... ACCORDING 10 AN UNITED WAY REPORT. WERE LIVING FAR BELOW THEPOVERTY LEVEL . BUT GRACE McCARTHY SAYS THEY ARE OFF BASE WITH THEIR FIGURES BECAUSE....... ... DONT TALK SO MUCH... YOUR DOGFOOD 1S - GETTING COLD... | . H. faeifie Tribune COPE ready to talk unity with Harcourt © The Committee of Progressive Electors is prepared to sit down with mayoralty candidate Mike Harcourt to do some “‘plain talk- ing” about unity in the 1980 Van- couver civic election. But unity means ‘‘give and take, not giving all and taking nothing,” COPE alderman Harry’ Rankin told the nearly 200 COPE members at the organization’s annual meet- ing Sunday at the Ironworkers Hall. Rankin laid out COPE’s politi- cal strategy for the election cam- paign, a familiar one to most mem- bers, of building ‘‘centre-left unity’’ to counter the ‘‘centre- right”’ block around the NPA. The new elements of this year’s situation are COPE’s increased strength and the early candidacy of . Harcourt’ for’ mayor: And although he-did-not mention-Har- court ‘by mame, Rankin’ left no doubt that while COPE wants a united reform vote, much will de-. pend on Harcourt. “It is possible to accommodate — others if they are willing to work with us,’’ he said, ‘“‘but we’re not bowing out of the picture to make unity possible.”’ . COPE candidates were in runner-up positions for city council and parks board last election, and were in striking distance of school board as well, he said, and this year election of more candidates at all three levels is a very real possibility. COPE’s strength for 1980 was emphasized as well by president Bruce Yorke who said it is coming off the most active non-election year ever with increased strength and influence. Yorke was re-elect- ed president by the meeting. Other officers elected were vice- presidents Libby Davies and Bruce Eriksen, treasurer David Schreck and secretary Pat Wilson, and ex- ecutive members Carmela Alevato, Ujjal Dusanjh, David Stone, Debra Lewis, Jonnie Rankin, Jean Swanson, Ruth Lowther, Tony Puddicomb, Joyce Chong, Janice Harris, Peggy Chunn, Jim Quail and David Jaffe. .. PEOPLE AND ISSUES . letter from the U.S. Depart- ment of Justice, federal n division would appear to attest to the scope of the campaign mounted on behalf of American Indian Movement leader Leonard Peltier. But at the same time, the letter re- ceived by Libby Griffin in response to her concern over the possible transfer of Peltier to the ‘‘control unit’’ at Marion prison offers little comfort. Signed by H. G. Miller, warden at Marion prison, it first dismisses the demand for a full investigation into the Peltier case since “‘it does not fall within the purview of the federal prison system.” It then adds the information that “Mr. Peltier was returned to Mar- ion from federal court on Feb. 28, 1980,”’ although it does not state whether he has been assigned to the‘‘control unit.” But what readers will find most glib are warden Miller’s assurances that ‘‘we share your concern for the treatment of Peltier’’ and that in re- turn for “‘abiding by.the rules. . . he will be accorded the fair and hu- mane treatment which he and all inmates deserve.’ After reading Carol Frances Likins’ story in our last issue, outlining the conspiracy against the AIM leader, those as- surances mean almost nothing. For Peltier, solidarity is still the only de- fence. * * ; hen Joyce Andres was killed in a car accident in Greece last year, it cut tragically short the life of a young woman who had al- ready given many of her talents to the progressive movement, among students and in Vancouver civic politics. And last Sunday, the Committee of Progressive Elec- tors, for whom Joyce had worked as campaign manager during the 1978 civic elections, was reminded of that as a bequest of $2,000 was . turned over to COPE from Joyce’s estate. ; Fittingly, the COPE annual meeting which had earlier observed a minute’s silence in her memory, voted unanimously to donate $500 of the bequest to the Joyce Andres memorial scholarship fund which was set up shortly after her death by the National Union of Students. * * * ith the 1980 financial drive coming in alittle over a week — a drive that will mark the 45th an- niversary of the founding of the pa- per — we face 24 months of tough campaigning to keep the paper go- ing. And it will be tougher than usual this year, since we won’t be able to call