Petition on ward system put to MLAs Continued from pg. 1 communities and determine the precise boundaries of the wards. COPE has called on community organizations and citizens that voted for the ward system in the plebiscite to turn out to the council meeting March 13 to support Rankin’s motion, and urge rejec- tion of Volrich’s plan. Volrich’s proposal to establish an independent commission to study the ward system and other matters of electoral reform is ‘‘ludicrous’’, Yorke charged. ‘“‘The mayor is a known opponent of the ward system, as is the majority of the NPA council. To expect an in- dependent commission appointed by them to implement the ward system is to expect miracles...Moreover, such a pro- posal shows nothing but contempt for the democratic process as ex- pressed in the plebiscite.”’ Regardless of the outcome of Rankin’s motion, the third part of the COPE’s campaign: will see COPE neighborhood committees throughout the city take the lead in convening public meetings to allow community groups and citizens to express their views on the kind of wards and their boundaries that should be established. The petition to the legislature, signed by Bruce Yorke, Harry Rankin, Bruce Eriksen and the other members of the COPE ex- ecutive cites the plebiscite victory and the October 31, 1978 debate in Vancouver city council when the wording of the ads publicizing the plebiscite was adopted. The ad made a definite commitment that if the majority voted for a ward system, it would be implemented, the petition argues. The decision is being ignored by the new city council, it says, calling on the legislature to take action to amend the city charter “‘to provide for the election of city council, school and parks board by neighborhoods, wards, areas, or constituencies.’” COPE table of- ficers will go to Victoria March 23 to lobby support for the petition. Take time to get a sub ieupclipiekiad et Tt om arco eee COPE’s Bruce Eriksen (left) and Bruce Yorke outlined campaign to win ward system for Vancouver, part of which will see NDP MLA Norman Levi introduce a formal petition to the provincial govern- ment. Burnaby transit plan rejects UTA. After a year of public discussion and debate, the municipality of Burnaby has produced a draft transportation policy which runs directly counter to the Urban Tran- sit Authority which the provincial government intends to impose on Greater Vancouver. The 14 point draft policy con- tradicts the thrust of the UTA in at least two key areas: financing and regional decision making. The policy statement on public transit calls on Burnaby municipal council to ‘‘strive to obtain from the provincial government agree- ment to an appropriate cost sharing formula for transit service funding that will allow the municipalities to establish attractive fare schedules capable of encouraging public tran- sit usage.”’ The UTA regulations imposed by - the provincial cabinet dictates that 35 percent of the operating costs, of public transit must come from the fare box, and operating costs are expected to rise by 78 percent by 1984. The UTA also has a political structure which would force municipal officials, not the provin- cial government, to actually make the recommendation to increase City council rejects grant, votes ‘to give DERA nothing’ Vancouver city council’s right wing majority has once again re- jected the grant application of the Downtown Eastside Residents Association for funding to pay the salaries of three community workers. The NPA majority didn’t even bother to state the reasons for the decision as they voted down a mo- tion by alderman Harry Rankin to approve a $36,000 grant, a further motion to approve a $12,000 grant and another motion for a $10,000. Finally NPA alderman George Puil moved that DERA get nothing, which passed by a seven to four vote. “It is the same as the decision to kill the equal opportunities pro- gram,’’ DERA’s Bruce Eriksen ex- plained, ‘‘They don’t like to hear what we have to say, so they are killing the messenger.’” Eriksen said that the manner in which the grant was rejected without any real discussion was contemptuous of the downtown eastside and motivated by political reasons alone. ‘‘They are still _ fighting the last election,’’ he said. Eriksen was particularly critical of alderman Don Bellamy, who had indicated earlier that he would sup- port the grant, and NPA’er Helen Boyce, who last year spoke to city council on behalf of DERA’s grant appeal. Boyce explained to Eriksen that she had a change of mind because DERA ‘‘had become too political’’ in the past year. ‘Mindless’ spray program stopped By ALD. HARRY RANKIN How would you like to have your residential area sprayed with a potential cancer-producing chemical pesticide? I’m sure you wouldn’t lose any time in raising hell and demanding that the project be shelved at once. Parks board feels heat over user fee increases The Vancouver board of parks and recreation backed off slightly from its decision to raise user fees at city swimming pools and ice rinks after three delegations, led by the Committee of Progressiv> 2 Electors, protesied the. increases Monday evening. COPE’s campaign forced the board to hear representatior. on the increases, although it would only allow three delegations to be heard. More than 10 other delegation re- quests were refused by the board. COPE spokesperson Pat Wilson told the parks board that its deci- sion was “‘most undemocratic, you are denying people the right to be heard and to participate in making decisions.”’ The whole procedure for increas- ing the rates was undemocratic, COPE charged, as it was introduc- ed and passed within minutes at a single meeting and the decision was then not even publicized. Wilson said that the increases were unjustified because they would put undue hardship on low income families and because they were be- ing implemented in isolation from a review of parks board spending priorities. . After hearing Wilson, a pen- sioner, the Grandview Woodlands NIP committee and Local 213 of the IBEW, the board decided to “refer the question to committee for further analysis.’