Category Archives: #CdnPoli | Canadian Politics

#BCPoli | Humane, Innovative Housing Policy Delivered by British Columbia and Ottawa

#CdnPoli | Canadian Politics, BC Politics, Canada, Politics, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Prime Minister Mark Carney held a press conference in Vancouver alongside British Columbia Premier David Eby on June 25, announcing innovative measures to create affordable housing in B.C.  

The June 25th announcement by Mark Carney on behalf of the federal government, and British Columbia Premier David Eby should have been a triumph.

Instead, it became a communications debacle.

When Prime Minister Mark Carney stood alongside federal Housing Minister Gregor Robertson, B.C. Premier David Eby and B.C. Housing Minister Christine Boyle to announce that the federal and provincial governments would work together to purchase approximately 2,200 unsold condominiums and convert them into rent-to-own housing, the promise was immediately overshadowed by confusion.

The questions that came were entirely predictable.

  • Where were these condominiums?
  • Who owned them?
  • Would taxpayers be paying full market value?
  • Would they be located in Metro Vancouver, where housing shortages are most acute?

Neither Mr. Carney nor Mr. Eby provided answers during their announcement.

Instead of controlling the narrative, the governments allowed a vacuum to develop, one that was quickly filled by speculation, criticism and political attacks. Journalists demanded details that were not forthcoming, while federal Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre seized upon the uncertainty as evidence that the announcement was little more than political theatre.

Federal Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre speaks out against the federal government’s proposal to purchase vacant condos, during a town hall meeting in Duncan, B.C.  

It was, without question, one of the poorest communications roll-outs either the Carney government or the Eby government has experienced.

And yet, buried beneath the muddled messaging was an idea that deserves considerably more attention than it has received.

In the days following the announcement, Mr. Eby provided the missing details.

Contrary to widespread assumptions, the condominiums would not be concentrated in Metro Vancouver, or even in British Columbia’s largest urban centres. Rather, they would largely be acquired in smaller communities throughout the province where residential developments have stalled or failed altogether.

Many of these homes would be what the real estate industry describes as “distressed properties.”

These are condominiums sold under unfavourable financial circumstances because developers have encountered severe financial difficulties, entered receivership, declared bankruptcy or been forced into foreclosure, with licensed insolvency trustees disposing of assets well below their original market value.

Such circumstances create unusual opportunities for public acquisition.

Rather than paying retail prices, governments can often acquire these units at discounts ranging from 15% to 35% below market value.

Completed, distressed vacant condo building ready for sale below market value in Grand Forks, B.C.

Communities such as Grand Forks, and other smaller centres throughout the Okanagan, the Kootenays and Vancouver Island — including Duncan, Port Alberni and Campbell River — contain developments that fit this description.

These are not speculative purchases. They are existing homes. Completed homes. Vacant homes. Homes waiting for occupants.

That distinction matters enormously.

A typical condo construction timeline spans 2.5 to 5 years from initial sales launch to final move-in, a timeline that can stretch even longer due to complex excavation, permitting, and labour demands.

Governments have become accustomed to announcing ambitious affordable housing projects that require years of planning, environmental reviews, permitting, financing and construction before a family receives keys to a front door.

Typically, that timeline stretches three to four years, often longer.

Premier David Eby has argued that purchasing distressed condominium developments offers a dramatically different proposition.

  • The homes already exist;
  • The infrastructure is already built;
  • Water, sewer, electrical service and roads are already in place;
  • Families could move in almost immediately;
  • The economics are equally compelling.

Constructing affordable rental housing has become extraordinarily expensive. Labour shortages, escalating material costs, financing expenses and municipal development charges have pushed construction costs to unprecedented levels.

Acquiring completed condominiums at significant discounts represents substantially better value for taxpayers while simultaneously rescuing developments that otherwise risk remaining empty for years.

The most important aspect of this initiative has received the least attention.

Behind every vacant condominium sits the possibility of a family whose life could be transformed. Not every homeless family sleeps on sidewalks. Many spend months couch surfing between relatives and friends. Some move weekly from one borrowed bedroom to another. Others sleep in aging recreational vehicles parked wherever municipal bylaws permit. Still others live in automobiles, desperately trying to shield children from the instability surrounding them.

