Autocracy and the End of Democracy — But Not Yet


Scot Hein, retired senior designer, City of Vancouver. Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia.

When Scot Hein spoke at last Thursday’s #KitsPlan Town Hall, held at the Kitsilano Neigbourhood House at West 7th and Vine, to discuss the Broadway Plan, and its implications for our beloved Kitsilano neighbourhood, he bemoaned the fact that in recent years citizens throughout Vancouver have been locked out of the decision-making process that affects the communities where they and we live.

Here is what Scot Hein had to say on the matter of civic democracy

“As little as 15 years ago, the City of Vancouver regularly engaged in a thorough, often years long, one-on-one, in-person consultation process with citizens, when the City worked toward developing community plans for the future of neighbourhoods across the City, be that in the Grandview-Woodlands, Riley Park-Little Mountain, Kensington-Cedar Cottage or Granville-Fairview communities, or any other Vancouver neighbourhood.

In recent years, consultation and community involvement in the development process in the City of Vancouver has devolved into a top down process, where the community is not — or rarely — consulted, but are rather called out to a community meeting, where white boards are placed on walls at a community centre, announcing the planners’ conception for the development future of a neighbourhood where residents have been notified, a development fait accompli if you will, sans any meaningful engagement with the community, or citizens who live in one of the twenty-three neighbourhoods that are the heart of Vancouver.”

Sadly, as former Vancouver City Councillor Colleen Hardwick has often averred …

“The members of City Council have often expressed that organizations like the Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods, or the community resident associations who are members of the Coalition, are extra-legal forms of civic governance, unsanctioned and without mandate, that all civic authority rests solely and unabashedly with the Mayor and ten members of City Council.”


On February 13th, David Eby’s government launched the BC Builds programme to build rental housing for “middle-income earners”, geared towards  those earning between $134,000 and $284,000 annually.

Whether it’s Premier David Eby and his Housing Minister, Ravi Kahlon, or Mayor Ken Sim and the members of Vancouver City Council or, down south, Republican MAGA candidate for President Donald Trump, or in Canada should Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilevre form government following the 2025 federal election, for almost two decades now democracy has been in peril, where high-handed governments impose their will on an increasingly angry and woefully disenfranchised electorate, counterintuitively driving turn out down at the polls during the election period — only 36.3% of eligible Vancouver voters cast a ballot in our City’s 2022 municipal election — as more and more, decision-making is left to the elites.

The thrust of last week’s #KitsPlan Town Hall was to reverse the “trend” towards disenfranchisement, for the community to regain its collective power to influence change for the better, for themselves and their families, to demand a voice and input that would be incorporated into civic and provincial affairs decision-making.

While a diverse crowd attended the Town Hall — encompassing a broad cross-section of the Asian and other communities of colour and ethnicities who reside in Kitsilano, with a demographic representation of the parents of young families also voicing their concerns about the tower-driven Broadway Plan, and what it means for the livability of the Kitsilano neighbourhood — many of those in attendance were comprised of members of the seniors community, and were Caucasian.


An unrepresentative, selectively misleading photo of #KitsPlan Town Hall attendees, posted on X

The Abundant Housing, in-the-pocket of developers “We’ve never met a tower-driven development we didn’t like” naysayers posting on Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) cesspool were quick to selectively call out the attendees at the Town Hall as “universally white” and old. Of course, that was not the case, as we pointed out.

Of course, there was a big online hue and cry that referred to #KitsPlan Town Hall attendees as that most awful of things, a NIMBY (as in Not In My Back Yard). The NIMBY appellation is little more than untoward name-calling and a misrepresentation of the truth. Desiring to maintain a livable community — and an agreed upon and very much desired much more dense community that encompasses a variety of environmentally-sound housing forms — can hardly be called NIMBYism.

You know, too, there was a time in the not-so-distant past when younger members of our community valued those who comprise our seniors community, as elders possessed of wisdom, gained across a lifetime of activist community involvement.

Sadly, no longer it would seem. #FightAgeism and intolerance, VanRamblings says.

