Category Archives: BC Politics

#VanElxn2022 | Christine Boyle and OneCity’s Big Lie

#VanElxn 2022, #VanPoli Civic Politics, BC Politics, Politics, Vancouver, Vancouver Votes 2022, ,


The Cult of Christine Boyle‘s OneCity Vancouver plans to transform your once quiet neighbourhood.

Do you like the quiet street you live on, just a hop, skip and a jump from your local neighbourhood park and community centre, surrounded by neighbours who’ve become friends, with produce stores and cafés just up the street?

Well, with the release on Tuesday of OneCity Vancouver’s disastrous housing plan you can kiss your neighbourhood good-bye, as OneCity released a campaign platform that would mandate the construction of six-storey purpose-built rental housing in every neighbourhood, on every block, anywhere and everywhere across the city — a massive gift to Vancouver’s greed-driven development industry — sans any consultation with citizens, that …

“… would remove any semblance of a voice for neighbourhoods in the development process,” TEAM … for a Livable Vancouver Mayoral candidate, Councillor Colleen Hardwick told the Vancouver Sun’s Dan Fumano, as she blasted OneCity Vancouver’s poorly thought-out housing platform.

“The idea of Vancouverites discovering a massive building has been approved next to their home with “no notice, no public hearing, no opportunity to be consulted,” Ms. Hardwick fumed, “would be a disaster — right across the city. Not only that, it shows contempt for citizens, renters and homeowners, not to mention the democratic process, and community engagement.”

One City’s release of their egregiously simple-minded, anti-democratic and disastrous housing platform is a thoughtless re-tread of a proposal originally made by Councillor Boyle to Vancouver City Council in May 2021, a wrong-headed plan then, and one that was rightfully and soundly rejected by her Council colleagues.

In 2021, Ms. Boyle presented her 12-storey housing motion as “building co-ops” in every neighbourhood; her colleagues pointed out during debate  …

“The top 10 floors of the proposed ‘co-op’ building you advocate for in your motion constitute, in fact, market rentals, while the bottom two floors would be set aside at a still unaffordable 20% below the market rate. If these are “housing co-ops”, as you suggest, it would appear that you lack a fundamental understanding of what member-run housing co-ops are all about.”

Larry Benge, at the time the co-chair of the umbrella residents’ association that represents Vancouver’s 23 neighbourhoods — the Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods — also weighed in on the controversy surrounding Councillor Boyle’s motion, stating “the loosening rules around social housing will drive up land values, resulting in gentrification and demovictions.”

“(Councillor Boyle’s motion) just throws the doors wide open for land speculation,” Benge told The Georgia Straight‘s Carlito Pablo in a May 19, 2021 interview, stating he found it to be “unbelievable” and the “height of naiveté” for anyone to think that simply because a development is “social housing” it will neither have any ability to set precedent, nor will affect land values.

In advance of the presentation of Ms. Boyle’s motion, the Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods posted a statement online opposing the motion.

“This will increase development pressure, increase rental inflation, gentrification, demovictions, and displacements for existing older, more affordable rental buildings,” the Coalition wrote, noting existing rents in older buildings “tend to be much lower than new rentals, sometimes even lower than typical subsidized social housing rents, while existing older units are also generally larger.”


Illustration showing what a Vancouver side street could look like if OneCity’s proposed housing policy was to be implemented, allowing six-storey apartment buildings in all Vancouver residential neighbourhoods (ie … your neighbourhood). Image by Matthew Thomson/Matthew Thomson Design. Photo: Bryn Davidson, Lanefab Design

Here we are in 2022, and Christine Boyle — and her OneCity Council candidate colleagues — are still promoting The Big Lie, the pipedream, that by invading and destroying neighbourhoods across the city with the rampant construction of unaffordable, developer-friendly (read: they’re gonna make billions!) 16-storey apartment buildings, somehow Vancouver’s citizens will be better off, the unhoused and under-housed will have a roof over their heads, and comfort within Vancouver’s neighbourhoods, on every block across our city.

