Frances Bula header image 2

BulaBlog guide on how to figure out who matches your values, how to vote strategically

November 14th, 2014 · 32 Comments

I’m hearing from more than one person that this election is very confusing for them, especially those who are young and/or who are not regular political junkies. They aren’t sure what the parties really stand for, whether some candidates are better than others, and whether they should vote strategically — or even how to do that.

This is my attempt to help out with a short guide that’s not written in the often coded language of most news articles. It is necessarily incomplete and inevitably informed by some of my personal preferences.

People who read this blog regularly know already that I’m a centrist moderate, with a weakness for good-hearted conservatives and pragmatic lefties. I do retain a special place for the odd fiery rabble-rouser, right or left, if I think they’re making telling points. I place value on people who have put in some time learning about their communities and city politics and shown a commitment to causes. And I prefer those who can make their case without too much hyperbole or outright lying — though that’s a tough condition in this fractious round. Finally, it matters to me what a political party or candidate actually accomplishes or proposes that can be realistically accomplished. (Sometimes I’m too cautious and I acknowledge that.)

With all that, I’m not going to recommend very many individual candidates, as others have. It’s not that kind of election.

This time, it’s a choice among parties, not candidates. All of the candidates from all of the parties are sticking to their party line. Vision votes like a bloc, and the NPA candidates are almost indistinguishable, just lining up behind their mayoral candidate without even being introduced. You’d have to go to a lot of all-candidates’ meetings to get a real sense of any differences. I haven’t had time to do that, as a one-humanperson band. And, even then, I think I’d end up differentiating more on the basis of style and rhetorical ability than anything else.

I also don’t believe in recommending political choices as though they are right for all voters. Everyone comes with different values and questions.  And this blog post is not for those who are diehard Vision only, NPA only, or COPE only voters. You guys know what you’re doing. It’s for those in the middle, who are thinking about picking a mix, who are thinking about switching from the way they voted last time, who are wondering to stay with old choices.

Finally, I won’t make judgments on mayoral candidates. You’ve read enough to decide for yourselves whether you think Gregor Robertson of Vision Vancouver is a phony ideologue or awkward but principled man with good goals; whether the NPA’s Kirk LaPointe is an ambitious blowhard or intelligent breath of fresh air; and whether COPE’s Meena Wong is a wacky radical or a passionate advocate for the working class. (I’ve heard each of those opinions in the course of this campaign.)
With that long preamble, here you go:

NPA:  This is the party likely to be supported by federal Conservatives, federal Liberals more on the conservative end of the party spectrum, and swing voters who feel that Vision Vancouver has badly let them down.

Your ballot-box question: Who is promising me something significantly different than what we have now and will be able to act on it?

If you’re sick of Vision and will take anyone who promises they’ll govern with a different, more open and accessible attitude, no matter how unspecific the rest of the program is, and you want a party that has a chance of taking control of council, this is the main party for you.

Also for you if you think Vision has been too pushy about bike lanes, that their policies of giving developers incentives to build rental is not really helping anyone, and that you think they said they would solve homelessness just to make you vote for them.
Strategic voting: If you want to give those eight NPA candidates the biggest boost, hold back from voting Green. The Green candidates could end up beating out NPA candidates at the bottom of the list, since the Greens will get votes from more than just NPA supporters.  As well, you could inadvertently end up voting in Vision candidates, if you dilute your NPA vote by leaving off one NPA candidate in favour of the Greens.COPE candidates won’t win, but, again, could dilute your NPA vote if you leave anyone from the NPA list off for them. (If there is anyone who votes both NPA and COPE?)Cedar Party (Glen and Nicholas Chernen) is probably okay to throw your two spare votes to. They’re nowhere close to winning, but you could signal that you like their X Files take — everything is a deep mystery with swirling numbers and incomprehensible but possibly incriminating quotes — on city politics.

