It seems to be the bane of all elected bodies these days - How do we meaningfully engage a broader section of the community? Particularly when it comes to the decisions of the day that have a major impact on the long term shape of the community and the institutions that we all rely on.
The City of North Vancouver passed a motion this week to consider the establishment of a task force to look into the idea increasing community engagement. According to Councillor Guy Heywood the motion came about for a number of reasons, in addition to the obvious low voter turnout in North Vancouver in recent years. Heywood says with the Provincial Government is considering reforms to local government designed to foster greater community participation, it is incumbent that we think about this locally well before this comes to us from the Province. He also points to the City's Official Community Plan review set to take place in the next year, which includes engaging the community in the planning process.
Bottom line is that the make-up of the City of North Vancouver has dramatically changed in recent years, with over 60 residential towers now housing a good portion of the City's population. Strata Council's are more a part of people's lives in the City, in addition to residents becoming more economically and culturally diverse.
Heywood says the current low engagement rate comes at the same time as the City is doing more than just about any municipality in Metro Vancouver to advertise opportunities to get involved and engaged in civic initiatives.
With the City committed to looking for ways to increase engagement perhaps there is an opportunity to get the District of North Vancouver involved in the process, possibly passing a similar motion to the CNV's. While we are at it, the North Vancouver School District is currently involved in engaging members of the Community in the budget challenges it is facing, and it would be interesting if the local Board of Education was at the table to share its experiences in this area, and increase engagement at the local school level.
This is all about starting the conversation. What should a "Civic Task Force", if any, look like if it is to embark on "investigating ways of involving the public more closely in municipal affairs."
Friday, November 06, 2009
Task Force Proposed on Improving Community Engagement in City of North Vancouver
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 opinions/comments:
Politicans want to "engage" the community. How many times must the engagement that the community wants be restated?
Council is responsible for the construction/maintenance of facilities and/or provision of services. Which ones? How much is enough? What level of taxation is acceptable?
Instead of a feel good exercise undertake the following:
1. Determine the communities satisfaction with existing facilities and services through a representative sample conducted by an independent research firm.
2. Through the same research determine if the community wants more, less or the same level/access to a facility or service by asking if they are willing to pay more, want to pay less or are satisfied to pay the same as currently.
Also find out whether or not the community is prepared to pay more for additional specified facilities, services and special interest requests.
Ask if the community would support amalgamation if service improvement or cost reductions can be found.
3. Council - do what you are told by the community.
People are not engaged because the Nimbies rule the roost.
We had a world-class tower at Site 8, designed by architectural legend Richard Henriquez. And the not-in-my-backyard types quashed it.
What's the point of being engaged if these people want to kill any and every activity or development?
Glad to see the conversation on this topic underway!
What's the point of this 'task force'? If councilors aren't going to bother heeding recommendations made to them by the various committees such as the advisory design panel or the advisory planning commission, what makes Heywood think the public is going to take him and his cohorts seriously on this matter? Council doesn't listen to what the public wants now, so what makes him think that a task force is going to help matters?
These politicians need to do their job and make sure the city provides us with only the necessary services at a price that we can all afford.
Those who continuously cry "nimbie" lost one one fight over Site 8 have won every other battle to overdevelop and overpopulate our City.
There's people who are in it for the temporary cash that goes into their pockets, not the mess their actions will create. Their propaganda will flow.
We have a lot of growth to absorb that we have not built the infrastructure to serve. But the developers gave a lot of money to some members of Council and they will want payment for their investment.
I thought that it was CUPE that gave alot of money to some members of council. Oh I forgot, CUPE got it's 20% raise over 5 years so apparently those donations do work.
I've of two minds about this task force.
First, this focuses on voting turnout as the main measure and the turnout has been historically low.
1974 13.43%
1975 22.90%
1976 14.97%
1977 21.80%
1978 7.96%
1979 15.42%
1981 23.00%
1983 13.50%
1985 18.06%
1987 13.33%
1990 21.69%
1993 18.89%
1996 18.79%
1999 25.99%
2002 26.13%
2005 22.37%
2008 17.67%
So I'm not sure this is a natural result of the demographics of the CNV. Barry's article states that the growth of large towers, mostly strafied, has dramatically changed things. Well, I would say that as the new form of home ownership has increased the turnout. This is fit in with old maxim of owners vote and renters do not.
