Let’s broaden this out. Here’s a question to which I invite the answer from any (and every) Park Board candidate (or council candidate, for that matter):
Are bikes lanes okay in parks?
Or has the Hadden Precedent now effectively redefined parks in Vancouver? – where by the terms of the 1928 Hadden Park deed, bike lanes violate the presumed definition of a park: “property as near as possible in its present state of nature.”
Because if that’s the case, then any proposal to build, widen or extend a bike path will be faced with immediate opposition, and possibly a court case. Those objecting need merely point to Kits and say, ‘if it’s appropriate for them to keep a bike lane out of their park, why are you imposing it on mine?’
At this point during an election campaign, if it’s not possible to get candidates for Park Board to mouth those words – ‘yeah, bike lanes are okay in parks’ – then we have a much bigger problem than bike lanes. If infrastructure that encourages personal initiative to keep fit and pollute less while recreating, training and just having fun on bicycles, as individuals and as families, if that is is now a contested condition in a park, then this is a society not all that serious about the larger challenges which face it.
So candidates, six words: “Bike lanes are okay in parks.” Can you say them?