Vancouver Civic Election 2026

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by kikin

what are they going to do differently with a "progressive" mayor? this is what I wonder, and after experiencing Stewart who was in before Sim I am a bit terrified, will the city become even less economically competitive?

They might do something scary like fund and fix our community centres

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

They might do something scary like fund and fix our community centres

Municipal governments don't set income tax policy. The best thing they can do for the local economy is make it a place people want to live and work in. Affordability is a big part of that. Facilities like community centres, pools, etc will keep families around too.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Don't forget that whoever's mayor is just one voice of eleven on council. They can easily get elected and then spend the next four years being outvoted on everything.

[bluefox]

Originally Posted by kikin

what are they going to do differently with a "progressive" mayor? this is what I wonder, and after experiencing Stewart who was in before Sim I am a bit terrified, will the city become even less economically competitive?

Has Sim made the city more economically competitive?

As always, the ballot question will be "are you better off..." and the "you" could be you, the person, you, the small business owner, etc. Whoever makes the better case will win the election. But the mayor needs 5+ councillors on side who can also win their seats.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Even with the "don't change horses" argument, it's hard to see how another four years of tax freezes does anything but hurt City facilities and services.

[jollyburger]

‘Myopic and self-serving’: Vancouver Greens decline OneCity proposal for ‘progressive primary’ ahead of mayoral race

https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2026/0...-mayoral-race/

[Migrant_Coconut]

I mean, take it up with COPE for suggesting it...?

[whatnext]

Pete Fry justifiably rips OneCity a new one for their ridiculous stunt:

Green mayoral candidate rejects OneCity's Vancouver progressive mayoral primary proposal, calls it 'autocratic'
Kenneth Chan
Feb 19 2026, 11:57 am

Green Party of Vancouver mayoral candidate Pete Fry has rejected the terms of the progressive primary election set by OneCity Vancouver mayoral candidate William Azaroff, saying the surprise plan was presented without proper consultation and would limit public participation in choosing a standard-bearer for left-leaning parties in the October 2026 civic election....

...Fry described the approach as “a bold move to come out of the gate with such an autocratic approach to unity,” adding that “unity and respectful dialogue is rooted in honesty and transparency.”

Fry criticized both the timing and the structure of the plan, noting that it would require parties to agree to OneCity’s terms within days — by 11:30 a.m. on Friday — and pay to administer a formal primary, and submit their membership lists for audit. He also objected to Azaroff’s proposed eligibility rules, saying voting would be restricted to party members and that the deadline for signing up new members had already passed.....

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/gree...-it-autocratic

[GenWhy?]

Thinking "the left" can agree on anything is hilarious

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I mean, take it up with COPE for suggesting it...?

Yeah. In their press release COPE laid out what they thought what was a primary: sometime over the summer candidates deciding to drop out.

Lame. Talk about trying to walk back a proposal.

Waiting that long, even if it worked, each campaign would have already weakened the others.

I think this fight comes back to: COPE doesn't forgive One City for the split, but can't say that out loud, so they just propose unrealistic things.

One City then tries to force the issue, right after both parties respective AGMs (when they both should have healthy membership lists).

[kikin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Even with the "don't change horses" argument, it's hard to see how another four years of tax freezes does anything but hurt City facilities and services.

people are always the most efficient spenders of their own money in our economy, and that should be the default

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by kikin

people are always the most efficient spenders of their own money in our economy, and that should be the default

Community centres, libraries and parks can't run themselves on donations alone in any economy (the VPD, of course, gets a free blank cheque from this council).

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by kikin

people are always the most efficient spenders of their own money in our economy, and that should be the default

Counterpoint.

People expect a wide range of public facilities and services, including (but not exclusively), paved roads and sidewalks, police, community centres, a fire service, parks, sewers and a clean, safe place water supply. They're willing to pay for some of those, at least in terms of their operations, and others they pay for through property taxes, including capital costs for new facilities and replacement of old ones.

Some of the costs of new facilities are offset by Development Charges, but not all. In a financial environment where there is cost inflation of materials and labour, not raising taxes guarantees fewer services, fewer new facilities and slower repair and maintenance of existing facilities. It's not a zero sum game.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Notable that many homeowners spoke in favour of property tax increases at the last budget hearing... and were dismissed as, quote, "mobilized opposition."

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Notable that many homeowners spoke in favour of property tax increases at the last budget hearing... and were dismissed as, quote, "mobilized opposition."

Who speaks and says what at public hearings is almost meaningless to me. You can't cherry pick what you want to pay attention to. NIMBYs also dominate public hearings.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Counterpoint.

