How many of Vancouver's public parks are technically "temporary"?

Spanish Banks Beach and the downtown Vancouver skyline. (Josef Hanus/Shutterstock)

The debate over the future of Vancouver Park Board continues to unravel, with some of the latest discourse centring on the precise wording of Mayor Ken Sim’s motion proposing to abolish the separately elected body.

As an added protection for Vancouver City Council’s new governance powers of the parks and recreation system, Sim’s motion requests the provincial government to amend the Vancouver Charter to require a unanimous vote in City Council for any park use designation change, which would then trigger a public referendum for the final approval needed.

“Make no mistake about it, as long as I’m mayor of Vancouver, parks will always be parks, and golf courses will always be golf courses. We’re going to ask the provincial government to actually strengthen the protections,” Sim told Daily Hive Urbanized in a previous interview.

But Laura Christensen, one of three Park Board commissioners who were under Sim’s ABC party banner up until last week, now sitting as an independent in opposition to abolition, is questioning why the motion appears to only provide protections to “permanent public parks.”

You might also like:

Based on her interpretation of the mayor’s specific wording, she says this is “extremely concerning.”

“I want Council to consider the wording of why this specific wording was chosen,” said Christensen during today’s City Council meeting.

“Even if they have the best intentions to protect parks and green spaces in Vancouver, this changes the Vancouver Charter and will apply to many Councils to come. What is it to say the next mayor and Council will be so committed to park protection?”

Out of roughly 250 parks in Vancouver’s public park system, over 140 have “permanent” status. The remainder are technically “temporary” parks, based on a City of Vancouver staff report in early 2022 providing an inventory, including some parcels of Spanish Banks in Point Grey and Sunset Beach in the West End, which are some of the city’s most high-profile and longstanding beach parks.

Over the decades, there has been an effort to increase the number of “permanent” designation parks, but as this is a time-consuming legal process involving multiple City departments, the pace has been slow. In March 2022, following the recommendation of City staff, City Council unanimously approved the designation of seven public parks as “permanent.”

Under existing policies, a permanent park designation can only be removed if City Council and the Park Board each pass a resolution with at least a 66% approval of all elected members. “Temporary” public parks can only be designated by City Council, and a 66% approval vote is required by City Council if this particular status is to be removed. Some of these parks are “temporary” because they are located on crown lands.

Supporters of the Park Board and critics of the mayor’s proposal assert the Park Board’s existing separation jurisdiction overseeing parklands — independent of the mayor and City Council — is akin to the “separation of church and state,” as it provides a firewall from potential development interests or other non-park uses.

“One of the reasons that we have a park board is to protect and preserve parkland in our city. And I think that we also need to consider the fact that we are not going to be able to increase our parkland at the rate that we need to for the growth of our city,” said Melissa De Genova, who served as a Park Board commissioner from 2011 to 2014 and a City councillor from 2014 to 2022 under the NPA banner, in an interview with Daily Hive Urbanized. She is amongst the group of more than two dozen former Park Board commissioners who are against abolition.

The current system provides “extra protection” and “essentially creates a trust for the parkland, so that the Council of today and the Council in 50 years won’t be able to sell parkland, unless the Park Board and City Council are both in alignment,” says De Genova.

But George Affleck, a former City councillor from 2011 to 2018 under the NPA, says the notion that City Council’s stewardship of parklands will lead to the sale and/or development of parklands is a “scare tactic” by opponents to the mayor’s plan.

“I just can’t imagine that happening. That is not what it’s about. This proposal is about the administration and better management of our parks that we have,” Affleck told Daily Hive Urbanized.

He suggests getting rid of parklands or changing their use is easier said than done.

“To sell real estate, you need to go through the whole in-camera process, you have to vote on it, you need to get a majority… I just don’t see it,” said Affleck, before emphasizing that the issue at hand is improving administration and addressing the Park Board’s “bad management,” costs, and “inability to get anything done.”

“It’s about bureaucracy. It’s about so many things, but it’s not about that (selling lands).”

Last month, Park Board commissioners reaffirmed that there would be no consideration of turning Park Board-owned and operated golf course, such as Langara Golf Course, into housing during the upcoming planning exercise for improving golf course facilities.

Earlier this year, due to negative public input, Burnaby City Council, which governs the parks and recreation system for their jurisdiction, directed City of Burnaby staff to go back to the drawing board on their plans for building an organic waste recycling facility on parkspace. City staff had originally proposed to develop 21 acres of the 100-acre waterfront site that forms a part of Burnaby Fraser Foreshore Park on the Fraser River.

Over 160 public speakers have signed up to address Vancouver City Council today ahead of their decision on whether to approve the mayor’s motion to formally ask the provincial government to amend the Vancouver Charter relating to the Park Board.

You might also like: