Frances Bula header image 2
← →

VV’s George Chow to leave council; doppelganger Tony Tang to run instead

May 27th, 2011 · 36 Comments

Quirky George Chow has finally made his decision, it appears. He never did phone or email me back to say officially that he’s not running, but the news release about Tony Tang stepping up to take his spot on the Vision slate for the fall election makes it clear.

With Tang, Vision seems to have managed to achieve the goal of finding almost an exact substitute: like George, Tony is an engineer; also like George, he’s been active in the Shaughnessy Heights Property Owners Association; and finally, like George, he’s got a low-key, friendly style, though I’m not sure he can ever match the positive references George got in local media to his Dadaist poems, speeches and jokes.

Below, the news release on Tony’s run:

Former Board of Variance Chair Tony Tang to seek Vision Vancouver Council NominationTony Tang, a long-time Vancouver neighbourhood activist who most recently served as chair of the City’s Board of Variance, announced today he is seeking a Vision Vancouver nomination for City Council.“Vancouver is a great city that has so much going for it, and I’m proud to announce that I will seek the nomination to run with Vision Vancouver for City Council,” said Tony Tang. “Under Mayor Gregor Robertson’s leadership, it is clear that Vision Vancouver is the only civic party that has the ideas and commitment to make our city more affordable to live in.“As Chair of the Board of Variance, I heard on a regular basis about the hardships that homeowners face in Vancouver, and the importance of public safety and protecting our neighbourhoods. The cost of living is a big concern. I want to change that. We need to make Vancouver a more affordable and inclusive city, and with Vision Vancouver, I want to help make that happen.”Tony Tang is a professional engineer with a Master’s degree from the University of British Columbia, and has worked for over 20 years in the home construction industry. He and his wife have lived in Vancouver for over 22 years. Fluent in both Cantonese and Mandarin, he has served as Chair of the Board of Variance since 2009, and from 2001-2006 was a Board member of the Shaughnessy Heights Property Owners’ Association.Two-term Vision Vancouver CityCouncillor George Chow, who will retire from city politics this fall, says that Tony Tang understands the need to work towards solutions on housing affordability.“I’ve known Tony for many years, and he is a smart, pragmatic businessman,” said Councillor Chow. “He understands the importance of strengthening our local economy by revitalizing neighbourhoods such as Chinatown as well as by promoting stronger business and cultural ties with Asia.  In particular, his experience in the building industry and his caring personality make him uniquely suited to help bring forward solutions on making housing more affordable for people across Vancouver.”In addition to his community and business experience, Tony Tang was a member of the Vision Vancouver executive from 2006-2009. He joined Vision Vancouver for its inclusive and balanced approach.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Max

    I LOVE this line:

    “Under Mayor Gregor Robertson’s leadership, it is clear that Vision Vancouver is the only civic party that has the ideas and commitment to make our city more affordable to live in.”

    Do tell, how is that coming along???? LOL!

  • Ned

    LOL
    Old saying.
    “New shoes, old laces. Still out of fashion.” Not long ago you were saying that the NPA didn’t have imagination. Speaking of which…

  • Everyman

    Max, sounds like letting the foxes guard the chicken coop.

  • Richard

    I was really impressed by George. He was always well informed and made valuable contributions to the discussions at council.

    Good luck to Tony. It is a good sign that he is an “exact substitute”.

  • City Observer

    Tony Tang. Yet another Vision Vancouver bully boy (elitist) thug.

    Hopefully, the Chinese community won’t vote lock step for Mr. Tang who, although he may fashion himself as a “substitute” for George Chow, possesses neither Mr. Chow’s humanity or his wit.

    If Mr. Tang’s sorry tenure on the Board of Variance is any indication — as he followed the orders of his political masters, rather than representing the interests of Vancouver citizens — his ascension to Council would only bode ill for anyone even remotely interested in the concept of representative democracy.

  • Roger Kemble

    “Vancouver is a great city that has so much going for it . . .” Tony Tang: VV council aspirant.

    I disagree . . .

    For as long as I remember Vancouver has been treated like a forlorn, petulant little girl in constant need of reassurance!

    Vancouver is not a great city. It could have been if we had not fallen for the empty flattery from people such as the above.

    Vancouver is a city of lost opportunities, shallow leadership, bad planning and a dependency economy: dearth of a public realm, unaffordable domicile, traffic gridlock, selling our heritage off-shore, ugly architecture, offering no future for it’s youngsters other than barista, bureaucracy, real estate and more of the same: none of which are import substituting, wealth creating endeavors.

