Tag Archives: mayor ken sim

#VanPoli | The Cruel and Corrupt Administration of Ken Sim, and His ABC Vancouver Colleagues

Mayor Ken Sim’s majority ABC Vancouver administration at Vancouver City Hall is the most morally bankrupt and cruelest civic administration the woeful citizens of Vancouver have witnessed in the past 60 years, and perhaps even longer than that.

The Vancouver Mayor with the worst attendance record at Vancouver City Hall, and on the Metro Vancouver Board, in our city’s history, who in his first three years as Mayor, took off right after his early November 2022 Inauguration for Qatar, where he watched the World Cup with his well-heeled billonaire backers and friends, who when he returned to Vancouver three weeks later, decided to “take control”, coming up with one hare-brained (and, dare we say, illegal) scheme after another.

No wonder current Vancouver Mayoral aspirant, Kareem Allam — the mastermind of ABC Vancouver’s massive majority victory in 2022, who went on to become Mayor Ken Sim’s Chief of Staff, and now strongest opponent — lasted only 34 miserably short days in his post, so cruel and off-putting, so mean-spirited and just plain idiotic Ken Sim proved to be that Allam simply couldn’t take it anymore, and resigned, his heart broken, and his spirit wounded.

Allam drew up ABC’s Vancouver’s platform.

Yes, ABC Vancouver committed to removing the homeless from Hastings Street, early in their term of office. Allam was clear: no person living in a tent on Hastings Street would be “removed” without the permission of the individual, but would leave of their own volition when more than adequate housing had been found for the cruelly abused unhoused who had taken up residence on Hastings Street.

Kareem Allam’s plan was not dissimilar to that of the late Brenda Prosken, a senior official at BC Housing (and neighbour and friend of VanRamblings), achieved at Oppenheimer Park, or when Ms. Prosken died from cancer six months after being diagnosed with her terminal illness, BC Housing Vice-President, Stephanie Allen — COPE’s recent candidate to be Mayor — achieved at the Strathcona encampment.

A cruel Ken Sim had other ideas: bulldoze (literally, bulldoze) the unhoused on Hastings Street, send in Vancouver’s (reluctant) police force to “help” clear the street, which a cruel and heartless Ken Sim and his ABC Vancouver Councillor colleagues managed to do.

Kareem Allam was aghast, disheartened and disgusted at the cruelty and inhumanity of Mayor Ken Sim and Mr. Sim’s ABC Vancouver colleagues.

Chief of Staff Kareem Allam and Mayor Ken Sim Arguing During Mr. Allam’s last day at City Hall.

The final straw came on Monday, February 6, 2023, when Ken Sim called Mr. Allam into his office, where current ABC Vancouver Council candidate David Grewal was standing excitedly by the Mayor’s side.

Mayor Ken Sim told his Chief of Staff the following …

“Kareem, David and I have come up with the perfect way to ensure that over the next four years, businesses and homeowners in Vancouver will not have to pay one red cent in property taxes. We’re thrilled with the idea we’ve come up with.”

Here’s what Ken Sim and David Grewal came up with: Mayor Ken Sim was going to order the sale of the 100  of the 242 parks in Vancouver that are not officially designated as parks. Not only that, Mayor Sim proposed to sell off billions of dollars of property owned by the City to his friends, at cents on the dollar, properties that constitute our city’s Property Endowment Fund, created by Mayor Art Phillips in 1972, a fund that sustains to this day.

As Kareem Allam turned briefly away from Mayor Sim, and rolled his eyes, he then turned to face the Mayor, telling him …

“With all due respect, Mr. Mayor, the Vancouver Charter, and both provincial and federal legislation would prevent you from carrying out your plan to sell off the officially non-designated parks, many of which sit on provincial and federal Crown land, or have been gifted to the City under a long term contract to be kept in place as parks.

As for selling property lodged in the Property Endowment Fund, that is something you might consider, or re-consider. There would be a big hue and cry were you to attempt to sell off properties in the Property Endowment Fund to your friends. Legal challenges would likely follow, and the stories around your plan would dog your days for the next four years of your administration. I would strongly advise you against taking this precipitous, and potentially calamitous course of action.”

By the time, the Mayor’s Chief of Staff had completed making his statement to the Mayor, Ken Sim was livid, firing Mr. Allam on the spot. Thus, February 6, 2023 was Kareem Allam’s last day serving as Mayor Ken Sim’s Chief of Staff.

