Vancouver Civic Election 2022

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The mixed system with 5 wards and 5 at-large seems to be a reasonable compromise. I think Stewart and/or somebody else on council was proposing it.

Wouldn't disagree with that formula on paper. I definitely like and dislike both 100% at-large and ward systems, having now lived in both, but due to the presence of local political parties running candidates I'm unsure of any changes and what they might solve or make worse.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Wouldn't disagree with that formula on paper. I definitely like and dislike both 100% at-large and ward systems, having now lived in both, but due to the presence of local political parties running candidates I'm unsure of any changes and what they might solve or make worse.

Yeah I'm not sure how different things would be, but I'd be ok with trying the change.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

You’re way off on your areas and numbers. “Trout Lake” is not an area. Unless she actually lives in the water. Trout Lake falls within Grandview Woodlands Stevenson is also in the West End. (Another area identified) you also forgot the mayor and Yaletown. The “West End” is also one of the areas identified. Ditto for “downtown.” “False Creek” also not an area, and I’m pretty sure Meggs fell into one of the identified areas. (Not sure about that one though). These areas all have names.

(sigh) This is what I get for being helpful. Alright...

By all means, feel free to spend your time locating more specific addresses - it shouldn't be me doing all the work. If you don't find it on the City page, it'll be an obscure VIA article that reads "lives in Trout Lake/False Creek/etc etc," which in the latter's case, could just as easily be one of the co-ops around Granville Island.

If you'll count again, you'll notice that Stevenson is counted among Boyle, Carr, Affleck and Fry; the other 12/18 (adjusted because Reimer in Trout Lake is indeed within Grandview-Woodland) live outside of the downtown/Strathcona/Grandview area. 22% of the city getting 33% of representation is hardly a scandal.

You're the one who said councillors, when you could've said politicians in general. We all know where Gregor Roberston lives, so including mayors brings it to 13/20, or 65%.

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

And no we aren’t “just missing Killarney and Marpole.” We’re also missing Dunbar, Point Grey, Arbutus, Riley Park, Victoria Fraserview plus others. Basically anything south of Broadway or you know, the vast majority of Vancouver proper. Other than that, we’re a regular UN.

Wai Young is from Killarney and Fred Harding is from South Van; both lost hard in 2018. Part of FPTP means the neighbourhoods with a higher share of the population will obviously get a higher share of actually-electable candidates and people who'll vote for them. As it is, we've got two current seats and three former seats (Dominato, Kirby-Yung, Ball, Jang, Reimer) that are definitely from south of Broadway.

[cov]

Originally Posted by Vin

London, many European & Australian cities, Singapore, most Japanese cities, etc. etc.. In fact, if you do travel, you will get to see that many cities around the world, particularly those outside North America, are much better run than ours. In fact, I dare say that we are probably at the bottom of the heap when compared to other Canadian cities. Just look at DTES and we lose hands down. In the well-run cities, you constantly see maintenance/cleaning crew everywhere in town working. You feel secure seeing policemen patrolling the streets on foot. Such things are missing in Vancouver: everyone seems to be taking extended breaks. We are a lazy town.

are you eastvanmark? I seriously doubt he wants Vancouver to turn out like Tokyo or Singapore.

[GenWhy?]

Omg.. Wai Young's campaign was hilarious. We've had folks like her run for mayor in Edmonton who think the entire City is "with them" but instead the "urban bike loving green whatever" win for like a 5th election in a row

[Migrant_Coconut]

Vancouver 1st was even funnier. I mean, an NBA stadium? Come the hell on.

Originally Posted by cov

are you eastvanmark? I seriously doubt he wants Vancouver to turn out like Tokyo or Singapore.

The Marina Bay concourse is pleasant... the nanny state that comes with it, not so much.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Omg.. Wai Young's campaign was hilarious. We've had folks like her run for mayor in Edmonton who think the entire City is "with them" but instead the "urban bike loving green whatever" win for like a 5th election in a row

Social media bubbles. The trucker convoy thought they were in the majority too.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by cov

gimme a city that you think is well run. I'm curious

There’s a few off the top of my head. Of course it’s mostly from a North American context but I would say Denver, Seattle or San Fran (a city we should emulate and is very similar to us, minus the prosperity) in the States. Probably Would rank Mississauga tops in Canada, but I think they don’t qualify because they technically are a suburb of Toronto. For larger centres, I would say Calgary.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

(sigh) This is what I get for being helpful. Alright...

