Mayor George Harvie Mayor of Delta Chair of the Board of Metro Vancouver via electronic mail mayorharvie@delta.ca

October 23, 2023

Dear Mr. Chair, We all know that we need to build more homes, and that we need to do so faster. At this particular moment in Canada, we must all do everything that we can to incentivize the construction of new homes so that we can make housing more affordable, and more attainable for all Canadians.

You and other Metro Vancouver region mayors have been excellent partners, and in fact leaders, in this pursuit to date so, I know that we are aligned in reaching this goal. Increasing Canada’s housing supply is a complicated task, and we all have different levers at our disposal in order to try and facilitate it.

At the federal level, we are first and foremost changing the financial equation for builders. That is why we recently announced a GST rebate, and an increase to the annual limit for Canada Mortgage Bonds to $60 billion, which is enabling access to financing for builders on better terms and incentivizing construction. We are also working together with municipal partners to change the way that homes are built in our communities.

This is the purpose of the federal Housing Accelerator Fund. It is a fund designed to incentivize cities to pursue zoning reform, and to expedite permitting so that more homes can be built in communities across the country, and more affordable homes can be made available to those who need them most.

Given the spirit of the Housing Accelerator Fund, and the work that the federal government is doing to change the financial equation for builders; large increases in development charges are at odds with these goals. I understand that the Metro Vancouver Board is currently considering tripling the development cost charges it levies on new developments, and that a vote on the proposal will take place at the end of this week. Significant increases to development charges have the potential deter development by offsetting the impact of other measures that reduce the cost of building.

When projects do advance, increased charges on development can lead to higher housing costs for renters and homeowners, making it more difficult to find somewhere affordable to live. – 2 – As you know, the development charges levied by Metro Vancouver would apply to all Metro Vancouver member municipalities.

Of these municipalities, several are eligible for funding under the federal government’s Housing Accelerator Fund and currently have their agreements paused while we consider the impact the increases may have on the target number of units which these cities have committed to under their agreements.

As part of their Housing Accelerator Fund applications, these cities have proposed various initiatives to help get more homes built, more quickly. In fact, some have proposed waiving their own development charges. It is difficult to discern the alignment between the proposals by some of these cities to waive their development charges, while Metro Vancouver is proposing to increase them in the same jurisdictions.

I appreciate that cities need access to funding to build out the infrastructure that the growth we are trying to incentivize will rely on. I am not suggesting that development charges, generally speaking, are unacceptable. While I also appreciate that some hold the perspective that ‘growth pays for growth,’ we will all pay for stagnation as a result of a lower pace of construction. A ‘growth pays for growth’ approach ignores the value that new development, new property tax bases, new businesses, and new neighbours bring to our communities.

I am concerned that at this particular moment in time, a drastic increase in development charges will inhibit our ability to seize the opportunity to incentivize a rapid increase in construction. In the spirit of finding a solution, I would like to collaborate on a resolution that ensures Metro Vancouver can support the infrastructure demands which growth will create, while respecting the spirit of building as many new homes as possible.

I am not insistent on any particular solution, but would expect that a number of options could be considered, including:

• Delaying the enactment of the DCC increase to allow for additional in-stream protection; and

• During the delay of the enactment of the increase, amending Metro Vancouver’s DCC waiver bylaws to facilitate meeting our shared objective of decreasing the cost of rental housing and incentivizing affordable rental housing. o Waiver bylaws could include:

Exempting purpose-built rentals from the waiver increase;

Reducing the mixed-use threshold for which the current waiver applies;

Adopting waivers for private developers who provide the development to a non-profit once complete; and/or

Extending eligibility for DCC waivers to non-market rental units that are delivered by the private sector (i.e. inclusionary units).

The mayors and councils in this region are clearly seized with doing all that they can to build more homes in their communities, and I do not doubt that Metro Vancouver espouses a similar philosophy. In fact, their actions and initiatives toward reducing overall development costs for affordable housing, and the encouragement they offer member cities to implement similar measures are a proof point that they do.

I also recognize that these – 3 – charge increases were underway prior to the GST rebate and HAF agreements, but given the changing circumstances, I think it is wise for us to ensure we remain aligned on a continued basis and to rethink the current approach for a mutual benefit in the longer-term. Metro Vancouver’s success is integral to the success of the country, and I would welcome any alternate solutions you might have.

If any of the suggestions I have proposed seem feasible to you, if you have questions about them, or if you have others that you can consider, please reach out to me via my Chief of Staff (copied) for a discussion at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely, The Honourable Sean Fraser, P.C., M.P. Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities cc. Savannah Dewolfe, Chief of Staff, savannah.dewolfe@infc.gc.ca Metro Vancouver Board Members Mayors of Metro Vancouver Municipalities Metro Vancouver Staff

I have to say, I am finding it hard to know how to give recommendations. So I’m not going to.

Instead, what I’m going to do this time around is come up with the likely way you’ll want to vote given your political persona. (Angus Reid used to do demographics-type analysis like this where they would label people as “the discouraged poor” or “affluent techies” or some such. I’ll try not to be so reductive but there has to be a certain amount of generalizing or I’ll never get anywhere)

With luck, you’ll feel an affinity for one of the descriptions here. I’ve drawn these from various conversations I’ve had privately with friends and with people on Twitter who DM’d me asking for advice, along with the general Twitter/public conversation.

So, given that intro, here goes, kinda going from left to right in the spectrum. Yes, yes, I know, left/right, there is no such thing, terrible simplistic language, blah blah. Whatever. Doing my best, kids.

1. I’m pretty committed to social justice in this city, think there is too much money going to police and not enough to real services for those in terrible need, and do not want to give any kind of full support to a neo-liberal mayor and councillors, no matter how much they claim they are progressives.

This group is voting the COPE slate, plus Sean Orr from VOTE Socialist. Some are adding in the four OneCity candidates.

For mayor, some are leaving it blank. If anyone calls the COPE team for advice, they’re told that “Kennedy Stewart has a good position on safe supply,” i.e. hold your nose and vote for him.

2. I generally vote left-progressive and I really believe the city needs to have way more housing of all kinds — a lot of subsidized housing and co-ops, but even market-rate housing. We’ve gotta make room in the city for young people like me (or like my kids). Can’t go with the COPE slate. That’s too far left for me and, anyway, they can’t win. I want to support people I think have a chance of controlling council. Plus climate change is very important to me and I want to support anyone championing this and not wringing their hands about how it’s all too undoable. 

I see people like this voting

• Stewart for mayor
• All four OneCity
• One or two from Vision Vancouver, with Lesli Boldt at the top
• Some from the Stewart Forward Together list, with Russill Wvong and Tessica Truong generally at the top, then Dulcy Anderson and maybe Alvin Singh next.
• Possibly a couple of Greens

This tweet from Charles Montgomery, the author of Happy City and someone who worked with others to develop a co-housing project in Vancouver, is representative of this group.

