Tag Archives: vancouver

#VanPoli | VOTE for Solomon Yi-Kieran | A New Generation Steps Forward in Vancouver

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

At a time when municipal politics can sometimes look like an old person’s game, Solomon Yi-Kieran represents something Vancouver badly needs: a younger generation prepared not merely to complain about politics, but to enter the arena and try to change it.

Power structures across the country are often dominated by older cohorts, leaving younger residents feeling that the issues directly shaping their futures — from soaring living costs to climate resilience — are addressed with passive incrementalism rather than urgency. It is precisely why having young leaders come forward to run for elected office is so critical.

Young candidates bring a essential perspective to local government. They carry the lived experience of navigating today’s acute housing crisis, reliance on public transit, and the precarity of the modern economy. Rather than viewing policies through abstract statistics, young representatives experience the direct impact of municipal decisions every day.

At 20 years old, Yi-Kieran — who identifies as they/them — represents a rising generation of community organizers who refuse to wait on the sidelines.

Stepping up to bring that exact energy and perspective to local government is Solomon Yi-Kieran is running for Vancouver City Council with the The Coalition of Progressive Electors (COPE) in the October 17 municipal election. Still in their early 20s, they are among the youngest candidates seeking a seat on Council — and their résumé is already unusually substantial for someone so young.

Yi-Kieran graduated from Glenlyon Norfolk School in Victoria in 2023. While still in high school, they were accepted into Oxford University’s history and politics programme, but ultimately chose to attend the University of British Columbia.

At the University of British Columbia, Yi-Kieran is an Arts student studying History and Linguistics, with a particular interest in history and education. They have said their long-term ambition is to become a high-school history teacher.

Their political education, however, has taken place as much outside the classroom as inside it.

Despite their young age, Yi-Kieran already boasts a track record as a public advocate and student leader. Yi-Kieran has been deeply involved in UBC student politics, serving as a student senator and, more recently, as Vice-President External Affairs of the Alma Mater Society, representing more than 61,000 undergraduate and graduate students.

Yi-Kieran has advocated for improved accessibility and academic accommodations, recorded lectures, affordable student housing, greater financial assistance and more transparent university governance.

 

Their activism extends beyond campus.

Yi-Kieran has worked with the BC NDP, participated in campaigns involving affordable sexual-health services and humanitarian assistance, and organized advocacy for a federal Youth Climate Corps. That campaign ultimately helped secure $40 million for youth climate employment.

Yi-Kieran’s background in activism is rooted in tangible, grassroots organizers’ campaigns:

  • Public Transit Expansion: As AMS VP External, they spearheaded the high-profile campaign to extend the Millennium Line SkyTrain route directly to UBC, organizing rallies and leading a petition that gathered over 15,000 signatures to press provincial and municipal governments into action.

  • Student & Tenant Advocacy: They have consistently organized around tenant rights, pushing for tenant protections in student residence housing and lobbying for increased non-market and below-market housing options in the University Endowment Lands.

  • Climate & Youth Empowerment: Through coalition work with student unions across British Columbia, Yi-Kieran campaigned for the establishment of a national Youth Climate Corps.

Running on the progressive COPE platform, Yi-Kieran’s Council campaign focuses on systemic challenges:

  1. Housing Affordability & Tenant Protection: Expanding non-market, social, and co-op housing, alongside strong rent-control protections to keep renters from being priced out of Vancouver.

  2. Public Transit & Infrastructure: Accelerating major regional transit extensions like the UBC SkyTrain corridor and ensuring accessible, frequent municipal transit options.

  3. Climate Action & Green Jobs: Supporting local climate initiatives, including clean energy transitions and workforce opportunities for young people in sustainability.

  4. Labour & Accessibility Reforms: Championing worker rights, accessibility accommodations, and transparent civic governance that invites broader public participation.

Yi-Kieran’s campaign offers Vancouver voters a chance to bring a fresh, community-driven voice to Vancouver City Hall — one that understands the pressing realities facing the city’s youth, renters, and working residents.

Perhaps their most visible campaign has been the fight for a SkyTrain extension to UBC. As AMS vice-president external, Yi-Kieran spearheaded a petition that gathered more than 10,000 signatures and pressed provincial and federal governments to move forward on the long-promised project.

Now Yi-Kieran wants to take that activism to Vancouver City Hall.

There is a tendency on the left to approach issues on a macro scale, to fight for systemic change that makes a difference for the better in the lives of groups of our disenfranchised population, whose voices are neither heard nor respected.

Sometimes in such a circumstance, there is a tendency to lose touch with the individual needs of members of the community, of families, of Vancouver’s new immigrant or ethnic populations, of individual seniors and students.

From VanRamblings’ personal experience, we are here to tell you that in addition to working on a macro scale for systemic change, Solomon Yi-Kieran also connects — really connects — on a micro scale, that is, they see you, feel you, empathize with you, hear your concerns, and will work with you one-on-one to make the conditions of your life better, to work with you to resolve your issues of concern.

