Tag Archives: vote vancouver

#VanPoli | Vancouver Needs a Ward System: Democracy Begins Where People Live

#VanElxn 2026, #VanPoli Civic Politics, Park Board, Politics, Vancouver, Vancouver Liberals, Vancouver Votes 2026, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Vancouver Liberals Mayoral candidate Kareem Allam’s proposal to place a plebiscite before voters in the 2030 Vancouver municipal election asking voters / Vancouver residents — should he become Mayor on October 17 2026 — whether they would like to see the adoption of a “ward” system / that is, elect a Councillor to represent their neighbourhood or geographic area, rather than electing 10 City Councillors at-large, deserves more than a passing mention in the 2026 Vancouver municipal campaign.

This issue goes to the heart of what democracy at the municipal level is supposed to accomplish: Is a Councillor primarily accountable to an entire city, or should there be a Councillor whose first responsibility is to the people and neighbourhoods of a particular part of that city?


Kareem Allam, the Vancouver Liberals’ Mayoral candidate, has proposed establishing a Citizens’ Assembly to examine the adoption of a ward system in Vancouver.

The assembly would make recommendations and develop the question that could go before voters in 2030, with a ward system potentially taking effect for the 2034 civic election. The Vancouver Liberals say the present at-large system makes campaigns expensive and can leave neighbourhoods without direct representation.

Wards / geographic neighbourhood representation is an idea whose time has come.

Vancouver Needs a Ward System: Democracy Begins Where People Live

Vancouver is an extraordinary city, but electing City Councillors at-large is an anachronism.

Today, Vancouverites elect the Mayor and 10 Councillors at-large.

Every voter can vote for every Councillor, and every Councillor is theoretically responsible for every resident of the city.

On paper, that sounds wonderfully democratic.

In practice, it can mean the opposite.

When everyone represents everyone, no one necessarily represents you.

That is the fundamental weakness of Vancouver’s at-large electoral system.

Imagine a resident in Killarney confronting a serious neighbourhood issue: a proposed development, traffic problems, inadequate pedestrian infrastructure, a community facility under threat or a local planning decision. Under the current system, that resident has 10 Councillors to whom she or he can appeal — and, paradoxically, no single Councillor whose political job is to be that neighbourhood’s representative.

Under a ward system, there would be one.

That distinction matters.

A Councillor Who Knows, Lives In and Cares About Your Neighbourhood

In the heart of the city, Vancouver’s Mount Pleasant neighbourhood, looking north towards the mountains

Consider what happens in federal and provincial politics.

If you have a problem with a federal matter, you know who your Member of Parliament is.

If you have a provincial concern, you know who your MLA is.

You may not agree with that person politically. You may never have voted for them. But you know that person is your representative.

There is a geographical relationship between citizen and elected official.

Municipal government should work the same way.

A Councillor representing, for example, a ward encompassing Hastings-Sunrise and Renfrew-Collingwood would have an obvious political responsibility to understand those communities: their transportation problems, housing pressures, parks, schools, businesses, community centres, development proposals and neighbourhood concerns.

That Councillor could hold regular constituency meetings, maintain an office, attend community-association meetings and become known to the people who live there.

Most importantly, residents would know exactly who to call.

That is accountability.

Vancouver is The Outlier: Every Other Major City in Canada Has Wards

Located in the NE part of Vancouver, the Killarney neighbourhood where ABC Councillor Mike Klassen grew up

The argument for a ward system is strengthened by looking beyond Vancouver.

Toronto elects 25 ward Councillors, with the Mayor elected city-wide.

Edmonton has 12 wards and one Councillor per ward. Winnipeg has 15 wards, again with one Councillor representing each. Ottawa has 24 wards, with one Councillor elected from each and the Mayor elected at-large.

These are not small communities experimenting with an untested democratic theory. They are some of Canada’s largest municipalities.

And the principle is straightforward: the Mayor represents the entire city; Councillors represent both their communities and the city as a whole.

That is precisely the model Vancouver should consider.

It is worth correcting one point, however. It would be inaccurate to say that British Columbia is literally the only Canadian province in which large municipalities lack ward systems. Canadian provincial legislation permits different electoral arrangements, and some municipalities outside B.C. also use at-large or hybrid systems.

But Vancouver is unquestionably unusual among Canada’s major cities in continuing to elect its entire Council at-large.

And there is no compelling reason why Vancouver should remain an exception.

The At-large Election System Favours The City-Wide Political Machine

The almost always sunny Vancouver Point Grey neighbourhood, located in the western part of the city

There is another argument for wards that should not be ignored: money.

Running for one of 10 city-wide Council positions is enormously different from campaigning in a defined geographical constituency.