This is kinda the direction the firefighters union took, where they endorsed Kennedy Stewart for mayor and all the current councillors who are running, except the NPA’s Melissa De Genova. They added  Iona Bonamis with OneCity, and Devyani Singh, a candidate for the Greens to their list, for a slightly more left-leaning council than the current one.

Vancouver firefighters union endorses Kennedy Stewart for mayor

5. I can’t take the chaos at council any more and I didn’t agree with some key votes where the left-progressives got their way, especially on budgets and taxes. I want a coherent team in charge at city hall, but not anything too crazy right-wing or anti-housing, anti-homeless people. I do want a group more concerned with fiscal management, basic city services. Getting more housing of all kinds in the city is important to me. The current councillors have had a few weird votes on housing (Bligh against townhouses on Granville; Bligh against Broadway/Birch tower; Kirby-Yung and social housing 8th and Arbutus; all three against 12-storey social housing with no rezoning) but generally they’ve steered a reasonable course. Also want people to take the public disorder/crime stuff seriously but without promising necessarily immediate sweeps and clear-outs. 

This group, many of them former NPA voters but also some disenchanted Stewart + progressive slate, is voting the ABC slate and then I’m not sure what else. Some might be throwing votes to some or all of the Greens, maybe to OneCity Christine Boyle or COPE Jean Swanson just to show support for a different voice. (Though I suspect largely not. This is a disciplined group that may just vote the ABC slate and leave the rest blank.) Some may add in a bit of TEAM or NPA.

6. I want Vancouver to go back to development the way it used to be: neighbourhoods get to say what they want in the way of added density, a lot more gentle infill, keep most new development confined to the areas that are already zoned for it, NOT SO MANY TOWERS IF ANY AT ALL. I’m a homeowner dismayed by what looks like massive redevelopment of the city or a renter scared by the stories I’ve heard that my building will be torn down tomorrow because of the Broadway Plan. I’m also concerned about what seems like a breakdown in public order in the city and, even though I’m a compassionate person, I think we need a crackdown on it and more scrutiny of what’s really going on in the Downtown Eastside.

This is the group of people supporting TEAM for a Livable Vancouver. It’s a wide-ranging group, including both development-skeptical homeowners on the west side who have been NPA voters in the past and development-skeptical homeowners on the east side, many of whom vote NDP and have voted left for previous city councils. And, as I said above, scared renters. They don’t believe the housing analysts who say that allowing massive new amounts of housing in the city will bring down or moderate prices. They’re particularly concerned about the Broadway Plan, the Vancouver Plan, the Jericho Lands and Senakw developments and the Commercial/Broadway Safeway site project.

I’m not sure who else this group is supporting. If they are very concerned about crime issues, they might be throwing some of their non-TEAM slate votes to the NPA. If they’re more left and more concerned about the development issue, they might be giving those extra votes to COPE, even though COPE is diametrically opposed to TEAM positions when it comes to how to deal with the drug poisoning/public disorder/crime issues that are tangled together in people’s minds.

7. The city is a total mess. There’s out-of-control crime everywhere. The grass isn’t cut. Taxes are too high. The current council is too woke for words. Everything is falling apart. People are leaving the city. We need big change.

This group is essentially the city’s Conservative or most conservative voters, and they are sticking with the NPA, even though it has transformed itself from the much broader-spectrum party it was in the 1990s to something closer to the Conservative Party of Vancouver.

I can see people from this group also voting for some TEAM candidates.

Greens: I’m not sure what to say about the Greens to help anyone make a decision there. They tend to get elected through people committed to very different other slates giving them votes. Left-progressive types have typically supported them for their climate-change positions. More development-skeptical, more-right voters have supported them for their past opposition to housing projects that resident groups have opposed.

Still always very solid on climate-change policies. Generally supportive of more left-social-justice positions on e.g. drug poisoning. Supported the overdose-prevention site in Yaletown.

Some pundits think the Greens will be wiped out this time because they’ll lose both those constituencies. (YIMBYs are mad about housing projects they opposed; development-skeptics are made about housing projects they supported.)

After four years of watching, I feel like I still can’t understand which way they will go and am routinely startled by which ones veer which way on different housing issues. There’s always a surprise.

Adriane Carr has voted against so many housing projects in the past, but has been shifting to more support lately . She also supported the Broadway Plan and Vancouver Plan. Michael Wiebe cast a controversial and deciding vote in favour of the Broadway/Birch rental tower but then against the Broadway Plan.

Pete Fry has supported many contested housing projects and has been trying to convince Strathcona residents that having new rental built on Prior is a better option than having no new rental and seeing the existing housing stock get gentrified. But then he voted against Christine Boyle’s motion to allow non-profit housing at 12 stories everywhere with no rezoning required, saying that it could entice other charitable groups to come in and build housing in order to take the profits from it and use it for their other charity work. (Every housing advocate I know was utterly baffled by this one. Take the profits from non-profit housing that can barely break even??)

Some voters may actually like those shifting positions. Others, on both sides, may not. We’ll see on Saturday night.

Indigenous candidates: Some people are specifically trying to support Indigenous  candidates. Those include Tiyaltelut Kristen Rivers (OneCity) at park board, Chris Livingstone (COPE) at park board, Cinnamon Bhayani (NPA) at council, Breen Ouellette and Tanya Webking (COPE) at council, Matthew Norris (OneCity) at council, Jonah Gonzales for Progress Vancouver in Electoral Area A, Scott Jensen (ABC) for park board, and Leona Brown, independent, for mayor. (If I am missing anyone, please let me know ASAP.)

SCHOOL BOARD AND PARK BOARD

These seem like easier choices for everyone. I’d like to give more specific, individual recommendations but I just don’t feel that I know people well enough.

People on the left are either voting 1. COPE plus some OneCity and Vision, if they are more left 2. All Vision and OneCity with some COPE and Greens if they are more centre-left. There seems to be general agreement that Steve Cardwell, the former Vancouver school board superintendent now running for Vision, is an excellent choice.

People on the right are voting a combo of ABC, NPA, TEAM on school board, more ABC if they are more centrist.

Same for park board.

I asked on Twitter how people were working through the calculations. Got a fascinating raft of responses in my Twitter DMs. Please, this is not a reliable survey or very comprehensive and I am in no way claiming it is. I’m sharing those, with the writers’ permissions, plus some of the public comments.