Candidate recomendations:
– Ian Robertson, a steady, thoughtful guy who is not afraid to take on his own party when necessary (he was one of the few to openly criticize Sam Sullivan’s policies). He was on the park board before and he knows the issues.- Rob McDowell, who ran George Affleck’s campaign three years ago and has been the CBC’s regular commentator on city issues, from the NPA perspective. He’s put some time into understanding the city and he’s got a calmness that bodes well for rational discussion.
Vision Vancouver: This party is supported by a lot of New Democrats and federal Liberals who are on the leftier side of the spectrum. It got the centrist swing voters the last two times. Who knows what will happen this time? If you know the history of civic politics, it will mean something to you that the party is also supported by many former COPE members who left after about the third or fourth schism in COPE.
Your ballot-box question: Is what the party has done on the issues I care about enough to make me stick with Vision in spite of everything else wrong, annoying, and offensive they’ve done?
Vision is your party if you support the aggressive efforts the group has made on homelessness, rental housing, social housing and city cycling, and you’re willing to put a clothespin on your nose when it comes to what control freaks they are and how they dismiss everyone — from the true ranters all the way through to genuinely concerned average citizens — as nutbar opponents. If you’re a big enviro, you’ll like their tanker and pipeline opposition.
It’s also your party if you think that Mayor Gregor Robertson will possibly mend his ways and do better, as he promised this week.
Strategic voting: If it’s really Vision you want back in control, don’t give any votes to Greens at all, since those Greens will beat out Vision
candidates because they’re pulling from all parts of the political spectrum. Cedar is probably not your cup of tea. You could vote for OneCity’s RJ Aquino and one COPE or two COPE candidates, as neither is likely to win but you will be expressing your support for what they’ve been doing. (See below for political GPS co-ordinates on these two parties.)
Candidate recommendations:
– Geoff Meggs. One of the hardest-working councillors and the most communicative. He has been the subject of particular attacks by COPE and the NPA and it looks like is in danger of losing. That’s a shame. Vision has been severely criticized for being so closed shop. It would be a poor message to send to unelect the member of their team who hasn’t been like that, who’s been 100 per cent available and who provides additional city information on his blog.
– Andrea Reimer. If the party is re-elected, it will be in part because of her massive efforts to wade into the fray and talk to angry people in Grandview-Woodlands, indigenous protesters at Oppenheimer Park, and critics everywhere. She’s smart, she stays cool in the heat of battle, and she gets things done.
Green Party: This is a party that tends to attract people also voting Vision, COPE or OneCity, as well as some who are traditional NPA supporters.
Your ballot-box question: Who can I vote for who will add another voice to council besides the major parties, who’s green, who isn’t so far left or right that they’re scary, and has a reasonable chance of being elected, possibly even holding the balance of power
According to polling and fragmentary other evidence, the Green Party is the leading candidate among those who want to support a party that isn’t one of the big two and will bring a different voice in.
The party has taken up the same crusade as all the other Vision opponents, criticizing the council for not listening to residents, approving developments that are too dense, and not doing enough to protect the city’s existing older buildings. But the Green Party, unlike the NPA, has proposed at least some policies and, unlike COPE, they are somewhat within the range of doable. In particular, they propose a Whistler Housing Authority type model, where developers building projects over a certain size have to provide one out of every 10 units to the city at cost. Those would be then rented or sold to people at lower incomes — details to come on who exactly gets them. It would be harder to do that in Vancouver than in Whistler, where there’s a clearly identified and finite group of service workers who need housing if they’re going to keep the resort running. But the idea of making developers provide units at cost is an attractive one.
People mistakenly think the Green Party is aligned with Vision, because both parties talk green. In another world, they might be. For the last three years, they’ve been opponents. Green Party Councillor Adriane Carr has consistently taken positions against Vision and promises to continue doing so. Mostly, it’s been against development approvals. Occasionally, it’s to push an even harder green line than Vision, i.e. when Carr criticized the Point Grey bike lane for not being put on Cornwall, something that businesses were opposed to.
Strategic voting: If you want to boost Greens to the maximum possible and give them the greatest chance of winning, do not vote Vision or NPA as you’ll simply add votes to candidates competing with the three Greens for seats. You can add COPE, OneCity or Cedar, since there’s very little likelihood those candidates will win.
Candidate recommendations
 