    Our artists tread lightly: exposing public trivia, never daring to question the status quo.

    We are constantly bombarded with self serving rhetoric, by a few who have done okay by duct-taping a smile to their face reiterating, constantly, empty phrases, green/sustainable, world class, paradise, neighbourhoods and livability etc etc while doing absolutely nothing but talk and smile their cynical smiles! Most of whom bought in before the bubble and brown-nosed themselves into cushy publicly funded sinecures.

    The last Mayor worth his salt was Phillip Owen and even one of his main legacies is under threat.

  • Tristan

    And Vision itself is a doppelganger of another party:
    http://themainlander.com/2011/05/28/vision-team-and-veneer-reform/

  • Max

    @ Tristan #7

    I read the article. Very interesting.

  • Joseph Jones

    Richard #4 says: George … was always well informed.

    Richard must not have been among the 200 or so at the May 13 town hall meeting at 49th and Oak where Chow demonstrated incomprehension of basic Vancouver planning history. After CityPlan, according to Chow, there was a switch to the visioning process! That was his word — switch, not implementation.

    At every turn, VisionVancouver and their obedient planners disrespect our nine multimillion-dollar community visions (1997-2010 R.I.P).

    So, say vision and think irony.

  • Glissando Remmy

    Tristan #7

    I didn’t realized that you wrote that article until after I left my message on your blog.

    Here it is again. It’s well deserved.

    The Thought of The Night

    ‘In the City of The Blind the One-Eye Joker is Mayor.’

    I have found your forensic analysis on Vancouver’s bones, old and new, simply brilliant. Thanks for a great read. Well researched, well written and furthermore…right on!

    We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

    NOTE TO READERS ***** required reading.

    http://themainlander.com/2011/05/28/vision-team-and-veneer-reform/

  • Glissando Remmy

    The Thought of The Midnight

    ‘Send in…Chow and Tang, on their little tandem.’

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJvUCDP9u0I

    Chow was (well, still is) simply the Vision In House Buffoon, the one that did the cartwheels in buggy pants and big red shoes during intermissions. His main contribution during his term was to make 212 different shaped balloon dogs. His comments and ‘advice’, similar in fact to other Vision councilors, were a combination of a bun, buttered with ‘I can’t believe I am a Councilor’, filled with baloney and taste-masked with Thyme for that mildewed Ting and Tang signature .
    His footprint will not be missed.

    I don’t know much about Tang. I see though, that Vision delivers and caters to the ‘community’… so that the ‘community’ could calm down and move away from the fact that a farm boy from a far away island up north, stole the Mayorship from under local poster boy Raymond (The Looser) Louie three years back. Vision it is an inclusive Club, just don’t crowd their Hollyhock waterfront. That would be a doozy.

    MISCELLANEOUS

    Roger Kemble #6
    I love you, man! Always a pleasure to read your lucid comments.

    City Observer #5 and Joseph Jones #9
    Thanks for bringing that up.

    This city has less than six months to… WAKE UP! I need a break.
    🙂

  • Michael Geller

    I must say I am quite surprised at the ‘anti-Vision’ tone of the majority of the comments related to this item. The comments on the Fabula Blog are starting to read/feel a bit like the comments at CityCaucus or the Alex Tsakumis’ Blog.

    Has there been some sort of directive from Vision to its supporters not to publicly comment on political matters on this blog? Or is it that ‘Visionistas’ are slowly being replaced by other voices?

    Maybe Suzanne Anton and Mike Klassen are right and there really is a growing opposition and increased cynicism with the crowd that oftentimes worships “Eco-theology” rather than common sense.

    Speaking of which, I always found George to be a decent and reasonable guy who often spoke common sense. But I wondered why and how he could sit through so many meetings and say so little….

    When I asked a mutual colleague why he remained on Council, I was told he enjoyed the ‘prestige’ and opportunities a Council seat offered him within the Chinese community.

    At any rate, I too would like to publicly thank him for his years of public service and thousands of hours of sittiing through some pretty inane discussions in the Council Chamber and Committee rooms.

  • spartikus

    Dear Michael Geller,

    Please count the number of “anti-Vision” comments. Subtract Max. How many do you have left over?

    Indeed, how many regular commenters are there? Don’t mistake this insular little world for the wider community.

    It would be interesting to hear you comment on the quality of the “anti-Vision” comments.

