Vision Parks Board Considers Cutting Lifeguards & Maintenance

whatnext · #1 Posted **Feb 28, 2012, 5:10 PM**

Isn't it funny how a few injured cyclists is worthy of blowing a couple million on Burrard bike lanes, but the likelihood of people drowning at our beaches apparently isn't worth anything? Constance Barnes was blithering on the radio about how rainy it was last summer and how people wondered why there were lifeguards "just sitting there". I'm glad "Crash" Constance can predict the upcoming summer's weather.

And cutting maintenance? Its already abysmal, with our ghetto "boulevards". World class city indeed.

Eliminating lifeguards at some of Vancouver’s public beaches. Reducing park maintenance by another half-million. Requiring every community-centre manager to run two centres from now on, instead of one...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2352040/

jlousa · #2 Posted **Feb 28, 2012, 5:39 PM**

Seems like the city needs to rethink it's spending. How is it that decades ago when we were a city a fraction the size we are today we could afford those lifeguards, the conservatory, the zoo, more outdoor pools etc etc and yet today we can't.

Porfiry · #3 Posted **Feb 28, 2012, 5:46 PM**

Quote:

Ms. Barnes said the lifeguard at Trout Lake did not seem that useful. “Why do we have a lifeguard posted at a location that is contaminated and has signage that clearly states No Swimming?” she asked.

Good question.

whatnext · #4 Posted **Feb 28, 2012, 5:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porfiry

Good question.

Apparently you and Crash Constance believe nobody in Vancouver ever swims in the rain, or that the weather never changes during the course of the day.

crazyjoeda · #5 Posted **Feb 28, 2012, 6:02 PM**

Having a lifeguard at Trout Lake doesn't make sense since its closed for swimming, although they should be making an effort to restore the lake.

Other beaches however, like Jericho should be patrolled by lifeguards especially on the weekends when the cities beaches are often packed. An easy fix would be to reduce the police beach patrols, which appear to exist primarily to stop the unspeakable crime of people drinking beer. Even one less cop on beach patrol would free up the cash for all the lifeguards.

jlousa · #6 Posted **Feb 28, 2012, 6:07 PM**

Trout Lake water quality has been negatively impacted by two items, the city fill line for the lake has been shut off, and the city knows that there is a person that has been feeding the birds at the lake contary to bylaws but have failed to address it. The lake used to be extensively used and could be again today.

crazyjoeda · #7 Posted **Feb 28, 2012, 6:27 PM**

I hope they clean up Trout Lake so it can be used for swimming again. It looks like a nice lake and I bet it would be warm in the summer.

dreambrother808 · #8 Posted **Feb 28, 2012, 6:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

Apparently you and Crash Constance believe nobody in Vancouver ever swims in the rain, or that the weather never changes during the course of the day.

Maybe you should read his post and realize that he was talking about Trout Lake, as opposed to any of the issues you mention.

phesto · #9 Posted **Feb 28, 2012, 6:53 PM**

Gotta love Vision. Here's a group that spends taxpayer money to study tearing down perfectly good infrastructure (ie. the viaducts) yet they can't find $270,000 to keep lifeguards on beaches that have been patrolled for decades?

For anyone who doesn't watch what lifeguards do in the beach locations, their primary value is in preventing accidents, not just saving people when they're drowning. A lot of the people who visit even the less-popular beaches like Second and Jericho are not swimmers, or are complete idiots who let their children walk into the water despite not knowing how to swim.

If they had just suggested Trout Lake that probably would've been fine, but as usual, the vision-run park board do something idiotic and will have to reverse course.

racc · #10 Posted **Feb 28, 2012, 8:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

Seems like the city needs to rethink it's spending. How is it that decades ago when we were a city a fraction the size we are today we could afford those lifeguards, the conservatory, the zoo, more outdoor pools etc etc and yet today we can't.

Or a very vocal minority needs to stop complaining about taxes.

Metro-One · #11 Posted **Feb 28, 2012, 9:19 PM**

I head about this on the radio this morning, seems like quite the oxymoron for a council with a "green" and parks agenda.

I guess there goes my wish for a cleaner city (and better maintained boulevards and parks)

And remember, this is the same council that passed the planting of hundreds of thousands of new trees in our city, but at the same time reducing the budget for maintenance! Seriously, more trees will = more pruning an cleaning.

I guess our city will just have to become more dirty and unkept.

One would expect more from one of the most expensive place to live in the western wold!

jlousa · #12 Posted **Feb 28, 2012, 9:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by racc

Or a very vocal minority needs to stop complaining about taxes.

Our taxes have gone up at the rate of inflation or more, pretty well every single year, on top of that each and every year there are additional units paying taxes as wel,l meaning the city budget has been increasing at 5+% a year. This is completely about spending priorities.

Note the Parks board has now backed off on the life guard issue, but the fact remains things need to be looked at and spening patterns examined.

mezzanine · #13 Posted **Feb 28, 2012, 10:47 PM**

^? what about the shifting of civic business taxes to residential taxes?

Quote:

(In 2009) Following direction from council, staff have proposed city service reductions totalling $20.2 million.

At the same time, council has set a property-tax-increase target of two percent, equivalent to $11.1 million. In addition to this, residential-property owners will have to pay an additional two percent due to the shift, for a total of four percent.

http://www.straight.com/article-2730...after-business

I think the shift from business to residential taxes for the CoV is reasonable public policy, but I also realize that lower taxes = lower services.

from the first pass, I have no problems with what the parks board is proposing in the abscence of raising taxes/fees.

Prometheus · #14 Posted **Feb 29, 2012, 12:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by racc

Or a very vocal minority needs to stop complaining about taxes.

Yeah, just let the politicians take and spend your money in peace why don't you.

whatnext · #15 Posted **Feb 29, 2012, 4:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Maybe you should read his post and realize that he was talking about Trout Lake, as opposed to any of the issues you mention.

As jlousa pointed out that's totally a function of the city shirking its responsibility in regards to the maintenance of Trout Lake. One would think it would be "green" to provide a swimming beach in East Van rather than force everyone to trek down to West Side beaches. There's not even a bus route to Spanish Banks for pitys sake!

Conrad Yablonski · #16 Posted **Feb 29, 2012, 8:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

Note the Parks board has now backed off on the life guard issue.

Thanks for that-I was about to blow a fuse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

. There's not even a bus route to Spanish Banks for pitys sake!

Yes there is has been for a while now-haven't ridden it though I generally bike out there.

http://www.transitdb.ca/route/C19/