by Roslyn Cassells and Grant Fraser

The year-long closure of Vancouver’s most visited park has illustrated the push for gentrification in one of Vancouver’s poorest neighbourhoods, and the determination of the civic government to serve their political masters in the face of strong grassroots opposition to the plan.

The gentrification of Grandview Park has been an exercise in parts, which have combined to exclude all but the rich and powerful from the decision-making process.  Located in the heart of the lower mainland’s activist and artistic community, Grandview Park is a hub of community connections which serves a plethora of purposes as varied as those people in her midst.

In the grand or not so grand scheme of things, depending on which side of the Main Street divide you find yourself on, the differences are institutionalized and ingrained.  The quantity and quality of public greenspaces and other community amenities could not be more pronounced than in the Grandview-Woodlands neighbourhood.  Per capita, the west side of Vancouver contains several hundred percent more greenspace than East Van.  Tiny Grandview Park, plump in the middle of a struggling working class neighbourhood, has the highest usage of any park in the city.

Grandview Park serves a number of practical purposes essential to the health and well being of local residents, especially our most marginalized sisters and brothers.  The park is a place where people can sleep, use the washroom, clean up, and get clean water to drink.  It is a place which is safer to hang out at and sleep in than many back alleys, shelters, and so-called social housing. This is essential if you are homeless or living in dirty, dangerous, substandard rooming houses, especially in the hot summer months when access to shade and water is required for survival.  The park is home to a number of feeding programs which many people depend on, including children and elders.  There are harm-reduction programs run at the park, such as needle exchange and free condoms.  It is the place where people go to get a breath of fresh air when they are living in overcrowded homes, cramped accommodations, or apartments without balconies and homes without gardens.  It is our backyard, our coffee klatch, our smoking room, our kidz place, our dogs’ place, our park.  It is also an organizing place for progressive political movements, something the powers that be would love to shut down.

The closure of Grandview Park and the loss of public access began many years ago.  The forces of gentrification have long demanded the exclusion of the current dominant demographic using Grandview, low-income people, homeless people, kids, dogs, birds, and the occasional squirrel or raccoon.

Instead, say the nimby yuppy newcomers and soon to be dominant demographic, the park’s fate should be controlled by those who, because they are wealthier, because they are homeowners, landowners, slum lords, and business people, have a greater right to decision-making about this public greenspace.  The eviction of the “undesirable element”, according to these affluent new residents, is necessary for the safety of all in this public park.  The complete closure and destruction of Vancouver’s most visited greenspace is demanded by these upstanding citizens, despite the contrary opinion of the great majority of “undesirable” park users.

The prerogative of the landowners is to increase their property values by ridding themselves of the real East Van-ers, and creating a greenspace designed to exclude the current park users and discourage their current activities.  A coalition of local people have made their opinion on this matter known to park board in no uncertain terms during the last few meetings.  The response from the board has been to arrest and eject some of the speakers, and refuse entry to others.  The meeting at Strathcona Community Center, where many from the Defend Grandview Park movement spoke, had such a heavy police presence the meeting had the air of an armed camp, bristling with hostility against the people of the neighbourhood.  There were more police in attendance than politicians, and it spoke to the criminalization of dissent in our society, and the attempts by the park board to marginalize entire segments of our society…making them at the very least unwelcome at the meetings, and at the worst fearing for their safety and liberty.

The park board continues to impose on the community authoritarian structures and institutions where cooperative community initiatives existed before.  And as designer Mullein Bass commented at the July 19 2010 park board meeting, the process of public consultation and final design excluded many in the community and are thus unrepresentative of the community.  In his letter to park board Bass wrote “the current system, while once considered progressive, is beginning to look hidebound and obstructive”.  He suggests the following solution: “In support of the choice for diversity and difference, I suggest that opening the planning process to public involvement at a deeper level is the first, most obvious and most compelling possibility to consider” for the result “that regular people are in a position to exert a determining influence on the design of public projects.”

Hazel Hoyle, a local resident, felt that the public consultation took place after all the decisions were made, deals were struck, and resources located.  She commented that park board met first with a select group of local residents before announcing plans for a public consultation to renovate the park.  She feels that the majority of residents are actually opposed to the renovation, citing the thousands of people gathered in the park in a show of grassroots opposition following the announcement of the planned renovation.

According to Pietr Rudgers, senior bureaucrat at Vancouver Park Board, the contractor CAP, which was awarded the Grandview Park renovation, is a “reputable company”.  He mentioned that Victoria, Tecumseh, and Falaise Parks were all renovated by CAP.  Norquay Park was recently award to C.A.P.  For some reason each contract lists the company with different names/spellings.  Looking at the connections betweeen a number of seemingly associated companies leaves many questions unanswered.  As they say, “follow the money…”

CAP, C.A.P., C A P, and Spade Holdings, Spade Holdings Ltd., Active Earth Engineering, Vanderzalm Construction, and other Vanderzalm names appear to be connected in some way with the Principal for the Grandview Park renovation contractor Peter Vanderzalm.

