My Council Picks—Why Them?
Many people’s vote picks in the upcoming Vancouver municipal election were driven by partisan politics…but here’s my pitch for other considerations.
The good thing about political parties is they give us the caucus. Groups of political leaders affiliated by issue or cause work together to make important decisions—who will lead, what issues will be taken up, and what decisions will be made.
The bad thing about parties is the tyranny of the majority. A voting majority in any governing body doesn't ever need to meet in order to "consult upon adopting or presenting some scheme of policy, for carrying a favorite point", nor "for introducing certain persons into places of trust and power,” as history tells us the caucus function has been from the late 18th century until today.
In a majority situation, the votes of minority parties (and thus interests) can turn the functional imperative of caucuses in a minority and coalition governments into a performative box-ticking exercise. Majorities don’t caucus as much as follow through on what they already have decided they would do before an election…so when they do caucus, it’s difficult to imagine there being much of the creative tension from which difficult compromises are made on behalf of the broadest possible spectrum of society, as is the case in the best of all circumstances.
My dislike of parties almost overwhelms my desire to participate in the party system—really the partisan poo-slinging—in the first place. But here I am, voting for parties.
Actually, I’m voting for people, another nuance that is lost in the party system, and the point of this follow-up post. Each person I voted for was a thoughtful vote, because of the values perspective I explained in the previous post.
So I'll share those thoughts with you here, with a caveat that my votes in toto were made under a principle of 'majority-avoidance'; meaning, I made a concerted effort to ensure my votes did not amount to giving any party a majority in any of Vancouver's three elected bodies.
Bearing both my values perspective and majority-avoidance in mind, my other consideration was to return as many incumbents as possible to their posts. Not as much actual progress was made in the last term as I would have hoped—it was a fractured time politically, with a greater focus within city hall on planning. I believe a certain amount of prior experience is essential for any of these bodies to work well and accomplish things—executing on those plans, and also moving past all the failed votes and soul-searching on the future of Vancouver that seemed to dominate the last term. Incumbents are best positioned to lead on action, and while none of the incumbents I picked were perfect, I don’t believe anyone’s very human, imperfect record should always result in them getting the boot.
First, my rationale for picks on…
Mayor and Council
51 - STEWART, Kennedy (Forward | Incumbent): Incumbency is important here for two reasons: he’s demonstrated strong parliamentarian skills in a dysfunctional Council, and he has developed important political relationships at the provincial and federal levels. The city needs both, and none of the other candidates could likely fill his shoes soon enough to make the most of the next term. It’s purely a leadership vote, and leadership is a mayor’s primary role; otherwise, he’s just one vote. Without a Forward majority, he could be steered in almost any direction a progressive council caucus wants to push him, which honestly would be a good thing for federal and provincial NDPers to see happen to KStew.
101 - OUELLETTE, Breen (COPE): Ouellette may not have been a full values match, but extra points for putting rent control as his #1 priority—that’s a significant expectation to set, from a party that still fights for progressive policies in Vancouver. There are also strong value statements regarding rationalizing police funding and presence, and Indigenous reconciliation, both of which come from lived experience as an Indigenous person and through his work on the national inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women & Girls. I also like his strong labour and OH&S background.
104 - ANDERSON, Dulcy (Forward): I won’t hold Anderson’s work in David Eby’s office against her, because she simply can’t have the perspective I would expect from other former NDP loyalists. There’s a great disappointment in the air amongst provincial progressives…but this is not that kind of election. Anderson has solid priorities, and I know even more about her values having once spent time getting to know her personally. She’s my kind of person—meaning, the kind I aspire to be more like—so I know city hall would be better with her working from within.
105* - TRUONG, Tesicca (Forward): Youth counts for a lot, especially with young, aspiring politicians who I believe share my values, and who have accomplished more in one or two decades of adult life than I have in three. A lot of people have lobbed bombs at Forward’s climate policy, which would have had a lot of input from Truong…but I much prefer a prioritized climate agenda that is imperfect-sounding, than a perfect-sounding climate agenda that is never prioritized.
