This opinion piece has been amended since first posting to correct an error. An earlier version incorrectly stated that West Vancouver council voted 6-1 to approve a donation and naming opportunity that had been negotiated by the West Vancouver Community Centres Society. The vote on the Lalji family gift, which was held in a closed meeting and has since been released publicly, was unanimous, with all seven members of council voting in favour of the donation and naming rights.
In a unanimous in-camera vote this month, West Vancouver council accepted a $700,000 gift from the Lalji family – whose company owns Park Royal Shopping Centre – for undefined enhancements to West Van’s community centre.
In gratitude, the atrium will be named the Lalji Family Atrium.
Last month council voted6-1, to contribute a coincidental $700,000 toward safety improvements to Wardance Bridge. The bridge is owned by Park Royal. It sits on Squamish Nation land. Especially, should hard-pressed WV small businesses kick in for a project mainly benefiting their giant competitor and cyclists? And the Community Charter forbids municipal contributions to private businesses. Transportation director Raymond Fung well stated: “The use of any district funds for this project is problematic.”
Is there something troubling about this picture?
For more than five years the shopping centre and the District of West Vancouver have been engaged in Park Royal’s highly controversial application for two south mall towers, originally 27 and 12 storeys, totalling about 251 units, 10 of them non-profit for people with disabilities.
By genteel West Vancouver standards, reaction was furious: At a public meeting in 2015 about three-quarters of those who spoke wanted the project halted then and there.
The greatest rancor – expressed by Couns. Nora Gambioli and Bill Soprovich, among others – fastened on to the perceived madness of that development at one of the worst traffic bottlenecks, a short walk from the most rage-making bridge, in possibly the most traffic-paralyzed city in the country. (Which might be indignantly denied by Toronto commuters.)
I asked council members for any comments on the $700,000 Lalji gift, surely a pittance not intended to influence council, from a family whose wealth was once estimated at $3 billion. (A bargain as naming rights go, and guaranteed 25 years – compared with the $1 million for 10 years that the fabulously wealthy Grosvenors contributed to hoist their name on the main stage at Kay Meek Centre. That’s about a tenth of what West Van widow Meek gave to build the theatre.)
Coun. Christine Cassidy, a smart lady of independent mind, responded tersely to my request: “I did not vote to support the $700K of CACs (community amenities contributions) for the Wardance Bridge and I did not support details of the $700K for the atrium’s naming rights.” As reported by this paper’s Jeremy Shepherd, Cassidy was anguished voting against the bridge deal but felt a fiduciary obligation.
Coun. Peter Lambur, a strong addition to council who fills the late Michael Lewis’s seat, scored a thoughtful point: “Not to split hairs, this gift is from the Lalji family and is not a corporate gift from Park Royal. No connection between the donation and future development proposals in my book. … Leave that to the court of public opinion.” Yes, the electorate judges might make an interesting ruling in the polling booth.
I think Lambur is right on target here: “My only discomfort is that this gift was considered in closed session of council and I can’t see why that had to be.”
But Mayor Michael Smith refutes this: “The agreement was approved by council in a closed session as such applications are treated in confidence until approved.” My take: Councils discuss anything they want behind closed doors. Example: Then-mayor Pamela Goldsmith-Jones got in-camera approval for the Pattison “bus shelters” that shelter more view-obstructing ad panels than transit patrons.
Smith is affronted: “The suggestion that this donation could in any way affect council decisions on any Lalji family business applications that come before council, I think is disrespectful to both parties. … There would never be any expectation by them of preferred treatment.” Also, “The Laljis are a prominent West Vancouver family that have a long history of supporting events in our community.”
Among them: Park Royal’s sponsorship of the mayor’s “state of the district” speech hosted last year by West Vancouver Chamber of Commerce. I don’t think for a New York minute that Smith could be personally influenced by any such thing. And as stated above, the Laljis wouldn’t have expected preferment.
But council would have been wise to heed, across two millennia, the case of Pompeia. Who? Julius Caesar’s wife.
Pompeia attended the all-women festival of Bona Dea – “Good Goddess” – crashed by her would-be seducer, disguised as a woman. Caught, he was prosecuted for sacrilege. He, the creep, got off. Pompeia, innocent, got divorced. (Where was the feminist movement when it was really needed?)
Caesar’s rationale still lives: “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.” I say WV council should have politely declined the Laljis’ gift while the long-marinating Park Royal application is under consideration.
• • •
Turning to a number that B.C. Liberals would rather forget – 2017 – politically seasoned Agent D9w4k77c notes that some top Liberals have found the opposition chairs extremely uncomfortable. Wiggled a lot, I imagine.
But looking to a better future, my source named three Liberals who acquitted themselves well last year: Jas Johal, Richmond-Queensborough; Tracy Redies, Surrey-White Rock; and Ben Stewart, candidate in the Feb. 14 Kelowna West byelection, a good MLA before stepping down to give defeated premier Christy Clark a seat after the 2013 election.