Obviously, those on the left/green/progressive side struggling much more because that side did not come to an agreement on how to limit their slates (or, in one case, formation of new parties) in order to provide voters with a coherent list to vote for. I got a lot fewer answers from people voting for ABC, TEAM, NPA because, I think, they don’t feel like they have so many difficult choices to make. They are voting for their mayoral choice and their slate, with a few other votes thrown in (or maybe none, because they’re being trained to “short slate” or “plump,” as it’s called.

Here we go

Massive fish out of water over here in Dunbar where there is a sea of TEAM and Sim signs. Strongly feel that folks who were lucky enough to be able to purchase in this neighbourhood (due to generation (me) or wealth) should not get to decide who also gets to live here. We need density! Also feel climate, reconciliation should be top priorities. So I will support OneCity and Vision.

Hi Frances! To answer your question about voting, I would consider myself a socialist, and my voting plans are Kennedy Stewart for mayor (this is a strategic decision, though I honestly don’t mind his policies), and across council, park board, and school board I’ll be voting OneCity, COPE, and Vote Socialist, and where there aren’t enough choices from each I’ll vote Forward Together. It was kind of difficult to make these choices given I’d prefer more left-wing options, but with what’s available these choices eventually felt obvious to me.

I appreciate your question and as an informed voter, concerned citizen, longtime resident, homeowner, parent, want to share my process: I read thru the various candidates platforms on the city website and created a color-coded list. Ended up choosing 6-7 each for Team, One City, ABC with 1-2 each for Vision, NPA, Progress  I want change for our city and considered safety, ethics, experience, housing, advocacy, diversity in making my choices. My method was to choose by person, not party. Will be interesting to see the results of election!

 

Cont… Morgane Oger – affordable housing, drug crisis, past PAC LGBTQ School Board (9) Kirsta Sigurdson – Van DPAC, UBC prof, DTES Kyla Epstein – VPL, PAC Rory Brown – Van teacher, BCTF, BCIT Steve Cardwell – educator, superintendent Josh Zhang – safe schools, inclusivity Gavin Somers – Out In Schools, neighbourhood schools LGBTQ Victoria Jung – seismic safe schools, inclusivity Preeti Faridkot – safety, inclusivity, IT Richmond Schools Aaron Leung – mental health, public land, youth and family advisory Park Board (7) Serena Jackson – Pacific Community Resource Society, at risk youth, LGBTQ Tiyaltelut Kristen Rivers – Councillor Squamish Nation, Van City, UNDRIP Kathleen Larsen – community planning, heritage Scott Jensen – teacher/EA in DTES Marie-Claire Howard – athlete, team manager, art space advocate

Hi Frances, I’m buoyed by OneCity ‘s bright light campaign. Good energy and progressive policies. Other progressive urbanists can be found in Vision and Progress and Forward. It’s not that challenging for me. Except for mayor. I’ll vote for the incumbent hoping for a strong progressive get-it-done new council. Watch the one city music video dropped today. Refreshing politics – there’s a story. Thanks for being a great reporter and connector. Have big appreciation for your work. (Elaine Perry, with permission)

Given the chaos of at-large no-wards voting I did just vote the VDLC slate – at least they scrutinized platforms etc.

Kennedy Stewart has been Vancouver’s worst Mayor! I’ve been through Owen, Campbell, Sullivan, Robertson! I’ve never seen a leader blame everything but themselves! Born and raised in Vancouver! It’s never been this bad!

Hi Frances, re your question, I am planning to vote for Stewart along with the whole OneCity slate, some of the Forward slate, Sean Orr, some COPE, and maybe one Green (Smith). I am a bit nervous of the COPE/Green housing vote record, so can’t decide how many of each to vote. It’s a mess. Lol

Thanks for asking. I’m going with Foward & One City, hoping that Mayor Stewart will have the votes to get things done. Wish bringing in a ward system was discussed more this election. If Eby becomes the premier too we’ll have someone who has actually worked in the DTES, & coupled with a council with votes, think this may just be an opportunity for real change for the most vulnerable in the city. Here’s hoping! Keep up the good work.

4x onecity, Tesicca + Dulcy + Russil from forward, Sean Orr, Jean Swanson, Lesli Boldt. School and parks will be onecity then vs then vision. Sure! I think this set is mostly about densifying low displacement SFH neighborhoods while keeping Jean’s voice on council but not giving COPE enough votes that they start rejecting 0-displacement west side projects. Lesli and Dulcy are an attempt at strategic picks who seem like they’d get quite a few votes, Alvin would probably be more strategic than Lesli but I feel he is too cautious.

My main concern is housing. I have been convinced that exclusionary zoning is a problem and that supply is a significant driver of costs. With that in mind I’m likely going to vote for all onecity candidates, given Boyle’s voting record. I’m also going to vote for Vision candidates because of their zoning reform promises and because I’m a fan of Lesli Boldt’s previous work. I’ll also vote for Ouellette and Swanson because I believe they would pressure the others I’m voting for to put more emphasis on non profit housing and assisting the homeless. I think that leaves one council spot that I’m still undecided on. I think my last vote might be for Tesicca Truong. For mayor, I’m broadly happy with Stewart. I generally think he did a good job despite significant opposition/challenges in council. I’m open to giving him another shot with a different council. The only other mayoral candidate I’m somewhat curious about is Marissen. For everything else, I’m undecided.

Hi Frances, following up on your request for info from voters, and off the record. I voted already and basically went with Forward + One City + a few Greens and COPE to fill out the remainder. I’d like Kennedy to get a working majority and chose COPE and Green candidates who I thought would be the least obstructionist.

Hi Frances, In answer to your voting question. My wife and I and 8 year old live in a 3 br rental near commmercial drive. We both work at XX  good, senior positions. Our landlords are great – a former refugee family who bought the house we live in by living in it with a dozen relatives, and rent it to us now. But if we are forced to leave, we’ll basically have to leave Vancouver. Nearly everyone I know is in this situation, and most of them have good jobs. So my choices on council and mayor are rooted here and in the respect given to the people in this city who cannot afford housing. SO: Kennedy Stewart (i don’t love him, but he brings the federal dollars and will work well with Eby). Mostly Onecity for council with Forward Together and Cope. Absolutely no NPA, and I happen to think that TEAM is dangerous (wolves in sheep’s clothing). ABC is not the worst, but I doubt the fit of businessmen wanting to dabble in public office and hate the idea of more police to solve social problems. School and parks same as above. I’m sad Camil Dumont is leaving. Thanks for coming to my ted talk.

That review came out and has been universally viewed as a sign that something is seriously wrong at the agency, which has a budget of about $2 billion a year.