Poppycock. Hogwash. Balderdash — not to mention, a cruel provocation meant to cause harm to Vancouver citizens desperately in need of housing.

No opportunity for the public to be heard; no public consultation at local community centres; no input from the Vancouver Planning Commission, nor Vancouver’s Development Permit Board; no input from Vancouver’s Planning, Urban Design and Development Services Department; no hearings before City Council to adjudicate the proposed projects — just a rubber stamp of whatever the developer wants to build, on any block, in any neighbourhood, employing any building material, cladding and presentation to the street, all while ignoring every single aspect of the carefully considered, widely consulted, in-person engagements with citizens, agreed upon community plans for each of Vancouver 23 neighbourhoods … totally and utterly cast aside by The Cult of Christine Boyle’s OneCity Vancouver authoritarian housing plan, for developers.

#VanElxn2022 | Vancouver | Median Market Rental Rate | An Explanation

#VanElxn 2022, #VanPoli Civic Politics, BC Politics, Politics, Vancouver, Vancouver Votes 2022, , , ,

Each year, dating back to 1947, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation …

… a Crown Corporation of the Government of Canada, originally established after World War II to help returning war veterans find housing, CMHC since expanding its mandate to improve Canadians’ “access to housing”, the organization’s primary goals to provide mortgage liquidity, assist in the development of affordable housing, and provide unbiased research and advice to the Canadian government on the housing industry, which as of the second quarter of 2021 had assets in excess of CA$295 billion.

Each October, CMHC sets about to conduct the Rental Market Survey (RMS), during which time the Corporation gathers information on the primary rental market in urban areas with a population of at least 10,000. The primary rental market refers to privately-initiated structures intended to supply the rental market. The RMS specifically targets privately initiated structures with at least three rental units, which have been on the market for at least three months.

The Rental Market Survey is conducted primarily through site visits with the owner, manager, or building superintendent for all sampled structures. From 1996 through 2008, as part of our employment with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, VanRamblings was tasked with overseeing the collection of rental market information throughout the province of British Columbia, while working with economists employed in CMHC’s Pacific Regional Office to verify the collected information as part of an integrity check.


Vancouver median market rental rate, all bedroom types, 2009 – 2018

When the Rental Market Survey results are published — as early as late November, as late as mid-January — in each metropolitan area across Canada, the median market rental rate in each neighbourhood in each community is determined, and published. What does median market rental rate mean?

“Median Market Rent means the middle value of all monthly rents paid, inclusive of essential utilities, when placed in order of value for a designated market area, and by unit type.”

Let’s use Kitsilano as an example to better explain what is meant by median market rental rate. The October 2021 Rental Market Survey found the median market rental rate in the Kitsilano CMA (Census Market Area) was $1139 per month for a one-bedroom apartment, across all building types and date of construction, recording results in five year increments in buildings constructed from 1975 til now.

In other words, in late 2021, half of those resident in apartment rental accommodation in the Kitsilano CMA were paying less than $1139 each month to rent a one-bedroom apartment, while half of Kits apartment dwellers were paying more. In Kitsilano, as is the case elsewhere across the city, there are those who have been resident in an apartment building dating back to the mid-1970s, and are paying anywhere from $825 to $950 per month in rent.

By the same token, for newer apartment buildings, or in the case of new tenants moving into a vacated apartment, the landlord has seen fit to increase the rent — for say, an unfurnished one-bedroom apartment — to market rental rates as high as $2500 per month, or in some cases even higher.

As former Vision City Councillor Kerry Jang told CKNW talk show host Simi Sara  in 2013, “Affordable housing is something that somebody can afford.”

Awhile back, VanRamblings received a call from COPE City Councillor Jean Swanson, who asked us if we’d look into the definition of affordable housing, as it is defined in Metro Vancouver municipalities other than Vancouver. So, we did. This is what VanRamblings found: speaking with administrators in Planning Departments in each Metro Vancouver municipality, be it North Vancouver, Surrey or Port Coquitlam, we learned, in each case, “affordable housing in our community is defined as 20% below the median market rental rate, as determined by CMHC.”

