Friday, March 25, 2011

Sustainability - it's about lowering taxpayer burden

A friend recently asked (I'm paraphrasing, apologies Nick): Other than voting "fer the other guys," what can I do about not liking current government policies + practices?

My response: We - those of us who are not happy with current policies + practices - need to be using all available venues, including our FB "status" posts, to ask questions, talk about what's important to us.

Here's what's important to me: keeping my taxes low by investing in sustainability
Typically, elections - especially local government elections - are fought over tax issues. We all want to be paying less and getting more services. Mostly we want to be paying less. That includes me.

It used to be that things like "sustainability" and "conservation" were seen as "soft" and "expensive" items, ie. increasing taxpayer burden without much tangible benefit, other than a nice green place to take the kids for a hike. The evidence is shifting on this. More and more research, and particularly with regard to how communites are going to respond to climate change, shows that "conservation" and "sustainability" are keys to keeping the lid on, perhaps even reducing taxpayer burden.

There is a growing body of evidence showing conservation practices as beneficial to taxpayers, ie. smart use of land base = long term savings to taxpayers (infrastructure costs, climate change mitigation) as well as benefiting real estate values (greener, cleaner communities/neighbourhoods are more attractive to buyers) and general "quality of life."

Sustainability = investment in tax benefits
As taxpayers we get hijacked by the idea that "sustainability" and "conservation" are expense items. We need to think of them, and in turn pitch them to citizens and taxpayers, as "investment" items, investment in lowering taxes in the medium and long-term. In other words, if you're concerned about taxes, vote for candidates and parties that are serious about on-the-ground sustainability practices. If you're running for office, do what others aren't bold enough to do: talk about the real cost of "business as usual," and the real financial benefits of "sustainable business as usual."

Warning
I'm going to be posting about this, or variations of this, via my profile over the coming months. Forgive me for redundancy. But redundancy (with variations) is how people start to pay attention. I encourage you to steal/borrow/cut_and_paste/create your own variations with these ideas to suit your own needs.


Comments from FB
I'll be posting comments related to this article as they appear on FB, and as I have time. Generally, it's best to post here in the "comment" box below. I'm happy to see duplicates of FB comments appear here. To find a version of this post on Facebook... click here: Sustainability - it's about lowering taxpayer burden

Here are some from Mayor Paul Ives, Tom Dishlevoy, Alison Fox:


    • Paul Ives 
      I look forward to seeing how this debate unfolds... quite frankly, the timing is perfect as we head into a likely federal election, a probable provincial election, and of course the local government elections this Fall... from a fiscal sustainability perspective from local government is that we can't keep going back to the property taxpayer for increases in the range of 4 to 5% when inflation is running at about 2% along with wage settlements in the same range... while renewing and, on occasion, replacing aging infrastructure is the real challenge, we have to look at the life cycle costing aspects of any new infrastructure such that we build in reserves for renewal on an ongoing sustaining basis...
      about an hour ago · 
    • Tom Dishlevoy Its about everybody living within their means - individuals, businesses and municipalities. We are going to get an earful at the upcoming CAVI sessions over the next year on infrastructure sustainability (fiscal that is). The solutions are going to take some inventive creativity. Our RGS and OCPs are telling us what we need to know but our plans and designs and approvals are ignoring them (even within the RGS and OCP documents themselves). I look forward to the debate as well and I hope it is an actual debate.
      17 minutes ago · 
    • Alison Fox Looking forward to your variations.
      17 minutes ago · 



hanspetermeyer
25 March 2011
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Chanchal Cabrera talks about the Comox Valley Land Trust



Chanchal Cabrera is an internationally recognized medical herbalist living in the Comox Valley. She is also a Director with the Comox Valley Land Trust. Chanchal talks to me about why she got involved with CVLT, current projects at CVLT, and why these are important to long term quality of life in the Comox Valley.

This part of a series of "conversations about conservation" sponsored by the Comox Valley Land Trust and the Comox Valley Conservation Strategy.

For more information about the Comox Valley Land Trust, please visit www. CVLandTrust.ca. If you like what you see, please "like" CVLT on Facebook at Facebook.com/​CVLandTrust. You can follow updates and activities at CVLT by following the Twitter account at Twitter.com/​CVLandTrust.

My name is hanspetermeyer. I work with organizations and businesses to tell their stories, to engage their audiences, to build communications and media capacity.


