting at Connaught school between tenants, Nicor and the city, we listened to the testimony of many tenants who expressed deep mistrust of Nicor and who indicated that the hardship they would experience from their building’s being converted was not being satisfactorily remedied.

We heard how Nicor meddled in the second tenant survey even though they’d been requested by city staff not to. If this is the case, then the survey system appears deeply flawed and open to abuse. This must be rectified or we cannot expect the public to have any faith in the process. The applicant should not have any impact, whatsoever, on the survey process. And we should not reward their interference at the end of the process.

The original, November 5 city staff reports, addressed our concerns. They seemed thorough. Their recommendations to deny the applications based on the problems that arose during the process seemed sound.

We are surprised, then, to find ourselves at Council faced with a recommendation for acceptance of the conversion applications.

Planning commission, we feel has failed to ask some important questions about these applications.

For instance, Nicor claims that many of their tenants are in support of the conversion. Many, however, may or may not meet the city’s policy minimum that 75% of tenants must support such an application. Also, all five staff reports seem to suggest that information coming from Nicor about tenant attitudes has not always been reliable --- this was the reason for the second tenant survey. We would think, then, that a vague suggestion from Nicor that some number of tenants are in their corner would not be sufficient for Planning Commission, and some burden of proof would be shifted onto the applicant.

Also, Nicor has suggested repeatedly that these conversions must go through because these five buildings are “slumlike” and in need of millions of dollars worth of repairs. To our knowledge, no breakdown of this figure has been requested of Nicor. Is this “millions of dollars” the amount necessary to get these buildings up to condo-resale condition? Might a reasonable maintenance investment be less costly? We simply don’t know.

Also, we have a situation where a landlord has come before planning commission and confessed that their properties are dangerously decrepit. In such a situation, for the sake of the tenants still residing in these buildings, shouldn’t the first step be an inspection from Public Heath and City Bylaw Enforcement, not a condo conversion approval?

Again, the CACA is not in principal opposed to condo conversions and we want to see smart, sustainable development in our community.

But, as was to our satisfaction demonstrated in the staff reports, in this case the applicant has not acted up to a level of professionalism that we would think is acceptable. Because of this, 20 other condo conversion applications have been languishing in a queue. We feel that such behaviour should not be rewarded and council should deny these applications. They should be put at the end of the line, and staff should be allowed to proceed to other applications that have been sitting in limbo.

In addition to all of this, we are concerned about the effect that approving these applications will have on the range of housing alternatives available in the Cathedral Area. If we are to have a sustainable rental market in the central zone, we wonder how much closer to a 3% rate we can skirt and what effect taking these 3 buildings off the market will have.

COMMUNITY POLITICS-REGINA:

COMMUNITY RESIDENTS FIGHT TO SAVE SCHOOL BUILDING:

Regina Saskatchewan, Molly's old stomping grounds and one of the more depressing places on Earth. Yes, even more depressing than Winnipeg. There as here as elsewhere the powers that be see fit to "develop the hell" out of old neighbourhoods, and replace useful buildings with white elephants. Here's a story from Act Up in Saskatchewan about one such demolition and what residents are doing to fight another scheme. To say the least city politics back there in Canada's Siberia are just like they are here.

............................
Inner city school demolished:
Written by Trish Elliott
Tuesday, 04 November 2008
Herchmer Community School, once home to a community of more than 200 North Central kids and their families, was brought down with a back-hoe this past weekend. It is the first of several historic inner city schools on the demolition list. Meanwhile, a number of North Central residents and Scott Collegiate alumni are banding together to ensure 85-year-old Scott Collegiate remains standing. Participants in consultations regarding the new Shared Facility that will replace Scott report that the idea of using the existing building as a design centrepiece was never presented as a serious option, despite the surrounding community's desire to keep its heritage buildings in use.
For information and an email link to provide feedback, visit http://www.northcentralsharedfacility.ca/

LATEST CITY MOVE ON THE KELVIN COMMUNITY CLUB:
The other day the City of Winnipeg made a surprise move that may indicate that they intend to break yet another promise and close the Kelvin Community club even before the threatened end of the season. The City gave notice that the Lacrosse club who store their equipment at Kelvin have until tomorrow, Thursday the 15th, to retrieve it. While this may be a random move on the part of the City bureaucracy it would still fit with a consistent pattern of broken promises on the part of the clique presently in power at City Hall. Mayor Sam Katz's "promises" have been detailed previously on this blog (see Jan 20th), and his trumpeting of "promises made:promises kept" on his website sound rather hollow in terms of his previous "commitment" to "no forced closures" of community clubs.





