Tag Archives: vancouver

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#VanElxn22 | Tuning Out, Disengagement, and Low Civic Voter Turnout, Likely

When Canadians’ engagement with the news dropped significantly in 2021, the plunge was in some ways seen as inevitable.

The change in news consumption habits last year came after two years with no shortage of storylines — the arrival of the coronavirus pandemic, both a provincial and a federal election, the ongoing circus of the politics of Trump, and a nationwide reckoning over race, Indigenous relations and related police violence.

For many Canadians stuck at home, there was plenty of time to tune in.

However, the pace of news waned toward the end 2021, as did interest in the Liberal administration in Ottawa, and politics in general. The news cycle in 2022, comparatively, has more closely resembled the frenetic years of COVID, between the war in Ukraine, and existential threats to democracy and the planet.

Yet eight months into 2022, data collected by a Leger / Public Square Research poll shows Canadians are even more disengaged than they were this time last year, with a quarter of Canadians tuning out “too depressing” political news.

In fact, most Canadians who are tuning out the news say they’re doing so because the sheer negativity of what they read and hear is turning them off from politics.

According to the Leger poll, one-fifth of Canadians engage with political news “throughout the day,” while a third of Canadians engage with it daily and 22% engage with it a few times a week.

About a quarter of Canadians are almost entirely disengaged from the news, with 10% of Canadians actively avoiding political news, and 5% engaging with politics only through conversations with friends, with 10% reading the news only a few times a month.

Fifty percent of Canadians disengage, saying they’re “tired of the negativity in politics”, 38% saying the news is too depressing.

News engagement across all platforms in the first half of 2022 — website visits, news app sessions, cable viewership, and time spent on social media — is down compared to the first half of 2021. The steepest decline — 50 percent — pertains to engagement with news articles on social media, and probably stems from changes Facebook made to its news curation model.

Cable viewership news on CBC, CTV and Global 1 “is, on average, down 19% in prime time,” losses that skew heavily across all three news networks.

The Leger / Public Square Research poll also finds a mismatch between the issues dominating the headlines and what Canadians are concerned about. Only 16% of Canadians said they were concerned about the Pope’s visit to Canada and 35% said they were concerned about the backlog in immigration processing in Canada.

“The role of the news isn’t always to give people the news they want to hear,” says Heather Bastedo, who runs Public Square Research and produced the Leger survey for The Hub, the survey to which we are referring today. “But the media needs to make the connection to people’s lives with these stories. Most people aren’t flying out from Pearson, but the fact that the government can’t run things should be an issue.”

Thirty-four percent of Canadians said they’re concerned about long lineups at passport offices, while 21% said they simply don’t care.  The number one issue for Canadians is rising interest rates. Forty-five percent say they’re are very concerned about it, with 26% saying they’re somewhat concerned; 13% say it doesn’t affect them. The war in Ukraine is similarly pressing for Canadians. Forty percent of Canadians are very concerned, with another 35% somewhat concerned.

As might be expected, younger Canadians are least likely to be highly engaged news consumers, with only 13% Canadians aged 18 to 34 reporting that they read or listen to the news throughout the day, compared to 27% of people over the age of 55. Young people are less likely to be totally disengaged than people aged 35 to 54, though. Among Canadians under age 35, about 11% report having no interest in politics, compared to 14% of Canadians aged 35 to 54.

The numbers above underscore a collective weariness among the voting public.

Higher turnout in federal, provincial and civic elections is a reflection of vibrant, robust democratic practice. Conversely, low voter turnout depicts cynicism, apathy, anomie and alienation, triggering voters not to exercise their right to vote.

A representative democracy calls on citizens to participate in the electoral process. Many voters believe they know about likely election winners, and their single vote won’t make a difference. This is a classic example of a collective action problem.

In 2018, 39.4% of  the Vancouver public voted, a record voter turnout to be sure — which still meant that a whopping 60.6% of the voting public didn’t vote. Why?