(cc) hanspetermeyer.ca / 2011. I STRONGLY encourage non-commercial sharing of my materials (blogs, fotos, audio, etc). PLEASE tell me how you use them at bit.ly/​hpm-useME
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Highlights from the Comox Valley Regional District's Park Survey

There's so much going on at the CV2050 Facebook page that I miss some things. This comment, from David Stapley on January 28, 2011, merits a small blog post:


I think the majority of people value sustainability and conservation. Here is the poll results done by an independent polling company as part of the development of the CVRD parks and greenways plan. It shows that 76% of people are willing to increase their taxes by $20 per year to fund purchase of land for parks... go to the link below and check out page 4 for the results.

David then provides this link to the full report (it's a PDF, but thankfully you don't have to download it). I've copied and pasted the survey report highlights here (page 3? - the report isn't paginated so I'm guessing). 




Highlights
  • The first question residents were asked was whether they would support a new property tax to help buy parkland in the Comox Valley. Reactions are divided. Specifically, 39% say they support the idea, 42% say they are opposed, while 16% say it depends on the tax amount and 3% are undecided. Opposition tends to be more strongly held than support, with 32% “strongly opposing” the new tax versus 19% who “strongly support” it.
  • This strong initial opposition is most prominent among residents who are infrequent/non- users of the existing parks and trails in the CVRD (i.e. 47% of those who use the parks/trails less frequently than once or twice a month are strongly opposed versus 32% in total).
  • Regardless of their initial support for or opposition to the new property tax in response to the first question, if the proposal to buy parkland proceeds, the majority of residents (76%) say they would be willing to pay $10 per year in additional taxes for this purpose. At a yearly increase in taxes of $20, 67% of residents are on board, but at an additional $35 per year in taxes willingness to pay is 39%. One-quarter of residents are not willing to pay any increase in taxes to allow the District to buy parkland.
  • Current park/trail usage is highly correlated with the willingness to pay additional taxes to allow the District to buy parkland. Not surprisingly, the more frequently residents use the parks and trails the greater their willingness to pay additional taxes to fund the purchase of more parkland.
  • From a list of six types of parkland, residents put top priority on the protection of rare ecosystems (such as Garry Oak meadows, sand dunes, wetlands, mature forests or wildlife corridors). Specifically, 30% of residents say protecting rare ecosystems is the most important priority and 54% in total think it is at least of some importance.
  • The next most important priority for residents is new trail corridors (like a trail from Royston to Cumberland), with 18% prioritizing this over other types of parkland and 46% giving it at least some level of importance.
  • Of the least importance to residents are special recreation features (like the climbing area at Comox Lake or the swimming area at Stotan Falls).
  • While there is no clear consensus on the issue, residents tend to lean towards a park acquisition approach that ensures that the majority the parkland purchased by the District has trails and is open and accessible to the public. Currently, 45% want the majority of parkland acquired to have trails and be open to the public, while 26% think that the majority of parkland acquired should have limited recreation opportunities and no or few trails to protect sensitive ecosystems. Another 16% want all parkland acquired to have trails and be fully accessible to the public. Residents who initially opposed the acquisition of parkland by the District are more apt to want all parkland purchased to be fully accessible to the public (28% versus 6% who initially supported the proposal).
  • A large number of residents use parks and trails in the Comox Valley Regional District on a regular basis – 74% use parks and trails once or twice a month or more often. Specifically, 20% use a park or trail almost daily, 35% once or twice a week, and 19% once or twice a month. 9% only use parks and trails twice every six months, 4% once a year or less, and 13% rarely or never.

Check out the full report here. Post your feedback on the Comox Valley Regional District Facebook page. Be warned: you'll have to hijack a recent post of theirs as they don't allow us to post, even when we "like" the page. CVRD's Facebook practices also mean that even if you @tag them in a post, it won't show on the CVRD "wall." Nevertheless, post your comments wherever you can, and please do use the @tag. Perhaps someone is noticing and will change this policy.

17 February 2011


Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, January 31, 2011

A snapshot of the small-house/density conversation in the Comox Valley

Tom Dishlevoy's "small house" drawing on Facebook
Why I love having Facebook as my "morning paper" – impassioned conversation about things that matter to me, my community, and/or the people who are my friends (yes, "real" friends, as well as the many acquaintances-who-become-friends via things like FB).

