Most political news in Vancouver has been swirling around the $100 million loan that is reportedly been authorized as a bailout cushion to either Millennium Development Corp (the company building the Olympic Village) or Fortress (the American lender funding the project).

Despite the host of petty questions that have gained centre stage in the drama - who leaked the info, is this political grandstanding by Vision, is it a distraction from Gregor Robertson's $173 transit fine - the key question for most voters is the one concerning democratic principle.

There are two ways of looking at the situation. In broad terms they fall along two distinct philisophical lines:

1. The corporate meritocracy: NPA argues that the details concerning the $100 million loan are part of ongoing negotiations with the developers and financial backers and that strict confidence is necessary to protect the city and to obtain the best outcome for tax payers. Implicit in this statement are two points, 1) that elected municipal officials are the best stewards of public finances, and 2) as such should be trusted to manage city affairs to the best possible outcome for all.

2. The transparent democracy: Vision argues that because of the high value of the loan, and significant questions about the information upon which the authorization of the loan was based, the loan needs to be re-examined in public to ensure that the correct decisions are being made and that they were made for the right reasons. Implicit in this statment are two points, 1) that elected officials are subject to personal motivations and influence and 2) transparency is needed to maintain accountability to the public and a genuine democratic process.

This is the real issue Vancouver voters are facing.

On the backdrop of these two perspectives we have the following question marks:

• the magnitude of the loan guarantee itself and the means of covering it
• the role of the city to disburse signficant public funds
  
• the city CFO had significant concerns about the amount of risk in the project
• that same CFO has resigned under uncertain circumstances
• Millennium is in apparent financial trouble and has halted work on their project in West Vancouver, and their Nanaimo project is in trouble
  
• Fortress is in apparent financial trouble and is one of the lenders involved in a legal battle with Donald Trump over an unfinished Chicago skyscraper, they have seen their stock tumble this year, and they will be releasing their 3rd quarter report on Thursday
• The apparent conflict of interest between the NPA and Millennium in the lead up to the award of the contract

These are critical questions, and the way we choose to address and answer them ultimately defines how our elected democracies function. On the basis of these two philosophies, and in the midst of these questions, the NPA says that they should be trusted to make the right decisions. Vision says public accountability is necessary to ensure the right decisions are made. Which is correct?

The situation has arisen in the broader context of an American economic meltdown that threatens the entire world ecomony. A meltdown caused in large part by tax policy, deregulation, and public spending that all place increasing amounts of public funds into the hands of large corporations and the wealthiest citizens with little to no oversight.

In financially backing the $1 billion Olympic Village to the tune of almost 1/3rd - $290 million all in - The NPA's handling of the development represents an American model that is proving disastrously outdated.


Update November 13th, 2008: Fortress' third quarter report states greater than expected losses.