? That may be positive, Wilson said afterwards, “but nobody seems to know what committee it is referred to.”’ COPE is continuing its campaign against the increases with a petition protesting the rate increases, available from the COPE office. PACIFIC TRIBUNE—MARCH 9, 1979—Page 2 Well, that’s exactly what the residents of Kitsilano have done. And they’ve forced the feds to 0 back down. It all started when the federal department of agriculture decided that it would spray a huge section of Kitsilano with an insecticide called “‘dimlin?’. The spraying would be done from a helicopter. The target is a pest called the gypsy moth which has apparently put in an ap- pearance in the Kitsilano area. It threatens deciduous trees in the area and if it gets a foothold, there is the very real danger that it will spread to other parts of the Lower Mainland and the province. No one can reasonably object to some measures being taken to deal with this dangerous pest. But it takes mindless politicians and bureaucrats from Ottawa to think up a scheme to spray from the air with a pesticide that is dangerous to humans and all animal and wildlife. In the U.S. the use of dimlin is prohibited in populated areas. It has the potential of causing cancer in human beings; it is fatal to animals. Yet these unthinking, uncaring and callous bureaucrats, concerned more with the gypsy moth than with humans, want to spray an entire residential area with this deadly substance. An outburst of public anger quickly forced them to back down. Now they are going to have public hearings and what not before taking any action. Why couldn’t they do that in the first place? Do they think the public is so uninformed that they can spray any chemical they like and people will not be concern- ed? I raised the question in city coun- cil'on February 13th. I said that spraying this whole area to get one bug is like killing a spider with a 14 pound sledge hammer. Of course, it’s even worse than that. The idea of spraying a whole area with a potentially dangerous chemical when they don’t know all the im- plications is worse than reckless—it’s damned irresponsible because it’s the lives of citizens that - are being trifled with. Apparently: there already is a biological agent that has been used successfully against the gypsy moth in Quebec. It attacks only the moth and doesn’t harm other living creatures.. Is the department of agriculture so far removed from the Canadian Forestry Service that it can’t get a copy of its report on the use of this biological agent in Quebec showing a success rate of 93 percent? Or doesn’t it care? I hope the government has learn- ed a lesson from this incident, but I wouldn’t bet on it. Citizens will have to continue to be alert. fares in line with the provincial re- quirement. The Burnaby transportation Pag | calls for the ‘‘priority developm of a comprehensive public transit system with the objective that such a system will become the most attractive means of access to selected commercial core areas of regional significance during peak’ movement times and provide a competitive alternative to the use o the private automobile as a means of movement within the region.’” In order to make public transit ‘more attractive’ than.the private automobile, the system will need substantial improvements and lo fares, which is exactly what th UTA will prevent by making th public pay for transit through direct taxes. Another policy plank included the plan is ‘‘that a regional autho ty be designated to coordinate, for mulate and finance development ol an improved regional transporte tion system with provision for thé municipality of Burnaby to be i volved with the planning and aj proval process of that system.’? — Burnaby’s concern is that @ regional transportation plan worked out which would see decen: tralized growth throughout Greate! Vancouver that would reduce thi pressure on Burnaby as thoroughfare for commuter tra and ensure that main arterial ro in the municipality respect I neighborhoods. The UTA, however, will establis a proyincraly appointed “commis: sion”’ with the function of plannin| and determining public transit 5 vices in the region—an integral pa of any regional transportatio 0 plan—which will have no autonom| to make major decisions withou approval by the provincial cabinet: The Socreds are expected to troduce new legislation this sprit to allow the ‘‘commission’’ to 6 appointed at large, without any in put from municipal councils or tht GVRD. Burnaby’s draft policy will by? discussed further at upcomin 2 public meetings and then put tt municipal council for final adop e tion. Transit c’tee ; established A citizens’ comittee is bein formed in Vancouver to fight for new transit deal from the provincié government. — =) The call for the formation of tht committee ws issued Sunday aftef an organizational meeting initia! by Vancouver’s Committee of Prog gressive Electors, but includingp members of the Burnaby Citizens! Association, Association of Co quitlam Electors and Richmond «¢ Electors Action League. | - A founding meeting for thi “Committee for a New Deal of) Transit’ has been set for Fri March 16 at the Britannia Centr Room L2-L3 at 8:00 p.m. a various organizations have been vited to send official delegat Concerned individuals are welcome. The first project of the new com Mm py mittee will be the organization of & lobby to the provincial government early in the next legislative sessi to press for the withdrawal of the Urban Transit Authority Act and for a new transit deal to be) negotiated.