on the help of Mike ‘Stevens who for several years has made his own significant dent on the total. Readers may recall that we re- ported some weeks ago on his ad- mission to hospital and although we’d hoped he’d be out fairly quickly, it was apparently neces- sary to prolong his stay. ; However, he’s in satisfactory condition at St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver where he can receive visitors. He’s in Room 411. PACIFIC TRIBUNE—MARCH 21,’ 1960—Page 2 Fraser Institute attacks _ municipal zoning powers By Ald. HARRY RANKIN Zoning is recognized by all levels of government in Canada as an essential ingredient in municipal and community planning and in the orderly development of our ur- ban centres. It enables us to decide the location of residential, com- mercial and _ industrial developments, to preserve the character of a community, to maintain and improve its livability. It: provides for public input before any decisions are made by municipal councils. It is a method of protecting the public from rapacious developers. But zoning is not acceptable to some interests. The Fraser Institute has just come out with a new book Zoning, its Costs and Relevance for the 1980’s in which the whole concept of zoning is subjected to malicious attack. What is the Fraser Institute?. William Buholzer writing in the Vancouver Sun, March 10 hit it right on when he said: ‘‘Its board of trustees and financial backers in- clude the biggest corporations in~ Canada, including the major land development firms. Its editorial . board is a who’s who of right wing economists.”” So what we have here in this assault on zoning is no dispas- sionate, objective analysis of the pros and cons of zoning, but a col- lection of assertions and arguments without any evidence that will stand up under cross-examination. The first ones to profit, if zoning were abolished, would be the developers and other business in- terests who financed the publica- tion of this book. While generously admitting that citizens have a clear and obvious right to have their homes protected from physical damage, this right, they say, ‘‘does not apply to the value of their property,’’ and they go on to say, “‘yet this is precisely what zoning seeks to preserve.” Who are they to say that we have no right to protect our property from being devalued? The hypocrisy of their contention would be quickly exposed if at- tempts were made to build a boiler factory in Shaughnessy, South- West Marine Drive or Point Grey where many of the sponsors of the Fraser Institute live. The Municipal Act, Section 702 (27 f) specifically states that zoning may be used to promote ‘‘the conservation of pro- perty values.”’ Zoning is unfair, they assert, because ‘‘a less restrictive variance may be worth millions of dollars to a land developer’’ and add that if this leads to graft and corruption it “4s not necessarily all to the bad”’ if it ‘‘optimizes” the use of land. Need any more be said about the morality of those who want to abolish zoning? Zoning, they charge, promotes ‘‘continued existence of deteriorating neighbourhoods”’ and that ‘“‘the economics of the market place” (by which they mean the developers) ‘‘should be allowed to counteract decaying areas.’’ Surely even the ““economists’”’ who wrote this book must have privately blushed when they came up with this one — that the developers are the friends of the poor who live in our slums. It may be true that developers have taken some run-down areas — and built profitable shopping cen- tres and so on in them. But the peo- ple who lived there before never benefited. They were just kicked out. And what about the hundreds ~ and hundreds of moderate priced and perfectly good buildings that the developers have destroyed to make way for expensive apart- ments? But most. of all what the developers dislike is. the public hearings where their real motives and phony schemes are often ex- posed. The authors object that ‘the process of public hearings and politician involvement encourages decisions based on personal popularity rather than sound economic principles.’’ The people . with the ‘‘sound economic prin- ciples’’ are, of course, the developers, while the citizens are’ fools, in the opinion of these wor- thy gentlemen. The authors also make much of the example of the city of Houston, Texas, which apparently has no zoning by-laws and where the developers have a free hand. Zon- ing has been replaced by what they call ‘‘private deed restrictions,’’ of which there are some 10,000 in Houston. But even the authors have to ad-’ mit that while Houston may look, beautiful to developers, to many others it is a ‘‘sprawling, ugly, mix- ed up city” with ‘‘an endles row of billboards on many thoroughfares creating a hectic scene’’, where, “Sndustrial areas may also be found close to older residential areas’ and: where ‘‘some of these industries may create some pollu- - tion.” In Houston, they say, the role of the city planning department is to gather information for ‘“commer- cial developers and industrial con- cerns,’’ and the Houston practice is “to cooperate with land developers . . . in order that the city govern- © ment may supply the necessary municipal facilities and services at the right time, at the right size and at the right place.”’ It’s easy to see who runs city council in Houston! The authors of ‘‘Zoning’’, and their financial: backers, the developers, don’t like zoning because, they say, they don’t like government interference with ‘free enterprise.’’ But it’s obvious there are some forms of govern- ment interference that they like - often been one of the severest critics that harm the public interest. If) THE FRASER INSTITUTE FRASER INSTITUTE BOOK «°° one of six outlining corpore™ views on land issues. = very much, such as the generousta ] concessions which Ottawa gives! developers. I doubt that the arguments of those who back the book “Zoning” will get much public support. But I’m also more suspicious that it may receive SOMe support from certain circles 11 BS — provincial government. The Municipal Act comes up for review’ at this session of the provillcit” legislature, and we’ll have to wal closely to see if the publication of “Zoning” is a forerunner OF changes demanded by the developers. oe I certainly do not take the posi- : tion that all zoning by-laws that have been passed in Vancouvet have been good. In fact I have } of the way land has been rezoned just to help developers. But the fault is not in zoning, it isin the Way zoning is used. Zoning can bean i strument for good or for bad andit” has been used in both ways by city council. It’s only as good as the city council that makes the zoning by laws. If the developers have the i: fluence, then zoning by-laws result citizen views prevail, it’s the other way around. Zoning is a necessaly instrument for planning and con trol. The question is — how willit" be used and in whose interests: That becomes a political question — it depends upon the composition of city council and its response 10 both citizen and develope! pressure. \ —4 electors. required. earliest convenience. RESIDENT ELECTORS OWNER ELECTORS 31st, 1980. accurate as possible. eo CITY. OF VANCOUVER We REGISTER OF ELECTORS VOTERS’ LIST CANVASS | Enumerators will call at each residence ONCE ONLY taking the names of eligible If no contact can be made, a ‘pink’ business reply card will be left for completion — and mailing to the City of Vancouver Voters’ List, 2512 Yukon St., Vancouver, B.C. PLEASE RETURN YOUR COMPLETED CARD WITHOUT DELAY. No postage is If you are in doubt that an enumerator visited you, or you do not feel that you re- . ceived the ‘‘pink’’ card, please phone the Voters’ List office, (873-7680 or 7681, 7682, - 7683, 7684) to enquire if the enumerators have visited your area. Persons missed during the enumeration may register, in person, at the Voters’ List office, 2512 Yukon St., Vancouver, B.C., up to and including Thursday, August 21st, | 1980, during office hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.). You are urged to register at your Qualifications of Electors are as follows: 1. Must be resident in the City of Vancouver CONTINUOUSLY from January 1st, 1980 to and including June 15th, 1980. AND 2. Must be Canadian Citizens or other British Subjects, 19 years of age or over ON ELECTION DAY (Wednesday, November 19th, 1980). 1. Must be the registered owner of property in the City of Vancouver by July, ‘AND 2. Must be Canadian Citizens or other British Subjects, 19 years of ageorover | ON ELECTION DAY (Wednesday, November 19th, 1980). = ess Your full co-operation will assist the Voters’ List office in compiling a list that is as CITY HALL, VANCOUVER, B.C. March 15, 1980 R. Henry, CITY CLERK