An at-large candidate must communicate with hundreds of thousands of voters across Vancouver. That requires money, organization, name recognition, volunteers and often the support of a political party or electoral slate.

A ward campaign would be different.

A candidate could concentrate on 50,000 or 60,000 residents rather than the entire city.

That opens the door to people who do not have the financial resources, political connections or city-wide name recognition required to mount an effective at-large campaign.

It could make civic politics more accessible to community activists, small-business owners, renters, neighbourhood advocates, younger candidates and people who have spent years working in their communities but have never contemplated a city-wide campaign.

In that respect, wards could actually democratize Vancouver politics.

Every Vancouver Councillor Must Have a Neighbourhood Constituency

Vancouver’s east side Grandview-Woodland neighbourhood, home to a thriving retail Commercial Drive

Critics of ward systems argue that Councillors should think about the entire city.

Of course they should.

A ward Councillor would still vote on the city budget, transportation policy, housing, policing, parks, taxation, climate policy and every other issue before Council.

But representing a ward does not mean abandoning the city.

It means bringing a particular community’s perspective into the debate.

Indeed, a Council composed of geographically accountable representatives could arguably produce better city-wide decisions, because Councillors would arrive at the table with a deeper understanding of the communities affected by those decisions.

Vancouver is not one homogeneous city.

The concerns of Downtown are not identical to those of Kerrisdale.

Killarney is not Kitsilano.

Marpole is not Mount Pleasant.

Renfrew-Collingwood is not the West End.

That diversity should be reflected in the composition of City Council.

Elect a Mayor At-Large + 10 Councillors Representing Wards Makes Sense

Osler Street in the Shaughnessy neighbourhood, Vancouver’s richest and most well-heeled neighbourhood

Kareem Allam has not proposed simply drawing 10 arbitrary lines across Vancouver. His proposal is to establish a Citizens’ Assembly that would examine the question and make recommendations.

That is precisely the right approach.

The neighbourhood groupings suggested for discussion provide a starting point:

  • Hastings-Sunrise / Renfrew-Collingwood
  • Grandview-Woodland / Kensington-Cedar Cottage
  • Riley Park / Mount Pleasant
  • Chinatown / Strathcona / Downtown / West End
  • Fairview / Kitsilano
  • Point Grey / Dunbar-Southlands
  • Arbutus Ridge / Shaughnessy
  • South Cambie / Oakridge
  • Kerrisdale / Marpole
  • Sunset / Victoria-Fraserview / Killarney

These should not be treated as predetermined boundaries. Population equality, communities of interest, natural boundaries, transportation patterns, neighbourhood identities and future population growth would all have to be considered.

Toronto’s ward-boundary process, for example, explicitly considered population equality, communities of interest, neighbourhoods, history and physical or natural features.

That is precisely the kind of independent, evidence-based process Vancouver needs.

Creating a Citizens’ Assembly is Critical to Adopting a Ward System

Vancouver’s West End neighbourhood, incorporating towers, tennis courts, English Bay and Stanley Park

The beauty of Kareem Allam’s proposal is that he is not saying: Elect me and I will impose 10 wards.

He is saying: let Vancouverites study the question first.

That distinction matters.

A Citizens’ Assembly could hear from constitutional and municipal-government experts, community associations, Indigenous representatives, political scientists, former Councillors, election administrators and ordinary residents.

It could examine ward sizes, boundaries, the number of Councillors, campaign financing, representation of renters and homeowners, population growth and whether a hybrid system might work better than a pure ward system.

Then, in 2030, Vancouverites could decide.

That gives the proposal democratic legitimacy.

Electing  Vancouver’s Mayor Through The At-Large System Should Remain

Vancouver’s welcoming, family friendly east side Riley Park neighbourhood, bounded by 16th Avenue to the north, 41st Avenue to the south, Cambie Street to the west, and Fraser Street to the east

There is a strong argument for retaining a city-wide Mayor.

The Mayor is the one elected official whose mandate should encompass the entire city.

The Councillor’s job is different.

The Mayor should speak for Vancouver.

The Councillor should speak for Vancouver, and for their respective neighbourhoods.

That creates a healthy balance between city-wide leadership and local accountability.

It is already the model used in Edmonton and Ottawa, among other cities. Edmonton explicitly describes its system this way: the Mayor is elected by all Edmontonians, while Councillors are elected by voters in their individual wards.

Why shouldn’t Vancouver do the same?

Changing the Vancouver Charter: The Province Can Accommodate Wards

Vancouver’s east side Victoria-Fraserview neighbourhood, current home to ABC Councillor Mike Klassen and the love of his life, Stacey, Mike’s lovely bride, who together celebrated 28 years of marriage in July

There is an important misconception about this debate.