For these families, housing is not merely shelter. Housing restores routine. It restores childhood. It restores educational stability, better physical health and improved mental health. It restores dignity.

The proposed rent-to-own model carries particular promise because it offers something beyond secure tenancy. It offers ownership.

Families who have spent years believing home ownership had become permanently unattainable may finally possess a realistic pathway toward building equity and long-term financial security. That possibility should not be underestimated.

If governments can purchase distressed condo developments substantially below replacement cost, rapidly convert them into affordable rent-to-own housing, and provide stable homes for thousands of families who otherwise face years of uncertainty, then taxpayers receive genuine value, while vulnerable British Columbians receive something infinitely more important than political messaging.

They receive hope.

In an age when political discourse increasingly rewards outrage over solutions, this initiative reminds us that governing still matters. It reminds us that budgets are, ultimately, moral documents reflecting the choices society makes about who deserves opportunity and who deserves security. Governments exist not merely to balance ledgers or score partisan victories, but to solve problems that markets alone cannot resolve. Housing is one of those problems.

We live in anxious times, when too many families have begun to wonder whether stability itself has become a luxury. Against uncertainty, both the B.C. and federal governments are attempting — however imperfectly — to meet the moment.

If vacant homes become places where children sleep safely, parents regain hope, and families begin building lives instead of merely surviving them, then history will remember not the fumbling announcement, but the quiet dignity of thousands of front doors opening onto a better future.

#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.

Crypto, The Scam Currency Championed by Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim

#CdnPoli | Canadian Politics, #VanElxn 2026, BC Politics, Politics, Vancouver, Vancouver Votes 2026, , ,

Cryptocurrency promised a democratized financial future.

In practice, it functions like a casino wrapped in techno-mystique — ideal for laundering money and enriching insiders.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the world’s Anti-Money Laundering standard-setter, warns that without strong rules, “virtual assets … risk becoming a safe haven for the financial transactions of criminals and terrorists.”

FATF Chainanalysis traces tens of billions in tainted money each year — its 2025 report estimates illicit crypto addresses received about $40.9 billion in 2024 (likely nearer $51 billion once all is identified). FATF Chainalysis has issued red-flag indicators and repeated calls for tougher global action precisely because criminals employ crypto to launder funds.

Crypto’s core economic claim — “value” — is equally shaky, fraudulent even.

The Bank for International Settlements writes bluntly that crypto assets “have no intrinsic value and lack a backing authority,” making prices prone to sudden swings. Bank for International Settlements reviewers have long argued they are “akin to a commodity money (although without any intrinsic value in use).” That hollowness fuels boom-and-bust cycles in which sophisticated players harvest gains while latecomers eat losses, the ultimate Ponzi scheme.

Who actually wins?

Not the many, but the whales (the very very wealthy, the 1%). Academic work and regulators document extreme concentration: the top 10,000 Bitcoin holders controlled a massive share of supply, revealing “participation … still very skewed toward a few top players, which is to say, the wealthy one per cent.” Such concentration means market moves are often dictated by a tiny cohort of the very wealthy, who can move liquidity and sentiment at will — hardly a people’s money.

Against this backdrop, Vancouver’s Mayor Ken Sim has championed making the city “Bitcoin-friendly,” even floating paying municipal property taxes and holding reserves in Bitcoin — “a hill I am willing to die on,” he told Business in Vancouver’s Mike Howell this spring while awaiting a staff report.

BIV reporting in December 2024 detailed his motion to explore accepting Bitcoin for taxes / fees and investing a portion of city reserves. Tying essential public revenues to an asset class that lacks any intrinsic value is fiscal brinkmanship, not innovation. (Bank for International Settlements)

Crypto currency certainly doesn’t serve the interests of the citizens of Vancouver.

The pattern is clear: a system tailor-made for obfuscation — bafflement, bewilderment, mystification, puzzlement — celebrated by a wealthy minority that profits from volatility, and promoted as “the future” despite watchdogs’ alarms.

When the smoke clears, crypto looks less like finance for the many and more like a high-risk conduit for the few — plus a convenient money laundering tool for the criminal underworld.

And this is the fraudulent “currency” Mayor Ken Sim champions?