An ambitious plan to fund a decade of Public Art in the District of North Vancouver faced heavy criticism when presented to Council during an April Council Workshop. The draft plan proposed an investment of $7 million between 2018 and 2031, funded primarily by property developers through their Community Amenity Contributions (CAC).
The plan presented by Public Art Coordinator Lori Phillips and Heather Turner, Director of Recreation & Culture, included $5 million for site specific works in each of the four new “town centres “– Lynn Valley, Lynn Creek, Lions Gate, and Maplewood Village – and $2 million for works placed in areas like Edgemont, Queensdale, and Deep Cove, as well as alongside trails and in parks. The increased funding would also ensure that existing and future works can be maintained.
Councillor Doug MacKay-Dunn was the first to object, explaining his opposition to spending CAC funds on art by saying, “Art is in the eye of the beholder, but good sidewalks are not.” MacKay-Dunn requested that Council review the practice, which had been part of the funding formula for more than a decade. “If that money isn’t going into community needs, real needs, that’s wasting money … it’s being obtained under false pretences.”
Jim Hanson expressed “sticker shock” at the $7 million price tag, and suggested that the money spent on “decorations” along the Mount Seymour Parkway would have been better spent on “people who are living under the causeway (to) bring them into a more civilized way of life.” Referring to the photo of artist Lawrence Argent’s “I See What You Mean,” the great blue bear that is part of the Colorado Convention Centre, Hanson said “(7 million dollars) is a lot of money for ceramic bears.”
Public Art in North Vancouver is funded in three ways: through direct civic spending from the regular annual budget; as a part of large District capital projects like pools or plazas; or by contributions to the Community Amenity Fund. The selection of art works and the management of the overall Public Art program is overseen the North Vancouver Recreation and Culture Commission, which manages over 150 works in the City and District. The District is currently home to 64 works valued at 2 million dollars, two thirds of which came from developer funded projects.
There are three kinds of Public Art projects. Civic Public Art which incorporates public art into municipal buildings, parks and infrastructure projects; Developer Public Art where developers commission site-specific works of art that are integrated into their development projects; and Community Public Art which supports small-scale public art projects proposed jointly by community groups and artists.
At present capital projects like the new Delbrook Recreation Centre designate 1% of construction costs for Public Art, to a maximum of $500,000. Major private developments like the Seylynn Village or the Lynn Valley Town Centre earmark between 5 and 10% of their CAC to fund new works. Both of these are in line with other municipalities like Burnaby and Richmond. Where the District lags behind other Lower Mainland governments is in direct “civic funding” from its annual budget. In 2017 The District spent only 57 cents per resident on Public Art compared to the City’s $2.40 or Richmond’s $1.50 per capita.
Councillor Mathew Bond, the youngest member of Council, was enthusiastic in his support for the plan. “As the District continues to grow and develop, public art is going to be much more important than it has in the past.” He believes that it is important for his children to be surrounded by art in their community, and that this is one of the ways that they build a strong connection to the place where they live. He recounted his experiences walking around cities like Toronto and Montreal, enjoying the mix of “modern art, conceptual art, or historical references to what a place was, what it is, and what it will be in the future,” describing a “vast difference to walking around the District. “
Bond believes that a more robust Public Art policy, funded through a regular, consistent tax levy, would be better in the long run.
Concerns went beyond funding, and Council had many questions about how works were chosen, and why the program relies heavily on “professional” artists. Currently an “arms length panel of experts” chooses artists and art concepts, in consultation with stakeholders like developers and architects. Several councillors challenged the accepted practice of having artists and works selected by a panel of peer experts. Councillor Robin Hicks said that he was “not sure how we select works,” and others suggested that money could be saved by hiring artists who were not “professionals who make their whole income from art,” or by finding artists who would donate works as “advertising.”
District Council will review the Community Amenity Fund in July. The Public Art Program will present their completed plan for approval at a later date.
The single biggest issue for many District of North Vancouver residents is traffic. Any discussion about local politics quickly turns to complaints about the two overcrowded bridges, the inevitable impact of increased population density, and the near legendary “gridlock” on Lynn Valley Road.
As we speak the District and Province are spending millions of dollars to build new traffic interchanges at the the bottom of the Cut, Translink is planning to add a new B-Line bus from Phibbs Exchange to Dundarave, and traffic patterns, bike lanes, and sidewalks are being changed around each of the new “Town Centres.” But if transportation is such a critical subject, why has the District disbanded their Transportation Consultation Committee? The one committee that allowed ordinary residents to work directly with District transportation planners?