This morning I caught the following exchange based on a drawing from the Tom Dishlevoy-led CV Living City Challenge project. The drawing I saw was about small houses. Here are the comments:


Bethany Pearce YAY! So passionate about smaller/smarter houses! Here's a great book for you when you have a little spare time. I devoured this book and fell in love...http://www.littlehouseonasmallplanet.com/ also - this interview with the author is great: 

Dwight Hales When large lots are in-filled, where will in-city small-scale agriculture be done?


Linda Ritchie on roof tops is my wish


Tom Dishlevoy Small scale can be done everywhere including street boulevards and front yards and even roof tops. One component of our CV Living City Challenge design is to start using all of our ALR land more effectively. We actually don't need to farm our city lots to be self sufficient in food in the Comox Valley. We have more than enough land for the current 65,000 population if we use it for its intended purpose - but we are not doing so right now. We very much enjoyed learning about our local agriculture from the local experts in the Valley.


James Street Port Alberni was building some small housing on in-fill lots over the last decade - stopped at the end of the last building boom - but ended up with some great designs and helped tp increase the population of their downtown - worked to increase evening business for downtown merchants because the population wasn't five km out of the city center. many people walked to work and school as well.


David Stapley Will these small houses may offer an alternative to people who do not want to live in a duplex or triplex but achieve similiar densities?


Leslie Eaton Roof tops? That's hilarious! I bet my apple, plum and pear trees would thrive on rooftops - seriously why all this urban density in a place where we actually have land to build and develop (or, here's a concept - NOT DEVELOP? 
I love my large-ish lot of land in the middle of suburbia Comox where we have large protected (and some unfortunately unprotected) greenspaces and trails through neighbourhoods to facilitate walking and biking). I grow peas, cucumbers, zucchini, beets, peppers, tomatoes, potatoes, squash (and aforementioned plums, pears and apples) and have flowers and a huge maple tree. I'm all for secondary suites and healthy living but high density in a place where most of us bought our homes because we already love they way it is. Although changing because of a desperate lack of land is understandable but in this area where we have so much space to build and develop sounds more like change for change's sake.
(and we have limited resources and infrastructure already (water, sewage treatment or so the CVRD reminds us every time there is a water restriction) so why up the demand by upping the density?)


Morrison Creek Trees might not thrive on roof tops but if we had small houses on a normal lot then more people would be able to have large gardens for food and flowers. If we don't densify then all the greenspace that we enjoy will become crowded lots full of large houses and our quality of life will suffer.


Leslie Eaton If we create higher density then property values tend to skyrocket making the parkland too valuable to keep from developing. In Portland and surrounding areas one acre went from $20K to $200K inside of a decade, it made owning any land/real estate unobtainable for most food production in the area. Plus as a conservation issue, the CVRD constantly reminds us to reduce and conserve...how would a higher density be doing anything other than using more resources like water processing and sewer. I believe there is a greener solution than just adding more density by building yet more housing. I guess I am just one of those crazy people who don't believe that development always equals progress.


Morrison Creek If we don't densify existing neighbourhoods as Tom suggests then how do we accomodate all the new people coming to the Valley without losing our greenspace?


David Stapley This is all about choices...It is possible to say no more development, no more building. If we do this the prices we see now will seem a bargain in 5 to 10 years because the market demand for housing will increase without an increase in supply leading to prices skyrocketing. If this happened the Comox Valley would maintain its green spaces but the community would become a very different kind of place, evetually a rich enclave that me and my childred could not afford. (this is what Whistler did, check out their prices). Continuing with large lot development will lead to urban sprawl destroying ecosystems, and increasing vehicle traffic and air polution. So what to do? Densify, with creative buidling and urban design with the goal of maintianing greenspace and INCREASING our quality of life including space for gardening. To do this is more difficult, requires unconventional thinking and choices to get us there- but it is possible. 
If we look around for space within existing municipal boundaries we will find room for gardens (might mean less lawns!, might mean community gardens included in our parks that are now dedicated 100% for sport fields, digging up large parking lots, planting boulevards,.....


Andrew Gower If down town Courtenay, Cumberland and Comox were all 5 storey mixed use development, we would be able to accommodate considerable growth without losing much of anything...


David Stapley Imagine the benefit to downtown businesses if this kiind of developemnt occured. Downtowns would be vibrant and busy....cafes, entertainment venues, cool shops would spring up and STAY IN BUSINESS....