  • Lack of interest. Not everyone tunes into the nightly news every evening. Some people are simply not interested in politics, others outright hate it. The last thing they want to do is research politicians or read about the latest election;
  • Lack of knowledge. Often coinciding with a lack of interest, many people also don’t know much about elections or politics. They’re not aware of who’s running, and sometimes they don’t even know there’s an election coming up;
  • Disillusionment. A thread of cynicism that runs through the Canadian electorate. Many believe their vote either doesn’t count or doesn’t matter, so why bother voting? In Vancouver, some of this has to do with the lack of a representational neighbourhood voting system (sometimes called a “ward system”). In addition, many potential voters feel it’s pointless to vote for parties and candidates, because they don’t believe that any of those parties or candidates represent their interests;
  • Voter fatigue. Even the most dedicated voter may feel worn down by the sheer number of names on the ballot, most of whom they don’t know. Additionally, long lines and difficulty voting may discourage individuals from going to the ballot box..

Low voter turnout is also evident from the fact political campaigns rely on data that serves to ignore popular voices on issues of importance, allowing candidates for office and their political parties to feel safe, ignoring the public will while failing to comply with even the most amorphous of campaign promises.

In these cynical times, most campaign managers, political parties and candidates know few people are going to turn out at the polls, so why bother crafting a message? In this scenario, amidst an abundance of voter fatigue, some political voices win, while most of the public — particularly those who choose not to cast a ballot — lose, getting government they don’t want, rather than government they need.

#VanElxn2022 | Plumping | Casting A Ballot for Only Your Chosen Candidates

There is no grand prevailing wisdom about how people should vote.

It’s hard enough to get people to show up at the polls as it is.

But once voters show up to cast their ballot, there are competing views about how we should cast our votes: in this case, to plump or not to plump.

As former Vancouver City Councillor Anne Roberts wrote on a chilly November 14th day, three weeks after Vancouver’s 2014 civic election …

“In the end, the vast majority of voters are going to do what they typically do in Vancouver’s dysfunctional at-large voting system: they’re going to vote slates. People will mostly select 5 to 8 Councillors from the party of their choice and then, perhaps, vote for one or two others. Given there are too many candidates and parties to become fully informed, it’s not a bad strategy.

That is, unless you know about plumping. For individual voters, plumping is really the only way to boost your voter power. Plumping is when you cast votes for your civic party of your choice, only, instead of the full 10. The advantage is you focus your voting power on the ones you really want to win, and don’t dilute the power of your vote by voting for someone who could end up beating your preferred candidates.”

Voter turnout in British Columbia civic elections is generally well below 40%.

In 2005, 32% of eligible voters cast their ballot in that year’s Vancouver civic election — when Non Partisan Association Mayor Sam Sullivan and a majority NPA Council were elected to office — with only 31% bothering to vote in the 2008 change civic election, which saw the newly formed Vision Vancouver civic party elected to a majority at Vancouver City Hall. By 2011, a  whopping 34% of eligible Vancouver voters found their way to the polls on election day, Saturday, November 19th.

Counting the Votes

Where there are multiple Council positions, 10 in Vancouver, to be filled, the votes on each ballot are counted as being of equal value to each other. Even though a voter might have a distinct order of preference among the candidates there is no mechanism for such preferences to be shown on the ballot.

Candidates are elected consecutively according to who receives the largest number of votes. There is no pre-determined percentage of the overall vote required to be gained before a candidate is elected so a candidate can be elected with a very much smaller percentage of the vote than under any other electoral system.

Plumping

Plumping allows voters to vote for fewer than the number of candidates to be elected. It permits voters to concentrate their voting power on those they support, rather than being constrained to also vote for those they oppose. Rather than voting for all 10 Council positions, a voter may choose to vote for simply one, two or more should they wish, in the City of Vancouver, where slates tend to run, voting only for your party of choice.

In Vancouver, the at-large system is in some ways opposite to the first-past-the-post system in the provincial and federal elections. At-large means there are no “neighbourhood ridings” — sometimes called wards — within the municipality or regional district, as is the case in every other province, save B.C..

