Category Archives: canadian politics

#VanPoli | City Politics, Development and Scandal on the Near Horizon

#CdnPoli | Canadian Politics, #VanElxn 2026, #VanPoli Civic Politics, BC Politics, canadian politics, Politics, Vancouver, Vancouver Votes 2026, , , , , , , , , , , , ,


The Politics of Development, Corruption and Vancouver House. Thank you Robert Renger.

The story of Vancouver House is, depending on one’s perspective, either a triumph of architectural ambition or a cautionary tale about the dangers of a city becoming too closely aligned with the interests of powerful developers.

Today, the twisting glass tower at the foot of the Granville Bridge stands as one of Vancouver’s most recognizable landmarks. Designed by the internationally acclaimed Danish architect Bjarke Ingels and developed by Ian Gillespie’s Westbank Corp., Vancouver House has appeared in architectural journals around the world. Its dramatic form rises from a narrow triangular base before expanding into a rectangular tower as it climbs 58 storeys and 155 metres into the skyline.

Yet behind the celebrated architecture lies a political and financial controversy that has lingered for more than a decade and has now been reignited by findings from Vancouver Auditor General Mike Macdonell. What began as an ambitious redevelopment of awkward land beneath the Granville Bridge has evolved into one of the most contentious examples of Vancouver’s developer-driven era under former mayor Gregor Robertson and his governing party, Vision Vancouver.

Westbank Corp.’s Vancouver House, on Howe Street leading to the Granville Street bridge

For supporters, Vancouver House transformed a neglected urban void into a world-class architectural destination.

For critics, it exposed how City Hall bent rules, discounted public assets and abandoned promised public benefits in order to accommodate a politically connected developer.

The controversy stretches back to the late 2000s.

The triangular parcel beneath the Granville Bridge had long been considered difficult to develop. Previous proposals had failed.

The City of Vancouver eventually entered into negotiations with Westbank, which proposed an ambitious mixed-use development featuring luxury residential units, retail space and extensive public realm improvements.

What followed became one of the most controversial land transactions in modern Vancouver history.

Critics argued that Vision Vancouver effectively removed the site from the open market for approximately six years while Westbank assembled financing and refined its proposal. Opponents contended that the city was no longer acting as a neutral steward of public land, but had become a partner in realizing a specific developer’s vision.

One of the most persistent criticisms was that the city failed to test the market adequately and did not seek competing bids that might have generated significantly greater value for taxpayers.

In 2014, Glen Chernen, Cedar Party candidate for Mayor, who following days of day and night research of Vancouver City Hall was the first to expose the “corruption” associated with Vancouver House

These concerns were amplified by the work of Glen Chernen, who ran for Vancouver City Council in 2014 with the Cedar Party. During that election campaign, Chernen examined city documents and negotiations surrounding Vancouver House and raised questions about what he characterized as preferential treatment afforded to Westbank. His research helped bring public attention to agreements that had largely escaped broader scrutiny and contributed to growing concerns about the relationship between Vision Vancouver and major developers.

At the heart of the controversy was the price Westbank paid for the city-owned land.

Critics argued that Westbank acquired the property for approximately $32 million despite assessments and valuations suggesting a substantially higher market value. Over the years, opponents have repeatedly cited figures indicating the land’s value was closer to $119 million, arguing that taxpayers effectively subsidized the project through an undervalued transaction.

Whether those valuations can be directly compared remains disputed. Nevertheless, questions about whether the city maximized value from the sale have never fully disappeared.

Vancouver Auditor General, Mike Macdonell who in his 2026 scathing report to Vancouver City Council found concerning irregularities in the Vancouver House development process, in 2014 through 2026

Those concerns gained renewed legitimacy in February 2026 when Vancouver Auditor General Mike Macdonell released a major audit examining city land sales and exchanges. The report found that city staff did not consistently provide Council with all relevant information needed to determine whether land sales reflected market value. In some cases, land was sold for less than assessed value, and documentation supporting valuation decisions was incomplete.

While the audit was broader than Vancouver House alone, critics immediately connected its findings to long-standing concerns about the Westbank transaction.

Even more damaging was a separate whistleblower investigation that examined community amenity contributions associated with Vancouver House.

Community amenity contributions, known as CACs, are intended to ensure that when rezonings dramatically increase land values, the public receives a share of that value through amenities, infrastructure or cash contributions. According to city policy, rezonings are expected to capture a significant portion of the resulting “land lift” for public benefit.

The Vancouver House rezoning ultimately secured approximately $4 million in cash contributions and roughly $6 million in promised in-kind public improvements.

The problem, according to Macdonell’s investigation, is that many of those promised benefits either were never properly defined, were reduced, or were not adequately tracked and enforced by the city. The auditor found that the city’s management of these commitments fell below a reasonable standard and constituted “waste” under the city’s whistleblower framework.

Among the promised public improvements were enhanced pedestrian connections between Granville Street and the bridge structure above, upgraded public spaces, landscaping, seating areas, special lighting, event infrastructure and other public realm features. Over time, several elements were altered, reduced or abandoned. The auditor found evidence that city staff excused some obligations without ensuring equivalent public benefits were delivered in return.

The findings were particularly significant because they reinforced a criticism that had existed since the project’s approval: Vision Vancouver’s enthusiasm for landmark architecture overshadowed its responsibility to protect the public interest.