Ken Sim’s Cruelty. Where Does It End? Hint: It Doesn’t.
Ken Sim’s Vancouver: The Cruelest City Hall in a Generation — And Why He Must Go

There is a word that increasingly defines Ken Sim’s Vancouver.

It is not “better.”

It is not “inclusive.”

It is not “compassionate.”

It is not even “competent.”

It is cruel.

And as Vancouverites prepare to go to the polls on October 17, we should all ask ourselves a profoundly simple question:

Do we really want four more years of Ken’s Sim’s ABC Vancouver administration?

In the more than half-century since Mayor Tom “Terrific” Campbell presided over Vancouver City Hall, it is difficult to think of a civic administration that has so consistently demonstrated such disdain for people with the least power, such contempt for political opponents, such indifference toward vulnerable Vancouverites and such extraordinary self-regard as the Ken Sim–led ABC Vancouver administration.

Campbell was a different kind of Mayor. He was brash, confrontational and openly hostile to the counterculture of his day. His administration became infamous for its treatment of Vancouver’s hippies, culminating in the 1971 Gastown Riot, when mounted police moved against a peaceful smoke-in and dozens were arrested. Campbell also tried to suppress the Georgia Straight, and championed the destruction of neighbourhoods in the name of development.

His was a politics of confrontation.

Ken Sim’s is something more modern.

It is the politics of indifference.

And sometimes, indifference is every bit as cruel as confrontation.

As a First Order of Business Ken Sim Undercut the Interests of Workers

The first great moral statement of the Sim administration came almost immediately after ABC Vancouver took power.

It was not a new housing programme.

It was not an investment in poverty reduction.

It was not an expansion of social services.

It was the cancellation of Vancouver’s Livable Wage Programme.

The programme required companies supplying goods and services to the City to pay their workers a livable wage. At the time it was approximately $25.68 an hour; today, the comparable living-wage figure is roughly $27 to $28 an hour.

Think about that.

In one of the most expensive cities in Canada, an administration elected promising to make Vancouver “a better city” decided that workers employed by companies doing business with the City did not need to be paid a wage sufficient to live in the city in which they worked.

The decision was made without the kind of public consultation one might reasonably expect for a policy with direct consequences for low-wage workers. City records subsequently included residents writing to the Mayor that they were “infuriated and disgusted” by the decision to withdraw from being a living-wage employer.

That is not merely a budget decision.

It is a statement of values.

And then came the renters.

Half the city rents. Ken Sim shut their office.

Again, more than half of Vancouver’s residents are renters.

Yet one of the first things ABC Vancouver did was eliminate the City’s Renters Office — an office that provided renters with information about their rights, referrals to organizations capable of helping them and assistance navigating the City’s rental bylaws and permitting system.

In January 2023, ABC Councillors voted as a bloc to discontinue the office.

Yes, ABC promised that funding would be redirected to the Tenant Resource & Advisory Centre, and that TRAC would receive additional support and City-owned office space.

Surprise, surprise. Under Ken Sim, that did not happen. Renters were left high and dry by the Ken Sim-led ABC Vancouver administration.

But the larger political message was unmistakable.

The City’s own dedicated institutional resource for renters was expendable.

The people who rent — the 54% of Vancouverites who do not own the homes in which they live — would be told to find somewhere else to turn.

This is what structural cruelty looks like.

It doesn’t necessarily arrive with a fist.

Sometimes it arrives as a line item in a budget.

Sometimes it arrives as an office closure.

Sometimes it arrives as a decision made in a Council Chambers by people who will never have to worry about whether the next rent increase will force them out of their neighbourhood.

That was the argument made in VanRamblings’ August editorial, Cruelty vs. Kindness: The Moral Choice at the Heart of Vancouver Civic Politics.

Cruelty is not simply yelling at someone.

Cruelty can mean deliberately disregarding their well-being.

And when that disregard is embedded in government policy, thousands of people can suffer.

Then Came the Scandal of the Mayor’s Personal Gym

And while renters were losing a dedicated office at City Hall, Ken Sim found a rather different use for City Hall space.

A Committee Room used by civic Advisory Committees was converted into a personal gym for the Mayor.

