THE GREAT DEBATE

The open drug market. Property taxes. Traffic gridlock. Big box
stores. The Woodward's development. Slots and gambling. What to do
about bike lanes on the Burrard Street Bridge.

These are the issues Vancouver voters care about in the Nov. 19 civic
election, and they were also the issues discussed by mayoral
candidates Jim Green of Vision Vancouver and Sam Sullivan of the NPA
in a special Courier debate.

Although Vancouverites will choose candidates for city councillors,
school board trustees and parks board commissioners, the most
important vote we'll cast will be for the city's new mayor. Like no
other political position, the office of the mayor sets the tone for
this city and represents it to the rest of the world.

That's why two weeks ago we invited the two lead candidates, Green and
Sullivan, to the Courier newsroom to be grilled for an hour and a half
by civic beat reporters Mike Howell and Naoibh O'Connor. We've devoted
an unprecedented five pages to the questions and the answers that
followed as Green and Sullivan clashed and argued in a civil but
intense debate. We hope you'll find what follows helpful in casting
your vote.

A web version of this story will be available by Thursday at
www.vancourier.com. And for the first time, we'll make available MP3
audio files of the debate for download from the site, so you can hear
Green and Sullivan duke it out in unedited form. Follow the link and
directions to download.

Drugs for sale

O'Connor: Jim, in Larry Campbell's inauguration speech in December 2002, he
said, "If we do our work well, we should be able to eliminate the open drug
market on the Downtown Eastside by the 2005 election." In your opinion, has
the open drug market been eliminated?

Green: If I said yes, you would certainly have a scoop. It's still there
and Larry was optimistic, clearly, but we have to have optimism and
pragmatism in order to deal with these issues. And of course, there have
been new issues that have taken place in terms of the intensification of
crystal meth. You know, there's been some great things that have happened
and there are thousands of people who are alive because we were able to
bring in a safe injection site.

The police did some enforcement that was questionable. It moved it
around some so other neighbourhoods got the feel that the Downtown
Eastside experiences every day, and that was pretty tough on the
communities. We don't direct the police, that's their thing.

But we've certainly made progress with it. The Four Pillars approach
is starting to work really well and we now have wraparound services
for the safe injection site, which means more treatment. I've been
meeting with the premier and the federal minister of housing and
cities on getting more money for treatment and to deal with these
issues. We still have to have enforcement, and I supported 50 new
police this year and 50 next year to be paid for out of our budget.

Sullivan: No, in fact the open drug market and the problems of the Downtown
Eastside have spread to other neighbourhoods. This council does take credit
for two initiatives, the safe injection site and NAOMI heroin maintenance
trials. I challenge anybody to check the minutes of this council and find a
single vote for the safe injection site or the NAOMI trials-they will not
find it. Why? Every vote that was required was voted on by the previous
council, unanimously.

As a person who was one of the architects of the Four Pillar approach,
I believe that this council has dropped the ball. It has squandered a
huge opportunity, an incredible mandate, a big majority that was given
to them by the citizens to accomplish their promise of reducing the
dysfunction and the open drug market of the Downside Eastside, and
they've failed to do so.

Green: I find that absolutely unreal that Sam is claiming to be one of the
architects of Four Pillars. When we saw what happened to Philip Owen when
he came out in support of the Four Pillars approach, his party dumped him.
It was Sam that went down to deliver the pink slip.

Sullivan: Every government in the world uses a Three Pillar approach. I was
the first politician in Canada in 1997 to call for harm reduction as an
element of public policy. What's the difference between the Three Pillar
approach and the Four Pillar approach? It's harm reduction, it's that
pillar. And if I was the person that dealt the fatal blow to Philip Owen,
why is it that Philip Owen is one of my biggest supporters?

Taxing effort

Howell: Albert Deslauriers, the owner of Save-On Meats at 43 West Hastings,
has seen his property taxes jump from $12,000 to $23,000 in one year. Yet,
he says, the city still won't go after the landlords to clean up their
buildings on his block. What will you do about this issue?