Critics argue that Vancouver House became emblematic of a broader governing philosophy that dominated City Hall during the Robertson years. Vision Vancouver promoted density, urban design excellence and partnerships with the private sector. Many of the city’s most ambitious projects emerged during this period.

Yet opponents increasingly argued that City Hall had become too close to the development industry.

The Vancouver House negotiations appeared, to many observers, to confirm those fears.

Retired planner Robert Renger brings the Vancouver House controversy to the fore

Retired Burnaby planner Robert Renger became one of the most persistent voices raising concerns about the project. Renger, who had extensive experience negotiating major development agreements, filed complaints and provided information that ultimately contributed to the Auditor General’s investigations. He argued that Vancouver House represented a failure to maximize public value and a failure to enforce negotiated public benefits.

Renger’s concerns were not focused primarily on architecture. Rather, they centred on governance.

His argument was straightforward: if developers receive enormous increases in land value through rezonings, the public should receive commensurate benefits. When those benefits are reduced, deferred or abandoned without compensation, taxpayers effectively absorb the loss.

The Auditor General’s findings did not conclude that bribery, fraud or criminal corruption occurred. In fact, the report explicitly noted that the circumstances did not meet the threshold for serious wrongdoing in the legal sense and found no evidence of fraud.

Nevertheless, the report painted a troubling picture of weak oversight, poor documentation and inadequate protection of public interests.

That distinction is important.

Political scandal does not necessarily require criminal conduct.

A city can follow legal procedures and still make decisions that produce poor outcomes for taxpayers.

In the eyes of many critics, that is precisely what happened with Vancouver House.

The irony is that the project itself is, in many respects, a success.

Vancouver House has become an internationally recognized architectural icon. It transformed an awkward and neglected site. It helped redefine the southern entrance to downtown Vancouver. The building’s engineering and design innovations have been celebrated globally.

But success in architecture does not automatically translate into success in public policy.

The project was also controversial because of how it was marketed. During Vancouver’s housing affordability crisis, luxury condominiums in Vancouver House were aggressively promoted overseas, particularly in Hong Kong and mainland China. Many Vancouver residents viewed the marketing strategy as symbolic of a city increasingly designed for global wealth rather than local residents.

The optics were especially damaging during a period when housing prices were accelerating beyond the reach of many middle-class families.

To critics, Vancouver House represented not merely a building but a broader economic model: public land converted into luxury housing marketed internationally while affordability worsened at home.

The lingering question is why subsequent city councils have done so little.

A photo of the newly elected, or re-elected, members of the 2022 Vancouver City Council

Since Vision Vancouver’s defeat in 2018, two entirely different governing administrations have controlled Vancouver City Hall. First came the minority Council elected in 2018. Then came the ABC Vancouver administration under Ken Sim.

Neither administration has aggressively pursued remedies related to Vancouver House.

There are several possible explanations.

First, many of the agreements were legally finalized years ago, limiting available remedies.

Second, governments are often reluctant to reopen complex development contracts because doing so can trigger litigation and financial risk.

Third, Vancouver remains heavily dependent on private-sector development to finance infrastructure, amenities and housing construction. Political leaders may fear that aggressively challenging major developers could undermine future investment.

And finally, there is the uncomfortable reality that municipal governments of every political stripe often inherit decisions they would prefer not to revisit.

Yet the Auditor General’s findings have ensured that the controversy will not disappear.

The central question remains remarkably simple.

An elevator connecting the Granville Street Bridge and Granville Island was proposed as a way to improve access to the often gridlocked island that could have, in part, met Westbank’s obligations

Did Vancouver receive fair value for public land, public density and public approvals?

The architectural success of Vancouver House cannot answer that question.

The beauty of the building cannot answer it.

The prestige associated with Bjarke Ingels cannot answer it.

The Auditor General’s reports suggest that documentation was inadequate, public benefits were poorly managed and opportunities to maximize value may have been missed.

For critics such as Robert Renger and Glen Chernen, those findings validate concerns they have been raising for years.

For defenders of the project, Vancouver House remains a remarkable example of what ambitious city-building can achieve.

Perhaps both interpretations contain elements of truth.

Vancouver House is simultaneously one of Vancouver’s greatest architectural achievements and one of its most enduring political controversies. It stands as a glittering monument at the gateway to downtown —a building that transformed the skyline while raising difficult questions about governance, accountability and the relationship between public institutions and private power.

Long after debates about its twisting form have faded, those questions may prove to be the building’s most lasting legacy.

#CDNPoli | The Curse of Politics | Chronicling Politics for Canadians

#CdnPoli | Canadian Politics, Canada, canadian politics, Know Your Local Ruling Class, Politics, Pop Culture, , , , , , , , , , ,


The Curse of Politics podcast, Canada’s pre-eminent must-listen-to political podcast hosted by political strategist and pollster David Herle with panelists Scott Reid, Jordan Leichnitz and Kory Teneycke

The Curse of Politics: Three Backroom Boys and One Backroom Woman Operative, and the Podcast That Has Become Essential Canadian Listening

Launched in August 2021, David Herle’s The Curse of Politics, each and every week for the past five years has provided unfiltered, unmuzzled insider perspectives from four of Canada’s most prominent backroom strategists, pollsters, and operatives, the collective in-depth analysis of the four hosts covering Canadian federal and provincial politics, election polling, and strategic political developments.