The TCC, as it is more commonly known, is still listed on the District web site, with an on-line form that you can use to apply to join it. But even though the Committee exists on paper it hasn’t actually met since April of 2017. The result is that the District has lost the one group that allowed the public to offer advice and input into transportation planning discussions.
The TCC mandate was an important one, “to provide comment to staff on regional and municipal transportation initiatives (and) assist staff in promoting, developing and improving an environmentally friendly, energy efficient, socially equitable, safe, and low impact transportation network.” The Committee included members with special interests in cycling, walking, transit, and of course driving. Over the course of its life the TCC discussed everything from the Phibbs Exchange redesign, to the choice of pavers for sidewalks in Lynn Valley, to the use of speed bumps on Sunset Drive. A special interest of several members were efforts to get local students walking and biking to school, and finding ways to make that not just a safe choice, but the preferred one too.
Even though the TCC members were ready to provide input on the big projects, their greatest value was often in identifying problems that were obvious to the people using roads, sidewalks, and bike lanes, but missed by property developers or the planners at the District. It was the TCC that identified the dangerous cycling infrastructure around Seylynn, that questioned why the District continues to place telephone poles in the middle of sidewalks, and in their last year pointed out ways that the District’s supposedly accessible transportation network often doesn’t work at all well for people with disabilities.
During 2015 and 2016 when Queens Avenue, Capilano Road, and most of Edgemont Village were all under construction, the TCC reminded staff that months of construction delays and detours weren’t just a nuisance, they had a real impact on the people who live and work here, and were hurting local businesses in ways that planners didn’t understand.
The TCC had the potential to save developers and the District significant money if the committee’s opinions had been sought before plans were finalized. Time and again TCC members travelled newly built bike lanes and sidewalks only to find significant safety hazards that no-one had anticipated, or reported the ways that things that looked good on paper actually made travel more difficult.
At the same time that the District stopped holding meetings for this citizen based advisory group, they created the North Shore Staff Transportation Committee, a super-committee that allowed transportation staff from the District, the City, and West Vancouver to meet regularly and coordinate their many projects.
This committee is only for staff. There is no mechanism for including ordinary citizens in the planning of our transportation infrastructure – a weakness pointed out at the time by West Vancouver Councillor Mary-Ann Booth, who was quoted as saying, “We also hear from our residents a lot about problems but they also come up with some pretty good solutions. Where is that link? Where is that opportunity?”
Since then the District has also joined the Integrated North Shore Transportation Planning Project along with MLA Bowinn Ma, MP Jonathan Wilkinson, the North Shore Mayors, the Ministry of Transportation, and Translink. Once again, the public is not invited.
This week the District finally released a statement saying that their participation in high level committees “… precludes the need for the District Transportation Committee at this time.” For now it appears that decisions about transportation in the District will continue to be made by staff and politicians alone, with little or no input from the residents who will have to to live with the consequences.
Barry Rueger is past Chair of the Transportation Consultation Committee
The District of North Vancouver is preparing to adopt a new Parks Regulation Bylaw, the first update since 1961. The new Bylaw is nearly four times the size of the old one, growing from four pages to fifteen, and promises “public safety through regulation.” During last week’s Council Workshop District staff explained that the new Bylaw is needed to give them “teeth” to enforce and regulate the use of District parks, but promised that rules would only be enforced some of the time, for some activities, by some people. Teenage partiers are a particular target for the new Bylaw’s enforcement.
Much of the new Bylaw is devoted to either prohibiting or regulating almost anything that you might want to do in a public park. It governs where and when people can play “organized sports,” cook a burger, rent a kayak, or cycle, and prohibits residents from erecting a “memorial or other object” commemorating a family pet. The Bylaw includes a list of more than dozen commercial activities that will require permits and fees. As well as film shoots and dogwalking, the Bylaw now designates bus tours, exercise classes, “providing instruction,” and even walking tours as regulated activities.
The one group who will enjoy more access to Parks under the new Bylaw is homeless people, who will be specifically allowed to camp overnight during the hours when non-homeless people are prohibited from using the parks. When Councilor Robin Hicks worried that including homeless access in the Bylaw would “encourage” people to camp out, Parks staff explained that the District was forced to add this section in response to court cases that ordered Victoria and Abbotsford to allow camping where there was a lack of low-barrier shelter space.