Aside from casting one ballot for Mayor, voters will vote from a pool of candidates, and select form one candidate to however many candidates they choose to sit on Vancouver City Council, Park Board or School Board.

Eligible voters in the City of Vancouver are allowed to select as many candidates as there are seats on the respective councils, but should they?

In 2022, the answer to that question is a firm, “No”.

Having spoken with strategists working within the 10 civic parties offering candidates for election in 2022,  civic campaign managers are recommending their voters “plump their ballot” — voting only for the candidate(s) they really want to see elected. “Pro-plumping” strategists are telling their voters that giving a vote to someone you really don’t care about, simply to fill the ballot, weakens the position of those you really do want in. Too many votes for a candidate running with a party you don’t support not only weakens your vote for the candidates you want to see win on election night, it dramatically increases the likelihood that your favourite candidates may lose, as a broad swath of the limited number of voters expected to turn out in this year’s October municipal election, in casting a vote for an “add on” candidate enhances that candidate’s ability to actually triumph at the polls.

Even respected Vancouver civic affairs journalist, Charlie Smith, editor of The Georgia Straight, is recommending Vancouver voters “plump their vote”, in this instance when casting a ballot for candidates running for office to become a Board of Education trustee on the Vancouver School Board.

“The only sensible choice for supporters of mask mandates — and safer schools for the many kids with immunocompromised family members — is to only vote for Dr. Zeidler and withhold voting for the NPA, ABC Vancouver, Vision Vancouver, COPE, OneCity Vancouver, Green, Progress Vancouver, or any other party that’s putting candidates up for school trustee.

Voting for candidates other than Dr. Zeidler lessens her chance of winning and promoting actions that will save lives of school students, staff, and their families.”

Mr. Smith must have read Peter Babel’s Meridia article on bullet voting, which is what they — unsurprisingly — call plump voting down south …

Basically, bullet voting — also known as single-shot voting or plump voting — is a tactic used when voters who could vote for multiple candidates actually vote only for the one candidate whom they most want to see among the winners. Imagine a municipal election, for example, in which 65 candidates are running for ten open seats and voters can vote for only ten candidates. Ultimately, the election will produce 10 winners, yes, but using the bullet vote tactic the voter increases the total vote count for the candidate s/he most wants included among the 10 winners — without increasing the vote count of any of the other candidates running for office. By plumping their ballot, the voter strategically avoids inadvertently helping any other candidate gain more votes than the candidates they truly prefer, and whose win they want to secure more than any other.

Fans of plumping argue that most people are not familiar with enough candidates running to be able to cast completely informed votes.

So many people want to avoid casting ballots for people who aren’t necessarily deserving of that vote. All of which nicely plays into the hands of seasoned campaign strategists operating behind the scenes in this year’s Vancouver municipal election, but who are “in control” of this year’s all-important 2022 Vancouver municipal election campaigns.

#VanPoli | Homelessness + Housing | A Series | Part 4

All of 13 years of age, in 1930 my father left his family farm in Saskatchewan, leaving behind his mother and five siblings — his father had died when he was three years of age — set to ride the rails for the next 9 years, alighting in the Annapolis Valley in the later summer to pick apples, working in every province across Canada, for no more than a meal and a roof over his head at night sleeping in a barn, more often than not taking shelter in a hobo camp somewhere adjacent to the railway tracks that span our nation, undernourished always, starving at other times, my father having joined a homeless generation of Canadian youth scrambling to stay alive in the midst of the Dirty 30s, doing the best that they could.

Until, as my father told me one autumn afternoon, sitting at his kitchen table …

“In early September of 1939, I was living in a hobo camp on the outskirts of Revelstoke, on my way to the Okanagan to pick apples. There was talk in the camp that something was up in Europe, that the German Army had invaded Poland. On September 10th, I was in town looking for food out back of a restaurant when I heard a bunch of kids, saw them running down the street, screaming into the air, “We’re going to war. There’s a war. We’re going to fight those dirty …

Next thing I knew, there was a hand on my shoulder, a man in a uniform. “Son,” he said to me, “we’re at war now, saw it comin’. I’m with the Army recruitment office just down the street. Why don’t you come with me, and we’ll get you all signed up. Three squares a day, a nice clean uniform, and you’ll get to see the world. No more living in hobo camps for you.