The drop last year was due to the lack of mayor's race but really the 22.37% of 4 years ago is pretty bad considering it was one of the most dramatic races I've ever seen, an incumbent mayor being challeged by a Councillor and former Councillor. You would figure that the three campaigns would have pushed the turnout up but it dropped 2.76% from the election prior.
Second, there are a lot of structural changes concerning elections that can only be done at provincial level by changing the Local Government Act. As pointed out the Government has founded a task force to recommend changes to the act.
The question of campaign finance reform is one that's needs addressing. Like the Federal law, all contributions should be restricted to individuals. I'll be putting in a submission on this and a few other changes to the act.
So Guy's task force looks good but the question is what it will actually do. Will there be some meetings where I'd look around and see the same old faces I see attending Council meetings? We'll see once staff puts together the terms of reference.
Disregard 5.56pm .. it was not the "nimbys". It was more a backlash to the overdevelopment without thought previously. The previous Council with their lock on voting damaged the City. Community engagement was previously studied and the Brownell report was the result, but recommendations were disregarded by previous Council.
While the discussion at Council and here has focused on voter turnout, that is only part of the issue of civic engagement. In order for the City to thrive its citizenry needs to be active in everything from government to charity work. I am sure that the number of volunteers at NSN House, or Presentation House, etc, have declined over the years even as the City's population has increased.
Part of this can be explained by demographics. The City's residents are more likely to be younger, single, and itinerant than other municipalities, factors usually associated with lower local engagement.
Given that, however, there are many things that could considered in an effort to increase the level of trust and engagement in the community.
* Deliberative Polling for key civic issues.
* An enhanced partnership with the school board and local universities for cooperation on civics education -- school visits from the Mayor or councillors, "mayor for a day" events, occasional council meetings where the agendas are tuned to youth issues, etc.
* Far stronger internet engagement -- mayor and council blogs, Facebook presence, and use of tools such as wikis for draft policy discussion. Changing the City's website so that it is organized to focus on citizen needs, not City departments.
* Changing the way council briefing material is prepared so that the public can view 1-2 page summaries of options rather than wading through 100+ pages of verbose reports.
*A simple "welcome package" describing the Council and how to engage with it that is available to strata councils and building owners to new residents or businesses.
* Something equivalent to the German Wahl-O-Mat to help local voters make their decisions at election time.
While it may not be possible to turn things around overnight, it is possible to make a huge improvement. The Guelph Civic League in Ontario is a good example.
Task forces are usually a combination of nimbys and self-interest groups. No one else cares, as long as it doesn't affect their little corner of the neighbourhood.
Where's Sue Cook's input on this item?
Curiously, it seems to be the case that volunteerism is up while engagement - as measured by participation in voting at elections or in governance functions (ie. voting at AGMs of non-profits) generally is down.
That volunteerism is up is a comment from the volunteer coodinators at NS Community Resources which agrees with a Fraser Basin Report from 2006 that points to the same trend in the Lower Mainland generally. (http://www.shim.bc.ca/atlases/fbc/ss3/Pdfs/FBC_SS3_Community.pdf)
So more people are willing to give their time to the community but do not necessarily want to be involved in the decision making processes.
However, voter participation almost always correlates negatively with community size. Small communities have bigger turn outs. That doesn't apply to the City of North Van - which is relatively small but also has a small turnout.
Is the City a less healthy community by that measure? Or just in transition?
It has some very impressive assets (a large capital reserve, high level of developer interest, relatively good infrastructure).
It also has very interesting liabilities or opportunities depending on your point of view.
The future of the waterfront, the redevelopment of the Harry Jerome site are going to change the face of the community forever. So too will be the way that 362 3 and 4 story pre-1992 buildings get re-developed and brought up to standard.
The provincial government is going to come up with changes (perhaps signficant, perhaps not) but one knows they won't be taking into account the unique nature of the City of NV.
The CNV, because of it greater density, its larger capital reserves but significantly less affluent population - is a very different jurisdiction than the DNV and, of course, the DWV.