When Canadian politics entered the strange, socially distanced world of the COVID-19 pandemic, a curious thing happened. The formal press conferences, scripted talking points, and carefully stage-managed political events that had long dominated public discourse began to feel increasingly inadequate. Canadians wanted something else. They wanted context. They wanted candour. They wanted to know what was really happening behind the curtain.

In August 2021, just as Canada was entering another federal election campaign, that appetite found a home in The Curse of Politics, the political podcast launched by Air Quotes Media and hosted by veteran Liberal strategist David Herle alongside fellow political operatives Scott Reid, Jordan Leichnitz and Kory Teneycke.

What began as a pandemic-era experiment quickly evolved into one of the country’s most influential political podcasts, attracting an audience that includes journalists, politicians, campaign workers, public servants, lobbyists, and politically engaged Canadians from coast to coast — which clearly includes you!

The Curse of Politics podcast’s success rests on a simple premise.

Rather than treating politics as theatre, the hosts discuss it as practitioners. These are not academics or detached commentators. They are campaign veterans who have lived through leadership races, election victories, crushing defeats, cabinet crises, and war-room battles. They know where the bodies are buried because, in some cases, they helped bury them.

At the centre of the panel sits David Herle, the show’s ringmaster and perhaps one of the most influential Liberal strategists of the past generation.

A Saskatchewan native, Mr. Herle cut his political teeth working in the 1980s with future federal Liberal cabinet minister and Saskatchewan Liberal leader Ralph Goodale, before becoming a key adviser to former Prime Minister Paul Martin.

During Mr. Martin’s rise to prominence and political power, David Herle emerged as one of the most respected strategic minds in Liberal politics.

Known for his blunt speaking style and encyclopedic knowledge of political history, Mr. Herle later became a commentator on the CBC and launched the popular Herle Burly interview podcast. Today he remains a partner at Rubicon Strategy, and one of the country’s most sought-after political consultants.

Among Mr. Herle’s many political accomplishments, none may be more impressive than how he transformed Kathleen Wynne from an underdog Premier into the leader of a majority government in Ontario’s 2014 provincial election.

When Ms. Wynne became leader of the Ontario Liberal Party in January 2013, succeeding Dalton McGuinty, the Liberals appeared exhausted after a decade in power. Polls frequently showed the party trailing Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives by double digits, with some surveys placing the Liberals as much as 15 points behind.

David Herle set about to craft a compelling campaign narrative, an engaging and thought provoking message that positioned Ms. Wynne as a  change agent, a progressive reformer with a bold vision for Ontario’s future. Mr. Herle’s strategy focused on defining the election as a choice between investment and austerity.

At the centre of the Liberal platform was an ambitious plan to expand public transit through a dedicated infrastructure fund, financed in part through pension reform and asset sales.

The campaign also emphasized education, public services, retirement security, and economic growth through government investment rather than spending cuts — constituent elements of, perhaps, the most progressive election campaign ever waged in Canada. While critics attacked the proposals developed by Mr. Herle as fiscally irresponsible, he recognized that many Ontarians were weary of austerity politics following the global financial crisis.

Equally important was Kathleen Wynne herself.

David Herle encouraged a campaign that highlighted her authenticity, optimism, and willingness to engage directly with voters. As Ontario’s first female premier and the first openly gay Premier in Canadian history, Ms. Wynne represented a significant break from traditional political leadership. Rather than downplaying those qualities, the campaign embraced them.

By election night, June 12, 2014, the political landscape had been transformed. The Liberals captured a majority government with 58 seats, while Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives fell well short of expectations. The 2014 Ontario election campaign remains one of the most remarkable campaign turnarounds in modern Canadian political history, and a testament to David Herle’s strategic brilliance.

Scott Reid brings a similarly deep Liberal pedigree, though one forged in a somewhat different mould. Reid served as communications director and senior adviser to Paul Martin during the latter’s tenure as Prime Minister. Smart, combative, outspoken and often — with a twinkle in his eye — delightfully profane and contrarian, Mr. Reid possesses a rare ability to dissect political messaging with surgical precision. His sharp wit has made him a favourite among listeners, particularly when discussions drift into campaign strategy, advertising, and voter psychology. While Mr. Herle often plays the role of storyteller, Scott Reid is the analyst, forever searching for the hidden logic — or illogic — behind political decisions.

If David Herle and Scott Reid represent the Liberal tradition, Kory Teneycke embodies modern Conservative politics. Teneycke emerged as one of the most formidable conservative communicators of his generation while serving as Director of Communications to former Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Later, he became a central architect of Ontario Progressive Conservative leader and Premier Doug Ford’s electoral successes, managing multiple winning campaigns. Mr. Teneycke’s style is unapologetically aggressive, deeply strategic, and occasionally provocative. He has long embraced the notion that politics is a contact sport.

Recently, Mr. Teneckye took a break from The Curse of Politics, moving to British Columbia  to help Caroline Elliott secure the leadership of the Conservative Party of British Columbia. Sadly, despite Mr. Teneycke and his team’s best efforts, Ms. Elliott fell just short, securing 49% of the vote to Kerry-Lynne Findlay’s 51%

One of the most fascinating developments in recent years has been Mr. Teneycke’s willingness to criticize his own side when he believes it is making mistakes.