The largest part of the discussion at Council’s Tuesday workshop revolved around the question of how much regulation is too much. When asked by Councilor Mathew Bond how this Bylaw would affect residents who do night time bike rides, or enter local parks before sunrise on long hikes, the District’s Parks Manager Susan Rogers explained that these are activities that aren’t allowed unless a permit has been granted.
The new Bylaw continues the practice of closing parks between “dusk and dawn.” Many parks like our local Princess Park are locked up at 6pm for much of the year, and officially “closed” at 10pm, effectively making criminals out of anyone who likes to take their dog out for a walk after dinner. Councilor Roger Bassam, exhibiting what he described as his “Libertarian streak,” argued for fewer rules, not more. When the argument was made that more rules were needed to help the RCMP shut down teenage parties in parks, Bassam told staff and Council that there were already enough rules on the books to deal with drinking parties and other problem activities, and that the new Bylaw was a “gigantic hammer” that would have prevented him and his friends from playing touch football in Princess Park during their high-school years, and would prevent late-night cyclists and walkers from using many of the newly installed network of trails that were intended to serve them.
District staff tried to reassure Council that there was nothing to fear, because the District would practice “selective enforcement,” and that the local RCMP could be relied upon to “use discretion.” As well, Council was told that “we don’t enforce unless there’s a complaint,” and besides, “we don’t have the staff to monitor every park.”
Bassam argued that if the District doesn’t apply the law equally to all citizens – to both teenagers and late-night dog walkers – the regulation shouldn’t go forward.
Much of the North Shore is undergoing a change from single-family homes to higher-density strata developments. As more families settle in North Vancouver without the luxury of having a back yard, the demand for public parks will grow. Even though in some neighborhoods like Deep Cove there is a real problem with overcrowding and overuse of local parks, most of the District will need to find ways to accommodate more park users, not less.
When the new Bylaw is put to the vote later this spring, the question that Council should ask is whether adding more rules, but promising they won’t often be enforced, is sensible way to give District residents an enjoyable outdoors experience.
Published: North American Energy News (link)
June 2, 2017
Dear Reader, here is my question for you: how much extra are you willing to pay to speed up the Energy Transition? How much risk are you willing to assume?
This is not at all a simple question. Would we be likely to retrofit our current townhouse to be super energy efficient, much less pull out the gas furnace and hot water and go all-electric?
Probably not, because we have other places to spend tens of thousands of dollars, and the payback period would, for us, be far too long. There are also the questions about how much hassle it would be to get approval from our strata for this scope of work, and whether a forty year old wood structure is worth that kind of investment. If we’re looking to sell, a new kitchen and bathroom is better choice.
But what if we weren’t tied to a specific property? A few years ago we were looking seriously at a stunning new house on Passage Island, just off of West Vancouver. In the end we sadly concluded that boat only access just wouldn’t work for us, but that was about the only reason for not moving.
That house, like many in the Gulf Islands, and up Indian Arm in North Vancouver, is entirely off-grid. Phone and Internet are by cel coverage, and all power is by solar and battery. We looked at it and concluded that yes, we could get by just fine with the resources available: wood heat, rainwater collection to drink and wash, propane for cooking, and everything else electric from solar.
What we learned is that there are already a lot of people living very comfortably with solar power, and that it’s become reliable and affordable for most situations. If we had purchased that house everything would have already been in place, so for our use case moving away from natural gas and BC Hydro wouldn’t mean an added cost, just some fairly painless changes to electricity usage – mainly eliminating the electric clothes dryer and replacing a few energy intensive appliances.
This is all within our reach, because it’s not just about “how much are you prepared to spend,” but also about “Are there changes you can make to your day to day activities that will make this possible.”
The phenomenal success of household recycling might be good model for the energy transition. Even with curbside pick up it’s more work, more containers, involves rules that change with every municipality, and delivers exactly no financial benefit to users.
There is no immediate upside to recycling, and no downside to throwing everything into one big black plastic bag, yet the vast majority of people religiously separate plastic and paper, and now often food scraps, into separate buckets.
This didn’t happen because it was mandated, or because there was a cost/benefit analysis. It happened because over the course of a couple of decades people as a whole became convinced that it was a good and productive thing to do. The challenge for EV proponents is to develop similar arguments, and sell them to the broader population. I’d argue that this is already happening, with most people thinking that, all things considered, electric cars are a good idea.