Vancouver, and Vancouver alone, since Kerry Jang’s 2013 statement respecting the definition of affordable housing, has determined affordable housing as NOT 20% below the median market rental rate, but 20% below the market rate. In Kitsilano, to employ that neighbourhood as an example, 20% below the median market rental rate would be an affordable rent of $938 per month, whereas 20% below the current market rate would be $2000 per month — more than double the 20% below Kitsilano’s median market rental rate!

Since being elected to office in 2018, has any — and we mean, any — Vancouver City Councillor sought to adopt the definition of affordable housing, as it applies in every other Metro Vancouver municipality, determinant from the results of the conduct of CMHC’s annual Rental Market Survey? Jean Swanson, maybe? That dissembling “thinks she’s a socialist” saviour of our city (but not really), Christine Boyle?

Christine Boyle and most of Council voted for any and every project that had a so-called affordable rental rate component included. What does that mean in real life?

Let’s take the Jameson Development Corporation project, on the old site of the Denny’s, at Birch and West Broadway. Originally conceived of as a 16-storey purpose-built rental, when the Jameson family made the decision to include a 20% “affordable rental” component, Ms. Boyle and her Vancouver City Council colleagues agreed to allow the developer to build out at a skyscraper-like 28 storeys, in order to deliver 200 market rental homes, with another 58 “homes” to be geared to a person or household earning between $60,000 & $80,000 per year.

Upon completion, a 395 sq. ft one-bedroom on a lower floor of the Jameson project will be marketed at more than $3,000-a-month, which means an “affordable rental” will be available at $2400 each month, or $28,800 annually.

Let’s say you’re a beginning teacher, and you’re earning $60,000 a year. After taxes / CPP / EI deductions, and union dues to pay, in part, for a pension plan and benefits, your total net income would come in at around $45,000, less the $28,800 in rent + utilities — Hydro / Internet / TV / cell phone (say, another $250 a month)— at $3,000, never mind car insurance, gas and car repairs at another $3,000 annually … well, lucky, lucky beginning teacher, s/he will have a grand total of $10,000 remaining to pay for food, clothing, and entertainment — forget about dining out, vacations, never mind birthday presents and Christmas gifts for family and friends.

Nothing like paying 64% of your net income on a 395 sq. ft. supposedly “affordable” apartment on the 5th floor of the Jameson Birch Street project.

In 2022, Vancouver and Vancouver alone continues to define “affordable” as 20% below whatever the market will bear, shutting out tens of thousands of hard working Vancouver citizens — those working at minimum wage, those earning a living wage, or any single person earning the median income of $45,000 — from ever being able to afford to rent within the City of Vancouver.

At the upcoming all-candidates meetings in September, ask all those who are running for office to become a Vancouver City Councillor whether they will commit to ensuring that affordable housing in Vancouver is redefined as 20% below the median market rental rate as determined by CMHC’s annual Rental Market Survey.

And while you’re at it, ask these prospective candidates whether they will move to have rents in apartment buildings tied to the current rental rate — through a change to the Vancouver Charter — so when a tenant moves out, the owner / landlord can’t raise the rent to an unaffordable market rental rate.

One more thing: ask these prospective Vancouver City Councillors whether they’ll move to adopt Burnaby and New Westminster’s demoviction bylaw.

