For the last couple weeks I’ve been mostly away from the office studying/preparing for a couple of NCARB exams, so my attention has been diverted from the local politicking in advance of the Vancouver civic election. Not that I would be following more than would be sufficient to be informed as I find local politics uninspiring, and the media coverage of it even less so. And I can’t bear to watch or listen to local news, actually. This has to do with the content (frustrating) AND its packaging (ugly). I mean honestly how hard is it to properly light a TV studio? Jesus.

But I did catch up with a bit of news and found this piece about the Vision Party’s “spoof” Twitter page sarcastically posting as opponent Peter Ladner. The “parody” page is here. Please go there to read some of the fake posts. See if there’s anyway to interpret these such that it makes it impossible to consider the writer extremely immature and unprofessional. Do your best. One post really stands out to me: 

How do we take on the “good causes” when we are so busy doing DEALS for the City like the SHIT HOUSE developer bailouts?!?

Ok, so it’s a shot at the $100 million Olympic Village bailout. That topic is fair game. Dissect it. The distribution of public funds deserves a hell of a lot of scrutiny and once the new council sits and starts their engine, even more so. But oh, hold on. Back up a sec. Vision Party, and through association, its leader and new Mayor, you just called one of the city’s developers a “SHIT HOUSE developer.” 

Before I were to use a term like that in a highly public way I would want to ensure that I was very well informed, so that my statement had at least some basis in reality so that when and if I were ever held accountable for having made that comment I could substantiate it. Perhaps by comparison with developers who are not considered “SHIT HOUSE”. I don’t know. What does that even mean? I’m not saying that the writer of the comment was not informed; I have no way of knowing. I would however assume it safe to question their professionalism and I’d appreciate hearing that writer’s rationale for that description.

Part of the reason is that I am a Development Planner with the City of Vancouver. I represent the City to the developers, their architects and designers in discussions regarding the urban design qualities of their proposals to achieve a product that is in spirit and material consistent with council approved policy. I am not yet negotiating/reviewing projects on the scale of the Olympic Village in South East False Creek. Not even close. However, the party relationship (city staff and development permit applicants) on projects of any scale entail a similar dynamic. And it is not uncommon for us folks in Planning to refer to developers as our “customers.” That word has connotations. The most obvious is that they give the City money and/or other public benefits.

So you see, from my small perspective on the world, it’s hard to imagine how referring to one’s customers “SHIT HOUSE” can be in any way beneficial. Even in parody. And even if I were running for office and even if I were politically predisposed in a way that is incongruent with the development community, perhaps I’d try to find a diplomatic and/or productive way of referring to a developer whose business practices (presumedly?) you don’t agree with. There’s a reason for that, and it has to do with consistency of message. Check out the tweets from the New Mayor’s Twitter:

was thankful for the obama afterglow to power through a double-debate day. 

loved celebrating Obama’s win with hundreds of Vancouver’s change agents.

is beaming canadian support to team obama

Ok, let me see if I’ve got this straight: on one hand, you’ve got a campaign machine pumping out juvenile parody tweets mocking your opponent in poor taste, and in the process also maligning a “customer” of the very City you are seeking to run, and  on the other you attempt to align yourself with the slickest, smoothest diplomatic leader and speaker, the soon to be leader of the Western World, a man whose entire schtick to date has been based on themes of unity and hope, and a man who lead an extremely tight campaign. I am not feeling the same consistency of message that the Obama campaign worked so hard to achieve in what I’ve read about the Vision campaign so far. And I think this attempt at association between the two deserves a further discussion and perhaps a closer look.

This post is not intended as an exhaustive analysis, but let’s just take a quick sample. In his acceptance speech, this is how Obama spoke of this opponent :

A little bit earlier this evening, I received an extraordinarily gracious call from Sen. McCain. Sen. McCain fought long and hard in this campaign. And he’s fought even longer and harder for the country that he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine. We are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader.

I congratulate him; I congratulate Gov. Palin for all that they’ve achieved. And I look forward to working with them to renew this nation’s promise in the months ahead.

Let’s remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House, a party founded on the values of self-reliance and individual liberty and national unity.

Those are values that we all share. And while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress.

The predominant impression Obama’s words leave you with is class. To me, it’s difficult to extract the same vibe from say this Vision’s fake Ladner tweet for example, “God! Why does everyone think I’m such an ASSHOLE”.

Class is not the first thing that comes to mind. To me anyhow, immaturity is. 

Previous article:      My Nike’s don’t have enough ridiculous & disparate design moves
Next article:     Honey, I’m home. (sigh) Again.