The Vancouver Charter already contemplates Councillors being elected on a neighbourhood-constituency basis.

Section 138 currently provides that Councillors are elected at-large unless Council adopts a by-law establishing neighbourhood constituencies. Such a by-law must receive approval from the Lieutenant Governor in Council before it can take effect.

In other words, the idea of geographically based representation is not foreign to Vancouver’s governing legislation.

The Province ultimately has the authority to approve the change.

The Vancouver Charter is provincial legislation, and the Province describes it as the statute that governs Vancouver’s structure, elections and principal municipal powers.

So, Kareem Allam’s proposal would ultimately require co-operation between Vancouver and Victoria.

That is entirely appropriate.

A Better, More Representative Democracy in Vancouver is Worth Pursuing

Dunbar, one of Vancouver’s oldest west side neighbourhoods, adjacent to the University of British Columbia

There is no electoral system that guarantees perfect representation.

Ward Councillors can become overly parochial. They can favour their own neighbourhood at the expense of the wider city. Boundary-drawing can become contentious. Population changes can make wards unequal unless boundaries are periodically reviewed.

These are arguments for designing a good ward system — not preserving a flawed one.

Toronto has undertaken independent ward reviews specifically because population growth can make some wards substantially larger than others.

Vancouver can learn from Toronto, Ottawa, Edmonton, Winnipeg and other municipalities.

The central question is remarkably simple:

When a Vancouver resident has a problem with City Hall, a citizen should be able to look at a map, identify their Councillor and say, “That’s my representative”?

The Sunset and Marpole neighbourhoods of Vancouver, the Sunset neighbourhood home to Vancouver’s thriving Indo-Canadian population, Marpole bounded by the Fraser River, British Columbia’s longest river, to the south

The answer should be yes.

For too long, Vancouver has treated city-wide elections as synonymous with democracy.

But democracy is not merely the ability to vote for 10 Councillors.

Democracy is also representation, accessibility, accountability and proximity.

A ward system would bring City Hall closer to the people it serves.

It would give neighbourhoods a recognizable voice.

It could lower the barriers to entering municipal politics.

It could make Councillors more accountable to their constituents.

And it could ensure when a resident knocks on the door of City Hall, there is a Councillor whose political responsibility begins with the community where s/he lives.

Kareem Allam is right to put the question on the table.

The final decision should not belong to Kareem Allam, COPE, OneCity, ABC, TEAM, Vote Vancouver, the Greens, the Vancouver Liberals or any other political organization.

The decision on whether to adopt a ward system must belong to Vancouver’s citizens.

Let the Citizens’ Assembly do its work. Let the experts and residents debate the alternatives. Draw fair and transparent boundaries. And then let Vancouverites vote.

If, in 2030, the people of Vancouver decide that they want Councillors who actually represent where they live, then the 2034 election should mark the beginning of a new era in Vancouver democracy.

The city should elect its Mayor at-large. But those of us who live in one of Vancouver’s 23 neighbourhoods deserve Councillors of our own to represent our voices at City Hall.

Ken Sim’s $550,000 Question: Is Vancouver’s Public-Safety Plebiscite Really About Governing?

#VanElxn 2026, #VanPoli Civic Politics, BC Politics, News, Politics, Vancouver, Vancouver Votes 2026, , , , , , , ,

There are few issues more important to Vancouver than public safety, open-air drug use and the city’s increasingly desperate struggle to respond to addiction and severe mental illness.

That is precisely why Mayor Ken Sim and his ABC Vancouver majority on City Council should be held to a higher standard than the one they have set for themselves in putting two non-binding plebiscite questions on the October 17 municipal election ballot.

The questions concern matters on which every Vancouverite has an opinion.

Plebiscite Questions

  • Open-Air Drug Use: Asks voters if they support the city strengthening its laws and bylaws to forbid open-air hard drug use (such as fentanyl, crack, meth, and heroin) in public spaces.
  • Involuntary Care Beds: Asks voters if Vancouver should formally request that the provincial government provide over 100 voluntary and involuntary mental health and addiction treatment beds within the city, specifically referencing the St. Paul’s Hospital site

The first asks whether voters support strengthening the city’s laws and bylaws to forbid open-air use of hard drugs — including fentanyl, crack, methamphetamine and heroin — in public spaces.

The second asks whether Vancouver should formally request that the provincial government establish a secure medical facility with more than 100 voluntary and involuntary mental-health and addiction treatment beds, potentially at portions of the former St. Paul’s Hospital site.