Sullivan: Well, first of all, one of the reasons he is paying such high
property taxes is this council has failed to implement the staff
recommendation of a one per cent shift per year of property tax from
business to residential. Every year in the past few years of the NPA
administrations, we delivered a one per cent shift to try to correct the
serious imbalance, one of the most serious in North America, in which
businesses now pay six times the rate of residential.

This council, thanks to a motion by Coun. Green, went against the
staff recommendation. He moved a half a per cent shift in the first
year of their mandate and they failed to move any motions for the
final two years. Now businesses are in worse shape than they were
three years ago and it's going to take a long time to try to correct
the imbalance that has come about as a result.

Green: The Board of Trade came and asked us for a 0.5 per cent, that's
exactly what I moved. Now Coun. Sullivan says that the NPA moved one per
cent per year several years ago. And that's not true, it's utterly not
true. The way that we got this (uneven) split was because of the NPA
leadership. Now Coun. Sullivan has changed that position in the past and
said that he supported it but the NPA did not, so I'm not sure which
version we're hearing today. But I do know either Sam is not able to have
the leadership that was needed to convert the NPA to his vision or it's
just incorrect.

The other issue here is that yes, we have to move. I met with the
Board of Trade. They agree it will take 20 years to cure the 20 years
imbalance that was created by the previous administration, and I'll be
working with them to do that but I have some cautions on this. We also
have to make sure that when we do these shifts that we do not harm
homeowners and tenants who are trying to survive in this city, because
it's an extremely expensive city to live in. I want my grandchildren
and other people's grandchildren to have the right to live in our city
so we have to do it carefully.

Whither Woodward's

O'Connor: Many point to you, Jim, as the person behind the $280 million
Woodward's project, and Sam, you want to scale back the project. Why so
much focus on a condo-driven project when the repeated calls in the
Downtown Eastside are for treatment centres and social housing?

Green: Well, they're two different things quite honestly. Social housing is
there, obviously, with the 200 units. But let's be clear when scaling back
what Coun. Sullivan has called for. Coun. Sullivan voted against every
aspect of Woodward's, he did not vote to scale back anything. Coun. Ladner
said that he would scale back some things and then found out that it
wouldn't work, that it would cost more to do Coun. Ladner's plan and [he]
has come back and supported our plan.

Coun. Sullivan voted against 200 units of social housing. He voted
against 30,000 square feet that we will be giving to non-profits from
that community to operate in so they won't have to worry, so they can
get some stability. He voted against 500 condominium units, and you're
right it's a private sector project now. He voted against a free plaza
for the City of Vancouver that's larger than the plaza out front of
the art gallery that we can use for all kinds of things. He voted
against Simon Fraser University injecting $50 million into that
community for the contemporary arts at Simon Fraser. He voted against
child care in there. And now he's going to tell you this whole fantasy
world that he builds up about how it's costing millions and millions
of dollars. This is a private-sector driven project.

Sullivan: Well, I agree that Woodward's is not going to solve the problems
of the Downtown Eastside. But I want to be clear; I am committed to
following through on Woodward's on the motions that were passed by the
council. So I am going to make sure that all of our commitments, legal and
moral, are met.

Now I didn't vote against Woodward's. What I voted against was this
council's management of this file. I was the one who voted just in the
previous council to allow $14

million of tax relief for a private developer that would come forward.
I was very concerned by the fact that this project has ballooned from
its $150 million original estimate to $280 million, almost double. I
was opposed to Coun. Jim Green being the co-chair of a staff committee
that was supposed to be giving us objective information. I was opposed
to the fact that six times during the debate, while attempting to ask
questions, my mic was cut off. I was unable to get my questions answered.

A house divided

O'Connor: Chances are the council elected Nov. 19 will comprise more than
one party. If elected mayor, how do you plan to accomplish your goals on
what could be a divided council?

Green: I know that Coun. Sullivan is opposed to Woodward's-but I think
Woodward's is the model of how we work together. We have community
organizations there. We have community advisory committees made up of a
Downtown Eastside resident and the person that's head of the Gastown BIA.
You know we're bringing people together. We have Chinatown, Gastown and the
Downtown Eastside working together on Woodward's. Those people were at each
other's throats under the previous administration and now they're working
together for a common goal.