In fact, if you were to survey the majority of the seniors who were in attendance at the #KitsPlan Town Hall,  you would more than likely find an engaged population of longtime died-in-the-wool community activists, who throughout their lives have fought for a better, a richer, a more diverse and a more inclusive community, who are in point of fact situated on the progressive side of history, and after a lifetime of fighting for better, are unwilling to allow City Hall to steamroll over them and their families, their neighbours, their colleagues and members of the Kits community.

In the days, weeks, months and years to come, there will be many more #KitsPlan Town Halls, next time and beyond — as the movement grows — in increasingly larger venues, as members of the Kitsilano community, in increasing numbers, rally in support of the preservation of Kitsilano as a livable, if increasingly dense, family neighbourhood, where all members of the community are valued, where we might live in harmony and good health, where we know our neighbours, where our streets are friendly and safe, where we know the shop keepers in our Kitsilano neighbourhood and enjoy the restaurants we have come to love, where Jericho and Locarno beaches and Spanish Banks are but a hop, skip and a jump away.

Vancouver Broadway Plan, and Its Impact on the Kitsilano Neighbourhood

This past Thursday evening, in an event sponsored by CityHallWatch — the online activist civic affairs journal — in a crowded, overflow event held at Kitsilano Neighbourhood House, a broad spectrum of speakers addressed the Broadway Plan — an extensive development plan for the future of Vancouver’s Broadway corridor, a growth plan that envisions an additional 50,000 residents who will take up residence along the corridor from Clark to Arbutus streets, between 1st and 16th avenues — and the implications of the Plan on the Kitsilano neighbourhood.


The Broadway Plan will provide a framework for the types of buildings, with towers between 20 to 40 storeys allowed in the light blue ‘centres’. The graphic above was supplied by the City of Vancouver.

The evening was MC’d by Larry Benge, a co-founder and co-Chairperson of the Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods — an alliance of more than 20 community and residents’ associations, who have long sought and continue to seek a respectful relationship between the powers that be at City Hall,  and the 23 neighbourhood communities that comprise and are at the heart of the City of Vancouver.


Video | Vancouver’s Broadway Plan: What does it mean for Kitsilano? Townhall Meeting March 14, 2024

Well-informed, respected and accomplished speakers at Town Hall included …

    • Brian Palmquist, a Vancouver-based architect, and publisher of the ‘you must subscribe to’ City Conversations substack, an in-depth journal that provides detailed coverage of development in the City of Vancouver, and its implications for the health, safety and well-being of those of us who reside in the city;
    • Arny Wise, an urban planner, retired developer, and mediator of municipal housing disputes in Vancouver;
      In front, l-r: Stephen Bohus, Brian Palmquist, Randy Helten. In behind: Arny Wise.
    • Michael Geller, an urban planner, real estate consultant and property developer, who serves on the adjunct faculty of Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Sustainable Development and School of Resource and Environmental Management. His blog may be found at gellersworldtravel.blogspot.ca;
    • Scot Hein, a retired senior urban designer employed by the City of Vancouver for more than 30 years, and at present an Adjunct Professor in the Master of Urban Design Programme at UBC where he works with his colleague …
    • Patrick Condon, the James Taylor chair in Landscape and Livable Environments at the University of British Columbia’s School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, and the founding chair of the UBC Urban Design programme.

    In addition to those named above, during the question, answer and commentary portion of the meeting, former Vancouver City Councillor Colleen Hardwick spoke about the lack of civic democracy, while an architect present with his family in attendance spoke of the work of an old Simon Fraser University pal of VanRamblings, the University of Victoria’s Robert Gifford, a Professor of Psychology and Environmental Studies, who in his paper titled The Consequences of Living in High-Rise Buildings [PDF], writes …

    “… high-rises are less satisfactory than other housing forms for most people, are sub-optimal environments to raise children, social relations within high-rise towers tends to be more impersonal and less than satisfactory than is the case with more ground-oriented housing forms, there is an increased incidence of crime and fear of crime among those who reside in high-rise developments, social cohesion is more difficult and substantively less present in tower developments, while independent studies have found that tower high-rise living may well be a strong contributory and determinative factor that can lead to an increased incidence of suicidal ideation and actual suicide among residents who live in concrete, steel and glass tower constructed buildings.”