But a former Vancouver planner who was in charge of the city’s efforts on social housing, Cameron Gray, thinks there is a lot of missing information in the report. Here’s his take

Ernst & Young: Finance and Operation Review of BC Housing July 28, 2022

I was in charge of the City of Vancouver’s affordable housing initiatives from 1990 to 2010 during which time the City partnered with BC Housing on a wide range of social and supportive housing projects. These were by and large successful partnerships that produced several thousand units of social and supportive housing that provide safe, secure and affordable homes for families and individuals who otherwise would be paying unaffordable rents, be at risk of homelessness or actually homeless. I was surprised by the Ernst Young review of BC Housing as reported in the press.

It contradicted my experience (albeit of a dozen years ago) but also the positive assessment from the Province’s own Auditor General when they reported on BC Housing’s recent purchase of hotels to accommodate the growing numbers of homeless in BC.

I’ve now read the Ernst Young review of BC Housing finances and operations. Twice. It is a travesty and suffers from a major flaw that pervades the report and renders it virtually useless.

The fundamental problem with the report is its failure to describe what BC Housing does and how it operates now. It provides little of the relevant background. As a result it is impossible to know just how serious the issues are that the review identifies; whether there is a big problem, small problem or no problem.

A reader doesn’t know if BC Housing is an unmitigated disaster or only in need of fine tuning – as well as a major investment in IT. In some cases, it’s not clear that there is a problem.

For example, EY recommend that BC Housing’s priorities be aligned with the Province’s, who EY refers to as the shareholder (Ex. Summary and pg. 30/1), but they don’t say what the priorities of each are now and how they are not aligned.

A visit to BC Housing’s website, where BC Housing’s and the Province’s policies and priorities can easily be found in BC Housing’s Service Plans and in the Minister’s mandate letter respectively, and one can see that their priorities are, in fact, well aligned.

Before criticizing BC Housing for not collecting the data needed to monitor their programs, the report should have described the data BC Housing collects now and how it is used. Before recommending that BC Housing improve its documentation, as the EY report does in several places, it would be good to describe what BC Housing documents now and where the gaps are, something the EY report doesn’t do.

This problem pervades the report. To be useful it needs to, but rarely does, contrast what BC Housing does now with what the authors think BC Housing should be doing.

An example: EY recommend BC Housing improve its documentation while noting in the report that BC Housing’s documentation they reviewed for projects (pg. 36) and for selecting operators of non-profit housing providers (pg. 45) was complete and thorough – though this doesn’t appear in EY’s Findings.

Having said that, EY note that there are few sites for supportive and women’s transition housing, and approval of projects under these programs is necessarily opportunistic, but then complain that there isn’t evaluation criteria for them.

However, the programs themselves include the criteria a project needs to satisfy to qualify for funding (BC Housing’s Program Guide on BC Hsg.’s website). Evaluation criteria are required if there is competition for funding which in the case of these programs there isn’t. EY doesn’t describe the programs or how decisions are made, so a reader might think there is no process at all, and we have the story in June 28’s Vancouver Sun on the Kitsilano supportive housing project stating that the BC Housing board was fired because “the agency sometimes handed out multi-million dollar contracts without a rigorous process to ensure the best provider was chosen” when the EY review says no such thing. The report is saturated with generality (a lot of may be this and may be that) and provides few specifics or concrete examples.

For example, on the question of outcomes, which EY contrasts to outputs, units for BC Housing, it recommends BC Housing re-introduce measures of success it once used but doesn’t 2 say what those measures were (pg. 30).

The implication is that EY is recommending that BC Housing’s outcomes should include things that can’t be measured, like improving access to affordable housing, or measures BC Housing can’t control, like reducing homelessness; if society manufactures homelessness faster than BC Housing can provide shelters and supportive housing, homelessness will increase through no fault of BC Housing!

Actually the outcome that matters, and which BC Housing does control, is that every social and supportive housing unit BC Housing subsidizes be occupied by a person or family who would otherwise be paying too much for housing, be inadequately housed, or be homeless.

This data BC Housing does collect and, through its processes (stringent as non-profit providers can attest), is an outcome that BC Housing measures and monitors closely.

The provision of safe, secure and affordable homes (as opposed to units) is the outcome that matters, and needs to be and is BC Housing’s primary focus.

I could go on, but will try not to. But just a couple more examples. EY notes that in one case a subsidy payment was made before the operating agreement was signed, and on that basis recommends controls be put in place to ensure it never happens again (Recommendation 5-11).

But they don’t say why it happened; was it an oversight or was it because of some urgent circumstance, such as having to move homeless into a building before documents could be finalized? If the latter, then what would the proposed control do? Leave a building empty for a month or two?

The facts matter and EY doesn’t provide them.

Another example is EY’s recommendation that BC Housing conduct variance analysis, in particular as regards inflation, as they question whether the 3% estimate used in 2021 is still appropriate.

What they don’t do is describe is how BC Housing already deals with variances and, in particular, inflation. To imply that BC Housing doesn’t now is a cheap shot.

BC Housing is in contact with contractors daily and reviews non-profit operator budgets continually. It has better information than most as to inflation pressures. It doesn’t need EY to tell them to do the obvious.

And a last one: EY criticizes BC Housing for not reviewing it’s policies every 3 – 5 years but don’t tell us what the current review process is. Are its policies never reviewed, how often, how many fail the 3-5 year test? Is it a big or small problem or what? A minor example, but typical.

In short, the EY review is not the devastating critique that some think it is. The problems it identifies are largely the result of BC Housing’s rapid growth (BC Housing’s work and budget more than doubling in the past 5 years in response to the affordable housing crisis), and the consequences of the Covid pandemic, in particular on BC Housing’s capacity to do its work due to staffing shortfalls.

The most serious need EY identifies is upgrading the IT systems. Will Treasury Board fund that? It won’t be cheap. Much of the rest is ‘i’ dotting and ’t’ crossing.

So why the EY review and why what appears to be the Minister’s overreaction to it? Supposedly the review was motivated by the Little Mountain fiasco.

But the review doesn’t discuss Little Mountain, and its recommendations do not address how to avoid similar decisions being made in the future. This isn’t surprising, since the Little Mtn. deal was politically driven – get as big a price as possible to boost operating revenue in an election year, so the government of the day could claim a balanced budget, even if it meant leaving the site vacant for a decade or two.

What other reason then? Well, the fact that implementation of 19 of the 44 recommendations are to be led by the Chief Financial Officer, and only 5 by Development Services and 2 by Operations, the divisions that actually deliver and provide affordable housing, is a clue.

EY recommends that the role of Finance be “elevated” and that Finance should be embedded in all the departments where it should “take ownership for and actively manage the financial drivers of value” (Fig. 4) whatever that means – might give us another clue.

Even the IT recommendations are to be led by the CFO, which doesn’t make much sense given that EY recommends the CIO report directly to the CEO.

And it is interesting that Finance is 3 seen by EY as representing the shareholder’s (the Province’s) interests within BC Housing, see Recommendation 2-4, when surely that is one of the Board’s key roles.