So, I did, I went with him, signed up. For the first time in almost a decade, things were looking up. After I signed my name on the dotted line, the sergeant handed me an army uniform, saying, “Find a place to put this on.” I ran back to the hobo camp, more excited than I’d been in I don’t know how long. There was a pond nearby the camp, I stripped off my tattered old clothes, jumped in the pond, got myself nice and wet, dried myself with my old clothes, and set about to get dressed up in my spanking new uniform. I don’t think I’d ever felt better in my whole life.”


In 1945, returning members of our armed services were more than a little excited to be returning home

My father remained a private in the army for the next six years — having a Grade 1 education, and being unable to read tends to inhibit one’s advancement — before returning home with all of the other troops in the late summer of 1945, arriving in the port of Halifax, from whence he’d set off to fight the war six years previous.

My father, Jack, had heard much about life in Vancouver from those he’d served with overseas, so chose to make his way out west to build a life for himself.

Prior to the outbreak of World War II, 83% of Canadians lived in the rural areas of Canada, mostly as members of farming families, leaving only 17% of the population to reside in hub cities like Montréal, Toronto and Vancouver, with much lesser populations in the prairie cities, and provincial capitals. On the Lower Mainland, Richmond was called Lulu Island, and was largely a farming community, as was the case in what we now call the suburbs: Coquitlam, Surrey, and Maple Ridge,

Almost overnight after the war ended, the rural-urban mix in Canada was reversed.


Berlin, post WWII: Statisticians calculated for every inhabitant there was 30 cubic metres of rubble

Following the end of the conflict overseas, with the industrial heartland of Germany, not to mention a great swath of Europe, and the production capitals of Japan leveled by the ravages of war, North America soon became the industrial heartland, and the bread basket, for the world. There were jobs aplenty across the North American landscape, as the U.S. & Canada became industrial powerhouses.

Most soldiers arriving home from Europe, rather than choosing to return to the farming communities from whence they had come prior to the outbreak of the conflicts in Europe and Japan, moved to the cities to make their fortune, many of them choosing to marry. Thus began the much vaunted baby boom, of which this writer is a member, born in 1950, and modern society as we still know it today.

Prior to the 1930s, most rural towns and cities across North America had within their midst indigent, homeless populations, but these were folks who were generally well known in their communities, boys who became men, men who’d lost their way and turned to alcohol to numb their pain. The homeless in these towns, and even in our cities, were well cared for by their contemporaries, who’d gone to school with these men many years prior, knew them from the time they were boys.

In every society throughout history, dating back centuries, there has always been 4% of the population who find themselves locked out of conventional society, women and men alone and without resources, perhaps suffering from some mental health disability, mostly uneducated, alone, without family or resources, and as conventional society would state, without the “spunk” that would help them to lead productive lives of meaning, to be  part of the conventional work-a-day world.


The Raymur Housing Project, just south of Raymur and East Hastings — social housing in Vancouver.

In the 1950s, in perhaps a more empathetic time, when we actually cared for one another, provincial government social planners spanning the nation, in concert with their federal government counterparts, set about to house the homeless by creating “urban social housing complexes” to house the provinces’ poorest citizens, who would be brought to the city. In doing so, Canadian provinces adopted the multiple family dwelling, or “apartment”, model as the housing form to shelter the indigent population. In U.S. cities like Detroit, we are much more apt to call these “urban social housing complexes” by a more colloquial name: ghettos.


The Regent Park social housing community in Toronto, which expanded from the south Cabbagetown community in the Toronto of the 1930s, long one of the city’s worst slums, targeted by Toronto city planners for a grand urban renewal in the 1950s and 60s, which became known as Regent Park South.

As above, in Vancouver, the new community to house the poor was named The Raymur Project, where residents from across British Columbia were brought to Vancouver to live in the newly-conceived urban social housing complex.