  • An affordable housing plan. The revival of the Community Land Trust relationship between Vancouver City Hall and the Co-operative Housing Federation of B.C., that would see the construction of 1500 new housing co-op homes built each year on city, provincial and federal Crown land, each of the next four years. An affordable housing plan that would expedite the construction of ten 150-unit family housing co-ops each year — think the City Gate Housing Co-operative on Milross Avenue, the Roundhouse Housing Co-operative on Marinaside Crescent, in Yaletown, or the Railyard Housing Co-operative on Quebec Avenue at 1st, due east of the Olympic Village — all built at no expense to Vancouver citizens — while foregoing the $1 million in development permit fees. Construction and materials cost: paid for through a combination of mandated developer Community Amenity Contributions and provincial and federal funds (both Prime Minister Trudeau and former B.C. Housing Minister, David Eby, have signed off on the above). Cost to Vancouver citizens: zero. Cost of land: zero. Cost to Vancouver citizens for construction and materials: zero. A negotiation with the federal government would ensure that all subsidy monies for Co-op members would be paid for through the federal co-op housing subsidy fund. All monies paid by Co-op residents — after administrative, amenity payments and maintenance costs, and monies placed into a “replacement reserve fund” for major, future renovations — would be returned to the City to build supportive social housing, at no cost to citizens.

You’ve got your work cut out for you over this next six weeks, as you and your neighbours hold those who would wish to be elected to City Council to account. Are these candidates for Council on your side, or are they on the side of an unacceptable status quo or worse, greed-oriented and deep in the pockets of the developers who are funding their campaigns for office?

#VanPoli | Homelessness + Housing | A Series | Part 3

#VanElxn 2022, #VanPoli Civic Politics, BC Politics, Vancouver, Vancouver Votes 2022, , , , ,

British Columbia, should candidate to lead the BC NDP become our province’s 37th Premier, David Robert Patrick Eby — and the City of Vancouver, as well, should TEAM … for a Livable Vancouver Mayoral candidate Colleen Hardwick be elected as Vancouver Mayor this upcoming October 15th — may be on the verge of adopting a revolutionary new approach to the provision of care for, and provision of housing for, our province’s homeless population, once and for all eliminating the scourge of a homelessness crisis that has for so long bedevilled our city, and our province.

In 2008, the Vancouver Police Department released a 56-page prescriptive visioning report titled Lost in Transition: How a Lack of Capacity in the Mental Health System is Failing Vancouver’s Mentally Ill and Draining Police Resources, that cogently argued for a near revolutionary reformation of the service model the VPD felt must be adopted to better provide for the necessary care for all those persons in need who are resident in the square mile around Main and Hastings, a report compiled and written by a particularly illustrious and celebrated cabal of PhD holding Vancouver police officers, long in the employ of the Vancouver Police Department.

In essence, the Lost in Transition report argued for the provincial appointment of a czar to oversee the provision of social services on the DTES. When the Lost in Transition report was updated in 2013, the world czar was replaced with the phrase, “the provincial appointment of an individual with the authority of a Deputy Minister”, and in the 2018 update of the Lost in Transition report, that individual was now called a Commissioner, a provincial appointee who would be given the authority to oversee a radical reformation of the DTES social services model.

In 2012, Charles Campbell — a former editor of The Georgia Straight — was commissioned by Vancouver Coastal Health to author a report on the provision of services on the DTES. Mr. Campbell’s report, Working With Health Agencies and Partners On Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside [PDF}, identified 277 social agencies providing services to those in need who were resident on the downtown eastside.

Arising out of the publication of both the Lost in Transition and Partners reports, a serious-minded and goal-oriented discussion on a reformation of the social services model that had long been in place on the DTES commenced in earnest.

This past weekend, TEAM … for a Livable Vancouver Mayoral candidate Colleen Hardwick apprised VanRamblings of a discussion she’d had with Chief Constable of the Vancouver Police Department, Adam Palmer, where the two touched on what might constitute a radical reformation of the social services model provided to habitués of the DTES, in order that those in need might receive better and more appropriate care, and how — working with the province — a plan might be developed that could eliminate homelessness across the city of Vancouver.