Cleta Brown: Carr is a shoo-in, whatever, so I’m going with Cleta. Seems like the most thoughtful of the group of three. (Yes, my biases for non-confrontational and willing to engage in dialogue showing again.)
Pete Fry has put in some time as the president of the Strathcona Residents Association and I’ve found him accessible and informative. Friends of mine like him and are voting for him. But some local residents have told me they’re concerned about the atmosphere he’s allowed at those SRA meetings. AMENDED I’ve heard multiple reports of people who say they don’t want to go to the SRA meetings any more because of the belligerent and anti-everything tone and where city staff have been heckled and yelled at. City staff also expressed concern about their treatment at these meetings. Some local residents have suggested that it’s just that Pete is a new chair and not good at controlling at meeting; others feel like it’s more than that. There’s a lot more that I’ve heard, most of which I have not included here. But I felt this was an important point to at least mention, since we’re talking about someone who is asking to be a public representative.
ADDITIONAL NOTE: Pete has called me to refute this and say that, yes, the atmosphere was very raucous when he took over as SRA chair and that he has tried to bring in a more civil tone, in part by creating a council, rather than just having one person in charge. He says he has led an association that has advocated for social housing and inclusivity.
COPE: This is the party that for decades was the home of the local NDP, but somehow more left than that. It has had a hard time ever since one group of councillors broke away in 2004 to form a more left-centre party, now called Vision. It co-operated with Vision in the 2008 and 2011 elections, but after not winning any council seats in 2011, ended its alliance. Since then, it has gone through a series of schisms so confusing that only Charlie Smith at the Georgia Straight understands what’s going on any more. Many more moderate COPE people (or, as remaining COPE people would call them, collaborators) left to work with OneCity.

Ballot-box question: Who do I vote for if I think the world is controlled by capitalists maximizing profit and crushing the working class?

The people remaining at COPE have created a platform through a membership-driven process that has been earnest, idealistic, and significantly different from any other party’s in the race. It’s resulted in policies that sound great, but which are sometimes hard to imagine ever being realized. One is a $15-an-hour minimum wage, which would be imposed on multinational and chain-store operations only. (Unclear what would happen with locally owned franchises, i.e. the many small-business-owner Subways.)

Another is the transit plan for a $30-a-month transit pass. COPE’s idea is that every adult resident of Vancouver would sign up for a $30-a-month pass. The resulting revenue would generate $160 million a year, as much as it now taken in by the smaller percentage of actual transit users who pay full freight. The problem is how this would work in reality. I’m trying to imagine some immigrant family on the east side voluntarily offering to pay $120 a month (or $1,440 a year) for two parents and two adult children, when not all of them use transit and when taking advantage of their new passes would mean lining up for the now amazingly crowded buses. (The revenue wouldn’t pay for any added bus service, but would just cover existing service.) The housing plan suggests the city should build 800 units a year, half of them rented at welfare rates, something that I napkin-calculated at around $120-million a year, not counting the free land the city would need to provide. Even the popular vacancy tax COPE got some attention for seems fraught, when Wong tries to explain how it will work. (Inspectors, a register, etc.)

Strategic voting: If you truly believe in the current COPE world view, do NOT vote for Vision or the Greens or One City as you will simply be adding votes to competing candidates who already seemed poised to overtake COPE voters. Needless to say, not for the NPA either, another “developer-backed” party.

Recommended candidates:

– Keith Higgins. People in whom I have some trust are supporting him. He also tries hard to engage on the issues and consider other points of view.

OneCity: This party, with only one candidate, former COPE candidate RJ Aquino, is primarily formed of people who left COPE because it seemed too unhinged. Many people planning to support Vision are also planning to vote OneCity and vice versa.

 Ballot question: Who can I vote for who seems more left than Vision but isn’t way off on the far side of the universe like COPE?
OneCity’s team has a solid set of policies listed on its website. They are more adventurous than Vision’s, but don’t seem wildly undoable. The party has proposed a speculation tax, for people who buy and then sell houses for a significant profit within a short period of time. They’ve also proposed a $10-a-day childcare plan, but starting with a pilot project. Their housing proposal suggests that developers should have to provide 20 per cent of units to the city at cost, double what the Greens’ proposal suggests.
Strategic voting: If you voted all Vision and OneCity, you could do so without damaging either one and with the benefit of expressing your desire to have a slightly different voice. If you want to vote small-party, mixed-slate, are sort of left, but won’t vote Vision, you could go with OneCity, Greens, and COPE. If you really love OneCity the most, don’t vote Greens or COPE, as you’ll just be adding a vote to candidates likely to draw more votes from elsewhere.
Cedar Party: This is mainly the party of the two Chernen brothers, Glen and Nicholas, who have largely devoted their political careers to trying to do Watergate-style exposes of leases and development projects approved by Vision.
Ballot question: Do I want to elect someone to council who will bring prosecutorial zeal to investigating every dollar of every deal? Perhaps a prod to the NPA to stay on the straight and narrow?
The Cedar Party’s platform sounds vaguely NPAish — lower property taxes, stop wasting money on task forces, respect the taxpayers, leave the community centres alone, etc. — but with the addition of an Anti-Corruption Task Force.
Strategic voting: These guys have zero chance of getting in, but you might want to express support for their aggressive digging by throwing them a vote after you’ve voted the straight NPA slate or a mix of the smaller parties.
Vancouver First: This party was created by former NPA candidate Jesse Johl, who was removed as a candidate by that party in the 2011 election for not completely specified reasons. He later went off on his own, got himself elected as president of the Hillcrest-Riley Park community centre association, led a charge against the Vision park board from there, irritated local residents so much they organized a meeting to take the association back from them, prompting him to sue those who became the new board members. Candidates include Ken Denike and Sophia Woo, school trustees who were expelled from the NPA because of concerns over their opposition to the board’s anti-homophobia policies.
Ballot question: I can’t imagine what the ballot question is for this group. Words fail.

Categories: 2014 Vancouver Civic Election · Uncategorized

  • disqus_srgwrvUypa

    I find it fairly bizarre that some anonymous persons quotes are being treated as news. I’ve been to dozens of SRA meetings lead by Pete and not witnessed this climate this person has described. Pete has been a professional and diplomatic Council chair so these comments are striking and seem gossipy hearsay. I’ve followed your blog a long time and not known you to include hearsay such as this. Very disappointing. I encourage you to remove it.

  • francesbula

    They’re not “news.” I’m not writing a front-page story about them. They’re one line in a 1,000-word post. But I have heard more than one comment like this in the past couple of years, and I got this email that I quoted from someone I’ve known a long time — a person who does not say such things lightly.

  • disqus_srgwrvUypa

    Hmmm, well I’ve had both meggs and Stevenson be flippant and condescending towards me. would you like to use that quote? Come on Frances.

  • Rick Archambault

    Frances, your comments about Pete Fry’s time as Chair of the SRA are not only untrue, they are slanderous. Pete was an excellent SRA chair in a difficult passage for the neighbourhood, dealing with the DTES LAPP, the viaducts, Adanac bike route, Prior Street traffic, and more. He was open, fair, and worked hard for the community. He was a good leader and I’m voting for him because I think he can continue the job as a Green Party city councillor.

  • francesbula

    I think these concerns go beyond “flippant and condescending.” And your comments are duly noted and posted.

    I have used anonymous recommendations, pans, and concerns in this post and my last one, because I have confidence in the people who gave me these pieces of information and feel that I need to make some reference. If you think I’m unreliable, you’re free to ignore what I have to say.

    Should I also remove the references to the unnamed planner in my other post who expresses concerns about the city’s murky PEF accounting and the way it gives developers a freebie by improperly calculating the value of their social-housing units. Or is that anonymous comment, because you probably agree with it, okay.

  • disqus_srgwrvUypa

    that is why this is disappointing. i don’t want to ignore you and i usually find your blog and journalism very reliable and informative reads. i will agree with rick, your comments about pete are untrue and slanderous.

  • francesbula

    I have amended my post to add information that I have in terms of positive stuff people have said about Pete and to provide more context about the negative. But I have heard more than one person express concern about the stances the SRA has taken and the negative tone of the meetings and I feel it would be irresponsible not to mention that. He is a public figure and he is judged differently by different people in the community, just as I am.

  • francesbula

    That’s excellent and a boost for Pete. I know many people feel that way about him. Some people don’t. Are you suggesting I should suppress their opinions because you don’t agree with them?

  • Lizzie Bennet

    I think the post should be amended, Frances, on the topic of Pete. I attended all those SRA meetings and the fractiousness you are talking about came from outside, and Pete was trying to control it. I don’t know if this is a deliberate hatchet job by Vision types, trying to attach to Pete a problem that he inherited and tried to ameliorate. I am completely dumbfounded by what you wrote – I was there and what happened is the opposite of what you describe. This is really damaging and dare I say irresponsible. I really think it needs to be retracted.