Moving people away from oil and towards renewable energy isn’t just a question of cost. Consumer behaviour is complex and often contradictory. Governments can help things along with incentives, but the big change will come when the population as a whole sees electric cars as part of “normal.”
You can ignore the part of the question about “risk.” We’re already at a point where for the average consumer, that’s been eliminated. For household use you add panels on the roof and batteries in the attic, and you’ve got a reliable system. For autos the only “risk” seems to be the much repeated “range anxiety,” but the vast majority of urban driving is well under those limits so doesn’t apply.
As far as the costs of moving to an electric car, there are really two different questions. One is the cost of charging, and that’s really in the hands of whoever sets the electricity rates. If government decides to do some kind of smart metered cheap rate for auto charging that ceases to be an obstacle. The only remaining factor is the actual purchase price of a new electric car. That is best answered by my former mother-in-law, who described buying a car by saying “Get the fancy model. The payments aren’t any bigger, they just last longer.” If the monthly payment on a new electric car is only $50 more than for a gas model – and again, government could do that easily with tax breaks – consumers would be there in a flash.
Barry Rueger is a North Vancouver writer, non-profit board member, and past Chair of the District of North Vancouver’s Transportation Consultation Committee.
Published: North Shore News (link)
December 16, 2016
Late last month, in a meeting at the District of North Vancouver, a cyclist, a pedestrian and a disabled person found common ground. Instead of discussing the broad visions of the district’s official community plan, or initiatives like Vision Zero or Barrier Free BC, talk turned to one of those mundane problems faced by anyone travelling without a car: telephone poles in the middle of sidewalks.
It sounds like a small thing to complain about if you compare it to the daily jams on the Upper Levels highway, but for anyone trying to travel the district on foot, by bike, or in a wheelchair, these poles can be as big a barrier as a stalled semi on the Ironworkers Memorial Second Narrows Crossing.
The reasons why we wind up with poles in the middle of sidewalks are complicated. Sometimes it’s budgetary. Cash-strapped governments – because we all want to pay less tax – may decide that a less-than-perfect sidewalk is better than no sidewalk at all. Leaving a pole in the middle of the path means avoiding spending large amounts of money to move utilities, or to re-engineer larger projects to move the sidewalk. And there are jurisdictional issues – utility poles are often the domain of the utility companies, not the district. Moving a pole requires negotiating with BC Hydro, or Telus or whoever has wires on it.
Even so, people who rely on sidewalks – or shared paths used by both cyclists and walkers – often find themselves asking, “Who, exactly, thought that leaving a pole in the middle of the sidewalk was a good idea?” Or, less charitably, “And can they show me a road for cars with a pole in the middle of the lane?”
It recommends explicitly that the district “adopt a policy to prioritize pedestrians over all other modes of travel or to consider pedestrian needs in decision-making.” The master plan also makes some specific recommendations about how sidewalks should be built, suggesting that “A complete sidewalk network also includes a continuous ‘clear zone’ (path free of any obstacles) of at least 1.5 metres width …”
Despite this, it still appears that plans are made first and foremost to keep cars moving easily, with pedestrians, cyclists and disabled residents expected to settle for whatever scraps of attention or budget remain after the “important” decisions are made.
This month the district has been looking for public feedback from users of East 29th Street, between Lonsdale and Lynn Valley. Drivers of that route will immediately point to the intersection of William and 29th for attention, but this is also a good time to look at the lack of crosswalks at any other place on 29th, and to eliminate the poles, sign posts and benches that make the district sidewalks an obstacle course. Or even, just for a change, to plan first to fix the sidewalks and crosswalks, then use the left over budget to make improvements for cars.
Further afield at the Seylynn development, cyclists who need to travel between Keith Road to Lower Lynn or Deep Cove are faced with brand new poles, bollards and other obstacles that look wonderful if you’re planning for cars, but put both pedestrians and walkers at risk.
urely brand new developments should try to make sure that everyone using our roadways is treated as equally important? These are the kinds of obstacles that could have been easy to avoid at the time of construction. Instead someone – the developer? The district? – is faced with an expensive upgrade.
The district’s Pedestrian Master Plan sets a specific goal: to have district residents make 10 per cent of all trips on foot by the year 2031. That’s pretty far off, so let’s bring the discussion closer to home.
A lot of people talk about maintaining a “village” atmosphere in Lynn Valley. To me that means getting people out of their cars to walk, bike or roll so that they meet face to face, talk and make connections with their neighbours. Dog owners know this already. You can’t take Rover for a walk without stopping to talk to the people you meet.