By all means, feel free to spend your time locating more specific addresses - it shouldn't be me doing all the work. If you don't find it on the City page, it'll be an obscure VIA article that reads "lives in Trout Lake/False Creek/etc etc," which in the latter's case, could just as easily be one of the co-ops around Granville Island.

If you'll count again, you'll notice that Stevenson is counted among Boyle, Carr, Affleck and Fry; the other 12/18 (adjusted because Reimer in Trout Lake is indeed within Grandview-Woodland) live outside of the downtown/Strathcona/Grandview area. 22% of the city getting 33% of representation is hardly a scandal.

You're the one who said councillors, when you could've said politicians in general. We all know where Gregor Roberston lives, so including mayors brings it to 13/20, or 65%.



Wai Young is from Killarney and Fred Harding is from South Van; both lost hard in 2018. Part of FPTP means the neighbourhoods with a higher share of the population will obviously get a higher share of actually-electable candidates and people who'll vote for them. As it is, we've got two current seats and three former seats (Dominato, Kirby-Yung, Ball, Jang, Reimer) that are definitely from south of Broadway.

I disagree. Way too much representation for too small of an area and percentage of area in a city. The current council figures are completely out of line with any notion of proportional representation. And this imbalance has occurred election after election. Once or twice is an anomaly but in this case it’s a trend.

And I made mention of people in city council. That includes mayors. And I clarified that point afterwards again. And when you factor in the backgrounds of council members (including mayors) you again see that almost everyone has a strikingly similar background. And it stays the same for literally every election in the last 2 decades +. Why is that? A fluke? Probability tells us no.

Did Wai Young win an election in Vancouver that I’ve forgotten? Don’t recall that.
The fact is, there has been no representation from that area you mentioned on council for a generation. That’s ridiculous. And if your scoring at home from a border view, representation south of Broadway is almost non existent. That’s over half the land mass in tow entire city Also please note that Dominato is not from south of Broadway. Reimer MAY be a block or so south. That leaves a whopping 3 candidates (by your own figures) although I think there was perhaps one more, representing half of Vancouver over the last 2 election cycles.
Yup that seems totally fair to me an a model of a properly working government.

[cov]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

There’s a few off the top of my head. Of course it’s mostly from a North American context but I would say Denver, Seattle or San Fran (a city we should emulate and is very similar to us, minus the prosperity) in the States. Probably Would rank Mississauga tops in Canada, but I think they don’t qualify because they technically are a suburb of Toronto. For larger centres, I would say Calgary.

are you serious? So you worry about Vancouver crime but also think we should emulate Seattle or San Fransisco? Both of which have higher rates of vagrancy and crime.

you claim that Vancouver is wasting money on building social housing but love san Fransisco which famously pays about 1 million per unit of social housing. How come I get the feeling you don't visit these cities often and don't understand anything about these cities beyond the superficial tourist experience.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

I disagree. Way too much representation for too small of an area and percentage of area in a city. The current council figures are completely out of line with any notion of proportional representation. And this imbalance has occurred election after election. Once or twice is an anomaly but in this case it’s a trend.

And I made mention of people in city council. That includes mayors. And I clarified that point afterwards again. And when you factor in the backgrounds of council members (including mayors) you again see that almost everyone has a strikingly similar background. And it stays the same for literally every election in the last 2 decades +. Why is that? A fluke? Probability tells us no.

Did Wai Young win an election in Vancouver that I’ve forgotten? Don’t recall that.
The fact is, there has been no representation from that area you mentioned on council for a generation. That’s ridiculous. And if your scoring at home from a border view, representation south of Broadway is almost non existent. That’s over half the land mass in tow entire city Also please note that Dominato is not from south of Broadway. Reiner MAY be a block or so south. That leaves a whopping 3 candidates (by your own figures) representing half of Vancouver over the last 2 election cycles. Yup that seems totally fair to me an a model of a properly working government.

1/9th getting 2/9ths is more democratic than over half the continent. Lopsided, sure, but I don't see anybody pushing for prop rep (which would likely increase the number of NIMBY councillors, which you probably don't want either).

Again, that's how at-large FPTP works. Has 21% of Vancouver's population - West and Southwest Van - been cut out of the loop? Sure. And yet they managed to elect Colleen Hardwick to fight their fight anyway; local interests seem to be more important than local representation for them.

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

There’s a few off the top of my head. Of course it’s mostly from a North American context but I would say Denver, Seattle or San Fran (a city we should emulate and is very similar to us, minus the prosperity) in the States. Probably Would rank Mississauga tops in Canada, but I think they don’t qualify because they technically are a suburb of Toronto. For larger centres, I would say Calgary.

