‘ory leader Robert Stanfield looks “‘buoyant’’ these
days, no doubt anticipating being elected Canada’s
next prime minister, come the next federal election. Although
itching for an election, he just can’t shake off that “friendly
undertaker” character as though he were measuring some
“departed” for the customary pine box. :
Coincident with this expectancy, his tory followers in most
provinces, and especially in B.C. are working like hypnotized
beavers to create a brand new tory ‘‘image’’; to win recruits,
and to woo “‘defectees” from other political conglomerations.
During recent weeks they have won a couple of these (already
elected) defecting MLA’s from the ranks of Socredia. Contrary
to popular opinion, such switchovers impose no stresses or
strains of “‘principle” since toryism and social creditism are
one and the same; when they come together (as they often do)
they spell out political reaction and opportunism.
It could be of course that all-such defections, like the

proverbial rats deserting a sinking ship, are looking ahead a bit '

to save their elective seats and salaries, thus gambling on the
Tories as the next “‘sure thing’ (?) Others, of course, will
defect to Liberal ranks, since they have hopes that the Trudeau
“charisma” will shine again — and their ‘‘emoluments of
office’ continue uninterrupted. As Karl Marx wrote in the
Communist Manifesto over one hundred years ago that the
bourgeoisie “‘take the greatest pleasure in seducing. each
other’s wives,”’ so it is in the business of seducing each other’s
political parties and ‘‘principles.’’ For the parties of
capitalism the prime concern is not how to serve the people,
but how to fool them — and get at the public pork barrel come
hell or high water.

In polite language the custom might be called “bringing
government closer to the people,”’ or, in less polite language it
could more correctly be termed, ‘‘living on the country.” Be
that as it may the idea is meeting with a less than lukewarm
response— a sentiment probably due to previous experiences.

Some few weeks ago a letter went out from ‘‘Prime
Minister’? W.A.C. Bennett’s office to'a number of the larger
municipal administrations in B.C. suggesting a number of
peregrinating Cabinet Meetings were being planned for such
centers, and how would you like to do the honors, etc?

Scratching their heads and thinking back on how much the
last cabinet meeting cost the taxpayers in their. own
communities, they began to demur, balk, and in some
instances urged a referendum on the proposal before it became
operative.

Some Mayors and other heads of municipalities pointed out
that the last one cost the already overburdened taxpayers, a
good four grand for “‘honourary’’ dinners, receptions, hotel
accommodation, etc., and opined they would sooner have one
of Barnum and Bailey’s side-shows visiting town ‘than that
lot”. This time a large metropolitan centre in Northern B.C.
urged a referendum before anything is done.

The performance of the 1972 Legislature has surpassed all
other performances of Socredia in the area of restrictive,
repressive, and repulsive legislation, affecting every segment
of B.C.’s working, professional, and small business people; the
trade unionist, the doctor, the school teacher, etc. Only Big
Business and monopoly who continually demand, and receive
all they demand, has preference above all else. Thus it is clear
that Bennett and Company have addressed their letter
promoting a ‘‘command performance” of their government
cabal to the wrong place. Being the prime beneficiaries of
Social Credit give-aways, the Big Boys\could probably stand
the farce, foot the bill for the dinner, receptions, etc., and feel
the outlay was well worth the ‘“‘services rendered”.

Since Socredia is already blowing thousands of dollars of the
taxpayer’s money in election propaganda before that
auspicious event is even decided, this travelling Cabinet stunt
could just be another gimmick of Wacky’s to cinch votes — at
the taxpayer’s expense.

But the ‘‘boom is now long off the bloom” and the people of
B.C. want to see a government that can act for the common
weal, rather than one anxious ‘‘to put on a show” — which any

group of teenage school children could duplicate — and
improve upon.

In Memory of our dear wife
and mother, Ivy Kaila.
Sadly missed by husband Elmer
and daughter Gladys

Meadows may blossom, woods may echo
Your peaceful sleep is forever.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, APRIL 28, 1972—PAGE 2

{HaA—-ShiUSl af

How city hall hoard
favors big developers

By ALD. HARRY RANKIN
In my commentary on civic
affairs last week I charged that

the Board of Variance, a body ©

established under Vancouver’s
city charter to hear appeals on
zoning regulations, dealt
unfairly with the appeals of ordin
ary citizens but bent over back-
wards to meet the demands of
big developers.