  • Internet made me obsolete

    “Slanderous”? People are concerned about an “atmosphere”?
    Jeez. You try to be even-handed and objective and the zealots jump all over you. Might as well go back to saying they’re all just a bunch of self-seeking narcissists who’ll say anything to get elected.
    Wait a second. I almost forgot, this election isn’t about civic adminstration. It’s about affirming our common values and beliefs. For a price.

  • francesbula

    I think people who don’t agree with you have a right to be heard. Interesting to see how quickly you jump to a “Vision hatchet job.” Isn’t this what got Vision in trouble? — assuming that any criticism must be coming only from some partisan trouble-maker, instead of thinking about why people might have that impression.

  • Lizzie Bennet

    No, I went to “hatchet job” because those rumours are so factually untrue that I have to look for motivation. Pete as head of SRA was very calm and reasonable as the vast majority of Strathconians will attest. It’s very concerning to see the spread of rumours that are so strangely far from the truth. It leads to suspicion regarding the source.

  • francesbula

    Actually, I was getting these kinds of comments from people earlier this year. Nothing in the last several months. It was hard for me to judge what other meetings might be like, based on the SRA meeting I went to myself sometime in January or February, because every person invited (Patrick Condon, Adriane Carr, Ray Spaxman) was saying things the crowd wanted to hear. I wasn’t at meetings where, e.g. staff or Gabor Mate were being yelled at.

  • Kieren Beattie

    Having been a resident of Strathcona for the last 15 years and having witnessed Pete Fry participate in and then chair countless SRA meetings. I find your comment both disingenuous and blatantly untrue. He is both considered and inclusive in his thoughts and actions and has done a great job building consensus in the community when dealing with the local area plan, viaducts, prior street, housing etc. Particularly during the time when the DNC and CCAP were actively trying to turn the discussion of the LAP into an us vs them debate. It is a shame that you seem to have made no attempt to taIk to other stakeholders in the community like the UGM about Pete Fry before you post unattributed comments. I can’t help think that the comment was intentionally political coming one day before voting and with Pete polling so well. Shame on you you should know better. It comes across as a cheap stunt.

    Kieren Beattie

  • francesbula

    And now we’re having a full discussion about this, with people able to make their own decisions, having heard multiple opinions and many ringing endorsements of Pete. Is that so terrible?

  • Claudine M

    Hmm. Your comments about Pete Fry seem either misinformed, taken out of context, or perhaps just malicious. As a long term resident of Strathcona I do agree with your mystery quoter in that “I have been to several SRA meetings and find the bellicose belligerence and casual racism very hard to deal with,” however, this was in no way due to Pete Fry. For a time there was a group of angry activists who attended SRA meetings with the sole purpose of causing disruption in a neighbourhood that they appeared to feel was at the advancing edge of gentrification and displacement in the East Side. Many of these individuals were “belligerent and casually racist” (as you appeared pre-amendment to be attributing to Pete) as well as harassing and attempting to intimidate those who disagreed with or stood up to them. Perhaps that is what your friend was referring to when he/she made that statement? During this time, the atmosphere and tone in these meetings was at best tense. Many long term residents and SRA members stopped attending because it was just too stressful. The SRA chair at the time bravely saw out his commitment until the end of his tenure and then the SRA was faced with a situation where no one else wanted to chair these meetings. Pete, although reluctant, stepped up to the plate and did an amazing job of bringing order and civility, as best he could, back to these meetings. Pete has been incredibly open, respectful and hardworking in his commitment to the community. To attack his character in this manner is disgraceful, especially since it is so untrue.

    I have just read your amended comments and they come across as even more mean spirited than your original ones. What residents are describing to you in terms of the atmosphere at SRA meetings actually PRECEDED Pete’s tenure as chair and have nothing to do with him. If you have a personal bone to pick, maybe just come out from behind the curtain and speak your mind, and don’t try to distort and manipulate other’s statements so disingenuously.