The questions passed during the emergency Council meeting held this past Thursday, August 13th, occurred amidst heated opposition.

Councillors Pete Fry (the Greens) and Sean Orr (COPE) walked out of the impromptu Council meeting in protest, while Lucy Maloney (OneCity Vancouver) remained in chambers and voted no.

Why, after nearly four years in office, does Mayor Ken Sim and his ABC Vancouver majority need a $400,000-to-$550,000 election-day plebiscite, roughly 4% to 6% the municipal election budget?

That is the question voters should be asking.

What Vancouver’s 2026 Mayoral Candidates Have to Say

The Mayoral candidates have exposed the political calculation differently.

Kareem Allam, the Vancouver Liberals candidate and Sim’s former chief of staff, has been particularly blunt. Allam argues that residents do not need another survey; they need a city government that actually acts. His central criticism is that Sim is spending public money asking permission to do things City Council can already pursue and that the Mayor can already raise directly with Premier David Eby.

Kareem Allam rejected Ken Sim’s public-safety plebiscite outright, calling it political theatre rather than a solution to Vancouver’s public safety issues.

Allam’s argument: Vancouverites do not need another survey about public safety.

“The people of Vancouver need a municipal government that actually delivers results. Ken Sim has had four years to address public safety and rather than conditions improving they have deteriorated.”

Allam also sees the plebiscite as a distraction from ABC’s record, describing Sim’s 2026 campaign as effectively “campaigning against his 2022 campaign.” Allam also questioned the wisdom of holding a referendum on matters that extend beyond the city’s jurisdiction and mandate, his most pointed criticism that …

“The Mayor’s job is about governing not campaigning: if Sim believes open-air drug use must be prohibited and Vancouver needs substantially more treatment capacity, the Mayor should use the powers and political relationships he already possesses rather than spend hundreds of thousands of dollars asking voters a non-binding question.”

Allam: “Residents don’t need another survey. They need a city that works.”

That is a devastating criticism precisely because it comes from someone who knows how Sim’s administration operates.

In a statement released following the plebiscite vote, COPE Mayoral candidate Stephanie Allen suggested there is public drug use …

“Because predators are being given free rein to kick people out of their homes for money for profit, abuse children, or sell poison drugs. If we want real public safety in Vancouver, we need to crack down on predators in our communities, both in the mansions and in the streets.”

Allen was sharply critical of Mayor Ken Sim and ABC Vancouver’s decision to spend as much as $550,000 putting two non-binding public-safety questions on the October 17 municipal-election ballot, characterizing it as an “expensive re-election gimmick” designed to “scapegoat the vulnerable” and distract Vancouverites from the record of the Sim administration.

Allen went on to say that …

“Ken Sim has had four years — and an overwhelming Council majority — to act on public safety, mental-health and addiction issues,” she told The Tyee. “Governments should address poverty and the mental-health and addictions crisis directly, while also drawing attention to less visible forms of violence, including gender-based violence,” describing public safety as a political “football” that can obscure the deeper social problems producing street disorder.

Allen isn’t arguing that Vancouver should simply tolerate open-air drug use.

Rather, she is challenging ABC’s method and motives.

Allen’s position is essentially: if ABC believes these measures are necessary, why hasn’t it acted during the four years it has controlled City Hall?

Pete Fry, the Green Party candidate and one of the Councillors who walked out of the emergency meeting in protest, has likewise challenged ABC’s approach to public safety. Fry’s broader position is that Vancouver’s problems require municipal leadership that combines enforcement with housing, mental-health and social services rather than reducing public safety to policing alone.

Fry’s objection is not to safer streets; it is to the false choice ABC presents between public safety and more comprehensive solutions.

Colleen Hardwick, a Mayoral candidate for TEAM for a Livable Vancouver, strongly opposes Mayor Ken Sim’s proposed public safety plebiscite, dismissing it as a costly political stunt and an expensive re-election gimmick.

Key Stances from Colleen Hardwick

  • Waste of Public Funds: Hardwick criticized the plebiscite — which is estimated to cost about half a million dollars — as an unnecessary distraction.
  • Ineffective Leadership: She stated that Sim and his ABC Vancouver majority had four years to address the addictions and public safety crisis but failed to deliver meaningful solutions.
  • Recovery-Oriented Approach: Instead of short-term political theatre regarding open-air drug use, Hardwick advocates for serious, lasting solutions focused on recovery and livability.
  • Council Authority: Echoing broader criticisms following the approval of the Vancouver public safety plebiscite, opponents note that the city already has the authority to adjust bylaws and address these issues without spending public money on a non-binding ballot question.

