Vancouver Council Could Take Over Parks

Summary#

This bill changes who runs Vancouver’s public parks. It would let Vancouver City Council take over all park duties now done by the elected Park Board, after voters approve. It also creates a new framework for how parks are designated, protected, and managed, and sets rules for a smooth transition.

• If voters say yes, City Council may pass a bylaw to dissolve the Park Board and assume its powers.
• Creates two kinds of parks: “permanent public parks” (stronger protection) and “non‑permanent public parks” (easier to re‑designate).
• Gives Council clear powers to run parks and recreation, set park rules, issue permits and leases, and work with nearby municipalities.
• Keeps current Park Board bylaws and the current year’s budget in place until Council changes them.
• Transfers the Park Board’s assets, debts, records, and any lawsuits to City Council.
• Updates other provincial laws so they refer to City Council instead of the Park Board (for example, alcohol rules in public places and local election finance rules).

What it means for you#

• Voters in Vancouver

  • You would see a citywide ballot question on whether to dissolve the Park Board.
  • If it passes, you would no longer vote for Park Board commissioners in future elections.

• Park users and residents

  • Park rules (hours, events, closures, permitted activities) would be set by City Council.
  • Existing park rules stay in effect until Council changes them.
  • Council can set rules for gatherings in parks, sales and performances, advertising, animals and vehicles, littering, and care of trees and plants.
  • Council can set dress rules at beaches and pools, and designate areas for swimming, skating, skiing, and other activities.
  • Council may designate areas where alcohol can be consumed in public places under provincial law.

• Sports leagues, community groups, and event organizers

  • Permits, fees, and access would be handled by City Hall.
  • Council can allow or restrict sales, services, and performances in parks and can relax advertising rules for special events.

• Vendors and non‑profits operating in parks

  • Current leases, licenses, and permits continue, now with City Council as the counterparty.
  • New agreements must include a clause that ends the agreement if the land stops being a public park.

• Neighbouring municipalities

  • Vancouver can make joint agreements with you to buy, maintain, or run parks that cross boundaries.

• Parkland protection

  • Permanent public parks have stronger protections. The bill sets stricter steps to revoke this status, with a specific exception when parkland is being transferred to a First Nation.
  • Non‑permanent public parks can have their status revoked by a two‑thirds vote of City Council.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Proponents' View#

• One elected body (City Council) makes it easier to plan and deliver parks, pools, and community centres faster and align them with housing, transit, and climate goals.
• Clearer accountability: voters can hold Council directly responsible for park service quality and budgets.
• Keeps current park services running during the changeover by carrying forward bylaws and the current budget.
• Modernizes park rules (for example, events, advertising, and concessions) while still protecting permanent parks more strongly.
• Simplifies partnerships with nearby cities for regional amenities.
• Administrative savings are possible by removing overlap between City Hall and the Park Board.

Opponents' View#

• Eliminating the elected Park Board reduces a dedicated public voice for parks and may centralize too much power in City Council.
• Re‑designation rules for non‑permanent parks could make some parkland easier to repurpose; critics worry about long‑term green space protection.
• Council’s broad bylaw powers (closures, gatherings, advertising, commercial activity) could lead to more commercial use and tighter control over public use of parks.
• Transition risks: confusion over permits, programs, or who to contact; potential disruption for staff and volunteers.
• Future park priorities could compete with other city issues, reducing focus on recreation and open space.