Round One is for the Voters – Round Two?
Focus Magazine Cover Victoria BC February 2010
The February issue of Victoria’s Focus Magazine has a front cover of Ross Crockford, Yule Heibel and Mat Wright – the founders, instigators, protagonists, activists of johnsonstreetbridge.ORG, or true pains-in-the-ass (depending on your view point).
The article by Sam Williams (page 28) ‘Round One for Big Blue‘ articulates the theme of the entire campaign perfectly – ‘The battle of the bridge is about who has the right to make the decision‘
Focus Magazine editorials, along with articles by Yule Heibel and Sam Williams, have insightfully contributed to the debate on the process, available information and decisions surrounding the Johnson Street Bridge. In fact, it was a spring 2009 Focus article by Yule Heibel which effectively launched the community interest – started the debate on Vibrant Victoria, and after many months, has led to a successful counter-petition campaign.
The story behind johnsonstreetbridge.ORG is about how a small group of dedicated and concerned citizens can derail, up to now, municipal decisions. More importantly, it is how an entire community reacted against a flawed decision and engagement process.
(Quotes from the February Issue of Focus Magazine – Sam William’s article)
You can’t fight City Hall” is good advice if you’re talking about fighting a parking ticket. Forget it. You’ll lose every time. But if City Hall makes a big decision that involves the expenditure of millions of public dollars and the destruction of an iconic landmark without properly consulting its citizens, then that’s a whole different kind of fight. That’s exactly what Victoria City council found out on January 7 when the number of people who signed the counter-petition opposing the City’s plan to borrow $42 million to replace the Johnson Street Bridge was announced.
The article is a concise recap of the Blue Bridge issue from day one, way back in April 2009 when Victoria City council was presented with the Delcan bridge assessment report, but concentrates on the counter-petition campaign (Alternative Approval Process) which began on November 21st 2009. In order to prevent city council from approving a $42 million borrowing bylaw to replace the bridge, 10% (6343) of the voters within the City of Victoria needed to oppose. The result was over 10,700 valid signatures – history was made – and due to the insight and dedication of the volunteers, and the Volunteer Coordinator, Anne Russo.
Wright, Heibel and Crockford had teamed up with Anne Russo who is one of only a few select Victorians with previous fighting experience involving City Hall. Russo had led the unsuccessful AAP against the City’s decision to turn Ellice Street Park into a venue for a proposed Cool-Aid shelter. She knew how difficult it was going to be to gather 6,343 valid signatures in the middle of winter. Nobody had a better idea of just how to start. At that first meeting she displayed the kind of spirit that buoyed volunteers throughout the long, cold campaign: “My God,” she said, “what arrogance. I was spitting mad at them for launching this over the Christmas season. But we will have to view it as a benefit!”
The turning point of the petition campaign was spot on -
Crockford and Wright were beginning to understand that the battle was being waged one signature at a time and at that rate, reaching the threshold of over 6000 signatures was going to be very difficult, if not impossible. No AAP had been successful in Victoria since the threshold was raised from 5 percent of eligible electors to 10 percent with the introduction of BC’s Community Charter in 2004 by the provincial government. Crockford and Wright realized they needed extra help—and not just more boots on the ground. Now they needed people coming to them. “We strategized,” says Crockford. “We wanted to make a presentation at the December 10 council meeting. We actually talked to [City councillor] Geoff Young and said we think you should put forward this motion to try to bring this AAP to an end. He wasn’t sure he could get someone to second it. But we realized we really wanted him to introduce the motion because, to be crass about it, we were also looking for some media heat—we had to keep this thing in the news. So let’s ask the council again, let’s point out the flaws with this process. Not only that, [councillors] Hunter and Coleman were not at the previous meeting where they decided to use a counter-petition, so we thought, ‘Let’s see what they have to say for themselves.’” That council meeting turned out to be the unexpected turning point in the battle. Councillor Young made his “I am indignant…” speech, which was highly critical of the quality of information the City had put out in a “fact” sheet, Johnson Street Bridge By the Numbers. And the hapless Councillor Hunter blundered into no-man’s land with a comment about referenda: “I’m firmly opposed to a referendum,” she said, “because I consider it an affront to representative democracy.” Crockford and Wright agree everything changed after that. “Lynn Hunter,” says Crockford, “made this fantastic statement and B-Channel was there to record it—which was also very important. And it was in the Times-Colonist the next day: ‘Call for Referendum Falls on Deaf Ears.’ That energized people, including the volunteers, because a bunch of them were there at city council. We asked them to make presentations at the meeting. They were saying ‘This is what we’re hearing on the streets, this is our experience. You don’t know what’s going on with the people of Victoria. I am out there every day…’”
Towards the end of the counter-petition campaign, despite 5000 signatures delivered before Christmas, despite a post Boxing Day press release that 5600 valid signatures had been collected, despite blog posts, mainstream media articles and editorials, back channel communications and emails from all around the region – councillors still believed the petition might fail, and if it did pass it must be due to mis-information by the ‘activists’.