When under the Vision Vancouver Gregor Roberston administration, then City Manager Dr. Penny — at a cost of more than $6 million — moved her office, which took up two-thirds of the third floor at City Hall, and moved her office to the newly-opened (at her outrageously expensive bequest) “renovated” fifth and six floors of City Hall, converting her old offices into a luxurious suite for the Mayor, replete with a large dining room, and the services of a chef and serving staff, not to mention a full suite with a luxurious bedroom, full spa bathroom, and comfortable living space with all of the amenities and latest hi-tech gadgetry.

Even so, living the life of Riley, a “Nothing is Too Good for Me” Mayor Ken Sim felt he needed additional space, converting a well-used Committee Room into a personal gym for himself.

At City Hall.

Converted for the personal use of the Mayor.

There is something almost breathtaking about the symbolism.

At a time when Vancouver faces a housing crisis, a homelessness crisis, an affordability crisis, a public-health crisis and a crisis of aging civic infrastructure, Ken Sim’s administration found space for the Mayor to work out.

That juxtaposition would be almost humorous if the consequences of this administration’s priorities weren’t so serious.

And Then There Is The Issue of Mayor Ken Sim Shotgunning Beer

Broadcaster and political commentator Jody Vance has gone on and on during the course of Rachael Segal’s Beyond a Ballot political podcast, where Ms. Vance, Ms. Segal and former Vision Vancouver City Councillor Andrea Reimer are broadcasting daily, commenting on the current Vancouver civic election.

Ms. Vance was present for what she calls Mayor “Ken Sim’s egregious error in judgment earlier in his term if office.”

At Khatsalano Days in the summer of 2023, in front of a family audience that included impressionable young children, Ken Sim appeared on stage and shotgunned a beer, more than one, actually.

Some people thought it was hilarious.

Others did not.

For many parents in the audience, the spectacle was less “mayoral leadership” than an extraordinary lapse in judgment.

And that matters because leadership is not merely about policy.

It is also about setting an example as a municipal leader.

The Mayor of Vancouver is not simply another guy at a neighbourhood beer garden.

He is the city’s principal elected representative.

The office carries responsibilities of conduct, decorum and judgment.

And when a Mayor appears to revel in behaviour that causes families in the audience to recoil, it tells us something about the office-holder’s understanding of the difference between being popular and being responsible.

The Case of The Disappearing Mayor Who Fails to Turn Up for Work

Then there is the extraordinary question of attendance.

Ken Sim’s relationship with the job of Mayor has often seemed remarkably casual.

For much of his first three years in office, VanRamblings observed, he was rarely seen participating meaningfully in Council debate. When he did attend, the Mayor was often dressed casually in a T-shirt and sweatpants and, critics argued, appeared to remain in Chambers only long enough to vote before leaving.

More consequentially, in January 2025 Sim announced that he would boycott Metro Vancouver meetings, declaring that the regional government was “broken.” Global News reported that his attendance at Metro Vancouver had already been sporadic, with Sim attending roughly one-quarter of meetings the previous year.

This is not an argument that a Mayor must attend every meeting under every circumstance.

It is an argument that showing up is part of the job.

Vancouver did not elect Ken Sim to be an occasional Mayor.

It elected him to govern.

And then the attacks began

There is something particularly disturbing about what happens when political disagreement becomes personal.

Ken Sim filed formal complaints against then-OneCity Councillor Christine Boyle, requiring her to spend time and resources defending herself against the Mayor’s allegations.

And then came Sean Orr.

This may be the ugliest episode of the entire ABC Vancouver story.

In February 2026, Mayor Ken Sim told Chinese-language media that COPE Councillor Sean Orr had been handing out illegal drugs on Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside on Christmas Day.

The allegation was false.

It was subsequently revealed that ABC Councillor Lenny Zhou had repeated the allegation in a Chinese-language video, which was later removed, and Zhou apologized, saying his comments were based on incorrect information. CityNews subsequently reported that the information had originated with Mayor Sim himself.

Orr has said he was not even in Vancouver at the time but was visiting friends and family on the Sunshine Coast.

The political implications are enormous.

A Mayor accusing an elected City Councillor of distributing illegal drugs is not ordinary political criticism.

It is not a disagreement over zoning.

It is not an argument over homelessness.

It is not even a nasty election-season barb.

It is an attack on a person’s reputation.

And it was made publicly.

In Chinese-language media.