Meanwhile long standing civic activist Nick Ternette has echoed the proposal to have the community club turned over to the community in a letter to today's Winnipeg Sun. He also points out that there are nine other community centres in this city which may face closure in the future. One can bet that none of these will be affluent areas of Winnipeg. One of those in the ward of Katz's best hatchetmen, councillor Steeves, is receiving further support, a matter that has angered Elmwood residents.





Molly has previously advocated on this blog that the idea of turning the community centres into cooperatives (what Ternette calls non-profits) is the best and most sensible thing to do. The simple fact is that the community clubs as they are presently constitute are not "community" at all. They are the property of the City of Winnipeg and whatever clique controls the City essentially owns the clubs. The local residents of an area will support an institution such as a community club to the exact extent that they have real property rights in that institution. The larger the political organization controlling the institution the more diluted such rights become by the real control exercised by the controllers of the organization.





The situation of the Kelvin Community Club and other such clubs in Winnipeg is a microcosm of this dilemma. People will commit to an organization, group or institution very much and sometimes only to the extent that exercise real control over that organization, group or institution. Sometimes this commitment can be inflated by hidden elites, but over the long term "real property rights" count- at least in terms of voluntary commitment. The way that state socialism collapsed in Eastern Europe is a case in point. No matter what the rhetoric, supported by a vast propaganda machine and a secret police apparatus, the reality that this "socialism" really meant that the "socialized property" was the actual property of a bureaucratic ruling class meant that very few people actually believed the lies in their heart of hearts.





Similarly in Winnipeg. Mayor Katz and his development friendly cronies are actually very skilled game players. They either run in wards distant from Winnipeg's poor neighbourhoods that may indeed benefit financially from diversion of City funds to the better off, or, like Katz, they wish to solidify their voting support by bribery of middle neighbourhoods (while giving the lion's share to the affluent) by taking from people who hardly vote for him anyhow. Good gamesmanship !





One wonders if a move to close Kelvin down even earlier than announced would be a move to "kick the bastard while he is down so he can't get up again" ie to close the whole matter before further support can be organized for Kelvin and-especially- before a different vision of how community centres should be run in this town can gain traction. It's a distinct possibility.
Molly

MORE ON THE DOG: THE FATE ON WINNIPEG'S DOWNTOWN BUS TERMINAL:
Molly has previously reported on the downtown Greyhound bus terminal (even though it is also a terminal for other bus lines here in Winnipeg) and her opinion is that the terminal should stay where it is despite the opinion of management that the dog is "the domain of the poor and the weird". While not wanting to dispute this definition, having travelled enough on the Dog in her younger days, Molly wants to question the decisions of a management such as Laidlaw that wishes to embark on new capital projects in the face of declining revenue. In other words, the University educated managers know little about real business- is this a surprise ? First Group PLC has announced an offer of $2.8 billion to acquire Greyhound 's corporate owner Laidlaw International Inc. whose main business is focused on school buses- a "captive market". The actions of Laidlaw International to this date have been anything but "profit maximizing" let alone "service maximizing", perhaps because of the fact that the corporate culture has been oriented towards the monopoly of school buses rather than the competitive market of intercity transit.




The parent company of the Dog, Laidlaw , is now based in Illinois after having gone through a two year bankruptcy reorganization and relocating from Ontario to Illinois in 2003. Apparently they didn't do things right then.




May Molly suggest that the previous failures of the Dog were due to poor management decisions and that the idea that the depot should be relocated from downtown to the airport is BOTH socially detrimental (as I have expressed before on this blog) and a foolish management move from simple economics. The best analogy is Walmart trying to sell upscale items which led to a very obvious decrease in Walmart's revenues. Perhaps the Dog is and should remain the purview of "the poor and the weird", and any attempt to change same will result in a drop in revenue, no matter how many millions of dollars you uselessly spend on a new depot out by the airport. Perhaps this is the difference between Molly who runs her own business in a competitive market and the managers of the Dog who have no idea of real competition and are free to dream up any scheme they want. They will be hired, after all, by other corporations at about the same salary no matter how much they destroy the business they worked for originally.





One more example of where "management" rules as opposed to the "capitalist" owners in Molly's great overview of the world, and one more example of where profitability can be subsumed to other managerial derived goals. One where the interests of the managerial ruling class are opposed to the class interests of poor people and perhaps the interests of the shareholders of the corporation in the end. One may also question the effect of a new terminal on other competing bus lines. The OBVIOUS effect is to reduce competition as the other bus lines serve a rural population here in Manitoba. Is the move of the depot a disguised and ill advised attempt to eliminate the competition without a cost-benefit analysis ?





Let the Dog remain as it is, without managerial schemes.
Molly