Sheila McDonnell Current policies of building on cheap land just outside the limits benefits those land owners at the expense of the one's who have paid tax all those years . And it spreads out the "common" burden of transit, etc for those areas on the people in the core. One way to control escalating property values is to take some of the real estate out of the speculative market by using co-op and social housing. Housing should be a right - the provision of price-stabilized options helps moderate speculation. And , we can do some urban gardening at schools and other public (and private) facilities. let's have edible landscaping instead of rhododendrons (native of Nepal) and Carpet roses.


Leslie Eaton we already have super nice and creative areas here; cafes, theatres, entertainment venues and cool shops and with great business plans they have remained in business. (downtown Comox has Otters, Smitty's, Cafe Amantes, Jan's Travel, the Rocky Mountain Cafe, the Used Book Store, The Lorne and more that have been in business for years). 
I am not against change but if you think that by making the area 'denser' is going to keep prices down historically speaking it has done the opposite everywhere it has been implemented as a city plan. 
Again, we are told by the regional district that we have to conserve our water, by bc hydro that we must conserve energy, and everywhere we are told to recycle and demand less by purchasing less - all of which I totally support, it is hypocritical to think that if we build more and develop more that we are conserving anything. In the end we are still just creating a system of buying and using more resources.
Everything here is reasonably close together as it is, and although the transit system could be improved it still exists and runs as an option for some to be greener about their transportation options. 
There are literally tons of lots for sale in Comox alone that have been empty and up for sale for years. The problem lies in that property values are already too high in the shopping district of Comox. Adding density is only going to put pressure on the few green spaces left inside the town to be developed because property values will spiral. I have lived here a long time, and when it was time to buy I chose Comox because of its green spaces, it is quiet and friendly here. The parks are lovely and we use them all of the time, the shops are good and well, we are close enough to Courtenay that we can go there if we want (although I didn't all weekend). I am feeling like, "If it ain't broke, why are people trying to fix it?"
And I agree about not buying huge acreages and sitting on them waiting to rezone and develop them, for that matter, take a look in Comox, there is plenty of land up for sale already and also homes for sale for that matter. The problem is that *who* is going to take on a project of affordable housing on one of these locations and sell it at a reduced profit? I don't see many developers who would do that, most want to make as much money as possible out of any project - and I wish there were those who develop in an altruistic manner! 
(on a nice aside; I have rhodos *and* edible landscaping - my flowers have been in my yard longer than I have owned my home and it would be a shame to rip them out when they grow alongside my edible lavender and nasturtiums.

Wayne Bradley I mean no disrespect, but Leslie's arguments against densification really amount to "I'm alright, Jack". On the one hand, Leslie, you want to stop people from coming here... David has pointed out what happens then.... the whole community becomes gentrified and poor seniors can't afford the taxes on the homes they've always lived in and youth are forced to move away because housing is too espensive. The whole Valley become Crown Isle. 
And yet, on the other hand you want to promote large lot development because we all love the space and we have lots of land in the valley. This idea is the most costly in terms of providing services and the most destructive of the environment. 
I live on a 5 acre lot size development on Railway ave at the back end of Merville. No development like this should ever be allowed again. We bought it 35 years ago when we knew nothing about the real impact of sprawl like this on communities and would never live in such a circumstance if we didn't already have everything invested here. 

It's easy to see now that all of the people in a ten lot area around me could fit onto one of these 5 acre parcels and use exactly the amount of land we now use (less than 1/2 acre each), while leaving the other 9 lots untouched. We would have eliminated the need for separate septic systems, driveways, power lines and even fences and done a great service to the flora and fauna. We get poor service for our roads (at great expense to every taxpayer in the valley); we have stretched the postal system more than it likes (again, at the expense of the services everyone else gets), and we will never get cable tv out here (which is fine by me... Incidentally my friend at Shaw tells me that is because people in Merville are not dense enough! ) . Poorer service and more cost to everyone.. not a good deal. These are the very same impacts in an urban setting that can be mitigated by densifying the core areas. 
Leslie's objection to densification are only realistic if we can dictate that the population cannot grow, and since few want want to become Whistler or Crown Isle Valley, then where do we put new folks or even older ones like me who are tired of driving 15 miles to enjoy any of the community's cultural life?
If we multi-storied parts of Courtenay and Comox there would still be lots of large lot properties available. 

This is a great conversation...let's scare up a little money and bring in the best public educator in community development there is so we can expand the reach of these ideas. maybe that person is already here?