The same Seattle and San Fran that have a bigger homelessness and crime problem than we do? And Calgary, which is even more dead than we are? Not really helping your argument here.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by cov

are you serious? So you worry about Vancouver crime but also think we should emulate Seattle or San Fransisco? Both of which have higher rates of vagrancy and crime.

you claim that Vancouver is wasting money on building social housing but love san Fransisco which famously pays about 1 million per unit of social housing. How come I get the feeling you don't visit these cities often and don't understand anything about these cities beyond the superficial tourist experience.

Oh no I mentioned crime, but of course there’s much more to that. Both San Fran and Seattle are facing serious issues with vagrants as you mention. The difference is in other areas such as economic opportunities which are severely lacking here. On a side note, the vagrancy issue is a California wide problem as the State has lost its mind and has all but made it illegal for cities to do anything about the problem. (Kinda like us and our approach to people overtaking city parks). In both cities there is actual representation from every area in the city. It guaranteed. Here, not so much as I’ve already demonstrated.
Then if you measure more subjective things like vibrancy, although again admittedly subjective a Cory like San Fran absolutely blows us out of the water. Seattle too. In at least the latter’s case, the reverse used to be true.

Regarding social housing I think your confusing me for someone else. I never said that.

And not that it’s important but I did have business interests down in that area so I’m well versed in it’s day to day dealings. But since you mentioned yes, they are much more efficient in their tourist initiatives as well.

[cov]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

The difference is in other areas such as economic opportunities which are severely lacking here. On a side note, the vagrancy issue is a California wide problem as the State has lost its mind and has all but made it illegal for cities to do anything about the problem. (Kinda like us and our approach to people overtaking city parks).

Regarding social housing I think your confusing me for someone else. I never said that.

And not that it’s important but I did have business interests down in that area so I’m well versed in it’s day to day dealings. But since you mentioned yes, they are much more efficient in their tourist initiatives as well.

Those cities aren't responsible for the tech firms that just happen to be there. In fact, the city regularly promotes hostile policies against big techs because they ruin the vibes of the city. The city of Seattle had absolutely nothing to do with the founding of Microsoft nor its success.

Can you explain which policies or city decisions convinced you these cities are well run? Since you have business interests there you must be well versed, and Vancouver should at least learn a thing or two.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

1/9th getting 2/9ths is more democratic than over half the continent. Lopsided, sure, but I don't see anybody pushing for prop rep (which would likely increase the number of NIMBY councillors, which you probably don't want either).

Again, that's how at-large FPTP works. Has 21% of Vancouver's population - West and Southwest Van - been cut out of the loop? Sure. And yet they managed to elect Colleen Hardwick to fight their fight anyway; local interests seem to be more important than local representation for them.



The same Seattle and San Fran that have a bigger homelessness and crime problem than we do? And Calgary, which is even more dead than we are? Not really helping your argument here.

You’re right that I don’t want nimby councillors, but our current system provides a solid supply of just that. Council members need to be representative of every area in a city. That’s why almost everyone of them uses that system. We do not and the results are predictable. And A resident of Kitsilano is not going to “fight the fight” for those in South Van. She’s completely unaccountable there. If she voted for stupid motions that negatively affected any given area she actually lived in, there would be instant accountability or at minimum an avenue for local residents to take her to task. As the system stands right now, there isn’t.

Those cities are larger than we are. Of course they will have higher crime rates. Also, that’s just one measure. Economically, it’s not even close. They absolutely blow us out of the water. Both are much friendlier to business and in the vibrancy category one is neck and neck while the other absolutely blows us away. That city also take care of their heritage, we do not. One treasures their precious Chinatown and protects it; we piss on ours. So again, one well run, one not so much.

Calgary compares with us for man made attractions, while we blow them away with our park system and natural draws. But again, much more business friendl there, government keeps taxes low. Take a hand up rather than a hand out approach to poverty; as a result they don’t have a problem; not so for us.
Finally there’s affordability….best not to discuss that topic when dealing with Vancouver…

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by cov

Those cities aren't responsible for the tech firms that just happen to be there. In fact, the city regularly promotes hostile policies against big techs because they ruin the vibes of the city. The city of Seattle had absolutely nothing to do with the founding of Microsoft nor its success.

Can you explain which policies or city decisions convinced you these cities are well run? Since you have business interests there you must be well versed, and Vancouver should at least learn a thing or two.