  • Pete Fry

    Thanks for the amending Frances. I will suggest that at least one of your sources is inaccurate: Gabor Maté presented to the SRA in fall of 2009, I didn’t take the role of chair until 2012 – so whatever they were/are referring to, it wasn’t under my watch

    For the record here is what I wrote when I took over the SRA: clearly advocating for a more inclusive membership, taking a more assertive role with the city, and more affordable housing. http://strathcona-residents.org/content/letter-new-chair-neighbourhood-news-development-955-east-hastings-and-crime-alert

    I don’t think anti-everything would be a fair assessment of the SRA, but we did take a more assertive role with the city — and indeed that’s the kind of role I am advocating for all neighborhoods. Given more time, I’m sure I could call upon the dozens of city staffers I have worked with over the years who would attest that I’ve always been polite and professional, but give the late hour – no time! If you’ll excuse me I have an election to win! 😉

  • Lizzie Bennet

    Agreed! It’s precisely NOT Pete who was guilty of any of this – quite the opposite. And since we’re talking about the instance when Gabor was there – that was in 2009 and Pete didn’t become the head of the Strathcona Residents Ass’n until 2012! There’s something quite odd going on here. Also please note Gabor’s a Vision supporter which again is why I am led to wonder where this is coming from.

  • Lizzie Bennet

    Well, it *is* terrible, because corrections come too late for all those who read this post when it came out, a post that then contained really quite slanderous and untrue remarks about Pete (“casually racist”?!) and in addition few read all the comments on a blog post. Pete is a great candidate, far better I think than many currently on Council, and if this type of coverage helps keep him off Council, I don’t think it’s doing this City a service. Pete is a friendly, gentle, sharp, hard-working guy. Distressing to see damaging, inaccurate things printed about him at this key moment.

  • Dan Cooper

    “If there is anyone who votes both NPA and COPE?”

    I’ll admit to that. No more surprising, really, than voting for Vision and COPE, since the former actively hates and despises the latter. Every schism within COPE has been caused not by the left-wingers/Louisites – who have stuck in there and worked for the party no matter what – but by first Vision and then the Cadmanites jumping ship the moment they felt they saw a better opportunity and/or they failed in their apparently fundamental objective, overriding every other policy, of keeping the Louisites from having any say at all. I voted for Vision for School Board plus some COPE and PEP, and NPA for everything else plus some COPE. I almost – in my anti-Vision fervour – voted for a few Green candidates despite seeing that party as basically one more pro-corporate centre-right group pretending to be lefty, but in the end couldn’t bring myself to do it after hearing Elizabeth May essentially saying that if you report a sex offense but it doesn’t result in charges then you are lying. Yes, okay, that is at a different level of the Green Party, but to be frank it fits pretty well with my overall impression of the party at every level, to wit “What the heck? Do they actually believe anything?” If I’m going to strategically vote for relative right wingers (and the current crop of NPAites don’t seem too overboard to the right, unlike the raving chicken-shunners of 2011, who are now in other parties) then I’ll take them straight up and out in the open.

    One final comment: I continue to be surprised by people presenting Meggs as a very effective and positive councillor. He is the only member of council I have ever talked to more than in passing, when he ran to be NDP candidate in Vancouver Fairview, and both then and in everything I have read about him in the press he comes across as an angry attack dog who fits perfectly with the Anything for Total Victory and Domination philosophy of Vision. Perhaps I’m missing something, but if so I just truly do not see it. As for Reimer, yes she talks with people, but it seems only to tell them that if they really understood what is happening then they would see that Vision is always right, again at least going by the quotes that end up in the press.

  • Dan Cooper

    Oops, I forgot the Jamie Lee Hamilton “schism,” which I saw mentioned as a “bad thing” about COPE in some article recently, but it amounted to the same thing. Not satisfied with having what amounted to an individually guaranteed position on the COPE executive, Hamilton took off right before the election because she was not handed an uncontested Aboriginal candidate position for Park Board. Of course, she did the same thing to the Green Party in 2011 and the NPA in 2008: join, demand a Park Board candidate spot, and then quit in anger and/or tears when not given one. *sigh*

  • macb423

    I love this post even though I’ve already voted. (Vision). I’m a big fan of your journalism Frances. Plus I like your voice,which is easy to pick out of a crowd.

  • NealeA

    Great and funny analysis, Frances.