The consequences were serious enough that Orr subsequently filed a defamation lawsuit against Sim.

This is the Politics of Cruelty in its Purest Form

When you disagree with someone, debate them.

When you think they are wrong, defeat their arguments.

When you believe their policies are harmful, expose them.

But do not invent or repeat allegations that can destroy a person’s reputation.

Political opponents are not enemies.

They are fellow citizens entrusted by voters to represent them.

The Granville Street Bridge Tells the Whole Story

And then there is the issue that, more than any other, exposes the moral bankruptcy of the Sim administration’s priorities.

Suicide-prevention barriers on the Granville Street Bridge.

For years, Vancouver has known that Granville Bridge is a suicide hotspot.

Health professionals know it.

First responders know it.

The Crisis Centre knows it.

Families know it.

And City Hall knows it.

The evidence for physical barriers is overwhelming. Vancouver’s own documentation has cited research associating bridge barriers with a 93 per cent reduction in suicide deaths.

There is also Vancouver’s own experience.

Barriers were installed on the Burrard Street Bridge in 2017.

There have been no known suicide deaths from the Burrard Street Bridge since.

Similar barriers were installed on the Ironworkers Memorial Bridge in 2015.

Again, the evidence is striking.

Yet in March 2026, ABC Councillors voted to remove funding for Granville Bridge suicide-prevention barriers from the capital plan. VanRamblings subsequently documented that Vancouver had set aside $13.4 million for FIFA hospitality packages while the City continued to delay actual construction of the barriers.

Let us be absolutely clear.

The argument is not that FIFA is bad.

The argument is that a government that can find millions of dollars for international sporting hospitality ought to be able to find the political will and financial commitment necessary to protect people from dying at a known suicide hotspot.

Dr. Brandon Yau, Vancouver Coastal Health’s Medical Health Officer, described suicide deaths from the bridge as “preventable tragedies” and barriers as “critical, life-saving infrastructure.” Crisis Centre executive director Stacy Ashton has said, in substance, that the barriers work and save lives.

That is the moral test.

Not whether the project is convenient.

Not whether the Mayor gets good photographs.

Not whether FIFA executives are impressed.

Do we save lives?

A suicidal person standing on Granville Bridge does not care about FIFA.

Their family does not care about FIFA.

The police officers trying to talk them back from the edge do not care about FIFA.

The firefighters and paramedics who respond do not care about FIFA.

They care about whether that person lives.

And yet Ken Sim’s City Hall has demonstrated vastly greater urgency when the subject is a global sporting event.

That is not merely bad policy.

It is a question of values.

Ken Sim and ABC Vancouver Practice the Politics of Fear

And now, as the election approaches, ABC Vancouver has added another dimension to the politics of cruelty: fear.

The administration’s public-safety plebiscite, pushed through Council at a cost estimated at approximately $400,000 to $550,000, asks voters to weigh in on drug use and mental-health/addiction beds.

The questions are non-binding.

They do not themselves create a treatment bed.

They do not build a hospital.

They do not provide a mental-health worker.

They do not put a roof over anyone’s head.

They are, however, extraordinarily useful election-season political theatre.

The administration that had four years to govern is now asking voters whether they want the Mayor to govern.

That is not leadership.

That is campaigning.

What kind of city do we want?

This is the question VanRamblings posed in “Cruelty vs. Kindness.”

Politics is ultimately a moral choice.

A government can make life easier for people with less power.

Or it can make life harder.

It can expand dignity.

Or it can withdraw support.

It can build institutions that help renters.

Or close them.

It can protect low-wage workers.

Or abandon the living-wage standard.

It can protect people contemplating suicide.

Or delay.

It can disagree with political opponents.

Or attempt to destroy their reputations.

It can treat vulnerable people as human beings.

Or turn them into election props.

And it can govern.

Or campaign.

Ken Sim has shown Vancouver what his administration chooses.

Again and again.

And again.

This is why the comparison with Tom Campbell is not hyperbole.

Campbell’s Vancouver was an angry city.

Ken Sim’s Vancouver is increasingly an indifferent one.

Campbell fought the counterculture openly.

Sim’s administration too often appears to fight the people who have the least power to fight back.

Campbell’s police confronted the hippies of Gastown.

Sim’s political machine has made political capital out of the unhoused, the drug-dependent, renters, political opponents and people in crisis.