During the 2025 federal election campaign, he became one of the most prominent Conservative insiders to publicly question the strategy being pursued by federal Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre. As Liberal leader and future Prime Minister Mark Carney gained momentum amid economic uncertainty and growing concerns about relations with the United States, Kory Teneycke argued that the Conservatives were squandering a commanding lead in public opinion polls, describing the campaign’s failures in remarkably blunt terms, warning that it would be remembered as a case study in campaign malpractice.

The criticism generated headlines across the country and underscored one of the podcast’s defining strengths: intellectual honesty. The hosts may have partisan backgrounds, but they are rarely partisan cheerleaders. Their loyalty lies more with effective politics than with any particular party.

Completing the quartet is Jordan Leichnitz, arguably the least publicly known member of the panel but, in many ways, the secret ingredient that gives the show its balance.

Ms. Leichnitz built her career in political strategy and public affairs, working extensively within NDP circles, particularly with the late Jack Layton during his extended term as the federal party lead, prior to his untimely death on August 22. 2011, at the age of 61, just weeks after the 2011 federal election campaign.

While developing a reputation as a sophisticated campaign thinker and communicator, and decidedly less theatrical and histrionic than her colleagues on The Curse of Politics, Ms. Leichnitz often serves as the voice of moderation and practical political judgment. When debates become heated on the podcast —as frequently they do, or at least that was once the case — Ms. Leichnitz is often the one grounding the conversation in electoral realities.

Together, the three male panelists and Ms. Leichnitz have created something unusual in Canadian media.

The chemistry feels less like a panel show than an ongoing conversation among old friends who have spent decades fighting one another on campaign battlefields. They interrupt, tease, challenge, and occasionally exasperate one another. Yet beneath the banter lies a remarkable reservoir of political knowledge.

The Curse of Politics podcast’s influence has grown steadily because it offers something increasingly rare: expertise without excessive self-importance.

Listeners hear discussions about polling, campaign mechanics, advertising strategy, leadership performance, voter behaviour, and media relations from people who have actually done the work. The hosts frequently explain not merely what happened but why political actors behaved as they did.

That insider perspective has made The Curse of Politics required listening for journalists and political staffers. It is not uncommon for themes raised on the podcast to migrate into newspaper columns, television panels, and broader political discussions. In an era dominated by social-media outrage and performative partisanship, The Curse of Politics offers a more substantive, if often profane, alternative.

The title of the podcast itself contains a measure of truth.

Politics is a curse of sorts. It attracts idealists and cynics alike. It promises power while demanding sacrifice. It rewards ambition while punishing miscalculation. Few people understand those contradictions better than Messrs. Herle, Reid and Teneycke, and increasingly the voice of wisdom and ruminative introspection on The Curse of Politics podcast, the estimable Jordan Leichnitz.

Five years after its launch, The Curse of Politics has become far more than a podcast. It is an institution within Canada’s political culture, a place where practitioners gather to explain the game to those watching from the stands. The hosts have disagreed on nearly every major issue of the day, but that disagreement is precisely the point. Democracy is not built upon consensus. It is built upon argument.

Interestingly, some longtime listeners have suggested that the name evolved from the show’s conversational, discursive style before settling on The Curse of Politics, a title that better captured the hosts’ love-hate relationship with political life.

In that sense, the title is both humourous and autobiographical. The hosts understand politics better than most people because they have lived it — and because, despite all its frustrations, they have never really escaped its pull. That enduring attraction, equal parts passion and affliction, is the curse they discuss every week.

The podcast’s official description explains the idea this way:

“Politics. It’s a blessing and a curse. On good days, it’s about your friends in the foxhole with you. On bad ones, it’s the mountain of votes that went the other way. Either way, it pulls you back in, again, and again.”

And every week, around a virtual table crowded with stories, scars, and strategic insight, four veterans of Canada’s political wars remind listeners politics is rarely as simple as it looks — and infinitely more interesting than most people imagine.

#VanPoli | Frances Bula | A Must-Elect Candidate for Vancouver City Council

#VanElxn 2026, #VanPoli Civic Politics, BC Politics, canadian politics, Politics, Vancouver, Vancouver Votes 2026, , , , , , , , , ,


Frances Bula, running as a OneCity Vancouver Council candidate in the 2026 civic election

After a career spent observing Vancouver City Hall from the press gallery, journalist Frances Bula is attempting something entirely different.

In 2026, Ms. Bula is seeking a seat on Vancouver City Council, as a candidate with OneCity Vancouver. As is stated on OneCity’s website, “Frances’s candidacy marks one of the most significant transitions in recent Vancouver civic politics — a reporter who spent years scrutinizing elected officials is now asking voters to entrust her with public office.”

VanRamblings wholeheartedly supports Frances Bula’s candidacy for Vancouver City Council. We believe Frances Bula, who we have long known and respected, to be a must-elect at the polls, in our upcoming October civic election.

As Frances has written — the information also to be found in OneCity Vancouver literature — Ms. Bula’s career in journalism spans more than four decades.

According to her own biography, Frances Bula began her reporting career in southeastern B.C. in 1983, the very day a province-wide general strike began. From those beginnings in community journalism, she gradually developed a lifelong fascination with cities, and the political systems that shape them.

The Journalist Who Helped Interpret Vancouver City Politics

Frances Bula has spent so many years explaining Vancouver to itself that, for many residents, it is difficult to imagine the city’s civic conversation without her.

For more than three decades, Ms. Bula has occupied a unique place in Vancouver public life: part journalist, part historian, part urban anthropologist, and part translator of the often bewildering language of municipal politics.