    The future of the Kitsilano neighbourhood along the West Broadway / West 4th Avenue corridors

The thrust of Arny Wise’s address to those gathered at the Kitsilano Neighbourhood House Town Hall was that the advent of environmentally unsound steel, concrete and glass towers to increase density in the Kitsilano neighbourhood is simply not an optimal form of development to achieve the density desired by planners at Vancouver City Hall.

Scot Hein made reference to the Arbutus Walk neighbourhood, west of Arbutus Street and West 12th Avenue that, originally, was presented by the Molson-Carling developers and planners back in the day at Vancouver City Hall as three 50-storey concrete and steel towers — a development which the neighbourhood residents very much objected to — that under Mr. Hein’s watch was transformed into a neighbourhood-friendly and livable townhouse, 3-5-and-10 storey condominium and affordable housing development, with a walkable green space centering the development, and a 10-storey housing co-op established in the northwest corner.

It should be noted in passing that the final Arbutus Walk neighbourhood achieved much higher densification, overall, than would have been the case had the originally planned three 50-storey podium and tower development gone forward.


Two final notes for today (there’s more coming tomorrow) …

As UBC’s Patrick Condon pointed out at meetings’ end …

“Vancouver has tripled the number of housing units in our city since the 1970s, more than any other urban centre on the continent, certainly a laudable and unprecedented development feat, far outstripping the number of developments elsewhere. Yet, if supply is “the answer”, why is it that even with a 300% increase in development in Vancouver, we have the poorest supply of affordable housing for residents, the highest land prices, the highest rents of any jurisdiction across the continent, and the most expensive condominiums? Supply, alone, is not the answer.”

And, finally, on a somewhat hopeful note: both Arny Wise and Brian Palmquist pointed out during their presentations that the Planning, Urban Design and Sustainability Department at City Hall has had a change of heart respecting tower development along the Broadway corridor. No longer will citizens face the prospect of dark corridors lined with towers on either side of arterial streets.


Sensitive Urban Infill Charette Report City of Surrey. Drawing: Neda Roohnia, Landscape / Urban Design

Rather, arterial streets like the Broadway corridor will allow six storey developments, while the allowable 20-to-40-storey tower developments will be situated one block behind either side of the arterial street, so as “to prevent shadowing” and obviate the dark arterial corridor residents have made known in no uncertain terms to Vancouver City Hall that, that under no circumstance they want or desire.

Arterial streets must remain walkable, and neighbourhood friendly.

Not good news, of course, for those residents who live along the tree-lined streets, off Broadway (9th Avenue), along West 10th and West 8th Avenues.

But there you have it, for what it’s worth. As we say above, more tomorrow.

#BCPoli | #VanPoli | Vancouver-Little Mountain NDP Nomination Battle


Andrea Reimer and Christine Boyle. Candidates for the Vancouver-Little Mountain NDP nomination.

Three weeks from today, the remaining 300 members of the Vancouver-Little Mountain NDP riding association will cast their ballots to choose who they wish to represent them in the upcoming October 19th provincial election.

Background as to membership numbers: when, in late 2022, Anjali Appadurai announced her intention to run for the leadership of the provincial NDP, 200 citizens who lived in the Vancouver-Fairview (now called Vancouver-Little Mountain) NDP riding signed up to support her candidacy — but did not renew their membership this past, or this, year, leaving 300 remaining voting members in the riding to cast a ballot in the current race to determine the provincial Vancouver-Little Mountain NDP candidate. In 2021, Ms. Appadurai had run as the federal NDP candidate in the riding of Vancouver-Granville, which shares borders with Vancouver-Fairview, thus was well-positioned to re-sign members during her provincial leadership bid.


Vancouver-Fairview MLA George Heyman will not seek re-election in the October provincial election.

In the lead-up to former three-term Vancouver City Councillor Andrea Reimer announcing her Vancouver-Little Mountain New Democratic Party nomination bid, Ms. Reimer and her team were able to sign up a handful of NDP members in the riding to support her candidacy for the nomination, following George Heyman’s March 4th announcement that he would not seek a further term in the Legislature.

George Heyman endorsed Andrea Reimer at his retirement announcement.