A survey of the company name CAP Ventures Ltd.  with Principal Peter Vanderzalm 604-580-6161 in the Better Business Bureau lists the company as a General Contractor at 12473 King George Hwy in Surrey.  An inquiry reveals a B+ rating and the comment that the BBB “does not have sufficient background information on this business” and “This business is not a BBB Accredited Business.”  A search of accredited contractors with the BBB netted 25 in Surrey alone.

There is a provincial government connection with Active Earth Engineering (Spade Holdings) of 9190 Church St., Fort Langley, which was awarded a brownfield renewal strategy program contract for $110,594 for a lower mainland project.

The imposition of a policing center around ten years ago drew a line in the sand between state forces and people power in Grandview Park.  Then, as now, a “public consultation” was held.  Then, the public input around proposed usage of the repurposed caretakers house was received by the board, and then ignored.  Now, the public input and opposition to the planned closure and “renovation” of the park has been ignored.  A decade ago the park board had a predetermined plan to impose the policing office in the park, just as now they plan to impose a one-year park closure and “renovation” on Grandview Park.

To date, no accommodations have been made by the board for any of the services and programs affected by the closure.  Their withdrawal will have a serious deleterious effect on specific individuals, and a negative effect on the community as a whole.  Affected are food security programs, harm reduction programs, housing for homeless people, the local informal market, public toilets, public access to water, public access to seating and tree cover in sunny and rainy weather, and last but not least, the free accessible community meeting and organizing space.

If previous local reaction to the policing center and the word on the street is correct, the park reno will go the way of the policing center, somewhere up the road.  Vancouver Park Board, like the Vancouver Police Department, has lost the trust of the people, and in doing so, any jurisdiction over the park and the people of the park.  The board, like the cops, may increase patrols in the park, but they will never have control of the park, or the people of the park.

Park Board Out of Grandview Park, the People’s Park!!

Saturday August 14th, 2010

What’s Happening?

- Barbeque, Community Feast, Potluck @2:00pm Grandview Park

Please don’t shy away, no one turned away for lack of contribution!

- Mass Assembly @3:30pm Grandview Park

In continuation of past General assemblies, please come and take part!

- Live Music @7:00pm Grandview Park

Here’s the lowdown:

Grandview Park on Commercial Drive has just recently had a construction fence built around it. The Tennis Courts have also been torn up. Defend Grandview had already planned for barbeque to happen in Grandview this Saturday but now we find ourselves in a much more urgent situation and we feel the need to step up the momentum.

Commercial Drive is a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood. At Charles and Commercial lies Grandview Park. Over the last few years, there has been a controversial plan to redevelop the park which was initiated by “The Friends of Grandview”. The “friends” of Grandview are a group of property owners living near the park who would like to live in a different neighborhood but refuse to move away. The plan is to strangle the life from Grandview park by eliminating loitering in the park, and the use of the park by “non-families”. The new plan includes the removal of bushes and trees to discourage homeless people and youth from using the park as the trees and bushes provide shelter from various predators such as police and security.

In response a number of people have come together through general assemblies, and have tried to build momentum to oppose the redevelopment. After streamlining the process, for the use of developers, the park has now been closed, and as should be expected, no body but the middle class professionals are being listened to!

We urge everyone to come out and show solidarity, with the youth, the poor, and various others who use the park and wish to oppose the redevelopment!

And don’t forget to have good time!

We hope with these events and others like these, we can build alternatives to this world where stolen native land can be continuously redeveloped and retaken for the interests of those who make a profit (whether culturally or economically)!!!!

We say,Defend Grandview!!!!

Gentrification Cancelled!!!

It’s easy to write a column when I’m fired up about something. But as I searched through emails, sifted through Twitter and dropped on to Facebook several times, I realized the one thing inspiring me was good news. Stories written for a community newspaper can be about a huge range of topics, but the one constant is readers willing to give of themselves to help other people, animals and the environment. Sifting through dozens of emails today I took a second look at some of those notes sent in hopes the Courier can help get the word out. Often we don’t have the space or time to get to them so I’d like to highlight some of the inspiring Courier readers and their causes.

These are just a fraction of the emails, letters and phone calls the Courier receives each week. *Eileen Mosca, a board member of the Grandview-Woodland Community Policing Centre on Commercial Drive, called this week to say Grandview Park is being redeveloped. Recently the field house has become the target of nasty graffiti. Not content to leave it as is, Mosca and a group of volunteers will paint over the mess with a mural this Sunday, which is Mother’s Day.* *Mosca refers to the project as a “temporary art installation,” because the field house is being torn down July 1. Despite the fact their artwork will only remain for two months, these community members feel it’s important to step up. By the way, they’re looking for volunteers to help paint Sunday.*

June 2009 – The first public open house.  Not widely publicized.

-The contact person for these open houses was the landscape designer, not a park board official.

-Quote from announcement on park board website:  “Improvements to Grandview Park are scheduled for 2010. Please join us at an open house to discuss: How you currently use the park; what you like about the park; what concerns you have; the ideas you have for improving it as a park space.”