We have the biggest developer in the city along with the trade union
movement there. We have Simon Fraser University coming in and working
together. I was so proud of the work that I did with our staff and our
steering committee co-chaired by our city manager Judy Rogers, who's
an award-winning administrator. So putting people together like that
is how I will work.

As a matter of fact, you know, I don't have anyone running against me
from COPE because we were able to heal those wounds.

Sullivan: Well for the last three years I have witnessed basically civil
war on the council and now it's actually broken right out into the public
where this council, with this incredible majority and this incredible
mandate, has squandered it by splitting into two.

Jim Green has taken four of the 22 elected officials of COPE and split
off into a breakaway party called Vision Vancouver, I call it Division
Vancouver. This has institutionalized the gridlock that is now taking
place at city hall. NPA is the only political organization running a
full slate. It's the only political organization that has a published
plan of action.

Talk to COPE councillors and ask how those wounds are healed. I can
tell you that I am hearing from COPE councillors as well as COPE
members that they will not be voting for Jim Green.

The cycle continues

Howell: State your position on the proposal to remove both curb lanes from
the Burrard Street Bridge to create cycling lanes.

Sullivan: Well I was the only councillor to oppose playing with this
important entrance-egress point for our downtown. Our staff computer models
have shown that there will be serious traffic congestion that will affect
not only car drivers but more importantly bus riders. Remember car drivers
can choose to find their way over other bridges, bus drivers are going to
have to sit through the traffic congestion that will be created by the closure.

We've already gone through a six-day closure in 1996. I participated
in that and it caused traffic chaos. I have challenged this council to
close the bridge lanes now. It only takes three weeks to implement the
closure, that's how long it took us in 1996. Instead this council has
chosen to wait until after the election.

Green: Well, let me first of all say I really appreciate Coun. Sullivan
pointing out several things and one is that he's the only councillor who
voted against this option.

What I moved was that we would go back and have another public
process, that the other was not complete, it had not met with
community organizations and business groups, it had not met with
people in certain areas of the West Side of the city who will be
affected by it, and it hadn't met with transit users. So I amended the
motion to come back and to... have a public hearing, which Sam thinks
is contemptible and that bicycle riders will yell at you and things.

I think that people can act in a modern and modest way in dealing with
a severe issue like this. But why is it important to take the position
that was taken? First of all, the experiment that Coun. Sullivan is
mentioning now was done by the NPA. It was done, I think, probably to
create chaos.

Locked in transit

O'Connor: How do you plan to promote less vehicle use and reduce traffic
congestion over the next three years, especially when the Cambie corridor
will be the scene of major construction for the RAV line?

Green: I have been arguing that we should not be just thinking of bicycle
and pedestrians but that we should also look at other modes. In fact some
of the seniors are driving those scooters now, the fact that Segway
technology is really coming along very quickly. We've pushed hard for
bicycle lanes now on Burrard and the other major streets downtown, one of
the great accomplishments is that the different bicycle routes going
through the city are really good.

We're working on pedestrian sidewalks to make sure the sidewalks are
working well. We've got a huge program throughout the city to put
sidewalks where they weren't before so pedestrians and bicycles can
get along better together. And also that's very important for disabled
people in neighbourhoods where you don't have sidewalks.

I think we're well on top of that. In Vancouver two major modes are
walking and bicycles and that's what we really have to build on. And
by catering to the car, catering to the twinning of the Port Mann
Bridge, is really not the way to advance that.

Sullivan: Well I was very involved in trying to promote the RAV line to
make sure we got the funding in place; over a billion dollars of outside
funding for the RAV line. And I was so distraught when this council
representing the city that benefited most from the RAV line, from the $1.1
billion of outside subsidies, almost killed the RAV line twice. It was
unbelievable for me to see our own representatives going against us because
they didn't like the idea of private sector participation in this.

So I think the RAV line itself will take about 10,000 cars per day off
the street. I also looked to the NPA-initiated network of bike lanes
by paths. It was the NPA that started that and we've now continued
that, though all of the bike lanes that were put together were planned
out before by NPA governments.