    As for myself, who voted for Vision in 2008, but is just some poor schmuck and not a “party operative” I’ll paraphrase what I said a week or so ago: The commentators here who support the NPA regularly employ deception (Hi Max!) and employ a negative tone so out of proportion to whatever grievance real or perceived they have that there really is no point in engaging them.

    Ex. Someone named “Adele Chow” – whom I take it might have been the wife of George Chow of whom you speak warmly and positively of – writes “I like the Mayor”. The response? Facts? Figures? Reasoned argument?

    No, her sanity was questioned. Literally questioned. “Delusional” was the term I believe. Whatever you may make of the utility of her original statement, why should the mental state of someone be called into question simply because they write a comment in support of their spouse’s work?

    Do you agree with this tone, Michael? Do you think it’s warranted? In #12 you offer respect to George Chow. Where were you when these comments were made?

    In general, how does one engage with such hate? Why would one? On many threads this has simply become who can shout the loudest. Despite my love of debate it’s not worth my time.

    I have long observed the 2 main Vancouver parties do not substantially differ on policy. Bike lanes, business tax shift, density, etc. No, sorry, they just don’t. Thus we are left with insubstantial arguments over semantics.

    I continue to enjoy the comments made on non-political subjects. A shout out in particular to MB and Lewis Villega for your continued positive and informed contributions.

  • IanS

    @ Spartikus #13,

    I usually try to leave the internet squabbling to the anti Vision crowd and the Vision apologists, but I don’t think this statement is fair:

    “Do you agree with this tone, Michael? Do you think it’s warranted? In #12 you offer respect to George Chow. Where were you when these comments were made?”

    Are you actually suggesting that Mr. Geller wrote those comments? Or is your statement merely an unwarranted collateral attack on someone who’s posts have always been constructive, informative and balanced?

  • Max

    @IanS #14

    Spartikus is very quick to criticzie others, yet, does not turn the mirror on his or herself.

  • Michelle

    Michael Geller #12
    “I must say I am quite surprised at the ‘anti-Vision’ tone of the majority of the comments related to this item. The comments on the Fabula Blog are starting to read/feel a bit like the comments at CityCaucus or the Alex Tsakumis’ Blog.”
    This could be, with all due respect Michael, your attitude ‘signature’ of non combat and perpetual friendly skies. You may have a brilliant mind but…you are not a leader. A leader must not be afraid to say it how it is. Nothing wrong with CC or AGT sites. There are blogs with balls and blogs with no balls. This one is the latter.
    Spartikus,
    you are trying to hide the garbage under the rug. Sorry, old mate, we know it’s there!
    BTW I had no clue that ‘Adele Chow’ was related to ‘George Chow’ . After I read her comments I can confirm, she is biased big time. That is why if your spouse is one of the passengers inside your car during a auto collision she IS NOT your witness. Ask ICBC. It’s common sense. So yeah, I agree with others, she made a joke out of herself with her comments.
    And George. Good to see him go. I didn’t know he even was part of the Council. 🙁

  • George

    Michelle @16

    Well said!

  • Sean

    @Michelle #16
    “There are blogs with balls and blogs with no balls.”

    Some might phrase this as: “Some blogs are nothing but rants and some offer reasonable discourse”…

  • Max

    @Michelle: #16

    Is Adele Chow related to George Chow, I know it has been suggested but…

    As for Mr. Geller, I hold the utmost respect for him and his learnered input. He is (sadly) not running for city council and is allowed his opinion just as the rest of us are.

    I find him very even – right across the political board and could only wish that he would run for council.

  • Mark Allerton

    I wonder how Bill McCreery feels about that perspective on TEAM’s position in Vancouver’s political history?

  • spartikus

    Are you actually suggesting that Mr. Geller wrote those comments?

    Er, no. A plain English reading would not have suggested that. You are usually quite good at such things.

  • Jester

    Pretty entertaining to see anonymous posters whining about someone else’s lack of balls.

    To paraphrase Alice Longworth Roosevelt, if you haven’t got anything nice to say, welcome to this blog.

    But have the guts to sign your name.

  • Everyman

    @spartikus 13
    There’s really nothing worse than a disengenuous civic lesson.

    Like many here, it sounded to me like Adele Chong’s responses were churned out by a robot programmed to utter pro-Vision homilies for teh twitterati.

  • Everyman

    @spartikus 13
    There’s really nothing worse than a disengenuous civics lesson.

    Like many here, it sounded to me like Adele Chong’s responses were churned out by a robot programmed to utter pro-Vision homilies for the twitterati.