People expect a wide range of public facilities and services, including (but not exclusively), paved roads and sidewalks, police, community centres, a fire service, parks, sewers and a clean, safe place water supply. They're willing to pay for some of those, at least in terms of their operations, and others they pay for through property taxes, including capital costs for new facilities and replacement of old ones.

I think it's worth noting that water and sewer utilities in Vancouver are separate fees from property taxes and most services and programs at community centres are pay-per-use. The services that people expect and are paid for from property taxes are primarily engineering, the fire department, police department, parks, and libraries. Most of the 2026 budget reallocation was taking money from corporate support and arts funding which I don't really think people expect from the city and giving it to the fire department, police department, parks, and libraries.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Notable that many homeowners spoke in favour of property tax increases at the last budget hearing... and were dismissed as, quote, "mobilized opposition."

I don't consider it notable. When a bunch of people show up to oppose a housing development they are considered a vocal minority with too much time on their hands, but when a bunch of people show up to oppose a property tax rate suddenly they should be taken seriously?

Reminder that prior to this year, we had 10.7%, 7.28% and 3.9% property tax increases for the last 3 budgets. Is it really that crazy to have a 0% tax increase this year?

The budget has always been available by the way. I don't think the services that people care about are affected in any way and in fact are getting better funding.

[WarrenC12]

Water and sewer metering and billing is archaic. My strata gets bills from the City and they come once every 4 months. Three invoices a year. No real ability to monitor in real time, etc.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I think it's worth noting that water and sewer utilities in Vancouver are separate fees from property taxes and most services and programs at community centres are pay-per-use. The services that people expect and are paid for from property taxes are primarily engineering, the fire department, police department, parks, and libraries. Most of the 2026 budget reallocation was taking money from corporate support and arts funding which I don't really think people expect from the city and giving it to the fire department, police department, parks, and libraries.

I don't consider it notable. When a bunch of people show up to oppose a housing development they are considered a vocal minority with too much time on their hands, but when a bunch of people show up to oppose a property tax rate suddenly they should be taken seriously?

Reminder that prior to this year, we had 10.7%, 7.28% and 3.9% property tax increases for the last 3 budgets. Is it really that crazy to have a 0% tax increase this year?

The budget has always been available by the way. I don't think the services that people care about are affected in any way and in fact are getting better funding.

Sewer utilities are partly covered by Metro's fees, but also by paid by the City. That's why the City are having to sort out part of the False Creek sewer failure.

Engineering and planning are taking substantial cuts to their budgets. Mostly it can be managed by a hiring freeze, but Engineering staff have already been laid off. The detailed line-item cuts haven't been made available yet, but if a departmental budget allocation is anything less than the CUPE wage increase of 3% in 2026, it means fewer City employees.

The people who the mayor dismissed as activists seem to reflect the wider opinions found by IPSOS in the consultation on the budget, that's included in the link you showed. Last year's survey found 38% in favour of increasing residential taxes to fund the City's budget, and 48% totally opposed. Council raised taxes. This year 50% were in favour of a residential property tax increase and only 37% were opposed. Council voted for a zero tax increase anyway.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

..,Reminder that prior to this year, we had 10.7%, 7.28% and 3.9% property tax increases for the last 3 budgets. Is it really that crazy to have a 0% tax increase this year?

The budget has always been available by the way. I don't think the services that people care about are affected in any way and in fact are getting better funding.

You inadvertently hit on one of the worst aspects of ABC’s budget. The bald-faced cynicism of whacking homeowners with huge above-inflation tax increases only to lower them to Zero in an election year. I guess they think there are plenty of voters stupid enough to fall for it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Who speaks and says what at public hearings is almost meaningless to me. You can't cherry pick what you want to pay attention to. NIMBYs also dominate public hearings.

Sure, except that as mentioned, the public's 50-37 in favour of tax hikes, so in this case it's a majority opinion.

Originally Posted by chowhou

I don't consider it notable. When a bunch of people show up to oppose a housing development they are considered a vocal minority with too much time on their hands, but when a bunch of people show up to oppose a property tax rate suddenly they should be taken seriously?

Reminder that prior to this year, we had 10.7%, 7.28% and 3.9% property tax increases for the last 3 budgets. Is it really that crazy to have a 0% tax increase this year?

The budget has always been available by the way. I don't think the services that people care about are affected in any way and in fact are getting better funding.

See above - it's more like a vocal plurality.
It's similar to when 84% of visitors, 79% of residents and 59% of businesses supported the Water Street pedestrian zone... but the Old Spaghetti Factory complained, and that's who ABC listened to.

At a time when the Granville pedway has run out of budget and the Aquatic Centre's being downsized? Absolutely. Ken finally had to choose between his voters and his sponsors, and picked his sponsors.