It’s hard not to think that the review is the result of accountants hiring accountants to recommend more power to accountants!

And so it is not surprising the new board consists of 5 finance focused current and former senior bureaucrats and 2 indigenous business leaders. And I suppose also not surprising, though it should be, that it doesn’t include anyone with real experience in housing development, either from the for-profit or non-profit sector, or a tenant, or anyone with experience in operating housing, either from the for- profit or non-profit sector, or anyone from the services sector.

What I suspect is happening is that the keepers of the purse in Victoria (Treasury Board and Finance) want to rein in BC Housing, and the Province’s investment in housing in general, as they are concerned that the cost may double again over the next 5 years.

This is, in fact, a valid concern. Even if the land and construction costs are paid for, supportive housing for high need populations (homeless, substance users, mentally ill) requires on-going annual subsidies so every new building requires an increase in BC Housing’s annual operating budgets.

It’s not as if the Province doesn’t have a lot on its plate: rebuilding Lytton, the Coquihalla, the debt hangover from Covid, health care capacity, reconciliation, etc. That said, housing affordability and homelessness remain a crisis in BC.

My guess is that the affordable housing commitments the government has made will take a lot longer to fulfill than originally promised and may shrink. It is not surprising that the Minister has said that his housing priority as Premier will be affordable housing for the middle class, which costs a lot less/unit than housing for the homeless and other high need populations. It seems the government doesn’t want to come out and admit that the cost of meeting its affordable housing commitments (see the Minister’s mandate letter) is more than a challenge, and may exceed the Province’s capacity or willingness to pay, so have used this review as cover, hoping or pretending that by implementing its recommendations “to gain efficiencies and creating more capacity” (Executive Summary) aka ‘doing more with less’ which, unfortunately, usually means doing less, and often with more – more reviews, more monitoring, more reports, and more delay.

So even if the EY review is not the condemnation of BC Housing as some think, commentators may be right in thinking the Province is about to declare, not just housing supply, but even housing affordability and homelessness, to be problems caused by and therefore to be solved by municipalities at their expense.

You mentioned the difference in reactions between the Jericho and Heather Lands, wondering why one project is facing an organised NIMBY revolt and the other is basically being ignored:

https://twitter.com/fabulavancouver/status/1513925259681943558

“So it’s actually further along than Jericho and yet, as far as I can tell, there has been little or no public commentary. (Probably something out there but nothing like the current Jericho debate.) Why is that? Same FSR, similar concepts, also some towers.”

I’m not a social scientist, but using Jens’ excellent census mapper, I’d suggest a good portion of the reason for this difference in reaction lies with the racial/ethnic make-up of the two neighbourhoods. There’s a pretty clear difference in visible minority between the neighbourhoods surrounding the Heather Lands, and those surrounding Jericho:

https://censusmapper.ca/maps/926#14/49.2525/-123.1488

In the census block immediately to the East of the Heather Lands, visible minorities make up over 80% of the population. In the census blocks surrounding Jericho, visible minorities make up 15-30%.

You can also look at the difference in how different neighbourhoods reacted to the Cambie Corridor rezoning of the last decade. I took part in the Douglas Park workshops organized by the City in 2015-2016. I was the only one at the table who argued in favour of even modest density in that neighbourhood (and the City had already taken the decision prior to the workshops of only allowing density along the Cambie and King Ed arterials). At most, the others at my table were ok with townhouses along King Ed.

I don’t know if you remember it, but here’s a prime example of how vociferous Douglas Park’s NIMBY’s are:

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/courier-archive/news/douglas-park-residents-fight-rezoning-application-3019312

In sharp contrast, I don’t recall even a hint of controversy last year when this 19 storey rental tower was proposed for Columbia Park, also part of the Cambie Corridor, but about 15 blocks South, in the neighbourhood East of Oakridge and South of 41st:

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/325-341-west-42nd-avenue-vancouver-rental-tower-approved

Visible Minority of Columbia Park: 78%

Visible Minority of Douglas Park: 25-40%

I can only imagine how Douglas Park would implode at the thought of a 19-storey tower anywhere in this neighbourhood, especially based on how they’re reacting to the idea of a couple of 4-5 storey condo buildings on the old Balfour Lands:

https://twitter.com/City_Duo/status/1374114011193643008?s=20

“It’s often said gentle density proposed under a community plan would be warmly welcomed across #Vancouver. Perhaps some near Douglas Park missed that memo, as they’re vehemently opposed to this mix of strata, market & moderate income rental homes”

That diversion aside, and back to your original question: in terms of the difference between Heather and Jericho, I don’t think it’s a question of age, since the neighbourhoods around Heather tend to skew slightly older than those around Jericho:

https://censusmapper.ca/maps/2057?index=3#14/49.2625/-123.1335

I also don’t think it’s a question of income level, since the census areas to the East of Heather have slightly higher incomes than many of the areas around Jericho:

https://censusmapper.ca/maps/841#14/49.2643/-123.1585

I don’t know if the Canadian Census tracks household wealth (vs just income), but maybe there’s a bit of a difference there between the two.

Anyway, that’s my two cents on this. Happy to read/hear about other possible explanations for this broad difference in NIMBY reactions.

After a severe winter storm that crumbled portions of Stanley Park’s seawall and hurled logs and other debris across area beaches last week, the Vancouver Park Board says it has no idea how much time or money it will take to undertake repairs of long stretches of waterfront.

The damage from the king-tide surge that coincided with high winds last Friday is prompting the city’s park commissioners to consider what to prioritize as they expect a multimillion-dollar repair bill. Those choices include delaying or abandoning a planned restoration of the Jericho Pier on the Kitsilano shore, which had been closed already because of previous storm damage.

It will likely also lead to a longer conversation about how the park board should plan for all of its shoreline, given the likelihood of even bigger king tides and damage as climate change accelerates and sea levels rise.

“People are going to have to have patience. It’s going to take some time to get the seawall open again and think what we can do to mitigate climate change,” said Stuart Mackinnon, the Green Party commissioner who is the park board chair. “And we’re going to have to take a good look and consult with the public about what amenities are important.”

“We’re in for some tough years,” added Green Party commissioner Dave Demers.

John Coupar, a commissioner with the minority Non-Partisan Association, said he thinks the repair period could be a good time to spend the money on upgrading the Jericho Pier, as has been planned for years.

But Mr. Mackinnon said there will be questions about that. “Do we want to reinvest in the pier?”

The shore and infrastructure have been damaged at a time when there is acknowledgment from all levels of government that cities will need to come up with a plan to accommodate rising sea levels. But there is a debate about how to do that.

Federal and provincial strategy plans in the past have suggested raising seawalls and dikes as one option.