Colleen Hardwick, running again for TEAM for a Livable Vancouver, brings a different critique. Hardwick has repeatedly argued that municipalities must concentrate on their actual jurisdiction and that politicians should resist simplistic answers to complicated problems. As she has observed in discussing the Downtown Eastside and public safety, politicians can exploit fear and anger because frightened voters turn out. Her warning is especially relevant here: complex problems cannot be solved by slogans.

Rebecca Bligh, running for Mayor with Vote Vancouver after being expelled from the ABC caucus, has emphasized that public safety must extend beyond a purely reactive police response. She argues for embedded health services, supportive housing and less bureaucratic access to addiction and mental-health care. Her position is particularly significant because she once sat inside Sim’s governing coalition and now offers an alternative to its approach.

“If Ken Sim wanted to do something about improving public safety, he could have done so as Mayor, Police Chair, and head of a majority Council. Instead, Vancouver has suffered a failure of leadership. Ken Sim has joined successive mayors and councils in doing too little for too long.

In case Ken Sim doesn’t know: strengthening the City’s laws is literally the Mayor’s job. A plebiscite to ‘strengthen the City of Vancouver’s laws’ to tackle open air drug use is pure political theatre – he’s making grand claims that he can’t execute and playing politics with people’s lives as a stunt.”

And William Azaroff, the OneCity Vancouver Mayoral candidate, has positioned himself as part of a broader progressive challenge to Sim, emphasizing housing, community and social supports rather than the punitive politics that ABC has increasingly embraced.

OneCity’s approach rejects the notion that public safety can be separated from homelessness, poverty, housing and access to treatment.

None of these candidates is proposing that Vancouver simply tolerate dangerous public behaviour.

That is the straw man ABC needs voters to believe.

The City of Vancouver Deserves Governing, Not Campaigning

There is a legitimate public-safety crisis in Vancouver. Pretending otherwise would be irresponsible.

But exploiting that crisis politically is equally irresponsible.

If Ken Sim believes public drug use should be prohibited, he should tell Vancouverites exactly how he intends to do it.

If he believes Vancouver needs 100-plus involuntary treatment beds, he should sit down with the premier and negotiate the agreement.

If he believes the old St. Paul’s site is appropriate, he should explain how a property already sold for redevelopment would be made available.

And if he believes these matters are urgent, he should have been doing all of this during the past four years — not two months before an election.

The $550,000 plebiscite is not the solution to Vancouver’s public-safety crisis.

It is a symptom of a government that has discovered, very late in its mandate, that asking voters whether they want something is considerably easier than actually delivering it.

Vancouverites deserve safer streets. They deserve treatment beds. They deserve a serious response to addiction and mental illness.

Most of all, they deserve a government capable of governing.

A Question Without A Policy: Ken Sim Doesn’t Know What He’s Doing

The first question asked in the plebiscite is perhaps the most revealing.

Voters are being asked whether they want Vancouver to “strengthen its laws” to prohibit public consumption of hard drugs.

But which laws?

When asked what specific bylaws ABC intends to change, Sim reportedly could not provide an answer. His response was essentially that the city would look at the laws after the plebiscite.

That turns democratic consultation upside down.

Normally, government proposes a policy, explains what it will do, tells citizens what it will cost and then asks elected representatives — or voters — to approve it.

Here, ABC is asking voters to approve a concept without telling them precisely what the concept means.

Worse, open-air drug consumption is not simply a municipal-policy vacuum waiting for Ken Sim to fill. Criminal law, prosecution, health care and much of the regulation of controlled substances lie with the federal and provincial governments. The province’s three-year decriminalization experiment has already ended, and small-quantity possession is once again illegal.

If the Mayor believes Vancouver needs stronger municipal enforcement against public drug use, he has had four years to bring forward a concrete bylaw.

For four years Mayor Ken Sim has enjoyed a bullet-proof Council majority.

As a Mayor with a Council majority, Sim has the authority to propose legislation.

What exactly has prevented him from acting?

On October 17th, voters will have the opportunity to decide whether Ken Sim and his team of  ABC Vancouver City Councillors have done their job.

Two non-binding questions costing half a million dollars should not be allowed to substitute for the answer.

#VanPoli | Lakewood Terrace Housing Co-op 2026 Mayoral Debate

#VanElxn 2026, #VanPoli Civic Politics, Housing, Politics, Vancouver, Vancouver Liberals, Vancouver Votes 2026, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

L-R, 2026 Vancouver Mayoral candidates: Colleen Hardwick, TEAM for a Livable Vancouver; Rebecca Bligh, Vote Vancouver; William Azaroff, OneCity Vancouver; Stephanie Allen (standing), The Coalition of Vancouver Electors (COPE); Kareem Allam, Vancouver Liberals; Pete Fry, Green Party of Vancouver.