Frances Bula’s career in journalism spans more than four decades.

The defining chapter of her career began in 1994, when she started covering Vancouver municipal politics and urban affairs.

Over the course of the following years, Ms. Bula became one of the most respected and recognizable civic-affairs reporters in British Columbia. At the Vancouver Sun, where she spent approximately two decades as a staff reporter, she covered City Hall, education, housing, transportation, homelessness, development, infrastructure, drug policy, and nearly every other issue that defines urban life.

One pivotal moment in Frances Bula’s life came in 1998-99 when she received the prestigious Atkinson Fellowship in Public Policy, after which she spent a year studying housing and homelessness issues, producing a major series and a documentary project that deepened her understanding of urban poverty and housing policy. Housing would become a central theme of her journalism.

Frances Bula Leaves the Vancouver Sun, to Re-Invent Her Journalism

In 2008, Ms. Bula left the Vancouver Sun, to become one of British Columbia’s most prominent freelance journalists, writing extensively for The Globe and Mail, as well as contributing to publications ranging from BCBusiness, Canadian Architect, Canadian Business, Western Living to The Guardian, and more.

Among Ms. Bula’s most influential post-Sun work was her column Urban Fix in Vancouver Magazine where from 2008 through 2015 she explored the challenges facing Vancouver as it grappled with growth, affordability, transportation, density, neighbourhood change, and urban planning, all while profiling a broad cross-section of political leaders, planners, community advocates, developers, architects, and the overlooked civic actors who influence how cities evolve, her work examining those in power and how power operates in urban environments.

Vancouver. Culture, Diversity, and Civic Life

Ms. Bula has long championed the idea cities are fundamentally about the citizens who reside in the city, and the communities in which they live.

Ms. Bula’s writing has highlighted Vancouver’s multicultural character, examining how immigrant communities shaped Vancouver neighbourhoods, transforming the city over time, reporting on Chinatown, the Punjabi Market, Richmond’s Asian communities, and Metro Vancouver’s changing demographics.

Similarly, Frances Bula has long possessed a deep interest in, and consistent supporter of, Vancouver’s cultural institutions and artistic life, her writing regularly exploring the connections between culture, public space, and civic identity.

Ms. Bula is also a supporter of the Vancouver International Film Festival, reflecting a broader interest that extended beyond politics, as she focused on film, the arts, and cultural expression, over the years emphasizing and prioritizing the importance of cultural institutions in creating vibrant, livable cities not solely about infrastructure, but about creativity, diversity, public life, and community.

Why Politics? What Frances Bula Hopes to Accomplish in Elected Office

The obvious question surrounding Frances Bula’s candidacy is simple: Why leave journalism for politics? Ms.Bula has offered a straightforward answer.

As she recently told journalist Kenneth Chan in the Daily Hive …

“Journalism was my service to the public for decades. Now I want to do public service more directly.”

After decades documenting problems and analyzing solutions, in 2026 Frances Bula has decided that she wants a direct role in civic decision-making.

In her run to secure a seat on Vancouver City Council, in her campaign literature Frances Bula has emphasized housing, livability, transparency, and effective governance, as well as fighting for civic improvements that will make Vancouver function better for residents. Few candidates in Vancouver history would arrive at Vancouver City Hall with as deep an understanding of municipal governance and the institutional knowledge about how Vancouver City Hall operates.

Based on her writing and public statements, several priorities appear likely to define Frances Bula’s approach to public office.

  • Housing will almost certainly be central. Throughout her career she has treated housing affordability as Vancouver’s defining challenge;
  • Advocating for evidence-based policy making, drawing lessons from successful initiatives elsewhere;
  • Ms. Bula has also expressed an interest in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of municipal government. Her own experiences navigating the permitting process while building a laneway house provided first hand exposure to the frustrations many residents experience when dealing with City Hall;
  • Balancing growth with livability, recognizing Vancouver must accommodate more residents while preserving the qualities that make neighbourhoods attractive;
  • Strengthening public trust in local government through transparency, accountability, and thoughtful decision-making.

For 30-plus years, Frances Bula sat inside Council Chambers, notebook in hand, watching elected officials wrestle with the complexities of governing a rapidly changing city, observing the administrations of multiple mayors, political parties, planning movements, housing booms, and civic controversies, chronicling their triumphs and failures, ambitions and unintended consequences.

Few people understand Vancouver’s civic history as comprehensively as she.

Now, Frances Bula wants in, to step into the story she once covered.

For decades, Vancouver residents relied on Ms. Bula to explain City Hall.

In 2026, VanRamblings endorses the candidacy of Frances Bula for Vancouver City Council, as she asks the residents of our city for the opportunity to serve.

The journey — from reporter to candidate, from observer to participant — may prove to be one of the most intriguing civic stories Vancouver has seen in years.

VanRamblings asks you to vote for Frances Bula for Council this October.

