DarrenBarefoot.com

If Tim Stevenson hadn’t run such an awful, negative “Lorne Mayencourt is evil!” campaign, I suspect he would have won. I mean, he’s right, which is why I voted for him — my dislike for Lorne far outweighed my distaste for Tim’s campaign, but he lost by around a dozen votes — and I know of at least 4 people who didn’t vote for Tim because of his campaign. I can pretty much guarantee that there are at least 8 others who felt the same.

Dear Vision: I like Larry Campbell. I’m currently inclined to vote for Vision, based on the affilliation. But run a grossly negative campaign, and you’ll lose me.

[Reply]

Yeah, but I noticed today that they aren’t spending a ton on sponsored links. It doesn’t come up every time.

[Reply]

I’m a Burnaby resident and voter, but I certainly think this Vancouver race is tough to call. Vision and COPE have manifested the same kind of infighting split that killed the NPA last time. (At least they managed to avoid the potential debacle of Christy Clark.)

Larry Campbell wasn’t the magic bullet that some seemed to hope. Whether Vancouver voters want to give the COPE-Vision bunch another chance, we’ll have to see.

[Reply]

Thanks, Darren,

First, let me say that the news release is now on the site; there was an unfortunate delay between the issuing of the release and posting it, which is entirely my fault. So, if you want to link to the site, the material is now more current than earlier today.

Second, I apologize for adding you to our distribution list without your permission. And if you want to be removed, I can certainly do that. I hope, though, that the following explanation of today’s release will convince you that we’re worthy of, if not yet your support, than at least further consideration.

Now, to the specifics of your concerns with this news release:

You say that we don’t substantiate our claim that Sullivan has been talking of cutting the police. Here’s the facts: when City Council was debating Jim Green’s motion to add an additional 50 police officers to the Vancouver Police Department, Sullivan would only agree to the proposal if the funding for the additional officers was achieved through “internal efficiencies” at the department. “Internal efficiencies” is biz-speak for “cuts.” You don’t add personnel in one section of a police force by cutting services or personnel in other areas of the force. (Well, I suppose you can, but it’s essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul.)

I should also mention that when Sullivan sat on the NPA majority Council in the 1990s, the strength of the police force declined even as the city’s population grew by 14.5 percent. (Check out our earlier campaign news release and fully sourced backgrounder at: http://www.votevision.ca/News/2005/10/CampaignNews25/index.cfm)

I agree completely that it’s “unlikely” that someone campaigning for “safer parks” amongst other things would want to cut the police force, but Sullivan has a lot of “unlikely” positions. For example, he voted against every single aspect of the Woodward’s project (see City Council minutes from September 13, available at http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20050913/documents/regmin.pdf), but now claims to support the project. In politics, some things are vastly stranger than fiction.

The section of the news release referring to Sullivan’s comments is based on the article in today’s Vancouver Sun reporting his comments to the Sun’s editorial board. I’d provide a link, but, as is all too common with the Sun’s site, the story is behind the subscription wall (but it’s on A7 of Thursday’s paper, written by Jeff Lee).

I appreciate your reluctance to accept our argument on face value, but I have to disagree with your characterization of this news release as being “negative electoral politics.” When I think of “negative politics,” I think of more American-style techniques, particularly of the sort that completely bypasses issue-oriented debate and regrettably focuses on the personal lives of candidates or issues that have nothing to do with the choices being put before the voters.

Bottom line: Sam Sullivan has chosen to make his campaign about making Vancouver “safer,” but his record at Council is one of cuts to the police–fewer officers on patrol, not more–and it’s entirely legitimate to demand that he answer to that record. That’s not “negative,” that’s debating the issues, and isn’t that what elections are all about?

Again, I apologize for adding you to our list without your permission. I hope you’ll decide to stay on, but that’s entirely up to you. Let me know either way, ok?

I appreciate your patience with this very long post.

Clay Suddaby
Communications Manager
Jim Green for Mayor
Vision Vancouver Campaign 2005

[Reply]

And I should add, for the record, that crime was in sharp decline across the country during the 1990s. As such, it doesn’t seem unwise to reduce the police force during that period.

(a) I wouldn’t call a 15% decrease in national crime over 10 years “a sharp decline” anymore than I’d call a 15% increase of my stock portfolio over a decade “wild profits.”

(b) Cutting a police force in response to declining crime rates would be a bit like turning off a plane’s engines after getting in the air. If the size of the police force is what is lowering crime, why should the force be cut? Seems illogical to me.

(c) What was BC’s crime rate doing in the 1990’s? Reducing our police force in response to decline crime rates in (for example) Ontario and Quebec might seem somewhat foolhardy.

[Reply]

Darren…Have you read Freakonomics? The author did regressions that revealed a correlation between the decline in crime and the 1973 Roe vs. Wade outcome. 18-year-olds often get into trouble with the law.

Not that this undermines your point about beat officers.

[Reply]

Andrea: I have read ‘Freakonomics’, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t apply to Canada. Legalization of abortion happened later in Canada, and more gradually (in terms of geography). The Supreme Court of Canada only struck down abortion in 1988.

[Reply]

Your metaphor is inaccurate. I’m no aeronautical engineer, but I believe that once an airplane is aloft, it reduces its thrust. If I was speaking of ‘turning off the engine’, I’d have suggested firing the entire police force.

Your comment would be meaningful if you were simply looking for the crime rate to remain steady. Are you comfortable with that? Me, I’d like to see it reduced further.

[Reply]

The current crime rate is always acceptable as long as one is not a victim of it.

Having said that, I too would be happy to see the drug laws changed, as I also believe that would result i na lower crime rate. But as long as there is poverty, susbstance addiction, mental illness, and societal dysfunction, you will have crime. And having lived for a time in the Downtown Eastside, I’d have to say that more money for the police force is a step in the right direction to dealing with the consequences of those problems.

[Reply]

I do not believe this

[Reply]