On Saturday, July 25th, Lakewood Terrace Housing Co-op held a Mayoral Debate.

The main issue before those gathered in the Co-op’s Common Room: housing.

An overflow crowd of Vancouverites attended the July 25 Mayoral debate at Lakewood Co-op

The first speaker of the afternoon was Colleen Hardwick, representing TEAM for a Livable Vancouver, under whose banner she was unanimously endorsed as the party’s standard bearer.


Colleen Hardwick, TEAM for a Livable Vancouver

As per usual, Ms. Hardwick was heartbreakingly articulate in her presentation, with a solid command of the housing issue — a critical tenet of TEAM’s platform document and, in reality, the raison d’être of the civic party — as Ms. Hardwick argued housing co-ops represent the best answer to the provision of affordable housing in Vancouver, and across the vast land we call Canada.

Sadly, as articulate as Ms. Hardwick is on a myriad of civic issues, as we have written previously, she is an imperfect messenger for TEAM’s various policy proposals. There is about Ms. Hardwick a meanness of character, a distinct lack of joy, or as a friend said recently “an offputting sharpness that would make it difficult, if not impossible for me to cast my ballot for her as our city’s next Mayor.”

Ms. Hardwick comes into the campaign with “baggage” — not the least of the concerns expressed by many her lack of a general appreciation of the “trans issue” — which translates into a utter lack of respect (never mind support) for the too often marginalized members of the trans community, that while a central tenet of the platform of right-of-centre B.C. Conservative Party leader Kerry-Lynne Findlay, hardly seems resonant with the views of the majority population of Vancouverites who will go to the polls this October.

Transphobia. The bane of TEAM for a Livable Vancouver Mayoral candidate Colleen Hardwick’s existence, an issue likely to dog her second Mayoral bid.


Adrienne Smith, transgender human rights activist

The following is a quote by Adrienne Smith, a prominent Vancouver-based transgender human rights activist, social justice lawyer, and litigation director at the Catherine White Holman Wellness Clinic.

“The chair of the City’s own LGBTQ advisory committee was asked in open Council by Councillor Hardwick, after their submission, what their sex assignment was at birth. This is an incredibly invasive, inappropriate question. I’m going to give Councillor. Hardwick the benefit of the doubt that she learned something, but I’m still angry about that specific question.”

“Certainly, she’s had time to familiarize herself with some of the elements of contemporary transphobia and focusing on people’s sex assignment. Asking the Chair of the LGBTQ advisory committee about their surgical status, interrogating whether their gender identity is valid, is a central feature of transphobia.”


Andrea Reimer, former Vancouver City Councillor

Anti-reconciliation acknowledgment commentary by Colleen Hardwick.

Andrea Reimer, who sat on Council from 2008 to 2018 with Vision Vancouver, tweeted that her heart hurts and her head is angry over Councillor Colleen Hardwick’s vote against receiving a City report written by Katelyn Crabtree, the City’s Manager of Indigenous relations, and a specialist in Indigenous law.

“In 9 years of purposeful work in reconciliation, we achieved 100% unanimous votes on every single item brought forward,” Reimer says. “There was a lot of tough work — all of it involved land and money, because that’s what colonialism is all about.”

Councillor Hardwick also voted against City Manager Sadhu Johnston’s recommendation that Council direct staff to include in its Reconciliation Report an analysis of the status of  Vancouver’s reconciliation commitments — as well as recommendations for building on these commitments, as Ms. Hardwick openly questioned whether it is appropriate for the local level of government to “spend taxpayers’ money on reconciliation,” or if the issue  is the responsibility of senior levels of government. Ms. Hardwick also expressed her opposition to Council opening their meetings with a reconciliation acknowledgement, as recommended by Murray Sinclair, the author of the 2015 Truth and Reconciliation Report.

Rebecca Bligh, Vote Vancouver, and William Azaroff, OneCity Vancouver

   
Vote Vancouver’s Rebecca Bligh; and OneCity Vancouver’s Mayoral candidate William Azaroff

We are combining both Vote Vancouver  Mayoral candidate and sitting Vancouver City Councillor Rebecca Bligh, and OneCity Vancouver Mayoral candidate William Azaroff together given their polling numbers, at present, are in the basement, and the likelihood that either Mayoral candidate ascending to the Mayor’s office would seem remote, at best.