#VanPoli | 2026 Vancouver Mayoral Candidates | We Take No Prisoners | Part 2

#VanElxn 2026, #VanPoli Civic Politics, BC Politics, canadian politics, Politics, Vancouver, Vancouver Votes 2026, , , ,

Stephanie Allen. Along with Kareem Allam, by far our favourite candidate for Mayor of Vancouver, a boots on the ground visionary, a fiscally responsible, well schooled, non-pedantic knows her stuff politico, who possesses much — perhaps unparalleled — insight into how government functions (although we would say she may have met her match in Kareem Allam), and after years of working in British Columbia’s provincial government knows how to implement true change for the better — the real deal Zohran Mamdami running in the current 2026 Vancouver civic election — COPE scored a major coup in landing the absolutely tremendous Stephanie Allen as the municipal party’s standard bearer in the 2026 Vancouver civic election (thank you Shawn Vulliez, COPE’s absolutely brilliant campaign manager, for convincing Ms. Allen to run for the office of Vancouver Mayor)!

Now, you may know Stephanie Allen from her critically important role as Vice-President of BC Housing, or — following the untimely death (from cancer) of VanRamblings’ friend and neighbour, Brenda Prosken, who we first met and worked with at Vancouver City Hall in her role as General Manager of Community Services — when Stephanie Allen stepped up to the plate in 2020 / 2021 to find housing and homes for those who were resident in the Strathcona Park encampment (following on Brenda’s work on the decampment of Oppenheimer Park, when she located housing for all of the encampment’s residents), but there’s more …


A re-imagining of Hogan’s Alley, Vancouver’s first enclave for some of the Vancouver’s early Black Canadian immigrants, located within a T-shaped intersection at what is now the easternmost end of the Dunsmuir and Georgia viaducts — immediately south of Chinatown | Stephanie ALLEN.

Hogan’s Alley, the early 1900s community in and around the Strathcona neighbourhood — framed today by Main Street to the west, Union Street to the north, Jackson Avenue to the east, and Prior Street to the south — where it eventually became the cultural hub of the community, the former neighbourhood known for being home to Nora Hendrix, the grandmother of rock legend Jimi Hendrix, and a cook at Vie’s Chicken and Steak House, a Hogan’s Alley’s culinary institution.

The latter half of the 1960s marked the neighbourhood’s demise, when city blocks of homes and businesses that formed Hogan’s Alley were demolished for the replacement Georgia Viaduct, which itself is set to be demolished later this decade.

And, gosh, who do you think it was who developed the concept of a renewed Hogan’s Alley? Could it be Stephanie ALLEN, COPE’s absolutely tremendous candidate for Mayor of the City of Vancouver? Yep, yep, we believe that is the case.

Time to introduce you to another high profile candidate for Mayor of Our City

William Azaroff. Running for Mayor of Vancouver under the banner of OneCity Vancouver, VanRamblings first met Mr. Azaroff in June 2019 soon after he was appointed CEO of the Brightside Community Homes Foundation (a prominent non-profit in Metro Vancouver), where he leads a team that manages 26 buildings encompassing over 1,100 affordable homes for seniors, families, and persons with disabilities across the Metro Vancouver region.

Recently, the Vancouver & District Labour Council (VDLC) endorsed Mr. Azaroff for Mayor in this year’s Vancouver municipal election, announcing its endorsement on May 20, 2026, while simultaneously urging the Green Party and COPE to reconsider their Mayoral campaigns to consolidate the so-called “progressive” vote.

That night, COPE’s very able (and, dare we say, brilliant) campaign manager, Shawn Vulliez posted a brief note to VanRamblings in which he averred, “There’s a secret meeting going on tonight where, I’m told, One City Vancouver and the VDLC are going to jettison the co-operative agreement reached by OneCity, the Greens and COPE that would have us work together, as we have in the past, where the VDLC is going to formally endorse OneCity.”

As British statesman Benjamin Disraeli observed “in politics, as in love, there is no honour,” pointing to a world where strategy, leverage, and party alignment often take precedence over unbending morality.

As renowned philosopher Hannah Arendt once observed …

“In matters of the heart, the adage “all is fair in love” suggests that strong passions can lead to irrational choices, which I would argue in politics is fundamentally incompatible with logical, rational reasoning. Love requires vulnerability and deep personal investment, while politics often demands strict detachment or ideological pragmatism. When the two collide, devotion to political figures or ideologies can sometimes overshadow the love and respect shared between partners, be they political or lovers.”

VanRamblings is here to say two things …

  • We absolutely and definitively will not support nor endorse William Azaroff as Vancouver’s next Mayor. We believe Mr. Azaroff is Ken Sim redux in casual wear, a bully, a sort of ne’er-do-well, and although better informed and more accomplished than Mayor Ken Sim, in practice is a kind of despicable, self-serving politico, a non-collaborative fellow, with the potential to be an intimidating and coercive oppressor who will bring to Vancouver City Council the same sort of dysfunction and disunity that has proved to be Ken Sim’s stock-in-trade. Read more on our rationale below.
  • At reading the paragraph above, we believe VDLC President Stephen (pronounced “Stefan”) von Zychowski — who we like and respect — will be apoplectic. Soon, we will ask for Mr. von Zychowski’s permission to reprint the statement he has made on social media as to the rationale of the VDLC in choosing to support William Azaroff as our next Mayor, as well as his OneCity Vancouver civic party. Fair’s fair, after all.

On February 12th, Mr. Azaroff defeated First United Church Executive Director Amanda Burrows in OneCity Vancouver’s Mayoral nomination race, securing 1329 votes or 60% of the vote total, with Ms. Burrows coming in second with 929 votes, or 40% of the vote. Nomination battles are always a numbers game.