  • Julian Christians

    @ Michael Geller

    Like spartikus, I voted for Vision in 2008 (but also voted for you!), but do not feel any allegiance to the party, and I suspect I’ll vote for a mix of the slates this year.

    Do you really wonder why Vision supporters (or Vision lukewarms) don’t post much on this blog? Why bother?

    Very few of the regulars seem genuinely interested in engaging in meaningful debate, i.e., forming coherent arguments based on facts and logic. You, Mr. Geller, are a notable exception in providing informed criticism of mistakes that have been made (on all sides) and suggestions for moving forward. I think NPA candidates such as Klassen, Bickerton and McCreery would do well to study your posts and try to be more constructive, and less petty. Jason is another Vision critic who seems pretty reasonable.

    A couple of folk who are not entirely hostile to Vision, spartikus and Chris Keam, regularly cite facts and figures, provide references for what they say, and make logical arguments, and the responses to their comments are generally on the “you’re wrong/ lying/ stupid” level (e.g., see comments 15 and 16). (Aside: I found spartikus’ “Where were you…” comment in 13 very confusing – I think they mean: “Why didn’t Michael Geller speak up when people were bashing Adele Chow?”)

    Very rarely, I post questions to the Vision critics, and they simply go unanswered (although Bill McCreery once replied that I had “missed a few things”, without mentioning what those things were).

    In this very thread, two comments (16+17) state they like blogs with “balls”, whereas I guess Ms. Bula only offers facts, balance and objectivity. How/why would we engage with these folk?

  • Adele Chow

    Tony Tang is a huge catch! He’s a wonderful addition to the Vision Vancouver team. His entry into the city council race makes the November 2011 race very exciting. It’s great to see talented individuals like Mr. Tang offer themselves up for public service. I wish him all the best! Vancouver will be well-served by a Councillor Tony Tang. This is wonderful news!

  • IanS

    @Sparkikus #21,

    You write: “Er, no. A plain English reading would not have suggested that. You are usually quite good at such things.”

    Ah. So it was a mean spirited and unwarranted collateral attack on Mr. Geller then. Fair enough.

    Thanks for clearing that up.

  • Michael Geller

    Well thanks to all who responded to my prompting….and also for your kind words.

    One thing that this blog has demonstrated to me is that there are a lot of people who are genuinely interested in learning and discussing civic issues in Metro Vancouver. Often, the comments offered by readers can be very informative and interesting to read. I certainly enjoy many of them.

    However, I do have to agree with Sparticus and others who point out that by posting comments, one does expose yourself to potential attacks, which can often be quite rude and sometimes cruel. This may prompt a ‘why bother’ attitude. This is a shame.

    So as we now gear up for municipal elections, I do hope that we can continue to have an informed discussion at Fabula that will help inform voters on the important issues facing the city. I know that there are thousands of people who read this blog, but do not comment, who would also appreciate a more civil discourse.

    And to go back to my original observation, I also hope we will hear from people of all politicial persuasions, (including those with ambiguous political persuasions…(yes, there are many who are bi-partisan, or truly non-partisan) , and that we can raise the bar in terms of the quality of commentary, and refrain from ‘cyber-bullying’ through rude and cruel responses.

    ps Adele Chow…I know Chow is a very common name in Vancouver, but are you related to George?

  • Bill

    @spartikus 13

    “I have long observed the 2 main Vancouver parties do not substantially differ on policy”

    I agree with you and it is why Vision will win in November as all NPA seems to offer is that they would just do everything better than Vision and be more consultative and transparent. What is needed is a party that is, for lack of a better descriptor, to the right of center. They might not be any more successful since like most urban centers, Vancouver seems to have more Takers than Makers, but at least there would be a clear choice for voters on policy.

  • Higgins

    Sorry to not agree with some of you on some topics most of the times…but on this one I have to say, I am puzzled. I don’t know , IMHO, George was a non existent councilor. We needed a councilor not a sit in, that needed reassurance and prestige for his Chinese community. I thought they were supposed to be representing the City of Vancouver and not themselves. Yeah, and we also needed a Council and not a Vision. Better luck next time, eh?
    If Tang, is the same Tang that sat on the Board of Variance , he is a walking disaster. But who knows, he may need a self esteem treatment too.
    LOL
    Last word is for one ‘Adele Chow’ …Lady, I found this on a previous post:
    ” Thank goodness Vancouver doesn’t have this kind (like Toronto’s Rob Ford) of civic government (unless the NPA comes back in force).”
    But we do Adele, we do. And it’s called Vancouver Vision, and they are in bed with the developers closer than you might think.
    After reading you again #26 your final mark is …F.