Rebecca Bligh. We are befuddled that the two term Vancouver City Councillor — and recent President of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which represents the interests of Canadian cities vis-a-vis the federal government — is polling at a mere 0.5%. Wrenchingly articulate on the issue of housing during the course of the debate at the Lakewood Terrace Housing Co-operative Mayoral forum held on the afternoon of Saturday, July 25th, there was no Mayoral candidate addressing those gathered who argued as articulately and well for the construction of housing co-ops on City-owned / Crown land on a 99-year leasehold basis that afternoon than Councillor Bligh.

“To provide safety and truly affordable homes for struggling families who reside across all 23 of the neighbourhoods that comprise the city we all love.”

Yet, Councillor Bligh finds herself mired at dead last in support by those polled by the Pallas Data polling company. We’re confused.


Click on the link for further insight into the Pallas Data civic poll conducted on July 30, 2026

Subsequent to the meeting, as Councillor Pete Fry and VanRamblings were walking towards East Broadway and Commercial Drive, Councillor Fry wondered aloud as to why Councillor Bligh had come forward to seek the Mayor’s Chair, when from all reports she is polling terribly, and the chance that she might be Vancouver’s next Mayor would seem, at best, remote if not an impossibility, the two of us agreeing that in putting her name forward as a Mayoral candidate, Ms. Bligh was simply “bowing out of politics with grace.”

William Azaroff. OneCity Vancouver’s Mayoral candidate, endorsed by the Vancouver & District Labour Council, given his fiscal history working for the Vancity Credit Union, and since 2019, the CEO of Brightside Homes, a non-profit which builds affordable housing, Mr. Azaroff would seem to be a first-rate candidate for Vancouver Mayor. Not so, according to the Pallas Data polling company, and certainly not so if the response he received from those gathered for the forum on that Saturday afternoon is any indication.

Mr. Azaroff was hardly afforded an opportunity to speak, as each time he opened his mouth, he was heckled by one or another member of the audience, who questioned him as to why Brightside Homes so readily evicted their tenants on the thinnest possible evidence, and why Brightside — given so many of the tenants are vulnerable seniors — made it near impossible for residents to install air conditioners to mitigate the effects of Vancouver’s hot weather.

On a side note, if there is one candidate running for Mayor in 2026 that a surfeit of members of COPE, the Coalition of Progressive Electors are vehemently opposed, it would be the poor, woebegone Mr. Azaroff.

Polling at 2.3% — yep, seems just about right.

COPE, the Coalition of Progressive Elector’s Mayoral candidate Stephanie Allen (standing)

Quite simply, Stephanie Allen (standing, addressing the audience) walked away with the debate on that somewhat chilly, overcast Saturday afternoon, by far the most dynamic and engaging speaker of the afternoon, a charismatic presence at the front of the room, and the long sought saviour of COPE — the too often confused Coalition of Progressive Electors  …

A personal aside: Just what the hell is COPE Councillor Sean Orr doing when he floats the idea of bringing back the Villages Plan in the next term of Council … whose side is he on, anyway? … developers, or the community who spoke up so vehemently against the developer-initiated Villages Plan designed to enrich themselves at the expense of those of us who live in one of the 14 Vancouver neighbourhoods designated as “density friendly”, Councillor Orr seemingly ignoring the wishes of the hundreds of folks, the Vancouver residents who turned up to address Council on why the Villages Plan constituted non-consultative, top down, autocratic city planning, that utterly failed to take into consideration the wishes of the residents who have long called these neighbourhoods home, where we raise our families …

We don’t mean to be unduly harsh in our criticism of COPE Councillor Sean Orr, who has stepped up to the plate, put in the hours, making himself available to the public in every neighbourhood across our city after being elected as the top candidate voters cast a ballot for in the April 5, 2025 by-election, securing 34,448 votes, the highest among all the candidates running for Vancouver City Council.

Not to mention, the utter ugliness of the allegation made by Mayor Ken Sim about Councillor Orr, that Mr. Orr had distributed illegal drugs on the DTES over the December 2025 holiday season, an utterly specious and unfounded allegation, given that in reality Councillor Orr was visiting friends and family on the Sunshine Coast when he, according to Mayor Sim, allegedly was distributing drugs. Having spoken with Councillor Orr about the matter, we are quite aware that Sean was emotionally devastated by the allegation made by Mayor Sim, that sought to damage Mr. Orr’s hard earned reputation for integrity.

All said, thank goodness that COPE Mayoral candidate Stephanie Allen is the most knowledgeable Mayoral candidate on the issue of affordable housing, given her past role as the respected Vice President of BC Housing, who brings herself forward as the democratic socialist candidate in the 2026 Vancouver civic election, with a strong a commitment to the democratic participation of Vancouver residents on the issues that dominate their lives, and her long held belief that democratic socialism is the only true cure for the ills that impact the alienated and disenfranchised majority population of Vancouver, who for so long have been locked out of decision-making at Vancouver City Hall, as one autocratic civic administration after another assumed power at City Hall.