Something else to mention about Solomon Yi-Kieran, for which again we have first hand salutary experience: Solomon is kind.

Sadly, a commodity in short supply in politics.

In an era where political discourse is often dominated by divisiveness, hostility, and polarization, the concept of kindness might seem quaint or naïve.

When we examine the foundational purpose of politics — the organization of society for the common good — kindness emerges as a practical and necessary value.

At its core, kindness represents empathy, respect, and a genuine concern for others. When woven into the fabric of political practices, kindness fosters collaboration, promotes inclusivity, and enables the pursuit of justice and equality.

When you cast your ballot for Solomon Yi-Kieran this October, and when they are elected to Vancouver City Council, you will come to find that there is no stronger advocate for you on City Council than Solomon Yi-Kieran, whose boundless energy, heartbreaking intelligence, inspiring presence in your life, and dedication to improving the conditions of your life will always be the driving force and central feature of their time in municipal governance at Vancouver City Hall.

Their platform emphasizes affordable housing, rents, better and eventually free public transit, government transparency and accountability, and making Vancouver a city in which young people can afford to build a life. They have called for reviving the City’s Renters Office, and establishing a climate defense strategy.

 

Solomon has emerged as one of COPE’s leading voices opposing proposed artificial-intelligence data centres in Vancouver, calling for a moratorium until their environmental, water, electricity, employment and privacy implications are properly understood.

But Yi-Kieran’s candidacy is about more than any particular policy.

Canadian politics — and especially municipal politics — can become dominated by people who have been around for decades. Experience matters, certainly. But so does having people in government who will live with the consequences of today’s decisions for another 50 or 60 years.

Young politicians bring a different perspective. They experience the housing crisis as renters rather than homeowners. They depend upon public transit. They confront the realities of precarious employment, student debt, climate change and an increasingly digital economy firsthand.

Yi-Kieran’s campaign offers Vancouver voters a chance to bring a fresh, community-driven voice to City Hall — one that understands the pressing realities facing the city’s youth, renters, and working residents.

They also bring something politics desperately needs: a sense of urgency.

#VanPoli | Mayoral Candidate Kareem Allam To Address Food Insecurity

#VanElxn 2026, #VanPoli Civic Politics, BC Politics, Cheap Eats, Food & Health, Kareem Allam, Vancouver, Vancouver Liberals, , , , , , , , ,

Each month, the Greater Vancouver Food Bank supports 15,000 families directly and another 20,000+ families through 119 community partner agencies (shelters / transition houses) in Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, and the North Shore.

Separate organizations handle outer cities, such as the Friends in Need Food Bank serving Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, and local groups covering Surrey, Langley, and Richmond independently.

Food Banks BC reported that over 113,000 unique individuals utilize food banks across British Columbia in a single month, marking a sharp 44% surge compared to pre-pandemic levels.

  • Children: Make up roughly 25% to 31% of direct food bank clients in the region;
  • Seniors: Account for about 16% to 17% of individuals seeking food assistance;
  • Employment: Up to 30% of urban food bank clients in Vancouver report being currently employed, struggling with high housing and living costs.

Should they win power on October 17th, the Vancouver Liberals have committed to implementing a food security programme in the City of Vancouver.

This programme would address the issue of food insecurity for the thousands of families in need across Vancouver who make regular use of the Greater Vancouver Food Bank, a programme not unlike the food security programme currently being implemented by New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, and the University of British Columbia’s Community Food Hub Programme.

That is what today’s VanRamblings column is all about. Good on the Vancouver Liberals for addressing a critical need for so many families across our city.

Vancouver Liberals’ Mayoral candidate Kareem Allam sits down with Will Lich, founder of UBC’s Community Food Hub, to discuss food insecurity, and what might be done to address the issue

Vancouver Liberals’ candidate for Mayor, Kareem Allam, has developed a full-fledged plan to address food insecurity in the City of Vancouver.

Development of the Vancouver Liberals’ Food Insecurity Relief Plan would include implementation of a Community Food Hub with, over time, more than one such Food Hub Market to be located in neighbourhoods throughout Vancouver.

The development of Food Hub Markets across the city is but one facet, or feature, of the Vancouver Liberals’ Food Insecurity Relief Plan, about which VanRamblings will write at greater and in-depth length on another day.

At the University of British, the Community Food Hub is a campus-wide initiative designed to tackle student food insecurity through affordable groceries, educational workshops, and community-building.

The primary feature of the Community Food Hub is the UBC Food Hub Market, which operates out of the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability building, located on the UBC campus.

The programme offers several key resources and initiatives:

  • The Food Hub Market: A low-cost, at-cost grocery store for the campus community;
  • Workshops & Outreach: Educational sessions on food literacy, nutrition, and hands-on food skills.;
  • Food Prescription Programme: A pilot programme running at the Gateway Health Building allowing healthcare providers to screen for food insecurity and prescribe personalized food support.;
  • The Acadia Food Hub: Located in the Acadia Park Residence, this location offers food and baby supply distribution for families on campus.

