Overlap inexpansion motions reflect seawall complexities: ballem
 |
| Construction on the original Stanley Park seawall began in 1914. Photo by Bruce (via Flickr). |
On July 10th, NPA councillor George Affleck announced a motion, seconded by Green councillor Adriane Carr, to extend the seawall to Jericho beach. About 12 hours earlier Vision Vancouver park board commissioner Sarah Blyth had introdued an almost identical motion.
The move spawned ample media coverage and public response, including awho-gets-credit argument between Affleck and the Vancouver park board (Blyth sent an email about the issue a few months ago) as well as concerns about its necessity and the environmental impact to one of Vancouver’s last natural beaches.
But other than allowing one party to claim credit over the other, it seemed redundant and possibly inefficient for virtually the same motion to be discussed at both Council and park board levels.
Who is responsible for making this happen anyway?
“The park board has jurisdiction over probably the most frequently used part of the seawall,” says city manager Penny Ballem. “But there are some parts that are overseen by the engineering department.”
So technically, it’s a facility managed by the park board. However, when more complex city issues such as this one involve many other parties, it’s not uncommon to have motions brought forward at both city council and another department.
“The Council recognized the park board’s expertise on the matter,” says Ballem. “But since this is going to involve finance commissioners, engineering, everything, it’s good that they passed a motion, which showed their support and awareness of it.”
Although it wasn’t strictly necessary for a motion to be passed in City Council at this stage, it has the effect of showing the park board that Council is leaving it to them to move forward with preliminary research, says Ballem. “With the Council motion, they’re really looking to steer the park board in the right direction,” she says.
City councillors are generally aware of what other departments are putting forward, according to Ballem. During the voting of Affleck’s motion last week, Coun. Heather Deal made amendments to align with what park board chair Sarah Blyth had mentioned in an interview with theVancouver Sun.
Currently, the seawall proposal is still in the preliminary stage with city staff researching the impact of the extension, costs, and how to naturally divide development into different phases. If it’s decided that land needs to be purchased or sold, Council will vote—one example of a scenario in which it would be necessary to get Council involved again.
As to the amount of overlap that occurs between city Council and other legislative branches—a similar situation occurred in regards to the public bike share program, recently—Ballem couldn’t say.
While councillors have some idea of what other departments are bringing forward, it is up to them to decide whether they want to bring their own motions. “It really depends from issue to issue, and on how complex an issue is.”
The seawall motion was passed by Council last week and goes before the park board next week (July 23).
The move spawned ample media coverage and public response, including awho-gets-credit argument between Affleck and the Vancouver park board (Blyth sent an email about the issue a few months ago) as well as concerns about its necessity and the environmental impact to one of Vancouver’s last natural beaches.
But other than allowing one party to claim credit over the other, it seemed redundant and possibly inefficient for virtually the same motion to be discussed at both Council and park board levels.
Who is responsible for making this happen anyway?
“The park board has jurisdiction over probably the most frequently used part of the seawall,” says city manager Penny Ballem. “But there are some parts that are overseen by the engineering department.”
So technically, it’s a facility managed by the park board. However, when more complex city issues such as this one involve many other parties, it’s not uncommon to have motions brought forward at both city council and another department.
“The Council recognized the park board’s expertise on the matter,” says Ballem. “But since this is going to involve finance commissioners, engineering, everything, it’s good that they passed a motion, which showed their support and awareness of it.”
Although it wasn’t strictly necessary for a motion to be passed in City Council at this stage, it has the effect of showing the park board that Council is leaving it to them to move forward with preliminary research, says Ballem. “With the Council motion, they’re really looking to steer the park board in the right direction,” she says.
City councillors are generally aware of what other departments are putting forward, according to Ballem. During the voting of Affleck’s motion last week, Coun. Heather Deal made amendments to align with what park board chair Sarah Blyth had mentioned in an interview with theVancouver Sun.
Currently, the seawall proposal is still in the preliminary stage with city staff researching the impact of the extension, costs, and how to naturally divide development into different phases. If it’s decided that land needs to be purchased or sold, Council will vote—one example of a scenario in which it would be necessary to get Council involved again.
As to the amount of overlap that occurs between city Council and other legislative branches—a similar situation occurred in regards to the public bike share program, recently—Ballem couldn’t say.
While councillors have some idea of what other departments are bringing forward, it is up to them to decide whether they want to bring their own motions. “It really depends from issue to issue, and on how complex an issue is.”
The seawall motion was passed by Council last week and goes before the park board next week (July 23).
http://www.openfile.ca
Comentários
Postar um comentário