Make no mistake, a Stephanie Allen-led City — ably aided by Shawn Vulliez, who we expect would be her outstanding Chief of Staff — is committed to the democratic participation of the residents of Vancouver on the decisions taken at Vancouver City Hall that impact their lives, no autocrat she, but rather a democrat, and a democratic socialist of the first order.


Kareem Allam, Vancouver Liberals Mayoral candidate

Kareem Allam, Vancouver Liberals.

In a word, tepid.

One of the worst presentations by a candidate for office that we’ve witnessed over the course of our lifetime. When members of the audience repeatedly demanded that Mr. Allam “speak up, we can’t hear you,” you know there’s trouble in his candidacy for Mayor that must be addressed before the current Vancouver municipal election truly gets underway next month.

The above said, although to some extent for us “the bloom is off the rose” in respect of Mr. Allam’s Mayoral candidacy, our continuing and heartfelt belief that Kareem Allam would make the best Mayor of Vancouver the residents of our city would experience in a generation, as the only action-oriented candidate for Mayor who has a plan of action for change that will transform civic governance which truly represents the interests of all of us who call Vancouver home, both Kareem Allam and Stephanie Allen have our full-throated support as the two of them fight tooth and nail to become Vancouver’s next Mayor.

Mr. Allam has to recognize he’s the candidate, not a behind-the-scenes campaign manager, who must up his game if he is to become Vancouver Mayor.

At one point in the afternoon, Kareem mentioned — in passing, while addressing those gathered at the Lakewood Terrace Co-op — that he was the only Mayoral candidate who “grew up living in a housing co-operative”, after which he let his statement lie dormant, seemingly without meaning, as he addressed a crowd consisting mostly of housing co-op members !!! … before moving on to discuss his, for this crowd anyway, his utterly irrelevant personal family history, rather than waxing poetic on the salutary role living in a housing co-op afforded him, the sense of community imbued living in a housing co-operative, where opportunity was afforded him that might not otherwise be available to an immigrant family attempting to make a new life for themselves in Metro Vancouver.


Councillor Pete Fry, Green Party of Vancouver

Pete Fry is the status quo candidate, the avuncular and well-regarded opposition to the corrupt ABC Vancouver civic administration that has ruled Vancouver for the past four interminable years, under the unsteady thumb of an often too absent Mayor Ken Sim.

Were Pete to become Mayor — mark my words, we’d soon be referring to him as Mayor Pete — there is little doubt he’d bring back the Renter’s Office, and in time would re-instate the Livable Wage Programme at Vancouver City Hall that the Sim administration jettisoned early in their term of office.

Mayor Pete wouldn’t look to get much done, rather he’d be a caretaker — a sane and caring caretaker, unlike the current incumbent — of the Mayor’s office. An upside? A Mayor Pete would be much more available to the public than any Mayor in Vancouver’s recent history, a kind of Mayoral energizer bunny, who would be everywhere in the public weal throughout the entirety of his term in office.

VanRamblings harbours a concern that Emily Lowan, the current democratic socialist leader of the Green Party of British Columbia — who has endorsed Stephanie Smith for Council, the accomplished and sophisticated ‘woman of the people’ who is running under the Green banner for the second time (we’ll be endorsing Stephanie, whose voice and presence we need on Council) — would not endorse Pete Fry in a month of Sundays.

Maybe that’s what the citizens of Vancouver want: someone they know, someone they trust who won’t upset the apple cart, but dedicate himself to taking care of the basics (garbage pick up, recycling, road  maintenance. etc.) while keeping taxes down.

Although, we’re not so sure.

Research Co. and Angus Reid have recently published polling asking  Vancouver voters what they want. The answer according to 56% of those polled: change, significant and even radical change, not the status quo.

Change is in the air.

Pete Fry, for all that he’s a good guy would not in any way, shape or form be the Mayoral candidate of change for whom a majority of Vancouver voters would seem to wish to cast their ballot as the next leader of our beloved city, come this early autumn October. Or, so it would seem this early in the 2026 campaign for Vancouver municipal office.

On Thursday, VanRamblings’ intends to publish a thoughtful, reflective column on what the three serious-minded candidates to become Vancouver’s next Mayor — that would be COPE’s Stephanie Allen, the Vancouver Liberals’ Kareem Allam, and the Green Party of Vancouver’s Pete Fry — would mean for those of us who live in Vancouver, and call our respective neighbourhoods and our city, home.