The Food Hub Market is a not-for-profit community space offering affordable grocery essentials while fostering community social connection.

The Market is dedicated to improving access to affordable and culturally diverse grocery staples that support food security and meet the everyday needs of those who make use of the facility within a welcoming and inclusive environment.

The Community Food Hub also provides hands-on food skills workshops, community events and educational outreach on food literacy and nutrition. These programmes promote food literacy and food skills, helping the community navigate available food security resources, and strengthen community connections.

The Vancouver Liberals’ Food Security Programme is woven into the party’s broader agenda on affordability, economic opportunity, neighbourhood services, and community well-being.

Food Security Through Affordability

In part, the Vancouver Liberals approach to the issue of food insecurity emerges as a consequence of the rising cost of living. Throughout the Vancouver Liberals’ platform, Vancouvers’s newest civic party argues that Vancouver City Hall must focus on restoring affordability so families have more disposable income available for necessities such as groceries.

Kareem Allam has repeatedly framed the Vancouver Liberals’ broader objective as creating “a city where young people are able to stay and raise a family,” arguing that municipal government should measure every policy against that standard.

Within that framework, food security becomes one key element of overall household affordability. If housing costs, transportation costs, and municipal taxes consume less of a family’s income, residents will be better able to afford nutritious food.

The Principal Tenets of the Vancouver Liberals Platform

  • 1. Lower the cost pressures on households 

    The Vancouver Liberals argue that controlling property tax increases and improving fiscal management will leave residents with more money available for everyday expenses, including groceries. They contend that City Hall should concentrate on efficient delivery of core services rather than expensive capital projects that do not directly improve residents’ quality of life;
  • 2. Build an economy that supports working families 

    Kareem Allam frequently links food affordability with employment. His speeches emphasize attracting better-paying jobs and ensuring young people can remain in Vancouver rather than being forced to leave because of living costs. In the party’s view, food security is strengthened when residents have stable employment and rising incomes;
  • 3. Strengthen neighbourhood infrastructure 

    The party proposes significant investment in community centres, parks, libraries, and other neighbourhood facilities. While these proposals are not described specifically as food security initiatives, such facilities often serve as locations for community kitchens, seniors’ meal programmes, food distribution initiatives, and neighbourhood support services;
  • 4. Improve frontline municipal services 

    The Vancouver Liberals propose hiring 400 additional frontline unionized employees to improve municipal services. Their argument is a better-functioning city creates healthier neighbourhoods and stronger communities capable of supporting vulnerable residents.

Vancouver Liberals’ Mayoral Candidate Kareem Allam’s Perspective

Kareem Allam consistently argues that municipal government should concern itself with whether ordinary families can successfully build their lives in Vancouver.

Kareem’s public messaging repeatedly returns to several themes:

  • Vancouver must once again become affordable for young families;
  • Municipal spending should prioritize essential public services;
  • Economic growth is necessary to sustain strong social programmes;
  • Public investment should focus on practical improvements rather than prestige projects.

Vancouver Liberals’ Council Candidate Jessica Walton’s Contribution

Jessica Walton brings perhaps the strongest personal connection to food affordability within the Vancouver Liberals.

Her candidate biography highlights several experiences directly related to food insecurity and rising living costs:

  • Working retail jobs from the age of 15 while helping support a family member living in poverty;
  • Experience in restaurants and service-sector employment;
  • Advocacy for a fair and livable wage;
  • Concern that rising food costs are forcing students and young people to leave British Columbia;
  • Frontline government work connecting residents with public services.

Jessica’s biography specifically identifies “rising food costs” as one of the major pressures facing younger generations. Rather than presenting food insecurity solely as a charitable issue, Jessica Walton frames it as part of a broader affordability crisis affecting students, workers, and young families.

Ms. Walton also emphasizes accessibility, inclusion, and ensuring government programmes are understandable and reachable by those who need them most. Her experience helping residents navigate government services informs her belief that municipal programmes should be practical and accessible.

Relationship With Existing City Policy

The Vancouver Liberals’ emerging approach differs from the City of Vancouver’s long-established food policy framework. Vancouver already operates a comprehensive food strategy supporting community food networks, urban agriculture, food access programs, and local food system planning.

The Vancouver Liberals have not proposed eliminating these initiatives.

Instead, their emphasis has been on improving affordability, strengthening neighbourhood infrastructure, and restoring confidence in municipal governance.

As the October 17th Vancouver Municipal Election Approaches

Kareem Allam presents food security as inseparable from creating a city where working families can afford to remain and prosper. Vancouver Liberals’ candidate for Vancouver City Council Jessica Walton reinforces that message from personal experience, speaking about poverty, rising grocery costs, fair wages, and the barriers confronting students and young families.

The Vancouver Liberals are dedicated to publishing  a definitive food security platform in the lead up to this autumn’s civic election campaign that will expand on the provision of specific municipal initiatives and measurable policy commitments.

#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.

#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 264 distinct 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 264 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.