Campbell’s era was defined by confrontation.

Sim’s is defined by something colder:

the willingness to inflict pain, or simply not to care when pain is inflicted.

That is cruelty.

And cruelty should never be rewarded with another term in office.

Vancouver deserves better

The great lie of modern politics is that kindness is weakness.

It isn’t.

Kindness is recognizing that the renter facing eviction is not a statistic.

That the low-wage worker trying to live in Vancouver is not a disposable input in a procurement contract.

That the person standing on Granville Bridge is not a problem to be managed.

That a Councillor with whom you disagree is not your enemy.

That the unhoused person sleeping on a Vancouver sidewalk is still a human being.

That the people who disagree with you are still Vancouverites.

A Mayor’s job is not to punish those people.

It is to govern for them.

All of them.

The Ken Sim ABC Vancouver administration has had four years.

Four years is enough time to learn.

Enough time to correct course.

Enough time to demonstrate compassion.

Enough time to demonstrate leadership.

Instead, we have witnessed the dismantling of the Livable Wage Programme, the closing of the Renters Office, the attempted weakening of accountability mechanisms, the Mayor’s personal gym, the extraordinary conduct at Khatsalano Days, chronic questions about attendance and engagement, attacks on political opponents, the disgraceful Sean Orr episode, the abandonment of urgency on Granville Bridge suicide barriers, and an increasingly aggressive politics built around fear of the vulnerable.

There is a pattern here.

And patterns tell us more about governments than slogans ever will.

So, on October 17, Vancouverites have a choice.

Not merely between Ken Sim and another mayoral candidate.

Not merely between ABC Vancouver and another civic party.

We have a choice between two fundamentally different ideas of what government is supposed to be.

One says government exists to protect the vulnerable, strengthen communities, respect disagreement and reduce unnecessary suffering.

The other says government is about power, control, political advantage and winning the next election.

VanRamblings knows which Vancouver we want.

A Vancouver where government is measured not by the size of its FIFA hospitality budget, but by the number of people it helps.

A Vancouver where renters have a voice.

Where workers earn a living wage.

Where people in crisis are protected.

Where political opponents are debated rather than defamed.

Where the Mayor actually shows up.

Where City Hall belongs to the public — not to the Mayor’s gym.

And where kindness is not dismissed as weakness, but understood for what it really is:

the most basic responsibility of government.

Ken Sim has had his opportunity.

He has had four years.

He has shown Vancouver who he is and what kind of civic administration he has lead this past four years, and intends to lead for the next four years.

Now Vancouver gets to answer.

No more.

No more cruelty.

No more politics of division.

No more City Hall that turns its back on the people who need it most.

On October 17, Vancouver must turn the page.

Ken Sim must not be re-elected Mayor of Vancouver.

#VanPoli | Backgrounder on Vancouver’s 2026 Municipal Civic Election

As is almost always the case, the 2026 race for power at Vancouver City Hall is shaping up as one of the most consequential elections in the city’s history.

Four years ago, voters handed a sweeping mandate to current Mayor, Ken Sim.

In 2026, the central question of this year’s civic election is a simple one: has Vancouver become a better, more affordable, more livable city under Ken Sim?

For Mayor Ken Sim and ABC Vancouver, the answer is yes. For many others — and certainly members of the opposition parties — the answer is an emphatic NO.

In 2022 Mayor Ken Sim’s party, ABC Vancouver, campaigned on public safety, housing approvals, reducing street disorder, and delivering major civic projects.

Mayor Sim has repeatedly highlighted the city’s efforts to hire 100 additional police officers — ABC Vancouver has, in fact, hired well more than 100 new police officers — and 100 mental-health nurses — the latter commitment would have to be considered an abject failure, with Business in Vancouver reporting that 41 mental health workers were brought on to staff various response teams … as of June 2026, only about half of those hires were registered nurses — to accelerate housing construction approvals, and prepare Vancouver for the  current FIFA World Cup.

ABC Vancouver has argued that it has brought a business-oriented approach to City Hall after years of political fragmentation.

Yet for many Vancouverites, the Ken Sim years have been anything but smooth.

Housing affordability remains the defining issue in Vancouver.

Despite record levels of housing approvals, rents remain high if not the highest in Canada, while home ownership continues to be out of reach for most young families and workers.