Upon winning the OneCity Mayoral nomination, did Mr. Azaroff reach out to Ms. Burrows and say …

“You ran a good race, a great race. I learned so much from you as we both sought to secure the OneCity Vancouver Mayoral nomination. I think the success of OneCity in this year’s election demands candidates of quality, discernment and accomplishment, all of which you embody. I believe going forward it is critical you remain on the OneCity team, and that you secure a nomination for Council, which I will heartily endorse. Working together, there is so much good that we can accomplish.”

Did William Azaroff reach out to Amanda Burrows, congratulate her on a well-run campaign, and ask her to join his OneCity Vancouver team to seek a Council nomination, which he would heartily support? Nope, gentleman that he isn’t, he did not approach her. Instead, he left Ms. Burrows to twist in the wind.

Note. Amanda Burrows did not seek a OneCity Council nomination.

From the outset there was very little enthusiasm within COPE (the Coalition of Progressive Electors), for the Mayoral candidacy of William Azaroff, should he secure the OneCity Mayoral nomination.

Even so, in signing a OneCity Vancouver / Greens / COPE co-operative agreement COPE — which was represented by campaign manager, Shawn Vulliez — at the behest of the VDLC, COPE made a commitment to consider backing various of the “progressive” non-COPE candidates should these candidates “pull ahead.”

COPE’s Executive did not want to risk the potentiality of Stephanie Allen’s Mayoral bid should all go well — as was heartily hoped would occur —  given the possibility Ms. Allen might emerge as the successful consensus “progressive” Mayoral choice, thereby garnering support from OneCity, the Greens and the VDLC.

There was to be no ill will expressed, nor acted upon, nor any misunderstanding(s).

COPE conducted itself in an honourable matter.


Derrick O’Keefe, COPE School Board candidate (l), and his activist partner, Andrea Pinochet-Escudero

Why then was there opprobrium among some in COPE for an Azaroff candidacy?

If one reads various social media accounts, and speaks directly with a broad cross-section of COPE’s membership, one learns that many members of COPE have experienced mulish interactions with Mr. Azaroff, such that  he is considered by many COPE members to be the Evictor in Chief in the affordable housing sector, as he displaces vulnerable tenants from their homes.

VanRamblings has covered municipal, provincial and federal elections for 60 years.

In all that time, there is no Mayoral candidate or party leader — federally, provincially or municipally — who did not put his or her imprint on the party they lead, deciding who would constitute members of her or his team going into an election.

For instance, when Kirk LaPointe became the Mayoral nominee for the NPA in 2014, he dismissed all of the vetted candidates for Council, Park Board and School Board — this at the end of a long, arduous and thorough vetting process, when all of the successful candidates were in place, as he secured his own team to run as candidates at all three levels of civic governance, Council, Park Board and School Board.

Did William Azaroff put his imprint on OneCity Vancouver after winning the Mayoral nomination, indicate he believed their star candidate, longtime civic affairs journalist Frances Bula, must be a member of his team, that her nomination for Council would be a critical element in OneCity’s success at the polls in October?

No, he did not.

Can you imagine Mark Carney or David Eby lying back and taking no interest in who would be running for their respective parties in a coming election? In early 2020, longtime NDP Executive Director Raj Sihota had the support of the Vancouver-Hastings constituency executive and the members of the riding, and was their chosen candidate to represent the party in the upcoming election.

Next thing you know, Premier John Horgan — at the insistence of then NDP Attorney General, David Eby — parachuted in former Vancouver Park Board Chair, Niki Sharma, to seek the Vancouver-Hastings NDP nomination, with the full support of the provincial party. Next thing you know, Ms. Sharma secures the Vancouver-Hastings NDP nomination, emerges as the victor in the October 24, 2020 provincial election, shortly after which she was appointed our province’s Attorney-General, when David Eby took on the housing portfolio.

William Azaroff a leader? We think not.

Colleen Hardwick. Yep, she’s running for Mayor again, and doesn’t much of a chance of winning. Think: lost cause.

VanRamblings has written kindly and lovingly about our longtime friend.

But no more.

At a recent luncheon with a weathered confidante of the esteemed Ms. Hardwick, VanRamblings offered the comment …

“Colleen Hardwick can be difficult to get along with.” The rejoinder by our luncheon companion, said with a chuckle in his voice, “Raymond, Raymond, Colleen is not difficult to get along with, she is impossible to get along with.”

We continue to like Ms. Hardwick’s core message: neighbourhood empowerment, and community involvement in the development of new and updated neighbourhood community plans. That she is the only candidate to voice such policy, gets her no little support from us. Sadly, though, Colleen Hardwick is an imperfect messenger for her policy proposals. Speaking with friends we ran across while sauntering down West Broadway, our friend Helen — as we were speaking about the upcoming civic election — offered the following comment, unbidden …

“Colleen is sharp. And I don’t mean that in a kindly way. There is an edge to everything she says, almost an inherent meanness, an ‘I know better than you’ ethos that is off-putting, that causes me to think, ‘I kind of like what she has to say, but I don’t like at all how she goes about saying it’. For me, Colleen is an unpleasant character, and someone who I could not begin to support, no matter how much I like her message.”

Recently, Katie Hyslop, writing in The Tyee, published an article titled, Colleen Hardwick Is Running for Mayor Again. Midway through the article, Ms. Hyslop asked Colleen Hardwick a question about affordable housing, and homelessness.

Have you ever read such utter nonsense in your entire life?