However, others say that hard walls are an ineffective solution and also damage the ecology of both the ocean and the shore. Instead, they argue for a “build back softer” approach by creating shoreline pathways that are adapted to being underwater sometimes, as well as working on other ways to mitigate storm and king-tide damage.

Those are the kind of measures that B.C. towns such Gibsons and Campbell River are doing, says Alison Shaw, the executive director of Simon Fraser University’s Action on Climate Team.

People have said, through surveys, that they’d rather have a more natural-feeling shoreline than a big, moat-worthy seawall that would be an obstruction, she said.

Those lower-impact walkways could be somewhat protected through engineering strategies, like having large boulders, other artificial breaks, or netting placed close to the shore, along with efforts to enhance shorelines by encouraging natural vegetation.

The problem with hard seawalls and dikes is that they create surging and violent water sloshing that erodes the beach in front of them, eradicating the possibility of regular sea life that might exist in a calmer environment. “It’s destroyed intertidal marine systems in the Lower Mainland,” Prof. Shaw said.

In the meantime, engineers and consultants are out looking at the Vancouver and West Vancouver damage figuring out what to do.

“I’m going to stay away from an estimate,” said Ian Stewart, the board’s manager of park development.

He also wouldn’t give a projected time for reopening. “The engineers are out right now and were working over the weekend.”

Mr. Stewart said there was very heavy damage around Third Beach, in the middle of the closed stretch that goes from Sunset Beach near the Aquatic Centre to where the seawall passes under the Lions Gate Bridge.

The seawall in front of Kitsilano Pool was damaged but fortunately, Mr. Stewart said, water didn’t get into the pool’s mechanical room, even though the tide flooded into the pool itself.

He also expressed concerns about the cost of repairing the Jericho Pier, which had already suffered damage after two storms in 2021 in January and November.

The last storm took out railings and substructure and more. “This caused heavy, heavy damage.”

In West Vancouver, a spokesperson said crews are also out trying to figure out the scope of the damage and cost of repairs.

“As the cleanup moved along, more damage was found than had been originally suspected, so we know we need to wait until cleanup is complete before we can accurately estimate damage,” Donna Powers said an e-mailed statement.

The seawall is closed from 19th to 25th avenues. Workers are removing logs and garbage, moving granite blocks back into position and repairing and rewiring lights. The district’s two piers are closed. Two facilities on the waterfront were spared significant damage because the district puts Tiger dams (inflatable bolsters filled with water) around them.

Like Vancouver, West Vancouver is also looking at long-term planning for climate change.

Richmond, which is a set of islands in the Fraser River, did not report any damage to its dikes and Metro Vancouver said the main shoreline damage it saw was on Sea Island.

“The entrance road into Iona Beach Regional Park suffered erosion due to storm surges and king tides, causing a road closure on Friday,” said an e-mailed statement from Richard Wallis, supervisor of park operations in Metro’s west. Emergency repairs started Friday and are continuing this week.

 Wednesday, October 13^th, 2021

 FLOATA SEAFOOD RESTAURANT
180 Keefer St, Chinatown

Vancouver, BC V6A 1X4

I want to acknowledge that are on the unceded territories of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh peoples and I want to thank them for hosting us.

Thank you Elder Howard Grant for that wonderful welcome.

Floata restaurant for hosting such a wonderful dinner.

As a lot of you know, I am the son of immigrants

Growing up, we didn’t have a lot and I definitely did not get an allowance

So I learned to hustle

When I was in grade 5, I made money by buying and selling comics

Bus from Champlain Heights to Dunbar and 16^th

Buy the comics $0.10

Take another bus to West 4th – sell them for $0.25

On my 15th birthday, I got a job at Wendy’s as a graveyard shift  janitor making minimum wage

I put myself through university, became a CA, banker and then started a business

I worked hard, started a family and in 2003 (with the help of a massive mortgage) bought an 80 year old fixer upper bungalow

Robin, our real estate agent looked sheepish

And she said, “Sorry, I don’t know how to give you this… I am embarrassed to be giving you your deed…”

Then I was given the deed to our house

Teena and I sat on our couch and then read the deed

I’m going to read the deed:

“This property – shall not be transferred – to Negros or Orientals”

Let me repeat that

“This property – shall not be transferred – to Negros or Orientals”

When I first saw that document, I remember feeling Disgusted

No matter what I did, I felt that this place wasn’t built for me

Then I felt optimistic

I realized that there were so many people (of all races) who came before me who felt that this was wrong

And they fought for something better

I’m sure that their fight was overwhelming and full of setbacks

But they never quit

And they righted this wrong

And today, anyone (of any race, gender or sexual orientation) can live and BUILD A FAMILY anywhere in Vancouver because of those who struggled before us

And I think that those guys who came up with that covenant a century ago would be surprised, and a little disappointed, if they knew that we raised our mixed raced family in that bungalow

I have spoken with over 19,000 people since the last election

The overwhelming feeling shared by many is that they feel Vancouver has lost its way and I share that feeling

Our city is more divided than ever before

Our streets are less safe than before

Our local businesses struggling to hang on

Residents are struggling to find affordable housing…

Today, a married couple of doctors can’t make it work in Vancouver –

If they can’t make it, what hope is there for everyone else

There are so many people who are questioning whether Vancouver is built for them

Now despite these struggles, I feel incredibly optimistic about our future

I know that our challenges are significant, but they are solvable

If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t be running for mayor

My opponent ran for mayor and didn’t realize it is a leadership position

And I don’t think that that is acceptable

I am of the view that we have to be bold – we need to build something new

For example

Instead of defending an incompetent elected park board, we’re going to roll it back under City Council just like – every – other – city – in – Canada!

Instead of just tinkering around the edges by banning plastic straws

We’re going to do the single biggest thing to tackle climate change and reduce emissions

Tonight I’m committing to building a ‘15 Minute City’ – everywhere in Vancouver – where people can live 90% of their lives within a 15 minute walk of their home

Instead of throwing our first responders under the bus for political gain, we are going to invest more into community safety

These are just some of the things we’re going to do to tackle the big problems facing all of us.

Unlike my opponents who want to divide us, I’m committed to working for everyone.

I’m not asking you to go backwards to the 1970s like some of my opponents

I want to build a city where regular people can make it

I want to plan for our future while honouring the past

Like I said at the beginning of this speech, when I was growing up here,

A kid with not very much could get by hustling comic books and build a future for himself.

