Hello Hon. Minister Lunn

Hope you are well.  I am writing in response to hearing you on CKNW 
today.  Your comments raised several questions for me. (I have copied 
them to other interested parties)

As background, I have a research grant to examine the fulfillment of 
the Inner-City Inclusivity Commitments (ICI) and the impact(s) of the 
2010 Games on our inner-city.  I am also the Past Chair of the Impact 
on Communities Coalition (IOCC).  The IOCC is a very small, unfunded 
group.  We are not pro or anti Olympics. Rather, we seek to maximize 
the benefits, and to mitigate any harms associated with the Games.

In your remarks on CKNW, you stated that you feel that VANOC should 
be congratulated for meeting their commitments on time, and on 
budget.  With due respect, the evidence strongly suggests that this 
is not true.  A prevailing view in the community is that the above 
ICI Commitments have not been met.  This view has also been publicly 
corroborated on several occasions by VANOC and various government 
members and staff.  In turn, this leads to my questions.

1. If the ICI Commitments have been met, can you kindly direct me to 
a source where I can see what each Signatory has done toward meeting 
each of the Commitments?

2. If the Commitments have not been met, can you please direct to any 
sources where I could get concrete answers as to why the Commitments 
have not been acted on?

3. In particular, I am interested in why the various Signatories 
continue to ask for, or commit funds to the 2010 Games, and they 
never appear to ask for or commit proportional, substantive human, 
fiscal or infrastructure resources toward meeting the above promised 
Commitments.

One publicly stated reason for not doing more on the Commitments is a 
lack of funds.  One can reasonably ask why there are funds for other 
'priorities, and there are not equivalent allocations toward the Inner City.

Many people have told me that the above Commitments were key to 
Vancouver securing the Olympic Bid.   A cynic would say that the 
Signatories never intended to fulfill the Commitments (by allocating 
specific, significant and independent resources).

A kinder view is that all levels of Government, and VANOC simply made 
conscious choices to put other priorities first.  These 'competing' 
priorities include obvious things like the Olympic venues.  They also 
appear to include luxuries for already affluent people.

Personally, as someone works with the homeless, I would have put the 
ICI Commitments higher on the list.  I would also like to believe 
that many other Canadians feel the same way.  In the end, the 2010 
approach makes my mind confused, and my heart sad.

Thank you for considering my questions. I look forward to your reply.

Dr. Jim Frankish

Dr. Jim Frankish
Professor & Director, Centre for Population Health Promotion Research
Human Early Learning Partnership (HELP), University of British Columbia
College for Interdisciplinary Studies, and School of Population & 
Public Health (Medicine)
Senior Scholar, Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research
Room 425, Library Processing Centre 2206 East Mall Vancouver BC V6T 1Z3
604-822-9205, 822-9210 [log in to unmask]; http://www.jimfrankish.com

To manage subscriptions/passwords, or view archives, go to http://listserv.yorku.ca/archives/click4hp.html . [log in to unmask] is run in collaboration with Health Nexus: http://www.healthnexus.ca/index_eng.php