Every day we leave home to do shopping, visit the library or have a beer with friends. If you can leave your car at home and travel on foot, or with a stroller or wheelchair, you’ll actually find yourself getting to know the people around you, and will see your community in much different ways. Ultimately you’ll make friendships and alliances that will enrich your day-to-day life, and make the district the best possible place to live, work and even retire.
If that’s our priority, and I think that it is, then our sidewalks and shared trails should be treated as equally important as the roads we drive on.
Barry Rueger is a Lynn Valley writer, dog walker, non-profit board member, and for several years has been part of the District’s Transportation Consultation Committee.
Published: Price Tags (link)
August 30, 2016
For three years I’ve been part of the District of North Vancouver’s Transportation Consultation Committee. Few things have enjoyed more discussion than cycling infrastructure.
The cycling community, including HUB, have done a tremendous job of lobbying local governments for better bike paths and lanes, and for the inclusion of bike specific amenities in major developments. When these discussions happen, bicycles are almost immediately proposed as the solution to traffic jams.
Good though that is, it isn’t about to solve the problems of the daily traffic jams on the Upper Levels highway. The problem is that our most avid cyclists don’t seem to understand the motivation of all of the thousands of people driving to and from their destinations.
The North Shore has a significant problem caused by the volume of automobiles trying to get to and from the North Shore via the two bridges. The people who are driving to and from work each day don’t generally enjoy it, and they don’t like what it costs them. No one chooses to sit for an hour in stop and go traffic, or to pay more and more for gas and insurance for the privilege. Just raising gas prices, eliminating parking, or laying on guilt trips won’t change this. You can probably make commuting by car twice as expensive and see little decrease in traffic volume – unless you can offer drivers a real and practical alternative. Or more to the point, offer drivers an alternative that they see as reasonable and attractive.
I have neighbours who cycle from Lynn Valley to downtown Vancouver and UBC respectively, but they are part of a very, very small minority. The number of North Shore residents who will be prepared to cycle or walk to jobs in Vancouver or Surrey is marginal at best. Despite the apocryphal stories about cyclists whizzing by slow moving cars on Lions Gate Bridge, the majority of drivers believe that, all things being equal, driving will get them to their destination faster than cycling. For the vast majority of drivers that’s entirely true, and the only possible options are private automobiles or public transit.
Travelling long distances by bike, over hilly terrain, at the same speed as driving, requires a high level of fitness, probably a bike costing at least thousand dollars, plus an employer who either doesn’t mind wet, smelly employees, or has shower and change facilitates at the office. The cyclists who have all of these things available really do represent a pretty elite group.
As an elite, they leave out the people who are physically unable to ride a bike. The people who are moving three or four children to various activities each day, as well as shopping and medical appointments. People moving appliances and parcels. People who carry the tools of their trade to work each day, or who work in different places and at different times. People who can’t afford the bike, and clothing, and helmet, and the extra time to travel by bike. And, of course, people who simply don’t want to ride bicycles.
For the North Shore, a solution that relies solely or mostly on cycling is not reasonable. Lecturing commuters about the “real costs” of driving (either in terms of infrastructure or in terms of the environment) won’t move more than a marginal number of people out of their cars.
The factors that keep people driving are entirely different. The person who is commuting by car will ask a few specific questions about any transportation option you offer them.
They’ll ask how long it takes to get to and from their job. If they can’t get to work on time, or if they are forced leave home a half hour early just to be sure, they’ll stay in their car. If they arrive home an hour later, and miss their kid’s soccer game, they’ll stay in their car. If their commute includes a transfer in the middle – or two – and those connections are unreliable, they’ll stay in their car. They’ll ask how close the transit start point is from their home, and how far the end point is from their work. If it’s five blocks at each end, they’ll stay in their car. If the trip involves standing or riding in the rain, they’ll stay in their car. They might not ask about it, but they care about comfort. If the bus is old, noisy, and crowded, they’ll stay in their car. If the driver is rude, or the passengers smelly, or if they usually wind up standing for much of the trip, they’ll stay in their car.
They’ll ask what it costs to take transit. In real world terms that means: is the transit fare more than what I pay for gas? Because usually it is. The other costs of driving – purchase, financing, insurance, maintenance – don’t enter into the discussion. They’re sunk costs that remain the same whether the car is parked, or being used to commute. The only variable cost is gasoline, and that’s what transit fares need to beat.