As an example I cited the case
of Greyhound Bus involving
sleeping accommodation for bus
drivers above a garage near
Georgia Viaduct. Without even
hearing the bus drivers’ side of
the case, the Board of Variance
gave the company permission
to by-pass zoning regulations.

Now Ill give another example
of how the Board broke its own
rules and the city charter to help
a big developer, Ben Wosk, in
the Kitsilano area.

The owner of this property at
2280 Cornwall applied in Jan-
uary, 1970, for a permit to build a
35 unit, 9 storey high rise apart-
ment block. The Planning
Department of the city, which is
in charge of enforcing zoning
regulations, rejected the appli-
cation because it proposed to
break zoning regulations govern-
ing both height (Vertical Angle
of Daylight Obstruction) and
floor area (Floor Space Ratio).

The owner then appealed the
case to the Board of Variance.
The Board granted the appeal,
allowing the developer to
ignore both of the zoning regu-
lations referred to above, but not
granting him all he asked for in
floor area.

A year later, in the spring of
1971, the owner of the property
applied to the Board asking for
another increase in floor space
ratio. This time the Board
granted his full request. The net
result was that the 35 unit apart-
ment building originally
rejected by the Planning Depart-
ment in 1970 was now allowed.
Among other things it permitted
the building to be 2% storeys
higher than the zoning regula-
tions permitted.

The Board of Variance broke
its own rules and the city charter
on at least three counts.

(1) The developer claimed in
his appeal in January, 1970 that
to conform to zoning regulations
would be ‘‘uneconomic”’ for
him. His appeal was granted in
spite of the fact thatthe city
charter specifically states that
a relaxation of zoning regu-
lations may be granted by the
Board only if these regulations
impose ‘‘an_ unreasonable
restraint or unnecessary hard-
ship” on the property owner, and
furthermore that ‘‘the Board
shall not allow any appeal solely
on the ground that if allowed the
land or buildings in question can
be put to more profitable use

Only profit was involved here.
There was no ‘‘unreasonable
restraint or unnecessary hard-
ship”’ on the property owner. All
other property owners in the
area must abide by the zoning
regulations.

(2) The second appeal by the
owner of this property in the
spring of 1971 was clearly an
appeal for the Board to modify
its original ruling. The city
charter specifically states that
“the Board shall not re-hear an
appeal covering the identical
ground or principles upon which
the Board has already rendered
adecision. . .”

(3) Direct notifications were
not sent to adjacent property
owners notifying them of the
appeal, as required by the city
charter which states: ‘‘The
Board shall give notice to such
owners of real property as the
Board may deem to be affected
by the appeal. . .”’

The whole business smells.
There’s some hanky panky going
on here that should be looked
into.

City Council should take this
particular case to the Courts
and challenge the ruling of the
Board.

If the Board can get away. with
this sort of thing, then all our
zoning regulations may as well
be thrown out of the window.
Council should set up a com-
mittee to investigate the Board
from the viewpoint of changing
the personnel and building in
some legal safeguards to
protect the public.

uv
This historic photo was taken in Hanoi in November, 1965 when a delegation from the Canadian come
Party visited North Vietnam. It shows Ho Chi Minh with Tim Buck, Communist Party chairman on the
Maurice Rush, PT editor on the right. This photo in beautiful color, much larger, will be presented of
of the current PT finascial drive to all those who raise or contribute over $100 to the drive.

Ald. Harry Rankin will be hot)
ored at a giant birthday pally
at the Canadian Legion Hal
2208 Commercial Dr., Fil:
May 5 at & p.m. Sponsored "| :
COPE, the happy event will |

feature entertainment,
smorgasbord and _ refresh|)
ments. Tickets, $2.50. Pen
sioners and students, $1.00. ;
Tickets available at Co-OP
Bookstore, COPE membe®
and PT office.

ELMER PONTIUS

Trail unionist —
runs for council

Elmer. Pontius, well knot ;
labor man in Trail will seek @™
tion to city council in that cllY
a by-election being called sd

He has been a Trail rest")
for 20 years, an employe’ i
Cominco, and active in 207)
ties of his union local,
workers 480, for many yea!
is a member of the sick wt
society and the Trail fa™ |
court committee. “nove

Pontius is fighting to rem
education and welfare ©,
from property taxes, ano! ;
pressing for more pollu®
control in the area.