This just in: Mayor Gregor Robertson wants a subway built along the Broadway corridor!
Of course, I’m kidding – not about the mayor’s subway campaign but that it’s breaking news.
So why then did Robertson hold a press conference Thursday at the VCC-Clark SkyTrain station to tell us media types what we have reported since 2012?
That was the first question posed to Robertson.
The CBC’s Steve Lus: “Mr. Mayor, forgive me, maybe I’m a little slow here, but did you just call us here to reiterate your support for a Broadway subway line and tell us about an NPA flip-flop, or are you telling us something new right now?”
Robertson: “Well, I’m basically laying out the case for the Broadway subway and reinforcing my support – Vision’s support – which [has been] very clear for many months and contrasting that to the NPA’s flip-flop. Mr. LaPointe hedged out of the gate, saying he may support it and he’s flip-flopped to say he does support it.”
OK, let’s stop right there.
A flip-flop?
Metro’s Emily Jackson: “Can you talk a little bit about how [LaPointe] flip-flopped?”
Robertson: “Mr. LaPointe, on the first day of his campaign announced that he may support the Broadway subway, which I would call a hedge. It’s definitely not clear support for a Broadway subway after years of the city working on this, advocating and knowing full well what my position is and Vision’s position has been. Mr. LaPointe came out hedging on day one and since that time he’s now said he does support a Broadway subway.”
Jackson: “So the flip-flop is from ‘may’ support to ‘does’ support?”
Robertson: “Yeah.”
According to a quick online search for the definition of flip-flop, I found this at merriam-webster.com: To make an abrupt reversal of policy.
So not exactly a flip-flop, I would say.
But let’s look at another occasion where Vision used “flip-flop” to criticize LaPointe and the NPA. I just happen to have a Vision press release issued a couple of days before the subway press conference.
Here’s the headline: LaPointe inexperience leads to NPA flip-flop on transportation.
The release refers to NPA Coun. George Affleck announcing in January that, if his party were to be elected in November, the NPA would re-open Point Grey Road. (I listened to the audio recording of what Affleck said on that day and, yes, that’s what he said).
LaPointe, however, told me the NPA would, in fact, review the controversial road upgrades on Point Grey Road which include closures to vehicles and improvement for cyclists and pedestrians, including separated bike lanes.
“My view is we would examine other options for Point Grey Road, but our approach would involve extensive consultation, a comprehensive look at options to share the public road and we would also take into context the city’s financial picture, if we decided to proceed,” LaPointe said by telephone Wednesday. “We have a hard time understanding what was spent to build that, so we don’t know what any modifications would also cost.”
What about Affleck’s promise to re-open the road?
“It’s never been a position that the project would be ripped up,” LaPointe said.
Me: I thought Affleck said that?
“No, what I think was said is that car traffic might be brought back to it – but that’s not ripping it up. That again is Vision’s black and white world – a blunt instrument world [using] hyperbole for effect to obviously, emotionally, trigger people.”
So, ladies and gents, was it:
a) a flip-flop?
b) a contradiction?
c) rhetoric?
d) more reason for a reporter to book an extended holiday until policy platforms are released and the he-said, he-said stories find a special place in campaign journalism hell.
twitter.com/Howellings