Downtown dwellers can get by with Car2Go and similar services. People living at the ends of suburban communities usually can’t – The District of North Vancouver is designed on the assumption that you’ll drive to shop, to work, to play, and a car in the driveway becomes a necessity. Even the newer, high density “town centres” being built now in Lynn Valley, and at the bottoms of Capilano Road and Mountain Highway, assume that they’ll be a shopping hub for the surrounding residential areas, and include ample parking for all of the families who will drive to them from their homes. Despite including bike racks and designated bike routes, the prevailing assumption is still that transportation is primarily provided by cars.
Consequently, on the North Shore, you can’t assume that the choice is cars vs transit or bikes. It’s actually, “I’ve already got a car in my driveway, so why should I take the bus?” People are commuting by car to and from the North Shore because they do not see an alternative that is as good. Not even close. Whether you’re promoting transit or bicycles, you’re working against convenience, comfort, reliability, and a sense of control.
That’s a combination that is worth a lot to people.
As it stands now bicycles aren’t going to replace cars on the North Shore, and North Shore transit isn’t close to offering most commuters what they think is a palatable alternative. It’s really a chicken and egg, cart and horse problem. Before you can start trying to get people out of their cars, you need to put in place the alternatives that they will be happy to use.
Or, more positively, if you build a super good transit system, people will move to it on their own because it’s better.
See the lovely dog riding beside me in my truck? Do you know her name? I don’t. I had just finished loading six dogs into my truck after an hour and a half on the trails. This happy girl became an extra passenger.
I met her as she wandered down Millstream Road in West Vancouver, following her favorite mail carrier. He even knew where she lived, so I tried to take her home, but the house was locked, and no-one answered the door.
Finally I dropped her off at the West Vancouver SPCA. All in all this little girl cost me an hour or more of my time, a side trip from the British Properties down to Park Royal, and her owners the time and expense of recovering her. Plus who knows how much worry when they found that she was gone. All for the sake of a five dollar name tag.
As a commercial dog walker I’m handling dogs all of the time. And like most other walkers, I also wind up taking care of lost dogs on a regular basis. Whether it’s the time of day, or the truck, or just a positive doggy “vibe”, you can bet that the dog that’s been wandering your neighbourhood all afternoon will come up to me and say “Hi! I’m lost! Please take me home!” And truly, I’m delighted to do it, but first I have to know who she is and how to find her owners.
If you own a dog it needs a collar. A collar that’s around his or her neck, and fastened securely. And on that collar you need a name tag, with the puppy name, and the phone number to call when I find her. Yes your dog has the proper municipal license tag, and possibly a rabies tag as well. He or she is likely micro-chipped and tattooed to boot, but none of these are much use to me, or to most people who might meet your dog on the street. What we really want is your phone number so that we can bring Rover home.
Now, about that collar. It has to be on the dog. All the time. Yes, I know that Fluffy likes to lounge about sans collar at home, but he’s just not organized enough to put it back on before leaving.
I’ll repeat: the collar has to be on the dog. All the time. Just because your dog is at home – even if he or she is inside the house, with the doors locked and the alarm set – you should still assume that a Great Escape is imminent, and leave the collar on.
Having your dog escape is not a reflection on you, or your worth as a dog owner. Sooner or later every dog finds a reason to wander off, chase a squirrel, check out the neighbor’s garbage. It’s a dog thing, like shedding, and drooling, and snatching that piece of toast of the kitchen table when your back is turned.
Our poster girl? She wasn’t wearing a collar or tags, but she was wearing a electric fence “shock” collar. Was it turned off? Were the batteries dead? Was she just happy to ignore it as she dashed off of her property? I have no idea, but it didn’t slow her down.
Nine times out of ten when we find a lost dog it’s slipped away from home – through the back door, under the fence – you would be amazed how many ways a dog can escape. Trust me. My own dog has been known to sneak out of the house and go play in Princess Park.
As an owner your obligation is to expect it, and be prepared. It’s good to check your fences and fix holes. It’s good to teach your dog recall, and encourage her to respect boundaries. But it’s also good to plan for the worst – just the way you would with a young child. The dogs that we find are only a block or less from home, and half the time the dog owner is at home too, but there’s no way we can know that.
The first step is always to look for a name tag, and call the owner. So do yourself, your dogs, and your local dog walkers a big favour and add a tag saying “My Name is Fang, and my phone number is 555-1212.”