We can get to that place again

 So before I tell you what we need to do about it, let’s face facts

Last time – I ran and lost the mayor’s race

I lost by 957 VOTES – CLOSEST RACE IN Vancouver’s history

Last time I lost because 1/2 of the people in this room and folks just like you decided someone else was a better bet

And that’s because I didn’t earn your vote

 Last time we came up short, but the last three years have proven that politics as usual doesn’t work

This time will be different

This time we will create a movement representing all of Vancouver

This time we’ll fight to recruit the best candidates for Council, Park & School Board

This time we will build a better city, together

It’s close to midnight and, on the third floor at Vancouver city hall, the lighted windows are going dark, one by one. The man walking through the council offices turning out the lights and shutting the windows is Philip Owen. The mayor. Owen has gone through the stack of city reports coming up at next week’s council meeting. On each report, no matter how mundane — a lane closure, a copper tubing contract — there are notes, underlinings, highlighting, question marks.

Later, with the list of addresses of every city site mentioned, he makes a point that week of driving by to take a look at each one: the lane that is going to be closed, the house that is going to be demolished, the downtown block that is going to be rezoned.

Owen is getting ready to do the mayor’s monthly talk show in his office — an hour during which the general public is free to call in and complain about dog poop in the parks, motorcycle noise in the West End, and the city’s stupid new garbage fee. As he waits around in his TV make-up for the program to start, I ask how he likes the television format. He answers with boyish anxiety: “Well, you’ll see how it is. But with you here tonight, maybe someone will call in and I’ll goof.”

*

He’s a different kind of mayor. In an era when politicians are expected to be visionaries, leading their constituents through the complexities of the 20th century, and to be impervious to media and personal attacks, Philip Owen is neither.

Instead, he’s someone who believes that, in taking care of details, you take care of the bigger picture. He’s proud of the fact that he doesn’t have any “grand visions,” which he sees as ego-driven and grandiose roads to ruin.

He’s a listener and conciliator more comfortable in caucus meetings letting other council members lead the way and uncomfortable when people start fighting. In public debates, he has a Ronald Reaganish tendency to simplify issues into the personal and immediate, leaving councillors like Jennifer Clarke, Gordon Price and George Puil to articulate long-term and abstract issues.

In private, he has a quiet, deadpan sense of humor and can do wicked imitations. In public debates and media interviews, he can seem hesitant, ponderous or given to unfortunate turns of phrase that would make any media adviser cringe. Like the time he talked about all the “black women of color” working at city hall, as he defended the city’s record on diverse hiring.

Outside council, that Reaganish quality translates into genuine enjoyment of the ceremonial side of being mayor. Where Gordon Campbell would turn down masses of be-the-mayor-and-smile events, Owen’s schedule, in an echo of the role his father Walter played as lieutenant-governor from 1973-78, is packed with social and community functions, everything from day care openings to the Jewish Community Centre’s annual sports awards to the Heart and Stroke Foundation breakfast.

And when it comes to his personal life, Ronald Reagan (or Brian Mulroney or Gary Hart) should only wish to have such an image. No angry children bearing testimony to a dysfunctional family, no financial improprieties, no astrology, no alcoholism, no bimbos.

Instead, in his dazzling white shirts and crisp suits, his healthy and amazingly young-looking face a testimony to 62 very pleasant years on earth, he’s like a throwback to mayors of the early part of the century: member of a prominent Vancouver family (father Walter was a founder of the Vancouver law firm Owen Bird; cousin is deputy attorney-general Stephen Owen); cheerfully accompanied at most of his functions by Brita, the woman he married in 1957, who maintains her own commitments to volunteer work; father of three children; grandfather of five; president or director of seven successful small businesses ranging from a fabric store in Vancouver to a muffler shop in Penticton; regular and involved churchgoer at St. John’s Shaughnessy Anglican; and long-time volunteer with several community groups, particularly the B.C. Paraplegic Foundation. Fun? Fixing up old cars, refurbishing old lamps and tinkering in general.

He gets warm private praise for his graciousness, considerateness and scrupulous honesty. He has also earned some of the most biting public assessments of his intelligence and political acumen. (Former political opponent Harry Rankin calls him Philip the Dim. Former political colleague Jonathan Baker describes him as “colorless,” “a protoplasm” giving the impression that “complex issues were beyond him.”)

But what about where he’s leading his council and the city? Is his quiet, often self-effacing style the sign of no leadership or of a different kind of leadership?

Both on and off the record, his staff, supporters and even disinterested observers of city hall say Owen’s leadership is a valuable kind of consensus-building, that he truly listens to people, that he allows his councillors to have a voice, and that his brand of methodical and cautious management is the kind of consolidating breather the city needs after the hyperactive, ambitious period it had under Gordon Campbell.

But among both critics and some of his supporters, there are those who say his lack of strong ideas and unwillingness or inability to talk people into following him when he does have strong ideas are a problem. Some say stronger councillors are taking on the leadership functions. Others say the bureaucracy is now in charge.

*

One of the anomalies of being mayor of Vancouver is that, in legal terms, it’s one of the least powerful positions in a Canadian system of municipal government that generally is already set up to create a weak mayor.

Other mayors from Salmon Arm to Toronto at least have the right to refuse to sign a bylaw, can suspend it for 30 days, and can both establish council committees and appoint the members. Vancouver’s mayor has none of those powers.

“Vancouver’s mayor is the weakest in the country,” says University of B.C. political science professor Paul Tennant. “We have a contradictory expectation of mayors. Even though they have absolutely no basis of power in the formal sense, we expect them now to be the equivalent of the premier or the prime minister.”

Added to that, the mayor’s office in Vancouver has never built a huge bureaucracy. Toronto’s mayor’s office has 16 people handling policy. Vancouver’s has one.

So when Montreal mayor Pierre Bourque abolishes neighborhood councils or Toronto mayor Barbara Hall decides to take $7 million from a city reserve fund to create shelters for the homeless, their strong actions are possible because they have a legal and administrative structure that supports mayors.

That means mayors in Vancouver accomplish whatever they do through classic political means: personal influence, strategic network-building and persuading.

Owen is no persuader.

“If I have a case to sell, if I went to Gordon (Campbell) and said, `Gordon, we have to do this. Here’s the argument,’ then you would turn him loose to persuade people,” one senior city administrator said. “Philip doesn’t have that ability.”

He’s not good at avoiding the cons and stressing the pros that it takes to win arguments.

“It’s kind of an endearing characteristic unless you want him to argue your point of view, in which case you’d rather have somebody’s who presents the case very strongly,” the same administrator said.

Part of that comes from the fact that he’s a listener who spends a long time learning before he will take strong positions on issues.

“Philip is not a terrifically quick study. He’s a learner, he works at the issues that he wants to understand,” says a senior staff member.

When he does get close to an issue, either because of his personal values and experience (not allowing a prostitution zone; not interfering in the free play of market forces by protecting small stores from superstores; focusing on serving the customers) or because of the time he’s spent on it (transit, the PNE), he’s a much stronger speaker.