I beg to differ. If the business climate wasn’t what it is, they would have bolted Town long ago. If our would have been better, we would have landed their Canadian headquarters long ago.
And no they just didn’t “happen to be there”. Those companies moved to more lucrative (for them) suburbs that offered more incentives to locate there. Plus, there’s plenty more there than just tech. What’s our excuse? We let smaller citys top us in that department, and lies directly at the feet of 12th and Cambie. For all his foolishness I will give credit to Mayor Moonbeam in actively pursuing tech companies for the city. Although late, the move is paying dividends. But we need more and more often of that, plus a 180 in our attitude towards business.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

You’re right that I don’t want nimby councillors, but our current system provides a solid supply of just that. Council members need to be representative of every area in a city. That’s why almost everyone of them uses that system. We do not and the results are predictable. And A resident of Kitsilano is not going to “fight the fight” for those in South Van. She’s completely unaccountable there. If she voted for stupid motions that negatively affected any given area she actually lived in, there would be instant accountability or at minimum an avenue for local residents to take her to task. As the system stands right now, there isn’t.

Those cities are larger than we are. Of course they will have higher crime rates. Also, that’s just one measure. Economically, it’s not even close. They absolutely blow us out of the water. Both are much friendlier to business and in the vibrancy category one is neck and neck while the other absolutely blows us away. That city also take care of their heritage, we do not. One treasures their precious Chinatown and protects it; we piss on ours. So again, one well run, one not so much.

Calgary compares with us for man made attractions, while we blow them away with our park system and natural draws. But again, much more business friendl there, government keeps taxes low. Take a hand up rather than a hand out approach to poverty; as a result they don’t have a problem; not so for us.
Finally there’s affordability….best not to discuss that topic when dealing with Vancouver…

Except we only have 3/10 NIMBY councillors (Carr, Hardwick, Swanson) at the moment, all of which were in the top five last election. The rest are either YIMBYs or moderates.
That means that moving to a 5 at-large, 5 ward system would re-elect the same 3 at-large NIMBYs, plus at least 2 ward ones; scrapping at-large entirely and re-adopting the old wards would likely keep Hardwick and Carr in office, plus add a new NIMBY in the Dunbar/Kerrisdale ward. Either way, that's zero net gain or a net loss to progress in City Hall.

I said Southwest Van, i.e. anything beyond the Ridge. Local interests there basically amount to "keep everything the way it is forever," so they'd happily support anybody who advocates the same, even if they lived in Fraserview.

Let's face it, Chinatown has been dying ever since T&T moved into Vancouver. I can only assume Seattle and San Fran's have concentrated their time and effort on attracting foot traffic and tidying up; ours has wasted all theirs on a UNESCO bid and blocking much-needed gentrification, so I'd consider that a Darwin Award instead of City Hall's failure.

Cart before the horse - more likely they need those low taxes in order for anybody to move to Calgary. They've got the opposite problem from us: a 30% office vacancy rate and climbing.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Except we only have 3/10 NIMBY councillors (Carr, Hardwick, Swanson) at the moment, all of which were in the top five last election. The rest are either YIMBYs or moderates.
That means that moving to a 5 at-large, 5 ward system would re-elect the same 3 at-large NIMBYs, plus at least 2 ward ones; scrapping at-large entirely and re-adopting the old wards would likely keep Hardwick and Carr in office, plus add a new NIMBY in the Dunbar/Kerrisdale ward. Either way, that's zero net gain or a net loss to progress in City Hall.

I said Southwest Van, i.e. anything beyond the Ridge. Local interests there basically amount to "keep everything the way it is forever," so they'd happily support anybody who advocates the same, even if they lived in Fraserview.

Let's face it, Chinatown has been dying ever since T&T moved into Vancouver. I can only assume Seattle and San Fran's have concentrated their time and effort on attracting foot traffic and tidying up; ours has wasted all theirs on a UNESCO bid and blocking much-needed gentrification, so I'd consider that a Darwin Award instead of City Hall's failure.

Cart before the horse - more likely they need those low taxes in order for anybody to move to Calgary. They've got the opposite problem from us: a 30% office vacancy rate and climbing.

I agree with Carr & Dr No Swanson but Hardwick strikes me as a moderate.
Everyone other than Bligh, Kirby Yung and De Genova are all NIMBY morons in my books. Even those listed have had their moments but they sometimes have some redeeming qualities (key word sometimes). I would be hard pressed to call
Anyone a Yimby. Again MAYBE Bligh.

Regarding wards, yes that’s absolutely right it may not accomplish a single damn thing in terms of a progressive attitude at City Hall, but at least there would be some true regional representation and accountability. I think most people could live with that. Right now, the deck is stacked. That ain’t cool.