Special hint: If your dog does get lost while you’re hiking the North Shore trails you can ask any commercial dog walker for help – we’ll spread the word to everyone walking that day to keep an eye out.
If the two hundred plus community radio stations in Canada have anything in common, it has to be the name “McCurdy”. It is difficult to walk into a community radio studio and not find at least one thing painted in McCurdy blue – either the “classic” light blue, or the newer dark blue.
Why McCurdy? Usually it comes down to two factors – the old McCurdy products were built like Mack trucks and were able to withstand years of volunteer use and sometimes sketchy maintenance. More importantly though, at the time that community radio in Canada was growing rapidly – throughout the eighties – a lot of large broadcasters were upgrading their studios, and McCurdy consoles, pedestals, and racks could be had for very little money.
Community radio in Canada exists in an environment that is quite different from the U.S. During the decades when the FCC made it impossible for community broadcasters to license a lower power station, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) was actively encouraging new and different forms of non-commercial broadcasting. Since the time when the first community radio broadcasters were licensed in the seventies, the CRTC has consistently considered community radio to be an essential part of the broadcast system, offering a distinct alternative to both commercial radio and the government funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).
More recently, at the time when the FCC was struggling with the idea of LPFM and third channel adjacencies, the CRTC was (at the urging of community broadcasters) bringing in “Developmental FM” Licenses. These licenses required a bare minimum of paperwork and equipment, and were designed to allow small communities to launch a community radio station as easily as possible. Developmental FM stations are limited to five watts, but are free of most regulation. The aim is to get new stations established easily and cheaply, and allow them to concentrate on building community support over the first few years.
Five watts does not sound like much, but it is an inexpensive way to get started and will typically cover a small town well enough to build an audience where none existed. At the end of the developmental period – typically four years – the new station is expected to apply for a full community radio license and move up to a higher power level.
Community radio in Canada actually encompasses a number of different kinds of licenses. A standalone station, not affiliated with an educational institution, will be licensed as a “Community” radio station. A station located on a University campus will typically be licensed as “Campus based Community”. “Developmental” licenses can come in either of these flavors.
Native broadcasters have yet another category of license to suit the specific needs of their communities, and there is yet another license type for “Instructional” stations attached to broadcast schools.
The differences between “Community” and “Campus based Community radio stations are less than would be imagined. The primary difference is that “Community” stations are allowed to broadcast more advertising than “Campus based Community” stations. Yes, non-commercial radio stations in Canada are allowed to sell and broadcast advertising, although the number of minutes per hour is limited. During the seventies and eighties stations faced the same sort of underwriting restrictions as American non-commercial broadcasters, but those were eventually dropped.
Unlike the U.S., where “College” radio is distinctly different from “Community” radio, all non-commercial radio stations in Canada have a similar philosophy and style. Both “Community” and Campus based Community” stations are required to open their doors to their local community. It is not considered good form to only allow students access to the airwaves, and in fact the regulations governing Campus based stations are explicit that they serve the entire listening community, not just the campus. It is also required that “Campus based” radio stations have a separate Board of Directors which includes both campus and non-campus representatives.
The other distinct feature of almost every “Community” or “Campus based Community” station is a heavy multicultural component. It is normal for established stations to broadcast in ten or twenty languages to as many cultural or ethnic groups. CKCU Radio in Ottawa for instance has weekly programs for the Jewish, Indian, Filipino, Afghani , Somali, Haitien, African, Persian, and Vietnamese communities. Many of these programs date from the early days of the station and play a critical role in their local communities.
Multicultural programs also play a critical role in the funding of community radio in Canada. Because community radio often offers the only media source in their mother tongue, multicultural communities are often major financial supporters of their local station. Unlike the U.S., where many community broadcasters can access funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) or the PTFP program, there is virtually no funding available to community broadcasters in Canada. The only broadcaster funded by the Canadian government is the CBC.
As a result community broadcasters rely most heavily on two income sources – student levies (for Campus based stations) and listener donations. Despite being allowed to sell advertising, the reality is that ad sales seldom bring in enough income to cover the costs associated with selling and producing spots.
The annual levy that students pay to support Campus based stations ranges from low of 40 cents to a high that approaches thirty dollars. Even though these are a fraction of the amounts that students pay for athletic fees or other “services”, there is always a fear that an incoming student government may choose to turn off the tap.