-This implies that even at the first public open house, the decision to improve the park had already been made.  This decision was clearly made before the interests of the neighborhood residents were taken into consideration.

October 2009 – The second public open house.

January 19, 2010 – Concept design review

-Affiliates of defendgrandview.wordpress had signed up with the park board to receive email updates of upcoming meetings regarding Grandview Park.  No email updates were received.

-The meeting was set up as a way for the public to choose between three previously generated designs. (http://vancouver.ca/parks/info/planning/grandviewpark/index.htm)  The only place to express disapproval of the entire development process was on written comment cards.

January 21, 2010 – Report seeking approval of concept presented to park board

- The results of the January 19 meeting were presented to the park board.  The report states, “Of the 92 questionnaires received, 12% indicated they do not wish any significant changes made to the park. In 8% of the submitted questionnaires, residents preferred Concept A, 59% preferred concept B and 21% concept C.”

-$1 million was earmarked to the renewal of Grandview Park in the park board budget, along with a $500,000 grant.  A requirement of the grant is that the project must be completed by March 2011.  (http://vancouver.ca/parks/board/2010/100201/Grandview_Concept_Consultancy_Award.pdf)

Feb 1, 2010 – Concept B approved by park board  (http://vancouver.ca/parks/info/planning/grandviewpark/pdf/OpenHouseConceptB.pdf)

- At this meeting, it was stated that Grandview Woodland Area Council is the “unofficial voice of residents in the neighborhood”, and that GWAC is “very supportive of the plan”  {http://vancouver.ca/parks/board/2010/100301/M10Feb01.pdf}

June 2010 – Contract will be completed

July 2010 – Construction will begin

Print and distribute the flyer as you like!

Who are the “Friends of Grandview Park”
and who supports them?

The “Friends” of Grandview Park are a group of homeowners who live around or by Grandview Park, and who originally formed in order to stop the serving of free food to homeless people on Tuesday nights (the Chili Wagon).
The “Friends” of Grandview Park are supported by the Business Improvement Association (BIA), which stated “The BIA supports the renovation to Grandview Park and believes it will contribute to the business development, as well as security and safety in the area.” You might better know the BIA as the organization that pays for the Fusion security guards who patrol Commercial Drive in packs of two or four, harassing buskers, panhandlers and people selling their wares in the park.

The Friends of Grandview Park’s
official complaints:

In the section below we have listed the complaints laid out by the “Friends” of Grandview Park in their presentation to the Parks Board. Following each point is a counter-point or explanation of the implications of their statements, and what we think they really mean.

The Friends of Grandview Park say…

the park is…

1. “Chronically overrun by illegal inhabitants.”

To the “Friends” of Grandview Park there are too many homeless people in the park. This statement calls out for the criminalization of poverty, or at the very least pushing the homeless out of the park. The use of the term “illegal inhabitants” to describe the homeless is doubly absurd due to the fact that Grandview Park is native land; if anyone should technically be named “illegal inhabitants” it should be the city of Vancouver.

2. Used for “drug dealing and hard drugs.”

The “Friends” of Grandview Park assume the mantle of morality police over the park, above anyone who has used the park to purchase, sell or consume any type of drug. In reality, hard drugs are consciously excluded from Grandview, and members of the community – including parents of children who use the park – use the area to sell or purchase soft drugs. Maybe you have a friend who has bought, sold or smoked pot in the park?

3. “The chosen location of illegal protesters.”

In reality, protests in the park are rare. However, what better way for people to use a park than to come together to confront common concerns?

and, that …

4. “The design of the playground encourages loiter¬ing of non-families.”

This statement is ridiculous. Parks are for loitering. What are “non-families” and why are they not allowed to use the park?

5. “The unsanctioned use of tennis courts by the bi¬cycle polo club” means that the “… tennis courts (are) no longer available for parents to teach their kids how to ride bikes.”

This – and other parts of their presentation that call for “order” in the park – illustrate the “Friends’” broader goal of assuming total control. Teaching kids how to ride bikes us also an unsanctioned use of the tennis courts. The “Friends” would like to see the park used as they see fit, rather than how others already use it – even when its current use is positive and social.

6. The park has “poor drainage”

It is true that the park has poor drainage, but it is also interesting to point out that the drainage of Victoria Park was targeted in recent renovations with little to no improvement.

Stopping The Redevelopment

The “Friends” want “to bring order, safety and new functionality to the park.” Order in the sense of control over what happens in the park. The illusion of safety through removing homeless people and eliminating petty victimless crime. New functionality through the explicitly stated goal of turning the park into a “destination for shoppers and tourists.”

We want East Vancouver to be a community where you don’t have to be rich to exist, and where we don’t criminalize our neighbours. Because the redevelopment of Grandview Park is a step towards the further elimination of the poorer people from our neighbourhood, we say

NO REDEVELOPMENT
OF GRANDVIEW
PARK!