  • James Johnstone

    I feel compelled to address the comments regarding Green City Council candidate Pete Fry. Your information is way off. It was during my three year tenure as Chair of the Strathcona Residents’ Association that all hell broke loose and people left because of tensions, but this had nothing to do with Pete. It was the result of a concerted effort by by a group of DNC (Downtown Eastside Neighbourhood Council) members led by Ivan Drury (Google him) to take over the SRA which was then seen as a threat to the aims of those wanting to entrench the DTES as the fabulous, balanced, healthy and safe community it now is (irony). It was in fact Pete Fry who turned this ugly confrontative situation around when he took over as chair, Pete and the team of people he brought in to work with him not only saved the SRA but went on to contribute in a very positive way to the discussion on the future of the DTES during the local area plan process. Pete was able to bridge the Us and Them gap that had been created early in the the LAPP process and work with people from many walks of life, including the most marginalized. The man is not only brilliant, he is a gift I have never met someone as intelligent, thoughtful, principled, caring, compassionate and collegial as Pete Fry. Vancouver needs him on City Council. If you want sanity, solutions, principles, dedication, handwork and transparency on City Council, Pete Fry is your guy.

  • Brilliant

    Anyone notice the distinct absence of all the Gregor apologists and Bike Lobbyists from Fabuland lately? Vision is obviously in full panic mode and has misted the crew of the good ship Moonbeams to try and stop it foundering on the shoals of its arrogance.

  • James Johnstone

    You have to be careful through when you are making statements like this to ensure that you are accurately commenting on the SRA that Pete led… Not the SRA prior to him taking over. I have heard all sorts of things about the SRA that are negative but most of these comments have to do with the period before Pete was even involved in the SRA.

  • francesbula

    And I will take all of this into account when I write future profiles of Pete when he is on council.

  • Internet made me obsolete

    They’re all out putting up Gregor/Vision signs on every available vacant space. Too busy to post. the fate of humanity could hinge on what happens today.
    This thread is proof, if further proof was needed, that political campaigns are really marketing campaigns. The fact that political loyalties are tied, not to policy or experience but to the emotional appeal of the candidate. The campaigns goal is not to convince through rational argument but rather to manipulate the emotions of the consumers (voters).
    Sheep, led by the nose by some ad agency full of hipsters and American financiers. Pathetic.

  • stuckinthemud

    For shame on all you British Columbia media, not one of you reported this..

    http://powellriverpersuader.blogspot.com/2014/11/625000-litres-of-toxic-crud-spilled-in.html

    pipelines and oil spills are a major election issue…For shame on British Columbia`s mainstream media!

  • Karen Knights

    Frances, your comments about Pete Fry and the situation at the SRA are so off base. I, too, am one of those people who regularly attended SRA meetings before and after Pete took the chair. You may trust the person who gave you that information, but I’d suggest if you are going to base your analysis on someone else’s opinion, without doing due diligence to research the situation in an objective manner, then you shouldn’t public heresay. Highly disappointing, as Pete is a briliant mind, a great concensus builder, and a problem-solver, all things that would not be possible if your informant was accurate. They have some personal bone to pick that doesn’t deserve to be aired here.

  • Everyman

    I voted for Pete and all the Green candidates. We need voices that aren’t controlled by developers. The rest were chosen to ensure Vision does not get a council majority. it’s been bad for the city and they have become too out of touch.

  • Chris Keam

    You’re wondering why the all-powerful ‘Bike Lobby’ hasn’t been commenting on threads that aren’t about cycling? Such naivete!

    It’s holiday season coming up. Clearly we’ve been hard at work for our Dark Lord and Master ‘Santa’ (it’s an anagram sheeple! Wake up!) enticing young children to roll through empty intersections without stopping. His Evilness then plunks them straight on the ‘naughty’ list, cutting down on toy manufacturing costs and reducing the amount of time spent on 12/25/2014 delivery requirements. Jolly? No, but very much in keeping with our commitment to reducing expenses while maintaining cookie and milk revenue with the false promise of a full stocking. Oh, we sit around the Global-Panopticon Viewer every Xmas morning, watching their little faces crumple, their hopes dashed, and just laugh and laugh, gorging ourselves on ginger snaps and 2% milk!