Much to the surprise of political observers, current two-term OneCity Vancouver Councillor Christine Boyle announced her candidacy for the Vancouver-Little Mountain NDP nomination, within an hour of Ms. Reimer’s announcement.

Vancouver-Little Mountain membership was locked in early March, just prior to Andrea Reimer and Christine Boyle announcing their respective nomination bids.

After which, the NDP nomination race in Vancouver-Little Mountain was engaged.

Ms. Reimer’s Twitter announcement was followed by Ms. Boyle’s …

In the 10 days since their respective announcements, both Andrea Reimer and Christine Boyle have been active on the campaign trail …

Christine Boyle also tweeted out her work with volunteers on the campaign trail.

Both Vancouver-Little Mountain NDP candidates for nomination have active websites.


Each day on her website & on social media, Andrea Reimer has announced one or more endorsements.


When it comes to endorsements, nomination candidate Christine Boyle’s website hasn’t been as active.


Click on the Vancouver-Little Mountain Electoral Map [PDF] for finer detail.


So, where are we three weeks out from April 4th’s NDP nomination meeting?

Andrea Reimer has run a 24-hour-a-day, high energy, community-oriented and tightly focused campaign to gain the Vancouver-Little Mountain NDP nomination.

Christine Boyle has also been out on the campaign trail, but her commitment to gaining the Vancouver-Little Mountain NDP nomination has been hamstrung by her full-time job as OneCity Vancouver’s only member on Vancouver City Council.

Should Andrea Reimer secure the Vancouver-Little Mountain nomination, she is a lock to be appointed as British Columbia’s next Environment Minister this upcoming November, when a newly-elected Premier David Eby announces his new Cabinet. Both are can-do, no nonsense politicos, both are team players, and neither politician suffers fools gladly. David Eby prefers to appoint Cabinet Ministers in whom he sees a bit of himself — and that is certainly the case with Ms. Reimer.

Christine Boyle, should she secure the Vancouver-Little Mountain nomination will not be destined for Cabinet, but will most certainly secure a position as a Parliamentary Secretary. To some extent, Ms. Boyle — an Anjali Appadurai acolyte — while friendly with the Premier must be seen as something of a Trojan horse, who will in all likelihood emerge as a thorn in the side of the Premier, as she speaks out against fracking and the lack of progress on the development of the Little Mountain site between 33rd and 37th avenues along Main Street.

Note. There is much NDP support for the policy positions enunciated by Ms. Boyle.


Christine Boyle holding Vancouver School Board trustee Jennifer Reddy’s child in her arms

Of all the politicians across British Columbia, Christine Boyle has the most winning smile, and for many she is the most authentic political figure in Metro Vancouver.

While we support Andrea Reimer’s candidacy, we believe the Vancouver-Little Mountain NDP nomination is Christine Boyle’s to lose.

Not a day goes by when we don’t run across someone, or receive a call from an associate who sets about to extol Ms. Boyle’s many virtues — this recognition coming from persons from across the political spectrum. If you’re an old fogey like many of VanRamblings’ associates, you can’t help but look at Ms. Boyle and think, “If she were my daughter, I would be so proud of her.”

[A photo of Christine Boyle accompanies the word charming in the dictionary]

Clearly, Ms. Boyle has much support among younger, more activist NDP members.


Vancouver City Councillor Christine Boyle, with her husband Seth, and their young son.

Christine Boyle’s campaign for the Vancouver-Little Mountain NDP nomination has been less high profile than that of Andrea Reimer. But does it really matter?

All Christine Boyle needs to do is secure the support of one hundred and fifty-five Vancouver-Little Mountain NDP members to win the nomination.

We imagine that Ms. Boyle has found herself on the doorstep of each riding association member, and been invited inside for a cup of tea, and a warm chat, whereupon Christine Boyle without any effort on her part at all, has charmed the socks off the riding members in whose homes she finds herself, who will invariably be impressed at her deep knowledge of the issues, her presentation of self as an advocate for the change we all want to see, and perhaps the most authentic political figure Vancouver-Little Mountain riding members will have ever encountered.

A winning combination that.


The 2017 by-election expense document published by Vancouver’s City Clerk’s office.