Who, which voters, given a damn about “recovering balance” (whatever the heck that means). Not to mention, who gives, which voters and where are they, give a flying f-ck about “zone capacity” or the ” 2012 Coriolis report”?

We mean, really?

Who does Colleen Hardwick — running for Mayor again, don’tcha know — think her audience is, who are the voters — outside of pointy-headed, so called “intellectuals” at the universities in our region — is she attempting to communicate with, to garner their support, that she’s the right candidate to become the Mayor of Vancouver in 2026, that she can “recover balance” and change “zone capacity”?

Colleen Hardwick might well have said …

“Affordable housing must be addressed through the construction of housing co-operatives, where members pay no more than 30% of their income for their homes, where they are empowered to make decision-making on the Co-op’s finance, membership or maintenance committees. Where housing co-ops are built on a 99-year-leasehold basis, on city-owned land, or provincial or federal Crown land. Construction and materials are paid for through the Community Amenity Contributions made by developers building high rise condominiums. All this would be overseen by Thom Armstrong, who heads both the Co-operative Housing Federation of British Columbia, and the Community Land Trust. On top of that, the City would charge no development fees for the construction of this crucial affordable housing, saving millions.”

Or, in addressing the issue of homelessness, Ms. Hardwick could have reminded readers of the 2022 platform for TEAM for a Livable Vancouver, when she stated …

“There are 277 social agencies on the Downtown Eastside, located in the square mile around Hastings and Main. 277 very well-paid Executive Directors, Vice-Presidents, Directors of Human Resources, Property Managers, Directors of Supportive Housing, and more, staffed in each of these agencies, who engage in redundant work each and every day, putting money in their pocket at the expense of the vulnerable citizens they are charged to support. No wonder that for years, many in the community have called those who are employed by these agencies “poverty pimps”. Merge these agencies, leaving 40 agencies. TEAM wants to hire a “czar” — as David Eby has often said is the key to provide service to our city’s most vulnerable citizens, rather than line the pockets of the senior administrators. Billions of dollars could be saved, services rationalized, better service could be provided with savings applied to social housing construction.”

But did she say that, did she actually answer the question that was asked of her, in plain and simple language that all of us could understand? Could have been a great answer to a simple question. But Ms. Hardwick seems not capable of that.

Y’know, Ms. Hardwick, not every voter is a PhD candidate, as you are, or grew up with a silver spoon in their mouth, living in a home where their parents are a respected, tenured professor at the University of British Columbia, and their mother sat on the Vancouver Park Board as a multi-term Commissioner.

According to Statistics Canada, the “average level” of education in Vancouver-Point Grey / Vancouver Quadra is second year university. East of Main Street, the “average level” of education is Grade 8. There are 54 ethnic communities in Vancouver where the first language spoken in the home is neither French nor English. No wonder in Vancouver, there’s a paltry 36% turnout of eligible voters — if that — when a Vancouver City election is called every four years.

Fortunately, there’s a Mayoral candidate — and a couple of civic parties — in the current Vancouver City municipal election who are running a stealth campaign to get the vote out among people in those 54 under-represented communities who don’t go to the polls — but will in 2026 — when it comes time to cast their ballot for a new Mayor, a new and vibrant Vancouver City Council, and a grassroots, community-oriented Vancouver Park Board, and Vancouver Board of Education.

And we’re here to tell you, folks, that it ain’t Mayoral aspirant Colleen Hardwick, and her gang of well-meaning, and perhaps, under qualified candidate TEAM.

Muhammad Ahmad. VanRamblings predicts that Mr. Ahmad, and his recently created, AI generated (according to a friend of ours who has spoken with Mr. Ahmad) Bright Futures Vancouver municipal party will secure less than 2% of the vote come the evening of Saturday, October 17th. Chances are, though, that you are likely going to see Mr. Ahmad on at least some of the stages where Mayoral all-candidates meetings are being held, on various dates throughout September and October.

Part 1 of the column on current Vancouver Mayoral aspirants may be found here.
.

Now, we’re going to say this again and again: there is no more honourable activity than offering yourself for public office, as a serious and well-experienced candidate with a vision, and a more than passing familiarity with civic governance, and how our city is run, who the important administrative staff at Vancouver City Hall are and what it is they do, that you’ve attended a surfeit of Vancouver City Council meetings, or if you’re running to become one of the nine elected trustees on Vancouver’s Board of Education (who are elected to office every four years) that you are a regular attendee at School Board meetings and have been for years, or if you’re running to become a Vancouver Park Board Commissioner that you’ve done your homework, that you have a OneCard stuffed in your wallet, your purse, or your shirt or blouse pocket, and know almost everything there is to know not just about Park Board governance but about Vancouver’s many community centres — where it is critical that you are a member of your local community recreation centre and make regular use of the facility, which is kind of a second home for you.

See you back here tomorrow, when we write about the recently concluded 79th annual Cannes Film Festival, which for years has acted as a predictor as to which films will emerge as Oscar contenders the following January, as was the case with the Grand Prix winner at Cannes in 2025, Sentimental Value, or Best Actor Oscar contender Wagner Moura, who won the Best Actor award at the 78th Cannes Film Festival in 2025 for his role as a dissident on the run in the political thriller The Secret Agent (directed by Kleber Mendonça Filho), among a host of others, not the least of whom was the Best Supporting Actor Oscar winner, Stellan Skarsgård, for his role as an acclaimed filmmaker and absent father, in Sentimental Value.