Good point and there’s certainly enough evidence out there to suggest that those attitudes would continue. But again it’s those citizens living in the area making those decisions, not someone deciding for them from the other side of the city.

Our Chinatown has been on the decline since before TNT even existed. And you’re right about those cities (especially the latter). However it’s their exact ANTI gentrification policies, coupled with tax breaks and other incentives that saved their Chinatowns. We have done nothing and as you pointed out, went in the other direction by wasting time on foolish “creative” initiatives that predictably went nowhere. We literally have just stood by and watched this jewel in the city wither away.

Office vacancy is not a bad thing (although 30% is much).’our artificial low vacancy is not good either.
When things turn around (eventually), landlords will be tripping over themselves offering deals and incentives to get companies to move in. If I’m starting a business, I’m heading there. High vacancy creates possibilities. Our stifling policies have not only caused a move to underbuilding projects, but our poor business climate keeps companies away. Now again, we have made some baby steps with recent projects and some in the pipeline, but again we were slow to get started and are now playing catch up. No need for that so if we’re really serious about catching up we take above from other business forward cities that offer incentives for developers to develop larger projects. And in some rare occasions, help in the effort to court business to the local area.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

I agree with Carr & Dr No Swanson but Hardwick strikes me as a moderate.
Everyone other than Bligh, Kirby Yung and De Genova are all NIMBY morons in my books. Even those listed have had their moments but they sometimes have some redeeming qualities (key word sometimes). I would be hard pressed to call
Anyone a Yimby. Again MAYBE Bligh.

Regarding wards, yes that’s absolutely right it may not accomplish a single damn thing in terms of a progressive attitude at City Hall, but at least there would be some true regional representation and accountability. I think most people could live with that. Right now, the deck is stacked. That ain’t cool.

Good point and there’s certainly enough evidence out there to suggest that those attitudes would continue. But again it’s those citizens living in the area making those decisions, not someone deciding for them from the other side of the city.

Our Chinatown has been on the decline since before TNT even existed. And you’re right about those cities (especially the latter). However it’s their exact ANTI gentrification policies, coupled with tax breaks and other incentives that saved their Chinatowns. We have done nothing and as you pointed out, went in the other direction by wasting time on foolish “creative” initiatives that predictably went nowhere. We literally have just stood by and watched this jewel in the city wither away.

Office vacancy is not a bad thing (although 30% is much).’our artificial low vacancy is not good either.
When things turn around (eventually), landlords will be tripping over themselves offering deals and incentives to get companies to move in. If I’m starting a business, I’m heading there. High vacancy creates possibilities. Our stifling policies have not only caused a move to underbuilding projects, but our poor business climate keeps companies away. Now again, we have made some baby steps with recent projects and some in the pipeline, but again we were slow to get started and are now playing catch up. No need for that so if we’re really serious about catching up we take above from other business forward cities that offer incentives for developers to develop larger projects. And in some rare occasions, help in the effort to court business to the local area.

Council's voting record would disagree. Looks like Kirby-Yung's a fence-sitter, and Hardwick's a reactionary (going from other charts, she also has the most declared conflicts of interest).

If there's a stacked deck, it's in favour of parties over independents; if somebody from Southlands were to join the Greens' council ticket, they'd be elected on sight. Some local non-partisan interests may very well be drowned out by lack of local reps - would very much like some examples, if so - but I'd argue that mostly everybody has a say otherwise.

Having a hard time seeing Chinatown as a "jewel," even pre-decline - the grocers barely even clean their own stores, let alone the streets. IMO gentrification (new buildings, hipster pizza and ramen, etc etc) is the only force stopping everything in the neighbourhood that isn't Phnom Penh from turning into a slum.

Which is why we're building more and more offices to try and close the gap. Low vacancy means high business demand and high vacancy means low demand; if Calgary were so attractive, they wouldn't have more than 20% in the first place.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Council's voting record would disagree. Looks like Kirby-Yung's a fence-sitter, and Hardwick's a reactionary (going from other charts, she also has the most declared conflicts of interest).

That's Council's voting record in 2019. Since then, as featheredfriend has comprehensively recorded, Councillor Hardwick's record on voting has become far more negative to almost any type of development. She's voted 'yes' to 2,714 units of housing, and 'no' to 6,213 - including condos, rentals and social housing. She also voted against a hotel, and some office space. Sarah Kirby-Young voted almost 100% yes - to 10,256 units, (and no to just 24).

[GenWhy?]

I might be looking at old data, but I thought recently Vancouver had both the lowest commercial and residential property taxes rates of the largest population centres in Canada and wasn't there a major tax break in 2020?