VanRamblings believes — based on what David Eby told The Vancouver Sun’s Katie DeRosa last Friday, and may also have arisen from TEAM … for a Livable Vancouver Mayoral candidate Colleen Hardwick’s discussion with VPD Chief Adam Palmer — the following aspects of a revisioning of the social services model for the DTES may be on the table …

  • As David Eby told Ms. DeRosa last week, “There really hasn’t been a co-ordinated strategy or a plan about how we get out of the problems of the Downtown Eastside. I think … putting an invisible fence around the neighbourhood and saying ‘this is the best we can do’ and just hope that things work out, it’s a strategy that will no longer carry us forward.” Eby said if he’s successful in his bid to replace Premier John Horgan … he’ll co-ordinate a long-term response to the issues in the Downtown Eastside with help from the federal government, the city & concerned groups;
  • In 2008, discussion surrounding the publication of the Lost in Transition report touched on / recommended consideration of the following: merging the 277 social services agencies on the DTES into 30 umbrella organizations. Each of the 277 social agencies employs an Executive Director, Director of Finance, Director of Human Resources, Manager of Supported Housing, among other senior administrative staff — each earning up to $325,000 annually — a duplication of services and administration funded by the province, at a cost of almost $1 billion dollars, annually. The initial 2008 VPD Lost in Transition report questioned if such duplication of services properly served the interests of those who are resident, and cared for, on the DTES;
  • There was also discussion upon the publication of the Lost in Transition report, and a recommendation within the report, that argued for the provincial appointment of a Commissioner who would oversee the reformation of the provision of services on the DTES, a person with the authority of a Deputy Minister who would report only to a provincially appointed Board of Directors who would oversee the transition of the current service model, reporting as well as to the office of the Premier.

For a great long while, there has been much talk about the DTES on the perpetuation of a “poverty pimp industry” within the community, an “industry” that pays well upwards of a billion dollars annually to fund a social services administrative structure on the downtown eastside that better serves the interests of those highly paid administrators over those persons who our society is truly meant to care for.

At present, as well, and impeding change are the various unions representing their members: there are 10,000 union employees who work on the DTES, represented by the BCGEU, HEU, CUPE and the Health Sciences Association, whose members fill union coffers with 2.7% of their gross pay each and every two week pay period.

At one social services agency where VanRamblings was employed, senior staff worked fewer — and were available on site for fewer — than 30 weeks a year. Each time an administrator traveled to Nova Scotia, or some other locale, for a 3-day conference — air fare, accommodation and expenses provided by the employer (that’d be you and me) — each day away meant the banking of two days in compensatory “vacation pay”, or more than one week of paid time off. Same thing for attending evening meetings, and working “overtime”, wherein the administrator banked more paid days off. Nice work if you can get, paid for at taxpayer expense.

And don’t get us started on the absenteeism rate for employees working on the DTES, averaging 6 paid days off per month, despite what the union contract says, replaced by on-call staff who generally work more hours than full-time employees.

As a final note today on VanRamblings’ four-part series on homelessness and housing: Premier-to-be (let’s face it, come December, we all know who will become British Columbia’s 37th Premier) David Eby has made a commitment to moving away from a corrupted and wholly unsuitable SRO (Single Resident Occupancy) housing model providing shelter for B.C.’s homeless population, while moving towards something akin to Finland’s ‘Housing First’ concept, where those who are affected by homelessness are provided with a self-contained apartment — with their own bathroom, bedroom / sleep area, kitchen / dining room, fully furnished with amenities provided for — and counseling, without any preconditions.

Four out of five of those previously affected homeless persons, in time, make their way back into a stable life, re-joining our society as productively happy citizens.

All this represents a responsible, fiscally sound model of service provision to those in need, so much better than accepting homelessness, and perpetuating an administratively corrupt model that has for far too long ill-served indigent persons.

#VanPoli | Code of Conduct | Elected Office | Trust, Grace, Duty & Deportment

#VanPoli Civic Politics, BC Politics, Politics, Vancouver Votes 2022, ,

A Code of Conduct is a set of rules around behaviour and comportment that serves to define, in the instance today, the political arena of municipal governance and the culture of the institution, that seeks to clarify the core values and principles on display at City Hall, the Code of Conduct setting out to define the expected conduct of elected officials, staff, and all those citizens who present to City Council.