  • ThinkOutsideABox

    Bill #29,

    What is needed is a party that is, for lack of a better descriptor, to the right of center.

    I have thought about this the past couple of weeks in light of the observance in council and in action, that this Vision council has been very developer friendly, favouring spot rezonings over the will of established zoning guidelines, policy and community plans, and has steadily shifted the tax burden from business to residential.

    Aside from the feel good bromides that aren’t mutually exclusive to Vision, and the alignment with the federal Liberals, considering the above and the actions of its councillors, could someone prove that Vision isn’t right of center? Or alternatively, anymore right of center than any of the NPA candidates?

  • Michelle

    I work at a place named ‘Bite Me.com’
    To all my Vision ‘admirers’ and ‘critics’ and Julian …please join me. For those of you that cannot swallow my comments, try reading them with a glass of water. When there is No Vision what do you expect?
    I know, the truth pills are hard to swallow sometimes. Grow up.

  • Max

    Worth reading Jeff Lee’s Blog:

    Vancouver civic election gets interesting with the big money men http://ow.ly/1cXwSE

  • Max

    I understand that another Vision member has left the pack – parks board commissioner, Raj Hundal.

  • Bill McCreery

    A post I was doing on the weekend was lost in cyberspace. I’ll make another shorter effort now.

    I was nor surprised when George announced he’s not re-running. At the Shannon Mews panel 10 days ago he twice told the critical audience that if they didn’t like what Vision was doing, vote them out! A politician who says it as it is like that isn’t going to run again.

    I offer George my best wishes and thanks for his work on Council. In my brief interactions I found his to be an approachable, reasonable person. Unfortunately that didn’t translate to votes in the Council Chamber. George’s less ideological and more pragmatic ‘engineers’ approach may have also frustrated him in his dealings with his colleagues.

    To those who say certain commenter here who are running for office are too partisan, it can also be suggested that:

    1) we do at least participate in the discussions here and elsewhere, and we use our own names when doing so;

    2) I/we are partisan and do not apologize, and want you to know that, in fact, there are differences in policy and approach between the NPA and VV; in my view they are significant and they must be articulated; to that end, please stay tuned;

    3) while I do not share Michael’s verbal eloquence if you look back at my comments you will find, in addition to my partisanship, many examples of suggested positive alternatives, reasoned and logical arguments, as well as non-political assessment.

    Perhaps Julian, you might consider being a bit less partisan yourself in that respect and look at all of what I say, not just what’s convenient to your message.

  • George

    @ Julian # 25

    “In this very thread, two comments (16+17) state they like blogs with “balls”,”

    May I ask where I referred to anyone’s ba**’s. I agreed with what Michelle had to say in reference to Alex Tsakumis..

    With all due respect to Micheal Geller, I felt it was counter productive to make this comment in one breath …”The comments on the Fabula Blog are starting to read/feel a bit like the comments at CityCaucus or the Alex Tsakumis’ Blog.”

    I have no idea why Micheal would bring Alex Tsakumis into the conversation.

    My comment to Michelle “well said” was in reference to that comment. Perhaps I could have been clearer in my comment upon reflection.

    In my opinion that comment, negated the value of Mr. Geller’s comments… rather holier than thou which is not Micheal’s usual style.

    In reality… what was the point other than to slam many people that have a different opinions… I’m not sure what Micheal was trying to infer, but I found it beneath him.

    It definitely has me looking closer at what Micheal has to say in the future.

    Perhaps Mr. Geller takes offense to things Alex and his blog guests have to say, about the Liberal government, and BC Rail, maybe that is the partisan side of him coming out?

    Not sure of his intent, but that is the way I read it..

    Hope that clarifies, my opinion and comment for you Julian… quite frankly I don’t think I needed to justify my comments, but I felt it was necessary.

    I think if Mr. Geller were to be fair he would make that same comment on both CityCaucus and Alex G Tsakumis’s blogsite about the commenters, instead of slagging us behind our backs…. to be fair.

    Funny when Jim Green came out and tried to discredit Mr. Geller on his statements about the low income housing in the OV, I was the most vocal in defending his position, and criticizing the personal attacks he was taking over his comments….
    I personally took offense to Micheal’s wide brush stroke comment in this thread’s post….
    Thank you.