NOTE:
These comments were generated between Friday, Jan 28, 2011 at about 2:30pm and about 1am Monday, Jan 31, 2011. Please click on this link to Tom Dishlevoy's drawing (on Facebook) to view the original posts, and to add your comments. If you're not on Facebook, leave comments here. I'll be posting a link to this CV2050 post on Facebook as well.

The sustainability conversation and civic elections November 2011
The opinions expressed here reflect part of the "sustainability conversation" that needs to happen in the Comox Valley in this year of civic elections. We have a host of development and growth challenges facing this community. Some organizations – CV Living City Challenge (these folks need a blog badly - they're doing such amazing work and it's locked inside Facebook), Comox Valley Land TrustComox Valley Conservation Strategy are examples – are showing the kind of leadership we need to address these challenges and sustain the quality of life we enjoy in the Comox Valley.

If your quality of life matters to you, please take some time every week to check out what's happening in the sustainability conversation online. Make your own posts and comments. Write letters to the local newspapers (in our town, traditional print media is still the way most people get their news, and nothing attracts attention like "letters to the editor"). You might also want to join us on Facebook as we work to "Get the sustainability vote out" for civic elections on November 19, 2011.

hanspetermeyer
31 January 2011
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, January 10, 2011

Response to question about Bateman exhibition at CVAG [from Facebook and Globe + Mail]

Editor's note:
Community sustainability means many things. Often the focus is on things like jobs and environmental health. But it's more complex than that. The HBLanarc folks that helped kick-start this CV2050 thing in 2009 use an "8 pillars" model. "Culture" is one of the pillars.

A recent flurry of exchanges online and in print has put the cultural aspect of sustainability in front of a few minds. What follows is part of the exchange, as presented by Anh Le, Executive Director of the Comox Valley, with a lengthy, thoughtful riposte by Meg Cursons.

Please feel free to respond and/or circulate via this blog post, the original Facebook note, Twitter, fax, photocopy, or coffee chatter. As we talk about and through these ideas we get clearer about what's important to the long term sustainability and quality of life in our beloved Comox Valley.

If you're part of the conversation, however you work it, whatever for it takes, thanks.

<hpm>

Original Facebook "note" by Anh Le, posted January 9, 2011


January 9, 2011
Anh’s response to a question by BeingBrett on Facebook.

Brett posted this
and posted:
"I'm sincerely dissapointed that CVAG would choose this as suitable content. 
Anh, what do you think of Bateman's work and it's appropriateness to be included in any publicly funded art exhibition, including the show at CVAG? Can you please speak on this from the perspective of Gallery Director as well as Curator, respectively?" 

Bateman's work and it's appropriateness to be included in any publicly funded art exhibition:

On the Bateman show at CVAG from the perspective of Gallery Director:
It is an acceptable practice amongst non-profit creative organizations large and small to balance cutting edge, avant garde contemporary programming with “blockbuster” and popular program.  For example, the Vancouver Art Gallery has in recent years, programmed both “Monet to DalĂ­: Modern Masters from the Cleveland Museum of Art (2007)” and “Vermeer, Rembrandt and the Golden Age of Dutch Art Masterpieces from The Rijksmuseum (2009)” in order to draw crowds and earn revenue.  That said, the VAG also charges $19.50 admission (while a yearlong membership $75 will give you free admission for that full year).

In the article that you posted, Milroy says that the Bateman show is “Clearly a barnburner of a money-maker (the place is packed)” however she doesn’t state whether or not admission is being charged.  I would assume that prints and books are being sold along with the exhibit.  CVAG will also be selling books and prints, (but we have been doing so for over a year now in our gift shop).  The commission that we keep from the sales is the same percentage as the agreements we have with all artists/consignors in the gift shop.

CVAG does not charge admission and we would like to keep it this way.  In order to do so, we must maintain our revenue stream through funding from public and private sources, as well as raising our own funds; this includes revenue from our gift shop, fundraising events and membership/sponsorship drives.  A yearlong CVAG membership is $25.