Having a Code of Conduct provides elected officials, city staff, and citizens a structure to follow, reducing the potential for untoward conduct when issues of contention arise, in order that there should be no ambiguity when it comes to Code of Conduct expectations, should lines of conduct be blurred, or rules broken.

As such, a municipal Code of Conduct sets the benchmarks for behaviour at City Hall — and in Vancouver’s case, Park Board — for all those who are involved in civic governance, elected officials, staff, and citizens, a guideline set for all to live up to.

During the final term of governance for the Vision Vancouver administration at City Hall, public demonstrations became a common feature, with — on several occasions, increasing frequency and deliberate intent — members of the rightfully aggrieved public taking over Council Chambers at Vancouver City Hall, ejecting the Mayor and City Councillors, and senior members of city staff from the Chambers.

Meanwhile, over at Vancouver Park Board — the only one of its kind on the continent —  avid follower of all things Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, the late Eleanor Hadley, who attended each and every meeting of Park Board, was calling out the Park Board Commissioners, and on this particular late autumn evening in 2015, the Vision Vancouver Park Board Committee Chairperson, Sarah Blyth.

Whether it was the late Jamie Lee Hamilton — the self-styled Queen of the Parks — or Ms. Hadley, repeatedly and often throughout the conduct of Park Board meetings, both would call out the Commissioners, the stewards of Vancouver’s parks and recreation system, while they were conducting Park Board business.

At Vancouver City Hall, Park Board General Manager Malcolm Bromley met with Vancouver City Manager Sadhu Johnston, with the two senior staff deciding that the drafting of a Code of Conduct was in order. In late 2016, the Park Board was the first civic body to adopt an official — and strictly enforced —  Code of Conduct.

Mr. Johnston spoke with the then Vision Vancouver Mayor, Gregor Robertson, about Council adopting their own Code of Conduct, but the idea was put off. Only when a new Council was elected in late 2018, did City Manager Sadhu Johnston once again raise the spectre of the adoption of a Code of Conduct at Vancouver City Hall, an idea newly-elected Mayor Kennedy Stewart went on to champion.

Here’s a bit of background on the adoption of a Code of Conduct at City Hall.

“In response to a Council resolution in late 2019 that asked City staff to review and update the City’s code of conduct, staff undertook an analysis of the current code.

Based on this review, staff identified shortcomings in the current Code of Conduct and recommended that a new code of conduct be drafted for Council and Advisory Committees, separate from the code of conduct that applies to City staff.

In response to legislation enacted in the Provinces, municipalities across Canada have recently enacted or revised their Codes of Conduct and retained independent ethics advisors. British Columbia does not have any requirements for a municipal Code of Conduct, or the implementation of an Integrity Commissioner.”

Arising from the fact that Vancouverites elected an almost wholly novice Council, who took a long while to get their feet underneath them, and arising from a packed Vancouver City Council agenda that invariably proved contentious and was frought with hours long amendments to amendments to amendments, and the subsequent onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic, it took two full years for Vancouver City Council to adopt a new and much revised Code of Conduct.

On January 21, 2021, Council adopted a new and revised Conduct of Conduct.

Vancouver City Hall and That Damnable Code of Conduct

When on October 30, 2017, Green Party of Vancouver Board of Education trustee Janet Fraser was elected by her fellow trustees as Vancouver School Board Chairperson, Dr. Fraser set out as her …

“First priority is to build the culture of respect and then we must address the teacher recruitment and retention challenges that we’re seeing here in Vancouver. There are challenges across the province, but I think they’re particularly acute in Vancouver as we have additional challenges with affordability and teachers leaving, choosing to leave to work in other districts.”

VanRamblings celebrated Dr. Fraser’s tenure as Board of Education Chair.

The next year, following the 2018 Vancouver municipal election, when Dr. Fraser’s Green Party colleague Adriane Carr was re-elected to a third term in office, and was appointed by Vancouver Mayor Kennedy Stewart as Chairperson of Council’s powerful Committee on Policy and Strategic Priorities, Ms. Carr decided to take a page from Dr. Fraser’s ‘book’ on how to run a reasonable and respectful civic meeting.