The result is known – 15.4% of the electors signed, and the message was clear. Engage the community, provide deep background information and documentation, tell the voters why a decision must be made, and how to participate – and they will respond. It was due to community volunteers, who advocated for their neighbourhoods and their right to have a say, that won the day.
The Johnson Street Bridge petition campaign is over – the oversight and engagement continues. What are the next steps for council and the City of Victoria? Will they seek independent expertise for costs on bridge refurbishment? What is the date for a referendum, and…what is the question to be put to voters?
You folks have inspired me. I have reported mismanagement of the F.C.A. at 1923 Fernwood of the Garden St Community Garden Plots Manager to the FCA President and City Hall’s Liaison Councillor Lucas. I have ads in Craigslist and Usedvictoria to help people do an end run around I year waits to obtain access to $50 garden plots OWNED by the city. I have three people interested since Sunday. HEY! you may have created a monster. Thank you again.
Congratulations on making two covers in one day! The new faces of conservation in Victoria are found on the covers of the Times Colonist and Focus today, in the persons of Crockford, Heibel and Wright:
http://gregoryhartnell.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/yule-heibel-mat-wright-in-battle-of-blue-bridge-photo-by-bruce-stotesbury-victoria-times-colonist-sat-jan-23-2010-page-1-with-full-page-article-ross-crockford-photo-p-a3/
There is a gallery of nine photos of the endangered Johnson Street Bridge, and its trio of prime defenders.
As flags in Victoria fly at half-mast, former Victoria Mayor Young is memorialized in the page two obituary today as a fellow architectural heritage conservationist by former Victoria Mayor Peter Pollen.
As far as critical political analysis is concerned, I wonder if I am the only one to detect apparent condescension and bias for current Mayor Fortin’s plans in these remarks of ‘political scientist’ Professor Dennis Pilon when he seems to suggest that those signing the petition were merely emotionally attached to the old bridge and therefor somehow not reasonable in their reasons for wanting to save it?
‘I think the organizers were quite successful at tapping into that emotional resonance, and the problem with emotional issues is there’s just no reasoning with people.’
I believe that I have an admittedly emotional but also a quite rational and informed approach to this issue, as do most other Victorians who signed the petition against the demolition of the Joseph Strauss-designed Johnson Street Bridge, and that having the one thing does not necessarily preclude having the other.
Curious to see who was ready to fight City Hall I attended the first JSB volunteer’s meeting. Ross, Matt, and Ann presented tight concise speeches to outline their case. Those present to volunteer, listened.
Yet now (after Victory Phase One) to trivialize that collective effort and claim that Lynn Hunter’s psychotropic lecture on the Badness of Referenda finally “energized people” is dubious, if not excessively generous.
Before the JSB speakers rose, several volunteers confided to each other why they joined. For no apparent reason Council was sneeringly autocratic. Supporters were furious and felt betrayed.
Many volunteers once had been Council stalwarts. What motivated them to fight City Hall?
In a word: Council.
This crew had become so strangely bi-polar that it inspired mistrust and suspicion. As in. OK, we’re awake now. What else did these people conceal from us? What are Councils’ true motives?
Had Council demonstrated the ‘Necessity’ of tearing something down or merely used fear tactics to justify putting up something else?
Why was access to factual City data possible only after FOI requests? Why were Council’s arguments so distorted, flawed, and at cross-purposes?
Structurally, City Hall was more dangerous than Big Blue, but Council insisted: let’s tear down a safer structure?
Professor Pilon’s apparent speculation that emotional attachment to a bridge somehow heavily motivated 10,000 people to misbehave – doesn’t fit the facts. Heritage sentimentality wasn’t the core issue which drove so many adult volunteers. Few, despite the bridge’s age or their own, considered Heritage to be front and centre.
Yes, Heritage Preservation was an issue the JSB hierarchy chose to focus on and fight for. Perhaps because the research JSB did supported that approach. But volunteers I talked with were ready to initiate a much harder political public spanking. At issue: political deceit, arrogant abuse of process, flagrant waste of taxpayer money, abandonment of democratic reciprocal respect. To name a few.