Although stations like CKCU or Vancouver Co-op Radio have been conducting annual funding drives for a couple of decades, station fund raising is still relatively unsophisticated. There is no equivalent to the Development Exchange Inc. (DEI) in Canada, and there is very little use of direct mail by community broadcasters. Consequently the most successful funding drives in Canada seldom exceed $100,000 annually, even in large cities.
Budgets at Canadian community radio stations are quite a bit smaller than in the U.S., with most stations operating on less than $200,000 a year, and only a couple of stations exceeding $300,000. Capital budgets tend to be very tight, and maintenance of equipment can be less rigorous than anyone would prefer. Equipment is invariably used until it is well past its prime. CD players for instance will typically spend two years in On-Air, then move to the Production studios, then to the music library.
The small budgets also are reflected in the low staffing levels. Many stations have only one or two full time staff, and it is unusual to see stations with the four or five FTE staffing that CPB would require in order to qualify for a Community Service Grant. This, coupled with traditionally low salaries, tends to lead to burnout and a high turnover. The tendency is for community radio staff to be young and inexperienced. Once employees gain skills and knowledge they almost always leave the sector for “real” jobs.
From an engineering standpoint community radio in Canada presents some interesting challenges. The people starting new stations are invariably beginners who are more concerned with serving their community than learning the ins and outs of frequency searches and HAAT. A good deal of our time (and a good deal of the content on our website http://www.community-media.com) is spent explaining basic concepts to community groups and individuals, helping them to understand what equipment they need (as opposed to what the salesman wants to sell them), and helping them to learn enough of the jargon to understand what is happening around them.
We consider ourselves lucky to have a few suppliers who understand that volunteer programmed community radio is not the same as commercial radio, and who will try to suggest equipment and products that are suitable. That means no automation system, no fancy “studio furniture”, and a focus on ease of use and durability.
We also keep close track of consulting Engineers who will work with community broadcasters on ten and fifty watt engineering briefs, and who understand the meager budgets of these stations.
As part of our work we also produce and distribute radio series to these community broadcasters. Once again the lack of a CPB or PTFP means that station facilities are quite limited. Outside of the francophone sector there are no satellite down links, so programming is almost universally distributed on compact disc. Thankfully the use of cassette tape from program distribution is almost dead.
Internet distribution is starting to become more common, but many stations are hampered by old computer equipment, poor Internet connections, or simply the skills and organizational support to take programming from the ‘Net to the Control Room. Again, most of these problems a refection of low budgets.
Some will argue that the low budgets help to keep community radio stations focused exclusively on community service. Big egos are discouraged, as are the opportunists who only want to make a buck. The result is an ever growing network of stations that without exception place community service before profit.
Even the major commercial broadcasters seem to understand the role of community radio in Canada. Instead of considering them a threat, companies like Rogers and Standard Broadcasting seem to understand that community broadcasters serve a lot of marginal communities (in dollar terms) that the bigs guys would rather not deal with.
Instead of fighting the community radio sector, the major – and many not so major – broadcasters actively support community radio. Standard Broadcasting for instance has for many years financed the annual Standard Radio Awards of Excellence in community radio broadcasting, and CORUS Entertainment, owner of more than fifty radio stations, as well as cable television properties, has underwritten the Dig Your Roots project, which discovers new bands in Canada and presents live concerts broadcast via the ‘Net. Both of these projects are coordinated by the National Campus and Community Radio Association. (NCRA).
Even though stations may struggle with poor funding and aging equipment, it’s still fair to say that community radio in Canada plays a vital role, and will continue to see steady growth for many years to come.r
Bio: Barry Rueger has been working in community radio for more than twenty years. His company Community-Media.com offers training and consultation to broadcasters in Canada, the U.S., and abroad.
Published: Community-Media.com (pdf)
Writing and design Barry Rueger and Victoria Fenner
Beginning in 2004 under our Community-Media.com name, Victoria Fenner and Barry conducted a successful series of workshops teaching non-profit managers and volunteers how to write successful funding applications. With a focus on the Ontario Trillium Fund, the workshop walked participants through the process of assembling needed information, developing a clear project for funding, and preparing the full application and supporting documents.
As part of this workshop participants were provided with a copy of the self-published “Grant Application Workbook.” A sample page is below. The full handbook can be downloaded in PDF
CFMU Radio is the campus/community radio station located at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. In 2003 Barry handled the design and layout for their first ever Volunteer Handbook. It marked Barry’s first use of Adobe Pagemaker, at the end of the days when such work was done by sticking printed text and images onto “flats” using an electric waxer.