The Robert Bateman exhibit was offered to us about a year ago through his distribution company.  At the time, CVAG was undergoing significant shifts; our Executive Director/Curator of 19 years was retiring, we were facing a major funding crisis, we’d just had our funding cut from BC Gaming ($30K), funds were being cut to the BC Arts Council (40% in the Olympic Games year) and were facing a possible closure in June 2010.  For above mentioned reasons and working with my staff, it was my decision that we would go ahead and program this exhibit for 2011.  Following a tough financial year, and knowing that Jan-March is lean every year, it is my responsibility to ensure that we will continue to operate, yes, this means booking a popular and well known artist for whom there are “questions of ethics surrounding the sale of his high-priced, photo-mechanical reproductions” (Milroy, 2).  The practice of his prints/reproductions is another discussion which I won’t get into here.

Let’s discuss betraying the public trust and staging this show in a publicly funded facility:
Our facility and organization is not completely publicly funded; as I stated earlier, our revenue is generated from a variety of sources.  I don’t have the percentage breakdowns in my head but do have it at the office in our business plan – it’s approx. 25-35% public funds.  I can also provide you or anyone who’s interested, with our financial statements which detail this.

CVAG will not be paying Robert Bateman or his distribution company any CARFAC rated artists’ fees; this will allow us to use these funds to pay other artists this year.  Nor are we paying for shipping, packaging or the production of a catalogue.  It is standard practice that public galleries and museums pay these fees as part of the exhibition.  Also, most blockbusters shows are offered to small museums and come with a hefty price tag ($5000 for a small exhibit and upwards into the millions in major museums).  This exhibition will not cost CVAG anything other than the cost to operate the gallery for 6 weeks.

From a Directorship perspective, I hope that we have used the public’s funds responsibly, given our challenges.  For more on arts funding cuts, please visit: http://www.stopbcartscuts.ca/.  You’ll see that the national average for provincial arts funding is $26 per capita. BC, *with* newly restored $7M funding is the lowest in Canada at $6.54 per capita.

Also, we hope that having a high profile painter will bring more public awareness to everything else that the gallery does: contemporary art shows, education programming, events and a venue (gift shop) for local artist to sell artwork.

Finally, Milroy says, “Our arts institutions are empowered and funded to educate members of the public, not pander to their ignorance in pursuit of a quick profit.”  Believe when I say we won’t be rolling in the dough; we will be socking away any revenue we earn to maintain operations and apply it the contemporary programming for the remainder of the year, in order to fulfill our mandate.

On the Bateman show at CVAG from the perspective of Curator

As Curator, would I have initiated an exhibition at the CVAG featuring Robert Bateman?  No.  His work and practices do not align with my curatorial/artistic interests.  I do however, celebrate and appreciate all forms of visual arts and respect Bateman for his technical virtuosity and work as an environmentalist. 

Do I agree with Milroy where she writes:

“…the McMichael solemnly presents Bateman as an artist grappling with the big themes of 20th-century art, an heir to Franz Kline, Clyfford Still or even Vincent Van Gogh, a lone wolf wrongly condemned by the “art snobs” who are out to get him.
This is patent nonsense, serving simply to reveal Bateman's shallow understanding of his great forebears. Just for the record: To mimic two white passages of paint in a Still painting by painting a pair of mountain goats on a rocky cliff, as Bateman describes having done in the making of Sheer Drop (1980), cannot in any meaningful way be considered an homage to the great American abstract expressionist painter, whose aim was to abolish the conventions of three-dimensional space and embrace, instead, the physical facts of paint on canvas. Such illusionism would have been an abomination to Still. It made me sad and mad to see museum-goers lapping up this pretentious silliness.”

It would be hard for me to respond without actually seeing and reading how the McMichael exhibit was framed and packaged.  For the exhibit at CVAG, I will not be writing a curatorial introduction.  I will not be presenting or packaging the show as Bateman grappling with any contemporary or philosophical themes of the 20th or 21st century.  I will not be comparing his works to those of any Modern painters.  It is not the intent of this show to over-intellectualize or inject art philosophy into wildlife illustration.  We have some shows later this year for art philosophy and academic contemplation.

The exhibit is being simply presented as a collection of his paintings, for enjoyment by our entire community.  CVAG cannot please everyone all the time, but we can do our best to balance what we have to work with.

I am sincerely glad that you have questioned the programming of this exhibit and hope that my response has addressed some of your concerns.  As always, I welcome your feedback.

Sincerely,
Anh Le
CVAG Curator/Director


Meg Cursons's riposte, January 9, 2011

Meg Cursons This crosses all the arts sectors: economics and the balance between the mundane and the mainstream and the radical or avante garde. In our music festivals, galleries, theatre, publications etc. 