*

Part of what casts Philip Owen‘s style and character into such high relief is the contrast with Gordon Campbell’s seven-year reign at city hall.

Some of that difference is historical circumstance. Vancouver was going through huge changes then: a housing shortage, megaprojects being developed, a sense that the city had to start coordinating with the region to solve pollution, transportation and sprawl problems.

But there is also a personal difference. Campbell knew what he wanted and would work ferociously to get it: a children’s advocate, a 30-year plan for the city, deals with downtown megaproject developers to get parks and theatres and a seawall for the city. He got what he wanted but “in the process, there were one or two bodies lying on the floor after,” says one veteran of the era. There are still stories circulating in both city hall and the development community about the way Campbell would ride roughshod over his staff if he thought what they’d done was inadequate or obstructive.

In contrast, Owen’s personal style generates a real affection at city hall.

“He’s sort of a dad figure,” is the way one mid-level staffer puts it.

Another describes it this way: “If someone complained about you to Gordon Campbell, he’d call you up, ream you out, and make you go over and paint the guy’s house. But when someone complains about you to Philip Owen, he’ll come and ask what your side of the story is.”

Around city hall, he makes a point of complimenting people on a job well done, will run out of a committee meeting to find chairs for audience members left standing, and routinely walks down to Wendy’s to buy dinner for councillor Sam Sullivan, whose wheelchair dependence makes it hard for him to sprint out for dinner between meetings the way other councillors do.

That’s no newfound quality either. In 1966, after Owen had been working for Eaton’s for 14 years and had risen to the position of store manager, he quit when he was told that he had to get rid of the “older two” of his seven supervisors.

He still gets angry when he remembers it: “One was 45, one was 48, they had kids in high school and university and I said, `I’m not going to do that.”’ (It was also the moment he decided it was time to get out and run his own businesses, so no one would be telling him when he was 45 and stuck partway up the corporate ladder that he was out of a job.)

There is an argument made that those personal qualities have a significant impact on city hall operations by creating good morale, staff that feels valued and secure enough to take on ambitious projects and carry them through, and a general increase in civility.

Owen is also someone who abhors the grand project and is focused on the day-to-day. You just know he’s the kind of guy who rotates the tires on his car when he should, pays his bills on time, and gets his gutters cleaned regularly.

That quality, translated to city politics, means the big issues he gets excited about when he’s interviewed (and that he pushes when he meets with staff — a mayor’s most direct way of influencing city activities) are things like: A regional emergency co-ordination centre. Going after the pawnshops that are acting as fencing operations. Replacing the sewer system at the rate of one per cent a year. The saltwater pumping station the city put in so it has an earthquake-proof firefighting system.

And, most important, “better city government,“ the plan that appears to be a meeting of minds between two people with a passion for efficient administration, Owen and city manager Ken Dobell, to re-engineer city operations so they’re less byzantine for both those inside and outside city hall. (Ideally, no more running to seven departments to find out if you can build a gas barbecue in your backyard.)

That kind of prudence and day-to-day focus means certain kinds of decisions. He agreed with his staff that the city wouldn’t get involved in the deal to put social housing in Woodward’s — too large a risk and no firm numbers nailed down. He disagreed with a staff recommendation not to allow a grocery store on industrial land, something staff said would endanger the city’s recently developed policy of trying to preserve its remaining 1,700 acres of industrial land. While Price and Puil argued that the city had to look at the long-term consequences, Owen took the view that this was a special case and one decision wouldn’t have a big impact.

*

On the other side are those who say Vancouver’s mayor does make a difference and that being pleasant, listening to people and working hard aren’t enough.

“He’s a very nice person who pays a lot of attention to detail,” says Libby Davies, who was his political opponent on council and ran against him for the mayor’s position in 1993. “But he’s in a completely reactive role and the bureaucracy is now in control. Campbell was clearly in charge politically. I don’t think (Owen) is in control of his agenda. I don’t think he has an agenda.”

A sign of the growing power of the bureaucracy is the way reports are coming to council, says Davies. In previous eras, staff made specific recommendations on specific projects that council could either accept, amend or reject.

Now, the reports that come to council on the better city government project for example, the most expensive and ambitious project of Owen’s term, are frequently reports to be received for information, or they simply ask council to continue its endorsement of the general directions staff are taking.

Even the city’s bureaucrats say staff are taking on more responsibility than they did under Campbell.

When there is a strong mayor at city hall, “the bureaucracy does less initiating because you’re just too busy” carrying out that mayor’s ideas, says one member of that group.

With a mayor who acts more like a board chair, like Owen, “staff end up bringing more of their own proposals to council.”

Besides listening to the bureaucrats, a quality that surely earns him some loyalty from that group, Owen is also more inclined to let the stronger councillors take the lead at caucus meetings: Puil for finance, Price for planning, and Clarke on many issues. One surprising factor is Craig Hemer, who appears to be simply one of the voices in the background Greek chorus in public, but is more influential in the backroom, say several sources, especially on keeping tight fiscal control and having good public processes.

Publicly, his supporters — Campbell, Puil, former executive assistant Janet Fraser, Clarke, Price, Sullivan and others — maintain that Owen’s methodical, mediating style is just what the city needs right now.

“I think he’s doing a great job, the city is ticking along well,” said Campbell.

If they do voice any criticisms, they’re of the mildest variety.

Puil’s assessment: Owen “was born to be a lieutenant governor, a master of protocol and being a very nice person.”

Campbell concedes that if Owen does have a fault, it’s that he’ll “listen and listen and listen some more.”

But privately, his councillors have been voicing concerns that he’s not seen as enough of a leader, that he’s a good soul who is too polite to sell himself, and simplistic about issues that others don’t feel are so simple.

When the Non Partisan Association was trying to decide which of its councillors should run as mayor in 1993, it polled the public. The results showed Puil’s name was familiar to a lot of the public — “who instantly recognized him in a negative way,” says one source. Fewer people recognized Owen, but those who did had favorable impressions. The NPA went with Owen because he was more palatable.

The trick in the next election now will be whether that combination — low but warm and fuzzy profile — works again.

In the meantime, the concern about Owen’s image has translated into a hypersensitivity about media.

When Vancouver Sun photographer Glen Baglo — who has successfully convinced Conrad Black to pose with a dead fish and Bob Bose to pose with cows — approached the mayor’s office for a photo to go with this story, his idea was to have Owen emerging with a briefcase from a manhole on a street with the city in the background.

No way, said Owen’s executive assistant, Muriel Honey. First, why did Baglo pick a street with the ugliest view of Vancouver? (The Fairview Slopes intersection he’d chosen had power lines visible on either side.) And secondly, she didn’t like the implication that Owen had ever been invisible to the public or underground.

“That’s not the kind of image we want to project.”