Public safety, homelessness, addiction, and visible street disorder remain persistent concerns, particularly in the DTES and surrounding neighbourhoods.

Concerns about transportation, climate policy, development pressures, and the spiraling costs associated with hosting FIFA World Cup matches have also entered the civic conversation. Polling released earlier this year suggested Vancouver residents remain sharply divided in their assessment of the ABC administration, with many polls registering  ABC Vancouver at 10% support among Vancouverites.

Those divisions have fueled a broad anti-Sim movement on the political left.

The most visible expression of that opposition has been COPE’s “Evict Ken Sim” campaign.

Led by COPE Mayoral candidate Stephanie Allen, the Coalition of Progressive Electors (COPE) has framed the election as a referendum on what it describes as an increasingly corporate and developer-friendly City Hall. The slogan has become a rallying cry among activists who believe Sim’s administration has failed renters, marginalized residents, and neighbourhood communities. COPE’s fundraising appeals openly ask supporters to help “evict Ken Sim” as Mayor.

But make no mistake, COPE is not alone in its criticism of the Mayor.

Recognizing that vote splitting helped ABC achieve its landslide victory in 2022, Vancouver’s progressive parties have once again attempted something unusual.

COPE, OneCity Vancouver, and the Green Party of Vancouver have negotiated an electoral co-operative agreement intended to reduce competition among progressive candidates and maximize their chances of defeating ABC candidates. Sadly, the agreement has not proved entirely successful at the centre-left unity goal.

As we wrote last week, the Mayoral field itself remains crowded.

Ken Sim is seeking a second term and remains the clear front-runner — at least according to civic election commentators, lawyer Kyla Lee and This is Vancolour’s Mo Amir, a sentiment the two have expressed in their role as civic affairs panelists on CBC Vancouver’s On The Coast afternoon programme — in part because he benefits from name recognition, an established — if broken, in the eyes of many — political machine, and the advantages of incumbency.

OneCity Vancouver has nominated William Azaroff, an affordable housing advocate whose campaign has not only emphasized affordable housing, but protections for tenants (provincial jurisdiction), climate action, and expanding public services.

The Green Party has nominated popular incumbent Vancouver City Councillor Pete Fry, who has positioned himself as a pragmatic progressive focused on neighbourhood planning, sustainability, and balancing growth with livability.

COPE has put forward Stephanie Allen, whose campaign has focused on renters’ rights, social and affordable housing, labour issues — including re-instating the Livable Wage Programme jettisoned by Mayor Sim early in his term of office — working with the provincial and federal governments to implement an affordable $40 a month transit pass for those whose incomes fall below $40,000 a year — which is an laudable environmental initiative, as well — and challenging what Ms. Allen describes as the monied backers of ABC Vancouver, and the elites influence over civic politics that ill-serves the interests of most citizens.

Meanwhile, Councillor Rebecca Bligh has launched the new Vote Vancouver party, creating another centrist option that could attract voters dissatisfied with both ABC and the traditional left.

Colleen Hardwick, and her TEAM for a Livable Vancouver civic party, have also launched a campaign for elected office, focused on neighbourhood empowerment, and transparency in decision-making at Vancouver City Hall.

Perhaps the most hopeful campaign for office in 2026 comes in the form of Kareem Allam and his Vancouver Liberals party, whose platform is centred on fiscal discipline; a socially progressive approach to governance that is focused on making the city affordable again for working and middle-class families; addressing the drug crisis on the DTES by ridding our city of the cryptocurrency ATMs so well loved by Mayor Ken Sim and the offshore drug lords who fuel the drug crisis that has taken so many lives in our city and our region; ridding Vancouver of our city’s disturbing rat infestation; working collaboratively with opposition Councillors; requiring fewer managers while hiring more front line workers; strengthening the role of the City’s Integrity Commissioner, and funding Vancouver’s Park Board properly in order that Park Board Commissioners might work to repair and renovate Vancouver’s increasingly dilapidated community recreation centres.

The controversies surrounding Ken Sim are likely to dominate much of the coming Vancouver municipal election campaign.

Critics have accused ABC of excessive centralization of power, a lack of transparency in decision-making, and governing in a manner that has marginalized opposition Councillors. Debates over policing, housing policy, encampment responses, development approvals, and FIFA-related expenditures have all generated political friction. Former allies have occasionally become critics, and opposition parties have attempted to portray the Mayor as increasingly disconnected from ordinary Vancouver residents.