Officers friendly

Howell: When several community policing stations were closed a few years
ago, many residents from across the city were outraged. They said their
communities would be less safe. Do you have any plans to push for more
community policing stations?

Sullivan: This council did close a number of community police centres but
there were good reasons for that, there were issues of management. But I
believe that instead of closing them down we should properly fund them and
make sure that they have the support they need. I believe community police
centres are very, very important for preventing crime and increasing public
safety and I'm committed to that and our government under the NPA will
certainly work to strengthen them.

Green: This council did not vote, as Sam just said, to close down the
community policing stations. That was done by the chief of police because
of the lack of funding from the province of British Columbia. As a matter
of fact, a couple of months ago, maybe three now, we had a press
conference-I don't believe that Coun. Sullivan was there, he may not be
aware of it-and we reinstated that funding. We did that out of our coffers
although it was a provincial jurisdiction because we did believe. We don't
just talk about it, we do.

Boxed in big

O'Connor: If Wal-Mart and other big-box retailers approach council with
proposals for stores in the next three years, will you support or reject
their requests?

Green: If you're saying a request to go through the approval process, I
would certainly support that. Anyone has a right to put in an application
and go through_ the approval process. Let's quickly look at the Wal-Mart
issue because Coun. Sullivan and I have fundamental disagreements on this.

I voted against it because of the impacts on neighbourhood planning
and neighbourhood livability. We have supported the Costco, which is
downtown, which has four residential towers on top of it. We supported
the Canadian Tire right by city hall and voted in favour of that
Canadian Tire_ on Grandview Highway.

The issue here is fairness to everyone involved. There were people in
COPE who did not want us to even hear those applications. I met with
Wal-Mart, I met with Canadian Tire, I explained to them what the
process was and that I would be an objective person on it. I could not
tell them whether I supported it or not but I supported their
application going through.

Sullivan: Well Larry Campbell, myself and Peter Ladner all voted in favour
of the Canadian Tire and Wal-Mart proposals. The issue is what kind of an
investor climate do we have in this city when companies-two good
companies-can come into this city with tens of millions of dollars, invest
it in our city, follow every policy and every procedure, go above and
beyond what they were asked to do and still get turned down.

This council falls all over itself in sentimental nostalgia over the
Woodward's building, a 700,000-square-foot retail store, the mother of
all big-boxes, and when you get 150,000 square feet that happens to
have U.S. connections, they turn it down. I think it was wrong and it
sets a very, very bad precedent for businesses in the city.

Golden rent increases

Howell: The Olympic watchdog organization, Impact of the Olympics on the
Community Coalition, is fearful rents could increase in the years leading
up to the 2010 Winter Olympics because of the influx of well-paid trades
workers looking for accommodation. How will you ensure people don't end up
on the street like they did during Expo 86?

Sullivan: People aren't going to end up on the street because of a 17-day
event in the middle of February. Remember, there will be just as many
people in February, tourists, as there are in any typical August. We do
have capacity for hotels and we have capacity to accommodate that many
people. We do it in August routinely.

The idea that we should try to prevent initiatives that bring trades
people and workers and prosperity to our city is ludicrous. That's
what we want, that's the whole idea, we're trying to bring economic
prosperity. And the fact that people are coming into the city to build
infrastructure for our citizens, sports and recreation infrastructure,
$95 million worth of wonderful sports facilities that our citizens
will be able to use for years to come is something we should
celebrate, not take this kind of an attitude toward it.

Green: We negotiated with the Olympics that there were several issues that
we had to have in order to get our support. One was the guarantee that no
one would be made homeless, another one was local procurement and local
hiring. There will be really well-paid jobs for local people as a result of
those motions, they were guaranteed to the world in the bid book. And what
have we have done then to ensure? The council needs to be the one that
ensures that the guarantees that were made to the world and the citizens of
Vancouver are upheld.

Worth the gamble?

O'Connor: Jim, Your Vision Vancouver running mate Raymond Louie told the
Courier last month that, "Never in his wildest dreams" did he think he
would vote for slot machines when he got elected in 2002, but he did.
You've been characterized as a champion of the poor, so why did you vote
for slots when there is evidence that the machines turn people into
gambling addicts?