109* - MACKINNON, Stuart (Vision): Whenever MacKinnon opened his mouth at Park Board meetings, it was a lesson—for me—in the expression of nuanced thoughts on complex subjects into well-formulated questions and ideas. In fact, as related to the vexing topic of transportation in parks, whenever I heard MacKinnon talk, I was always worried because it meant a meeting’s direction and tone was about to shift away from angry circle-spinning (polarizing debate! baseless accusations! adrenaline shots!) towards THE POINT. His values also seem to match mine.
112* - BONAMIS, Iona (OneCity): Another values vote, and another experience vote, but in this case I take it on faith that Bonamis’ role in the city’s planning department has been positive. I’ve heard a few things and all have been good; plus, she’s part of the OneCity team that appears to have already mastered candidate selection and nominations in its very short life. It’s time to ramp up the OneCity presence on Council.
114* - WIEBE, Michael (Green | Incumbent): I’ve felt lukewarm-to-disappointed with the Green party’s influence on civic life over the past decade, and while I wasn’t completely sold on Wiebe in the first few years of his term, I’ve grown to appreciate the big lug. His values seem to be in the right place, he doesn’t always vote along party lines (and of course I mean that in a good way), and he handled his potential conflicts of interest on Council with grace and humility, even when one threatened to blow up his young political career. There’s room for sustainable business policies in the milieu of sustainable environment and social policies, and I like how Wiebe has approached that challenge of balancing good ideas and political will.
129* - BOLDT, Lesli (Vision): Boldt shares my background in communications, though with a focus on PR and media that would usually raise my cynic’s hackles about the potential spin-doctoring of someone with this background. And while I believe it’s true she may not have all the policy chops of some more experienced candidates, she does seem to have a strong willingness to back her progressive left ideas with the actual learning and dedication needed to put them into action. To that point, I find it meaningful that as someone previously associated closely with the provincial NDP, Boldt did not enter the race as a member of what I believe to be their local party proxies, Forward or OneCity. Instead, she made the gutsy move of joining the party that was once written off as a non-entity. This is a glass-half-full person, and I will vote for that any day of the week.
136* - SWANSON, Jean (COPE | Incumbent): Meanwhile, I will vote for Jean Swanson EVERY day of the week, and twice on Sundays. I don’t care if she voted against some housing-related motions last term for not being perfect, when good enough was good enough. I don’t care if she seems old to some people, when the city is so obviously desperate for young, disruptive voices. And I don’t care if people get annoyed by her tactics, or what she says, or how she says it—have you met Melissa De Genova? Have you ever heard of Harry Rankin? The bottom line is Swanson has been representing people on the Downtown East Side since before most of us were born. She’s making social conscience votes, not will-I-piss-off-my-voters votes. She’s standing up for housing security, for safe drug supply, for safe injection, for mental health, for equity and justice for the most afflicted and traumatized of our society, and for the soul of Vancouver. And she needs your help so she can retire and look back at what she’s done for this city with some satisfaction. If either of my kids ever asked me, “Show me a living legend, someone in Vancouver you admire”, before I hold up the image of any bicycle person, I’ll first point to Swanson.
139* - BOYLE, Christine (OneCity | Incumbent): Boyle is a nice person, a smart person, a courageous person, a humane person, a talented person, and a very successful person. We need more people like Boyle on Council. She’s just beginning her career, and I can’t wait to see what she will do for this city in the next four years, and hopefully longer. I won’t say more, because much is said about her online all the time, so all you have to do is search to understand why I have confidence in her. You can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep, and even more by the vitriol they attract. Kudos Christine Boyle!
157* - ROSA, Marie Noelle (Progress Vancouver): I think it’s important to not completely shut out other parties that I have suspicions about, or with which I may not totally agree. Progress is one such party, but more importantly, Rosa is one candidate who shares my values, and has direct experience with the Downtown East Side. All three of her priorities would address this neighbourhood’s horrific problems in a significant way: housing, domestic violence, and the humanitarian crisis which continues to come at our leaders from a multitude of sources. If anyone would have productive ideas and could work with Swanson and other gutsy councillors on a solution, I assume it would be Rosa.
Coming next, my rationale for picks on Park Board and School Board.