Mayor Ken Sim’s re-election strategy will likely emphasize stability, competence — it is but to laugh — and the argument that major reforms require more than a single four-year term.

The mechanics of the 2026 Vancouver civic election are already taking shape.

Vancouver has announced expanded voting opportunities for 2026, including more advance voting locations, larger voting sites, and more than 2,200 election workers. Election Day is Saturday, October 17, 2026.

While the city has not yet finalized all advance voting dates, advance polls are expected to open in the weeks leading up to Election Day, continuing Vancouver’s recent practice of offering multiple opportunities for early voting.

Voters will elect not only a Mayor but also 10 City Councillors, 7 Park Board Commissioners, and 9 school trustees. We will also decide several capital borrowing questions that could shape municipal infrastructure spending for years to come.

In many ways, Vancouver’s 2026 election has become a contest between competing visions of the city itself.

One vision, represented by Ken Sim and ABC emphasizing growth, public order, and managerial governance. The other, represented by the city’s progressive parties, argues for stronger social programmes, requiring landlords to repair pest infested and rundown SROs, legislating deeper affordability measures, taking an activist approach to rebuilding infrastructure, opening up City Hall to citizens, and adopting a community-driven approach to development in our city.

By the evening of October 17, Vancouver voters will have decided whether Ken Sim’s sweeping victory in 2022 marked the beginning of a new political era — or is merely an unfortunate interlude, a one and done for Mayor Sim’s right-of-centre civic party — in the city’s long tradition of progressive municipal politics.

The answer will determine not only who occupies the Mayor’s office through autumn 2030, but what kind of city Vancouver hopes to become in the decade ahead.

Kareem Allam on the Vancouver Park Board, Preserve the Elected Board

The Association Presidents Group (APG) representing 17 community centre associations across the City of Vancouver, released a statement in 2024 strongly urging Premier David Eby to “reconsider his commitment to proceeding with the elimination of the Vancouver Park Board.”

The APG says Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim’s decision is “undemocratic.”

“We do not believe 8 City Councillors can decide to abolish the Park Board elected by thousands of Vancouver citizens in October 2022,” it said, in the press release, which may be found below.

“We believe the Park Board can only be removed after a civic election in October 2026, and only if Vancouver citizens have made that choice. Neither the City nor the Province have a mandate to remove the Park Board.”

The Association Presidents Group (APG) says ABC Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim’s motion to eliminate the Vancouver Park Board was announced and passed in a week without any engagement with the APG organization and other key stakeholders.

“There was no transition plan to demonstrate the alleged benefits of such a decision. The reasons announced have been questioned by many stakeholders including dozens of former Park Board Commissioners and Community Centre Associations,” said representatives with the Association Presidents Group.

Vancouver’s independent and elected Board of Parks and Recreation has served Vancouver for over 135 years. Vancouver is the only city in Canada with an elected Park Board and is the only city in North America other than Minneapolis to place its focus on growing a vibrant parks and recreation system as a constituent element to the citizens served by the municipal governments in both cities — up until the untoward December 13, 2023 decision by Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim and his super majority team of ABC Vancouver City Councillors.

VanRamblings reader Mara writes to correct some of the information above …

MANY cities in the United States have elected park boards including: Tacoma (Washington State), Bainbridge Island (Washington state), Bend (Oregon), Willamalane (Oregon), Simi Valley (California), Three Rivers Park District (Minnesota), and over 350 cities in Illinois (Naperville, Joliet, Rockford, Springfield are the big ones, but there are 350 others), and nearly every city in North Dakota (Fargo, Bismarck, Minot, Williston, others). There are also elected park districts in northern California, Montana, Colorado, Florida, West Virginia, New York state, and Massachusetts.

In Canada, Cultus Lake in British Columbia has an elected park board.

I say this because Vancouver IS NOT an outlier. It needs to keep its independently-elected park board, but people need to realize it’s one of many. If you keep repeating Ken Sim’s lie about Vancouver being an oddity, it feeds into his narrative.”

Thank you, Mara. At the moment, for some, the Contact VanRamblings function on the site is not working. We are working on resolving that issue.


Preservation of an Elected, Independent, Responsive Vancouver Park Board 


Here’s the Association Presidents Group Press Release 

The Association Presidents Group (APG) believes Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim’s attempt to abolish the elected Vancouver Park Board is undemocratic.