Ten years ago, perhaps ten months ago, Council might have pulled it off. But not now. Not without blowback. Not after years of Harper; years of Campbell; years of bait and switch spins; false promises about wondrous job growth (due to Globalization during a collapsing global and local economy) bank frauds, bank failures, bank bailouts and a too-cozy relationship between financial deregulation and catastrophic financial failure..
It wasn’t announced, but the same old political circus finally was ‘inoperative.’ Witness the Massachusetts reversal.
A flood of political information, stories of countless backroom no-competition boondoggles; sweetheart deals for political backers and bandits, all reinforced the perception that politics was too rotten to tolerate anymore. Witness too, the Prorogation backlash across Canada. None of this concerns sentiment – it’s a public reaction to abandoned standards and betrayed trust.
Yet such a changed perception (that status quo Politics is dying) hasn’t reached the electeds’ attention spans. Ignoring a radically fed-up population, a small town City Hall chose a Fool’s Gambit. In effect, a minority-supported Council challenged a majority of residents to watch them play Russian Roulette with 5 chambers loaded and future public indebtedness as bullets. For bravado pols dared anyone to stop them..
Perhaps sensing onrushing disaster Council’s hired guns, cheerleaders, on-line goons, and theoretical apostles rushed to depict City Hall as a band of no-nonsense, no-prisoners, MarlboroMan “Deciders.” A civic NDP! A hot collection of rebranded G.W.Bush-clones?
Their pitch?
That ol’ Blue bridge? It’s plenty ugly! Shucks folks! We can’t have no ugliness hereabouts! What’re rich-tourist money-people gonna think? The Silent Majority demand God’s Own Chosen Council spend that money like they want to! Go hide our forefather’s horrible artistic shame and give us this day one $63 million sliver of Victoria ‘prettified!’ Don’t take no guff from nobody poor and git ‘er done pronto too!
(That didn’t really work.)
Then, Old Blue became DANGEROUS! – a 35% risk accumulated over FIFTY YEARS (if there’s an earthquake..) A bidge dangerous ahhh… because a huge earthquake will only strike the inner harbour! See?
(That didn’t really work.)
Ever moving against the current our newly-steroidal squad of civic toughies were above, um, seeking actualy consent. No way they’d tolerate that nosy, impudent, interfering electorate. Council Decided Something Big. Victoria’s Civic Pantheon had Spoken. Next? Keep voters in the dark, stonewall opposition, spin the platitudes, all in the certainty that the other guys must blink first.
In short: Status-Quo Zero Sum Politics 101.
Did Yule, Ross, Matt, Ann, et al, do an amazing job of smacking down Council’s gasbags, and pulling them off their pedestals? Absolutely – Yes. But let us give discredit where it is most due.
Without Council’s unflinching help; without crude and obtuse attempts to manipulate voters; without a tendency to posture as saviours while gloating like overlords; without pitching moderation then resorting to over-the-top attempts to intimidate opposition (on live TV) 45 days might never have been enough time to overturn a crew more moderate.
Don’t get me wrong. The counter-petition campaign was brilliantly executed. But Final Victory must include ample credit to the densest collection of pols we’ve seen in recent memory.
And Carole James?
Carole? Where on earth were you hiding, and why, during all this?
I could be wrong, but last time I checked on the career downsides of Stephane Dion playing “Ostrich in Chief” this was not an esteemed leadership characteristic.
Not in times like these.
Mike Lai, City of Victoria’s engineering spokesman, was on the news hour of one of the two local tv stations (sorry, not sure which one) just after the Haiti earthquake, fearmongering about the dangers, damage and loss of human life that would ensue with an earthquake of similar magnitude at the Johnson Street Bridge.
Trouble is, notwithstanding all the frightening predictions of the hyperventilating scientists over the years, we have never suffered such an earthquake here, and in my humble opinion, it is quite unlikely, based on the evidence I have seen (57 years residence here), we are ever to see such a calamity.
Both the tv station and Victoria City Hall should be ashamed of this type of reprehensible fear-mongering.
One wonders who ordered or authorized Mr. Lai to invoke the true horrors of people suffering in Port-au-Prince and to somehow attempt to compare them to our situation here with our threatened heritage bascule bridge, which is still working just fine, thank you very much, after numerous minor tremors over the years.
The only danger I can see to that Joseph Strauss-designed rarity is coming straight out of the Mayor of Victoria’s office.
His crass philistinism (what heritage?), social irresponsibility (‘we have a ten year plan for homelessness’) and fiscal unbelievability ($42,000,000 loan without tax increases) suggest he may have given Mr. Lai his marching orders to bamboozle unwary boob tube viewers.