Green: Actually, the evidence presented by our staff says that the things
that cause addiction more than anything else in gambling are bingo and
lotteries. I'm not a fan of slot machines, I don't personally care for
them. The reason was the jobs that come to Vancouver as a result of slots.
A return, when it comes to the City of Vancouver through the Lottery
Corporation, allows us to fund things like women's shelters and other
things that we would not have the funds to do.

We were told that there were 800, almost all of them immigrant women,
who would be employed at the track and at the casino as a result of
voting in favour of it. I did vote in favour of slots. I've already
mentioned that Edgewater Casino's hired 150 people from the Downtown
Eastside to work there. At the race track we also have a local hiring
position there so people from that neighbourhood of Hastings Sunrise
and in the Downtown Eastside will get those jobs. It's a part of
economic development that I very strongly believe in.

Sullivan: I voted three times in this council to prevent slot machines from
being discussed or being voted on in this city. I've worked hard over the
previous years; in fact we even took the province to court twice, and won,
to keep slot machines out of the city. The issue was, do we become a slot
machine city or not, yes or no? And this council, despite my strenuous
objections, decided, at the Plaza of Nations, that slot machines were
acceptable in this city.

After that point it's not an issue of slot machines, yes or no, it was
an issue of land use-where is it appropriate to put slot machines. And
on the Hastings Park issue, I struggled with that one but because this
council allowed slot machines into the city, the question became, "Is
the place where Vancouver citizens have gone for 115 years to gamble
an appropriate place for gambling," and I had to say yes. It became no
longer a moral issue. This council has said slot machines are fine for
Vancouver and it then became a land use issue.

Sullivan's drug trials

Howell: Sam, you told the Courier this month that you gave money to a drug
addict, a drug-addicted prostitute and a close friend of your family who
was also addicted. You said it was done in an effort to help those people
manage their addictions and prevent them from committing a crime. You then
told the Courier you didn't need to apologize for your actions. Yet, you
did apologize to the NPA at a recent fundraiser at the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
So, Sam, why did you apologize?

Sullivan: I believe I expressed regret over what I did. I was trying to
gain an insight into this very serious problem of drug addiction in our
city and I was very taken by the desperation the people that I met were
under and I gave them money. I wouldn't do it now knowing what I know now.

What I did not apologize for was the compassion and the attempt to
learn more about this problem that motivated my actions and I'll never
apologize for that. What I do regret is giving them money. You know
the reality is that 80 per cent of the people who are engaged in
aggressive panhandling are doing it for drug money and most people
know that.

Green: Well OK, you know this action was not only illegal but irresponsible
and I don't understand how you can say that, "I was compassionate by giving
someone money," that you know is going to be used to inject heroin. Sam
didn't drive the person to the safe injection site. What if she would have
OD'd, what would he have done to help this person? That's why we set up the
safe injection site.

If you can go down and take people in great distress and in great need
and use them so you can learn about their problems, I think that's
immoral as well as irresponsible. I think that it should never have
been done.

Green the banker

O'Connor: This is to Jim. You were once head of the now defunct Four
Corners Bank at Main and Hastings. A government review of the bank
discovered the institution had operating losses of $972,000 in 2001, more
than $1 million in 2002 and $600,000 in 2003. Assets diminished from $29
million in 2001 to $12 million in 2003. Explain why the bank lost so much
money.

Green: Well if you went and read the business plan you would see that the
bank was like any other venture. It takes time in order to reach a
break-even point. We had a five-year horizon to do that. We were extremely
close to it when the government changed and closed down the bank because of
ideological differences.

But it was not a bank, it was a financial institution geared to people
in poverty who had no way of cashing a cheque or having money put away
in a safe place. It brought the crime rate in that neighbourhood down
severely because we no longer had muggings of people.

It also meant stability for people in that neighbourhood and the pride
in their community. It was really at the point of turning the corner.
But we had 6,000 people who had accounts there who had never had an
account before and all of our staff were completely welfare recipients
who we had retrained as the teller staff and the maintenance staff.
And I also want to say that there were a lot of really great people on
that board who worked with me on it and one of them, who never
mentions this or brings it up, was Coun. Sam Sullivan who was a board
member.