Privately poorer, publicly wealthier, a dense compact community and infrastructure with pretty good development potential. I think it should have voter turnouts that are materially higher than those of the District and West Van. How do we make that happen?
Interesting comment John.
1. Would Deliberative Polling work in such a small area? Without a NVan TV station? Do they try to get a random sample or do the usual suspects in interest groups dominate the process?
2. Re the city's website, have you seen Vancouver's open source data initiative?
Whether the newest techno-trend would actually change anything or just be an expensive way to do the same thing is the question.
I'd like to see some more standard things considered to improve how Council, just as one, a ward system. If you make the voting decision easier, more people would take part.
If the CNV was divided into six wards rather than facing 15-20 candidates for 8 positions, you would have about 3 people for one position. All candidates meetings would become more focused as well rather than the large unwieldy one we have now.
Taking it one step further, the community assocations could mirror this structure and the community association from each ward could become an integral part of city planning.
Where is Sue Cook? I haven't heard from her lately.
Planning her run for Mayor.
Mr. Pringle,
Deliberative polling -- the outlines of the approach are more important than the specifics. I don't think a TV broadcast is a requirement, but a purely random sample is very much so.
Open Data -- Yes, I have been involved in what the City of Vancouver is doing, working with some others on campaign finance reporting tools for the whole province. There would be a lot to be gained for the City to emulate this; in some ways the District is far ahead of the City here with their open GIS data.
Re: Anon @ 12:47pm -- good to hear that volunteerism is up recently, but I am still quite sure it is far down when compared to, say, the 1960s or 1970s. I agree though that while there may be structural factors contributing to lower civic engagement, it's certainly possible for us to raise it.
John J
Volunteerism is up - mega. We have volunteers at the churches, the library, the hospitals, the homeless concern, search & rescue, seniors activities, exercise regimes, crafts, theatre, the arts, health groups, etc. etc.
You and George P are right about the city demographics. Now, 52% of NV city voters are renters. Historically, renters do not turn out to vote as much as property owners.
Additionally, many of the new towers in lower lonsdale are newcomers, or offshore owners, who cannot be bothered.
The steady voters are the aging population, who do not participate in electronic messaging. And they don't need engaging-they already are.
Your target market could be long-term renters. Think of ways to engage them!
Do you think a city manager is showing good leadership when they insist that they need a $5000.00 laptop?
Re: anon @ 10:21pm
It's a minor point, but the 2006 census revealed that for the first time in many years (perhaps ever) a majority of City of North Vancouver dwellings are now owner-occupied -- 54%.
There is some sociological research that indicates that the built form itself can affect civic engagement, in that large block apartments with no/small common areas, etc can make neighbors less able or willing to know each other. Building owners may also have a financial incentive to discourage discussion between their renters. There are things that the City can do in terms of approving building design that can help improve civic engagement. Perhaps the upcoming initiative to install monitored smoke alarms in hundreds of woodframe buildings is an opportunity in this regard.
As for expensive laptops -- when I ran a large office of information technology professionals I purposefully asked for and used the oldest working notebook computer. It set an example throughout the office about the importance of taking care of company property and of focusing on things that you need, not ones that you want.
A timely point since the City Council Finance Committee will tonight be discussing spending $534K to replace every PC and notebook in the City during 2010.
Volunteering is tracked better. This may account for the boost in the NSCR numbers, but I know of several organizations that are seriously hurting for volunteers to the point that they may shut down...
Soroptimists/Optimists
Lions Club
Kiwanis Club
Community Policing Centres
Free Masons
I suspect there is a shift in volunteering from Community clubs to sports teams and political groups.
$534K to replace every PC and notebook in the City during 2010? 100 laptops @ 5000.00 = $500000.00 I see a shortfall.....
Hi John,
No need to call me Mr Pringle since we're talking about civic engagement here. I'm George.
Re, your point on how the design of large apartment blocks do create some of the urban isolaton that we're talking about. Of course, the owners and the City look at any common space that used to be standard in most buildings get looked on as wasted space and has been converted to more units. I recall buildings I've lived in with a common social room where there was a monthly social event for building residents.
Praying at the alter of more density has created the problem.
But the people themselves have fallen willingly into their role, I live in a 99 unit building and know a large part of my building neighbours.
Post a Comment