We must shatter the illusion that the arts in our community are 'publicly funded'. We are supported a bit, somewhat subsidized but a more appropriate description for many might be 'fed just enough fight through the throws of death'..

As public arts organization we are 'expected' to reach broad audiences. Not just cultural elites (whatever that actually means).

This doesn't mean were funded to do it. It just means that those are the dues we pay to remain 'in the commons' - an economic, social and cultural playing field I like to try and preserve and protect and contribute to...

In fact, we are expected as arts organization to engage in merchandizing and other 'earned revenues' (beer gardens, raffles, prints and CD's) in order to maintain even moderate public funding support. And this is often expected at a level that matches public dollars...or those dollars are pulled. 50% is a standard project funding award. Where do we get the other 50% from?

Anarchists are shitty fundrasiers...fun friends, but shitty fundrasiers

Unless the brilliant, alt minded, radical thinkers out there are ready to step up and support the arts with their own $$, political lobbying and active board contributions we have to be willing to work to the great unwashed, provide them with the familiar, and use the benefits of their 'comfort food' to fund our collective adventures...

....or surrender our venues and events...its a tough one....and a great conversation.

Thanks Brett for agitating and for Anh for responding!


Ron Taylor's response: January 9, 2011

Ron Taylor A great discussion here...I think Anh and Meg have been very articulate in outlining the roots of the issue.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Jim Palmer talks about Morrison Creek and the Comox Valley Conservation Strategy


In December 2010 I visited Jim Palmer in his home close to the Morrison Creek and Puntledge River confluence. Jim has a long history and interest in conservation and stewardship activities. In our conversation he talks about getting involved in stewardship activities in the Morrison Creek watershed, and the significance of the Comox Valley Conservation Strategy for people working on separate watersheds.

This is one of a series of conversations about conservation in the Comox Valley being sponsored by the Comox Valley Land Trust (www.CVLandTrust.ca and Facebook.com/CVLandTrust) and the Comox Valley Conservation Strategy (www.CVConservationStrategy.org and Facebook.com/CVConservationStrategy).

There are many perspectives on conservation and stewardship and how these have an impact on our quality of life here in this region. This series of conversations will help to draw out some of the reasons why people are involved, and how smarter land use planning and development has a positive impact on all of us in the Comox Valley.

(cc) hanspetermeyer.ca / 2010. I STRONGLY encourage non-commercial sharing of my materials (blogs, fotos, audio, etc). PLEASE tell me how you use them at bit.ly/​hpm-useME


Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, January 2, 2011

Curtis Scoville talks about the Black Creek, stewardship, and the Comox Valley Conservation Strategy



In late November 2010 I talked to Curtis Scoville about his stewardship activities in the Comox Valley. This resulted in two short video segments.

In this video talks about moving to Black Creek, just north of Courtenay on Vancouver Island, and how he got involved in forming the Black Creek streamkeepers group. Curtis is a financial planner, and someone who's not afraid to get his hands "dirty" with information management as well as in-the-stream mucking about. He talks to me about the health of the Black Creek, the many small cuts to its upstream wetlands that have a cumulative impact on fish in the stream and downstream properties.



In Part 1 of our conversation Curtis talked about the Black Creek and the value of the Comox Valley Conservation Strategy to the Black Creek streamkeepers. In Part 2 Curtis talks about a number of ways people who care about quality of life in the Comox Valley can contribute to stewardship, ways that don't involve getting wet, cold, or wearing hip-waders. For those of you who think of streamkeeping as a purely "in the creek" kind of activity, his comments should be interesting – maybe even inspiring! I certainly found his perspective refreshing.

This is one of a series of conversations about conservation in the Comox Valley being sponsored by the Comox Valley Land Trust (www.CVLandTrust.ca and Facebook.com/CVLandTrust) and the Comox Valley Conservation Strategy (www.CVConservationStrategy.org and Facebook.com/CVConservationStrategy).

There are many perspectives on conservation and stewardship and how these have an impact on our quality of life here in this region. This series of conversations will help to draw out some of the reasons why people are involved, and how smarter land use planning and development has a positive impact on all of us in the Comox Valley.

(cc) hanspetermeyer.ca / 2010. I STRONGLY encourage non-commercial sharing of my materials (blogs, fotos, audio, etc). PLEASE tell me how you use them at bit.ly/​hpm-useME
Enhanced by Zemanta