Brian Jackson resigns

[BodomReaper]

This took me by surprise. Maybe someone more familiar with city hall can weigh-in, but to me it appeared that Jackson is as pro-market as it gets in Vancouver urban planning circles.

Frances Bula has the best write-up on the news.

What's particularly upsetting is one of the main reasons he cited for his decision: the ceaseless sniping by a band of development-averse former city officials. The article only mentions Scot Hein, but I suppose Spaxman and Condon are the other culprits.

Last fall, a former urban-design specialist, now working at the University of British Columbia, also created a minor sensation related to Mr. Jackson days before the November civic election. In a comment on a local blog, Scot Hein implied that Mr. Jackson pushed staff, against their wishes, to produce a plan for a cluster of high-density towers around the Commercial-Broadway station, in response to pressure from above him at city hall.

Because god forbid that the civil service carry-out the will of the elected officials they're appointed to serve.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

What's particularly upsetting is one of the main reasons he cited for his decision: the ceaseless sniping by a band of development-averse former city officials. The article only mentions Scot Hein, but I suppose Spaxman and Condon are the other culprits.

Because god forbid that the civil service carry-out the will of the elected officials they're appointed to serve.

...the question and problem though is by whom are city officials elected (re: the wealthy campaign donors) and in whose interest do these elected city officials work (re: the same wealthy few corporate sponsors)!?

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

...the question and problem though is by whom are city officials elected (re: the wealthy campaign donors) and in whose interest do these elected city officials work (re: the same wealthy few corporate sponsors)!?

The great thing about democracy is that citizens can decide these things for themselves. As it turns out, Grandview-Woodlands, the neighborhood most alleged to have been wronged by a "secret developer plot", heavily voted Vision.

But let's have an unelected cabal of bureaucrats decide on behalf of everyone what and what doesn't constitute effective representation.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

The great thing about democracy is that citizens can decide these things for themselves. As it turns out, Grandview-Woodlands, the neighborhood most alleged to have been wronged by a "secret developer plot", heavily voted Vision.

But let's have an unelected cabal of bureaucrats decide on behalf of everyone what and what doesn't constitute effective representation.

......."democracy" isn't necessarily "democratic". Effective democracy ultimately hinges on an "effectively/appropriately educated voting constituency", one who all equality share the same values and access to critical economic/political resources. In the real world that doesn't happen; a reality that the ancient Greek philosopher, Pericles, lamented as being a crippling flaw of democracy!

While I do understand your position on the potential liability of having our lives run by so called "professional experts" we live in a society/world composed of scientific/technical experts who run the bureaucracies that gird our civilization. These experts (for example, think of your professional medical doctor or lawyer here) can be viewed as our "enlightened/wise kings" (as called for by Plato) to guide us to safety!

[jlousa]

This has been an ongoing issue at Cityhall for the last decade. City staff aren't supposed to serve council, but are supposed to serve the public. In the past we've had staff battle council on some issues, staff these days seem to answer to council and not the public and that's a shame. Staff tend to last longer then administrations and should ultimately be party neutral and carry on doing the best for the city no matter who's in power. Not saying that's the case here but it is certainly obvious to cityhall obervsers that it's a growing problem.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jlousa

This has been an ongoing issue at Cityhall for the last decade. City staff aren't supposed to serve council, but are supposed to serve the public. In the past we've had staff battle council on some issues, staff these days seem to answer to council and not the public and that's a shame. Staff tend to last longer then administrations and should ultimately be party neutral and carry on doing the best for the city no matter who's in power. Not saying that's the case here but it is certainly obvious to cityhall obervsers that it's a growing problem.

Ok we have 3 groups here:

1. Democratically elected council (who I realize have donors).
2. City staff
3. The general public

I see no problem with group 1 directing the activities and focus of group 2.

You can argue that group 3 should also be represented, but the reality is you get a handful of NIMBYs, idiots and shit disturbers who show up at council meetings and derail things.

Whatever decision the city makes, they are either "steamrolling the public and their consultation process is a sham" or "bowing to NIMBYs".

You can't win. But I'm ok with an elected government using their power to bring forward their agenda. Provided there were no surprises from the platform they ran on, that's the way things should work. So much of government at all levels is mired in process and takes decades to do anything.

[Vin]

Quote:
Last fall, a former urban-design specialist, now working at the University of British Columbia, also created a minor sensation related to Mr. Jackson days before the November civic election. In a comment on a local blog, Scot Hein implied that Mr. Jackson pushed staff, against their wishes, to produce a plan for a cluster of high-density towers around the Commercial-Broadway station, in response to pressure from above him at city hall.

What is meant by "against their wishes" here? How can city design staff go against the wishes of their superiors directing them to work? It's not like staff should be free to do whatever they please, so this doesn't make any sense to me at all. There shouldn't be any outcry short of Jackson actually pointing a gun to their heads while making the city staff work to make a design plan.

Scott Hein should be the villain here.