City of Vancouver has placed at least two of these message boards in the West End, hoping to attract people to discuss the proposed changes to parking regulations there.
The signs, normally used to deliver various messages to motor vehicle drivers, here rotate through a 4-message panel, urging people to get involved in the consultation process.
Will this be enough to help diminish the cries of “no consultation”? And will we ever get widespread realization that consultation does not confer veto power?
Go here for survey.
Le’t be frank: Cries of “no consultation” more often than not actually mean, ‘You didn’t do what I want!’. Oddly, these people aren’t just being petulant. Many people really and truly believe that this is what the word “consultation” means.
So it depends on what the proposed West End parking changes are, who doesn’t want them changed, and what the City actually ends up doing. People who didn’t get their way will inevitably cry they weren’t consulted with.
I have been to many “public consultations” by the current Council’s Active Transportation Team. They are lip-service only, as confirmed by Jeff Leigh. Once the City engineers have a project design, it is “Final” even though this fact is not told to the public, so citizens are just wasting their time attending these so-called “Open Houses” for “public consultation,” where citizens and residents speak, but the City has no intention of listening. These meetings are just formalities so that the City can say that is has consulted with the public when in fact no “consultation” has occurred whatsoever.
Last time I checked, “consultation,” by definition, means a two-way conversation, not a dictatorial by City Council and its yes-men engineers. The issue is not one of “veto” but of collaboration and the public in the immediate area (those in the know) advising the City (not in the know) of the needs of the area prior to the approval of any “Final” design by City engineers. Let us not forget, “Haste makes waste,” and the rushed approval by this Council of projects that have not been duly studied is resulting in insufficient parking, wasted dollars for redundant infrastructure, and grave safety hazards. A lot of money is going to have to be spent to undo these mistakes once this Council is gone.
Insufficient or not enough parking is caused by parking user fees being too low.. More parking can be created @ $50,000 a stall but who pays?
How do you designate “a stall” and charge the user for on-street parking?
I was not proposing designated parking stalls . I was advocating that demand be reduced by charging market driven parking fees. This would eliminate the need for additional supply.
I said no such thing, susan/Mary, and as such your comment appears to be a violation of the commenting policy.
Wrong gender, Jeff, but keep guessing.
You DID say so: you stated that City designs if not “Conceptual” are “Final” and not going to be changed by City engineers whether or not the plans provided to the public are duly-marked “Conceptual” or “Final.”
Susan: Read harder. I said that conceptual can be contrasted with detailed. And preliminary or draft can be contrasted with final. The opposite of “conceptual” is not “final” in this context. You have argued that a principle such as widening sidewalks, which was explicitly stated as the plan in the related motion, can be ignored if one deems the associated drawing to be conceptual. BTW, the quotation marks were just for you.
When you attend a consultation, one of your first questions should be around what is up for discussion. Understand the scope. Review Dan’s first post.
No Jeff,
I am well-acquainted with the denotations of conceptual versus final, as well as the lack of legality of approved in principle. I am also well-acquainted with the necessity of clarity and transparency in advertised consultations, particularly in the event of a legal challenge to that process and the burden of proof of responsibility.
To understand the scope, it must be overtly described, not misrepresented to mislead.