The only potential fly in the ointment of Christine Boyle securing the Vancouver-Little Mountain NDP nomination arises as a consequence of the near million dollar expense to the citizens of Vancouver should she secure the nomination, and go on to attempt to win a seat in the government of Premier David Eby.

Vancouver City Councillor Christine Boyle upon securing a second term of office on Saturday, October 15, 2022 to City Hall, committed to representing those who elected her to office for the full four years of the mandate she had been given.

Given the cut and thrust of politics, one is left to wonder — should Christine Boyle secure the Vancouver-Little Mountain NDP nomination — how she would fare in the upcoming provincial general election, when confronted by her B.C. United, B.C. Conservative and Green party opponents, who would surely call her out on her failure to complete her elected term of office, and the consequent million dollar by-election expense that would ensue, in service of her ambition they might well say.


Andrea Reimer. Vancouver-Little Mountain NDP candidate? B.C.’s next Environment Minister?

Perhaps Andrea Reimer’s high profile campaign to secure the Vancouver-Little Mountain NDP nomination, her many, many endorsements and her active participation in the community — and, let’s face it, her overall competence —  will carry the day, and come the evening of Thursday, April 4th, Andrea Reimer will emerge as the chosen candidate, the Vancouver-Little Mountain NDP candidate who will go on to victory on E-Day, Saturday, October 19th —  where soon after, Andrea Reimer will become British Columbia’s next, much admired Environment Minister.

The Great Replacement Theory: Controversies, Origins, and Implications

The Great Replacement Theory, often referred to as the white genocide theory, is a concept of hate and fear that has gained significant traction on the right, most particularly in the philosophies espoused by Canada’s People’s Party’s Maxime Bernier, and in the United States by Republican party candidate for President, Donald Trump, his senior advisor Steve Bannon, and their far-right adherents.

It posits that there is a deliberate effort to replace white populations with non-white immigrants, leading to the erosion of traditional cultures and identities.

The Great Replacement Theory can be traced back to the writings of French author Renaud Camus, who first articulated the concept in his 2011 book Le Grand Remplacement (The Great Replacement).

Camus argued that mass immigration, particularly from Muslim-majority countries, was leading to the demographic decline of white Europeans and the eventual replacement of their culture and civilization.

Camus’ ideas gained traction in far-right and white nationalist circles, spawning a global movement centred on the fear of demographic change.


The Great Replacement is a dangerous conspiracy theory rooted in racism, xenophobia and antisemitism that has motivated deadly attacks on persons of colour, and minority peoples all across the globe

The Great Replacement Theory has been widely criticized by scholars for its lack of empirical evidence and its propagation of xenophobic and racist sentiments.

Critics argue that the theory is based on flawed assumptions and selective interpretation of demographic trends. They point out that immigration is a complex phenomenon driven by economic, political, and social factors, and that it does not necessarily lead to the displacement of native populations.

Moreover, the Great Replacement Theory has been associated with violent acts and hate crimes perpetrated by individuals who subscribe to its ideology.

The 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings in New Zealand, for example, were carried out by a self-professed white supremacist who cited the Great Replacement Theory as a motivation for his actions. Such incidents underscore the dangerous consequences of spreading hateful ideologies based on unfounded fears.

The spread of the Great Replacement Theory has significant implications for social cohesion and political discourse. By framing immigration as a threat to national identity and security, proponents of the theory seek to justify exclusionary policies and discriminatory practices. This can lead to the marginalization and scapegoating of immigrant communities, exacerbating tensions and divisions within society.

Furthermore, the saddening popularity of the Great Replacement Theory reflects broader anxieties about globalization, multiculturalism, and demographic change.

In our interconnected world, where borders are becoming more porous and cultural boundaries more fluid, many of those in search of a simplistic explanation for their angst have come to feel a woeful sense of insecurity and displacement.

The rise of populist movements may be seen as a response to these perceived threats, as people seek to assert their identity and preserve their way of life.

The Great Replacement Theory remains a concept based on hatred of “the other” that, sadly, reflects deep-seated fears about immigration and cultural change.

While Great Replacement Theory may resonate with some segments of society, it is important to critically examine its underlying assumptions and implications.

By promoting understanding and empathy, we can work towards building inclusive and diverse communities that celebrate the richness of human diversity.