Such projects, whether in Canada or the United States — in Toronto, Vancouver, Chicago, and New Orleans — proved abject, crime-ridden encampment failures.

Still and all, the homeless were off the streets, with a roof over their heads, pretty much hidden away from the eyes of conventional society, a forgotten population most people didn’t want to see, acknowledge or engage with on any level.

And so it remained through until the early 1980s, as we wrote on Tuesday.


An interview with Premier-in-Waiting David Eby, conducted by CBC Early Edition host, Stephen Quinn

Thus far on VanRamblings’ four-part series on homelessness + housing, we’ve tracked the history of homelessness in B.C., from the 1930s forward until now.

We have touched on a modular housing model as a temporary “fix” for our current homeless crisis, and suggested that homelessness is a national issue of critical importance that requires the intervention of the federal government, working with the provinces, to address the ongoing issue of human misery on our streets.

In the interview with Premier-in-Waiting, David Eby, Stephen Quinn holds Mr. Eby’s feet to the fire, questioning him on the resolution to homelessness in our city and province. Mr. Eby is forthcoming about what he feels is necessary: build social housing, lots of it, transitioning our homeless / barely housed population out of sub-standard, one room single occupancy resident accommodation, or temporary shelters, into livable, one-bedroom furnished apartments — with a bed, kitchen, bathroom and living room, TV, internet and all the amenities — this housing to be located in every neighbourhood across our city, what yesterday we referred to yesterday as the “Finnish model” in Wednesday’s VanRamblings’ column.

On the day VanRamblings attended David Eby’s campaign launch to become British Columbia’s 37th Premier, the event held at the Kitsilano Neighbourhood House —where Mr. Eby gave one of the best, most moving and humane political speeches we’ve ever heard  — we wondered how Mr. Eby was going to position himself in order that he might retain power when the next B.C. election is called.

In 1996, BC New Democratic Pary leader Glen Clark positioned himself as a working man, a boy who grew up on the east side of Vancouver, who had fought all his life for better for all of us. A working class hero. Mr. Eby, whose father practiced law in Ontario as a partner in a prestigious law firm, and whose mother was a school principal could hardly pull off the Glen Clark’s “pulled myself up with my bootstraps” man of the people working class hero approach. What then for Mr. Eby?

“ICBC is dumpster fire.” “Money laundering in B.C. is artificially inflating housing prices.” “B.C. car insurance rates are too high … we’ll convert to no fault insurance, lower insurance rates, and provide a $400 rebate cheque to all B.C. motorists.”


David Eby, British Columbia’s Premier-in-Waiting Man of Action, ready to fix B.C. homelessness crisis

VanRamblings believes that British Columbia’s new “man of action” Premier, 45 years-young David Robert Patrick Eby will upon assuming the office of Premier of British Columbia declare a homelessness crisis emergency in our city and province.


220 Terminal Avenue, the first temporary modular housing building constructed on City-owned land

In declaring a homelessness crisis emergency Mr. Eby will, as a temporary measure, order the construction of 1500 units of modular housing, to be built on city and provincial Crown land with all possible haste, on suitable sites across Vancouver, those modular housing sites to be occupied no later than the autumn of 2023.

Premier Eby will then appoint a Commission with the mandate of reforming the multi-billion service model that allegedly provides succour to those resident on the DTES, “a broken system,” Mr. Eby has said, that ill serves those in need.


A tent encampment at Vancouver’s CRAB Park, which has maintained for two years. (Ben Nelms/CBC)

As a next order of business, VanRamblings believes that a Premier Eby will expedite the construction of social and affordable housing on city-owned (Vancouver is a creature of the provincial government), provincial Crown land, and in a co-operative agreement, on federally-owned Crown land, on a 66-or-99 year leasehold basis, ordering that the city of Vancouver will charge no development permit, or related fees, and that the approval process for construction of the social and affordable housing will occur sans City Hall red tape, and any measure of undue delay or intransigence on the part of the Planning, Urban Design and Development Services Department, lest the office of the Premier assume full responsibility for every aspect of the approval and construction of this necessary new housing.