It's a story bringing together two very different things that nonetheless regularly attract controversy: the Vancouver Park Board and the Harry Potter universe.
"J.K. Rowling's actions against the trans community are so egregious that I think we need to look at changing our minds on this," said Vancouver city Coun. Lucy Maloney.
On Monday, she along with fellow opposition Coun. Sean Orr, called for the park board to reconsider the Harry Potter Forbidden Forest Experience — a temporary immersive attraction that will open in Stanley Park in November.
The attraction was announced last week, and tickets starting at $49.50 for adults will go on sale on Wednesday.
Because of Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling's long history of funding and advocating for one side of the debate over transgender rights and issues, much of the online conversation around the event quickly pivoted to whether the city's elected park board should have approved the event.
"It's really hard to separate the artist from the art," said Ky Sargeant, the QMUNITY vice-chair for a large queer, trans and two-spirit resource centre in Vancouver.
"It's really hard to not see that the $50 … that we're going to be paying at least in some part is really actively being used for a political agenda."
But it both seems unlikely that the parks board will change its mind — or that it had anything other than money on its mind when it made the decision.
WATCH | Breaking down the park board's decision: It's set to be a big holiday attraction, but the Harry Potter Forbidden Forest Experience scheduled for Stanley Park is being challenged by two city councillors. Justin McElroy explains why — and what's behind the park board's decision.Park board going ahead with itWhile the event was announced last week, the park board discussed and voted to allow the events months ago in an in-camera meeting.
CBC News spoke to a majority of park board commissioners about that event, and found little appetite to try and revisit it.
Park board chair Laura Christensen said there was an in-camera discussion and vote several months ago to approve the event and cited the board's statement on the weekend, which said they work to support and engage all 2SLGBT+ people but "we're looking forward to welcoming residents and visitors of all ages and backgrounds to experience the fun of Harry Potter in Stanley Park."
However, multiple commissioners said if the vote happened today, the conversation might have gone differently.
"I regret not knowing more," said commissioner Scott Jensen, who said the vote predated his knowledge that Rowling had funded legal cases challenging the definition of gender in Scotland.
But Jensen said many students he teaches are big Harry Potter fans, and hoped they could enjoy the attraction separate from Rowling's views, which he said he opposed.
Follow the money?Much of the online criticism of the park board's decision linked it to the cancellation of Bright Nights — an annual holiday lights show at the same site, with tickets costing $15 and a portion of proceeds benefiting the Firefighters Burn Fund.
Jeff Sauvé, the executive director of the B.C. Professional Fire Fighters' Burn Fund, said Bright Nights was no longer feasible after Stanley Park train was deemed inoperable for the rest of 2025. He said an alternative plan had been in the works before the Harry Potter decision, and will be announced later this month.
At the same time, the park board has been factoring finances into their decisions more often.
In 2023, the park board passed a "Think Big" strategy to raise more revenue, and last year voted to hike a variety of fees.
And two months ago, when they announced the closure of the train, commissioners were also given a staff report that outlined possible options for the future of the site.
In it, a slide said "reimagined themed attractions involving third-party entities" would "provide a more reliable and predictable revenue stream." The next slide said there have been many proposals for business partnerships at the Stanley Park train site that would "differ from the status quo."
Put another way, based on the timeline, the decision seems to have little to do with picking sides in the culture war, or giving the cold shoulder to burn victims.
But it seems to have a lot to do with cold hard cash.