Sullivan: I thought the bank was a good idea and Coun. Green did bring me
in at the board level. I loved the concept and I attended two meetings and
I was quite shocked with the financials_ and very shortly after I joined
the board we were all fired.

But I have recognized that Coun. Green does take a very cavalier and
reckless attitude toward tax money. And you know I have lived in
social housing, I have lived on welfare, I have benefited from the
social services of this province and what I worry about is when the
public sees this kind of mismanagement that they will lose confidence
in social spending. I want to make sure that the public sees value for
their money. I think it's absolutely essential that we keep the
confidence in our social services.

Sullivan's "crime tsar"

Howell: Sam, last week you announced the NPA would create the position of a
crime prevention and safety commissioner. Police Chief Jamie Graham has
said publicly that he believes he already holds that title. Explain how a
safety commissioner would be different from a police chief? And also
explain how much it would cost to create such a position?

Sullivan: I met with the chief just a couple of days ago to discuss this
with him. The commissioner would have three roles that I could see. One, it
would be a coordinating function. We have many agencies, governments,
non-profit groups that are involved in the whole effort to reduce crime and
public disorder. We have many different inspectors in the city. We have
many non-profit organizations. We have the health department. We have the
justice system and we have the different levels of government, federal and
provincial. And what I have seen is a lack of coordination.

I believe there is more than enough money in the system to reduce
crime, it's just that it's not coordinated and so that would be one of
the roles. Another role would be to create benchmarks and deliverables
and measurables so we could start to see the reduction of harm to the
community.

Howell: What are deliverables and measurables?

Sullivan: Well we want to see the rates of addiction, the rates of
treatment, the rates of crime being affected and finally we want to bring
in the benefits of international research.

Howell: And how much would it cost?

Sullivan: I would think that it would be several hundred thousand dollars.
But given the fact that the police department budget's is $160 million,
that when you add up the inspectors and the health departments and all,
hundreds of millions of dollars are being expended right now to deal with
the issues of drug addiction and crime. You would actually save way more
money than you would spend by having coordination of this.

Green: Again I think it's a misunderstanding of how things work in the City
of Vancouver. We already get the deliverables that Sam was asking for. We
get the studies on addiction, we get the studies on crime rates, we get
them on a regular basis. I think that before I would announce the
elimination of Chief Jamie Graham's position I would have met with him
first. I did meet with the chief and with the union leaders to discuss how
we would go forward in crime prevention before I made any announcements.

Now I think that the chief is correct that this is part of his job but
I think it's three people's jobs; I think it's the mayor, the city
manager and the chief of police. And I believe that this is an
ill-thought out plan to try to get some recognition for Sam that just
adds a bureaucrat in between the mayor as head of the police board,
the chair at the police board, and the chief. I would much rather take
that $500,000 to $700,000 a year and put it into police operations,
especially more police on patrol in our communities.

Dissing the other guy

O'Connor: This is to Jim. Tell us why Sam wouldn't make a good mayor?

Green: Well I really don't want to speak for Sam but I think the way people
should judge that is by looking at his voting record and look at what he's
done rather than the fabrications that are coming out. I mean did Sam
really invent the Fourth Pillar? I find that to be absolutely incredible.
Sam also tells us that he's the person that's responsible for no smoking in
bars and in restaurants and I would say the person who did that work was
Fred Bass.

Howell: Sam, tell us why Jim wouldn't make a good mayor?

Sullivan: First of all, he has a very well-established record of poor
financial management and I think that we would definitely have a much more
expensive city and would not get the value. He also has a record of
dividing people and the most clear example is his own party COPE. He was
elected as a COPE councillor and he took four of the 22 elected officials
of COPE and split off to his own party called Vision.

Now remember, this new party has no constitution or board elected by
the membership. Why? Because it has no membership. It has no
accountable transparent procedures, you can't find any financial
statements, and it has a nomination process that is undemocratic. Who
made Jim Green the mayoral candidate and who picked all of his council
candidates? He did. This is not the way the city should be run.