In her newfound role as Chairperson of Council’s Committee on Policy and Strategic Priorities, here’s how Vancouver City Councillor Adriane Carr set about to interpret Vancouver’s old, and then new, Vancouver City Hall Code of Conduct …

      • Vancouver City Councillors will treat each other with the utmost respect. A Vancouver City Councillor may not impugn, or be seen or heard to impugn, the integrity of a fellow Councillor, nor employ clever use of language, nor tone of voice, nor any other untoward mechanism of engagement that might be seen to bring disfavour to a member of Council. At all times in the Council Chambers, Councillors must interact with their fellow Councillors in an always respectful manner.
      • Failure to interact with one’s fellow Councillors in a manner consistent with ‘accepted norms’ of good governance, will see the imposition of sanctions on such member or members, ranging from the issuance of an order of an immediate apology to the aggrieved Councillor, to an ordered withdrawal from Chambers, and / or the laying of a formal Code of Conduct complaint against the offending Councillor.
      • No Councillor will ask a question of a staff person presenting to Council that would seem to hold the staff person in disrepute. Councillors must not, and will not, ever question staff information or data presented to Council. Should a Councillor present information and data contrary to the information and data presented by staff, that Councillor will be sanctioned by the Chair, have their microphone shut off, and be chastised by the Chair for engaging in untoward and unparliamentary conduct, or be ordered to withdraw forthwith from Council Chambers.
      • Citizens presenting to Council must observe the Code of Conduct as laid out for Councillors, and must not ever present information contrary to the information and data presented by staff. Citizen conduct must be respectful, whether addressing the City’s professional staff, or elected members of Council. Citizen failure to adhere to the Code of Conduct will result in the citizen’s address to Council being terminated, their microphone shut off, and their removal from the Council Chambers.
      • Note. Only the Mayor will be saved harmless from the above provisions of  Vancouver City Hall’s Code of Conduct.

      Thus this term of Vancouver City Council, none of the past entertainingly raucous engagements of Councillors with one another — Melissa De Genova or Andrea Reimer’s in-Council ‘attacks’ on one another that defined Vision Vancouver’s final term in office, nor COPE Councillor Harry Rankin’s cleverly infamous attacks on his Non-Partisan Association counterpart, George Puil, which was good-natured theatre of the first order, allowing both Councillors to make their respective points to maximum effect for public consumption and erudition — was countenanced.

      Instead at Vancouver City Council this term Vancouverites seem to have elected a mealy-mouthed, ‘go along to get along’ contingent of City Councillors who appear, for all the world, to be deep in the pockets of staff, who themselves — in some good measure — seem to be ‘in the pocket of’ or at least beholden to the developers who contribute hundreds of millions of dollars in Community Amenity Contributions to City Hall that, in effect, pays the salaries of senior City Hall staff.

      A couple of weeks ago, VanRamblings commented on Vancouver City Councillor Melissa De Genova, in a headlined column titled #VanPoli | Melissa De Genova | Fighting for You on Vancouver City Council, where we wrote …

      During the current term of office Councillor De Genova has transformed from a fighter into a pussy cat, a ‘can barely stand on her legs’ kitten.

      These past three years, what has happened to Vancouver resident champion and fighter for all that is right and good, challenger of her opposition colleagues, and ruthless yet still humane Council combatant, a woman who takes no truck nor holds any prisoners, the Melissa De Genova who calls out dissembling, self-righteous virtue signaling nonsense when one opposition Councillor or other makes a statement so ludicrous and offside that it all but demands a response from Vancouver’s warrior City Councillor.

      The answer, obviously, is quite clear: Councillor Adriane Carr’s and Mayor Kennedy Stewart’s anti-democratic interpretation of Vancouver’s damnable Code of Conduct, that serves at all times to limit debate at Council, the questioning of staff, and squelch many of the community voices who regularly present to City Council.