So yesterday I had the pleasure (?) of attending the Vancouver Food Policy Council’s Town Hall meeting. Honest confession, I had no idea what I was attending going into it. I thought that I was attending a meeting that would basically describe to me that what the Vancouver Food Policy Council’s (I’m not even sure I have that right) Food strategy plan was going to be and maybe get some public feedback on it. I was so so wrong. It turned out to be a candidates for the City of Vancouver’s upcoming elections chance to have a town hall meeting (duh), and voice their opinions and have a chance to spread their message for the upcoming municipal election.
Okay, so I thought, great I’ll be entertained by some lively debate and political theatre, sounds like a good Wednesday night, I love the West Wing and a sturdy discussion on the real issues that matter, even if it is just at the municipal level (Yes haters, I know the municipal level is the one that most directly affects our lives, but let’s face it, its also one of the most powerless).
So anyways… question #1 was… “Would you support the Vancouver Food Strategy, (which we worked so hard on) and… blah blah blah…?)
Way to start it off on a loaded question, moderator… WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD SAY: “NO I DON’T, IT SUCKS”?
I was out at this point. Seriously? THAT’S THE QUESTION YOU’RE GOING TO START WITH? No wonder not too many serious major category candidates attended.
How about this question: “Did we just waste a sh*tload of money and time on a makework project that pays lip service to poor people not getting enough food?” It’s just as loaded a question… which btw, I think only half of the candidates replied with any knowledge too, so maybe its a good weeding out question…
But I’m ranting at this point. The responses were a casual form of ass slapping and back patting, with occasionally a hint of somebody having actually read the Vancouver Food Strategy (caveat: I haven’t read it, but I’m basing this blog post on my perception of the candidates responses to the qeustions)
In the end, I love political theatre, its my favourite form of theater, and some of the candidates actually did show a strong commitment to the ideals and involvement and belief in the need to devise a strategy to deal with food insecurity in our city, but I couldn’t help but feel a little disappointed, because I really wanted to have a discussion on the food strategy’s failings and strengths, but that was my fault more than theirs. Oh well, I guess I’ll add it to the list of 20 other things I need to read in my spare time…
From my economics perspective, it’s all about incentive. Who has the greatest incentive to craft an effective, long-term food policy for Vancouver?
Unfortunately the reality is that elected officials are forced to think in terms of only a few years, as long as they hold office. The main focus (especially in election time) is whether or not they can use the opportunity to gain some votes from their responses. All well and good, but it’s not exactly material for a sustainable, long-term food strategy. So who has the incentive to do so? Presumably food scientists, economists, the city’s civil service, businesses and consumers. These are the same people the VFPC tries to represent through their strategy.
After thinking about the topic, I think the response I would have liked best would go something like this:
“As someone holding elected office, I have a range of responsibilities and unfortunately will be here only as long as my term lasts. That being the case, I see the need to delegate much of the responsibility of creating a strategy to the people best able to do so, like the Food Policy Council. Once the policy is created, I will let the relevant committees get feedback from the relevant experts and compare the policy to similar ones in other cities and regions. Finally, I will present the final strategy to the public and once relevant feedback is obtained, my role will be in organizing and directing its implementation in such a way that the project can be carried on if and when my own term of office ends.”
I don’t see them refusing to say the strategy sucks as a bad thing. Actually, unless the candidates are actually food scientists and economists themselves, it’s probably the best outcome. A strategy will be decided on one way or another. The important thing is to make sure that the incentives are in place to create a competent and long-term one.
I really enjoy what you have presented
I am proud to live in a city where this university exists and where these people live.
Count on us if you need help