We do not believe 8 City Councillors can decide to abolish the Park Board elected by thousands of Vancouver citizens in October 2022. We believe the Park Board can only be removed after a civic election in October 2026, and only if Vancouver citizens have made that choice.

Neither the City nor the Province have a mandate to remove the Park Board.

Mayor Sim’s motion was announced and then passed within one week without any engagement with the Community Centre Associations and other key stakeholders. There was no transition plan to demonstrate the alleged benefits of such a decision. The reasons announced have been questioned by many stakeholders, including dozens of former Park Board Commissioners and Community Centre Associations.

The elected Park Board has served Vancouver well for over 135 years.

Voters created an elected Park Board because they wanted parks and recreation to be a high-profile priority in Vancouver. Commissioners run for office because they are passionate about protecting and expanding our parks and recreation programmes. It is their priority concern and responsibility.

The Mayor’s proposal would have Commissioners replaced by City Councillors who have a multitude of responsibilities resulting in a less responsive and effective working relationship for community stakeholders. City parks and recreation will not be the first priority for City Councillors.

The APG rejects the Mayor’s claim that the Park Board is broken.

We believe it has been critically underfunded by City Council for several decades.

Many of the examples cited by the Mayor for the elimination of the Park Board are in fact already the City of Vancouver’s responsibility. They own and maintain the buildings and infrastructure in the Park Board system.

For example, Park Board frequently recommends renewal and expansion of Community Centres for additional space to accommodate children’s programmes but it is City Councillors who decide on the funding. Parents complain that programme spaces for their children are inadequate. Those concerns should be directed to City Hall.

A decision to eliminate the elected Park Board must be determined democratically in the next municipal election if it remains part of the ABC platform. Let the voters of Vancouver make such an important decision.

Sign the APG Petition asking the Premier not to eliminate Park Board.


For more information please contact either of the following APG members:

(copy and paste either or both of the following e-mail addresses into your e-mail programme)

Jerry Fast <jerryfast@shaw.ca>

Kathleen Bigsby <kmbigsby@gmail.com>


The Auditor General’s Report released yesterday on his audit of recreation facility asset management at the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation (Park Board) and City of Vancouver (City).

The Report, as submitted by Mike Macdonell, Auditor General reads in part …

“The Park Board manages 24 community centres, 14 pools and eight indoor rinks, which are owned by the City, with responsibility for maintenance shared between the Park Board and City departments. The audit determined that these facilities were not effectively managed to align with strategic goals, meet service level priorities and optimize asset lifecycles.

The 46 recreation facilities included in the audit have an estimated infrastructure funding deficit of $33 million per year, which is part of the City’s significant overall infrastructure deficit of $500 million per year.

Many of the Park Board facilities’ building systems have been extended well beyond their intended useful life. As of 2022, the City’s data showed that 72% of recreation facilities were in poor or very poor condition, from an asset management perspective, based on the cost of required repairs and maintenance relative to the facility’s replacement value. Although the lower rating does not mean that facilities are unsafe, these assets generally cost more to maintain, repair or improve and are closer to requiring renewal.

The Park Board and the City aimed to improve the condition of recreation facilities so that 70-80% were in good or fair condition by 2050. However, there were no agreed-upon facility asset management investment plans to fund such a significant increase in condition.

The audit found that the City did not have a Council-approved policy or strategy, or a formalized capital asset management framework, to guide asset management planning for recreation facilities and ensure consistent alignment between community expectations, service delivery targets, and the maintenance strategies needed to support them.

The City provided building maintenance services to the Park Board guided by an agreement created in 2014, but the audit found there was no operating level agreement that defined respective Park Board and City staff responsibilities.

The agreement also did not define accountability or reporting requirements from the City to the Park Board for its provision of asset management services. The audit found that Park Board Commissioners did not receive consolidated information on asset-related service levels, performance indicators and funding scenarios to support their responsibility to oversee recreation asset management.”

VanRamblings believes that preserving our elected Park Board is critical for the livability of our city, to continue to prioritize the high quality of service provided to us by our community centres, pools and hockey rinks, and the maintenance of Vancouver’s more than 400 parks for the ongoing enjoyment of Vancouver citizens.

Crypto, The Scam Currency Championed by Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim

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?