The aftermath in Vancouver

Divisions that developed on the last council and poor campaign financing led to a mayoral victory for Sam Sullivan, a split council and the implosion of Vancouver’s ruling party, says COPE’s sole remaining councillor.

Sam Sullivan, with 61,543 votes, beat Vision Vancouver’s Jim Green by 3747 ballots in the tightly contested race for the mayor’s seat and will head a council split evenly between the Non-Partisan Association and the left of centre parties Vision Vancouver and the Coalition of Progressive Electors.

As a victorious Sam Sullivan wheeled his way through a crowd of cheering NPA supporters packed into the Hotel Vancouver’s Columbia ballroom, a clearly dejected David Cadman lingered with his party’s campaign manager and a friend in the foyer outside the hall.

COPE’s surviving councillor said the overwhelming losses by his party were due in part to the split between Vision and COPE as well as poor campaign financing.

“Anything you do united is better than divided,” Cadman said. He said he was happy to be returning to council alongside the four Vision Vancouver councillors and said together with the addition of new NPA faces council would work together to the benefit of Vancouver.

Cadman was incredulous that none of Vancouver’s major media outlets covered the ruling-party’s nomination meeting. He said the media covered it as a mayoral election, largely ignoring COPE in the process and leading to the party’s drubbing at the polls.

COPE incumbents Fred Bass, Tim Louis, Anne Roberts and Ellen Woodsworth all lost their seats. Raymond Louie and Tim Stevenson, both incumbents, will return to council together with their Vision colleagues George Chow and Heather Deal.

Money was another factor in the party’s poor performance, Cadman said. He said many thought COPE, heavily in debt following Vision’s breaking away from the party earlier in the year, would have a hard time running a campaign.

“We’re in an era where money makes a difference in politics,” he said, noting that COPE had money for the last election and won.

The NPA’s Peter Ladner credited his party’s success, in part, to the political infighting on council that lead to the split between Vision and COPE, and said it hurt COPE the most.

“I think they’ve killed themselves,” Ladner said.

He said the results show the popularity of Larry Campbell and Jim Green clearly wasn’t as strong as Vision Vancouver thought it was. Beyond the political infighting, he said there was a sense that Vancouver voters were generally dissatisfied with the direction the city was heading.

Ladner said the race was too close to call throughout the entire campaign and though he had been hoping for an NPA majority on council he was satisfied with the split.

“[Council’s] going to be a lot more fun than the last three years,” Ladner said. Suzanne Anton, Elizabeth Ball, Kim Capri, and B.C. Lee were the other NPA candidates elected to council.

How the COPE/Vision split factored into the overall results would have to be analyzed, said Vision's Raymond Louie. But, he said going forward he hopes partisan issues won't get in the way of council making the right decisions for the people of Vancouver and that future planning on the part of Vision could include overtures to reintegrating COPE, but that it was too early to speculate on.

Municipal election report: District of North Vancouver

Following is a rambling collection of thoughts and observations on the municipal election race for the District of North Vancouver (DNV). It will begin with an examination of the key issues that the campaign has focused on, followed by an overview of the five candidates for mayor. For the sake of brevity, council and school-board-trustee candidates will be largely ignored.

At the forefront of discussion by both council-candidates and mayoral-candidates are issues around fiscal responsibility, and development and land-use. Both issues are related to the other and it is difficult at times to draw distinctions between where one begins and the other ends. Within each issue there are specific examples where candidates and residents alike agree there needs to be change. It is the approach to change that varies, for the most part, between the different candidates.

The Lynn Valley Library and Town Centre (LVLTC), the delivery of services, and residential and commercial taxes are the three central themes that have sparked the most discussion at all-candidates meetings and in newspaper reports.

The Lynn Valley Plan, a policy document drafted in 1998 eventually led to the 2001 decision by the previous council to create the LVLTC, a civic centre in Lynn Valley. The cost to district ratepayers has since risen from a projected $6 million to $28.5 million.

The original concept of a district owned library, an open square and five floors of retail and commercial space including a restaurant, has been scaled back considerably. As it stands all the district has to show for the development is a large empty pit that is slowly filling with water.

In January 2006 the next council will receive a report that will likely see the project cost to have risen to $31.5 million and will have to make tough decisions on how best to address these cost overruns.

Currently, the DNV and the City of North Vancouver share some services, such as recreation centres, however a number of candidates are looking to the rationalization of more services as a simple way to save money. Some even suggest amalgamation of all five North Shore municipalities would best serve the region, especially in its relations with the GVRD and TransLink.

However, despite amalgamation’s frequency of discussion, it lurks as the giant elephant in the room - a number of council candidates referred to it at a Nov. 8 all-candidates meeting as the “big A”, finger quotes and all – and there is a feeling among many that amalgamation will have to wait and sharing services with the city will have to do for now.

Residential taxes account for 72 per cent of tax revenues generated by the DNV and the commercial tax rate is one of the highest in the GVRD. District residents enjoy a high quality of life based largely on the delivery of services, and that they live in a clean, livable city. Residents have said they want to maintain the level of services they enjoy however they are not willing to pay higher taxes. The challenge then, is to encourage businesses to locate in the district, while maintaining population densities and commercial/industrial zoning at a level acceptable to residents.

As mentioned earlier, it is difficult at times to draw a distinction between development/land-use issues and that of fiscal responsibility because the two are intrinsically linked. Increased economic activity through zoning by-law amendments may lead to increased revenues from new business, thus easing the burden on residential ratepayers. However, new business requires a work-force that in turn requires space to live, potentially leading to increased residential density. For every development there will be a consequence and the need for another solution. It will be up to those sitting on the next council to wisely balance the varied interests at work.

Which leads to who will find seats at the table come November 20. It is guaranteed the district will have a new mayor, as incumbent Janice Harris has chosen not to run again this year and is instead seeking a return to council where she sat prior to a 2004 mayoral by-election.

Vying for the coveted centre seat are Dave Sadler and David Dixon as well as three sitting councillors, Jim Cuthbert, Richard Walton and Maureen McKeon Holmes. The decision on the part of these latter three to run for mayor, and the decision by councillor Ernie Crist not to run again, therefore ensures there will be at least four new district councillors.

Walton’s credentials as a chartered accountant and experience on council will certainly serve him well in following through on the main plank of his platform, to bring tight fiscal restraint to the district, should he win. Cuthbert and McKeon Holmes each have the benefit of incumbency as well and both have extensive experience in the public sector.

Thirty years of work with various levels of government in parks planning and a masters degree in applied ecology will help Cuthbert, who served as a district councillor from 1991 to 1996, work toward his goal of making the district the most sustainable city in the world, should he take the mayor’s seat.

McKeon Holmes has degrees in communications and health service planning and administration, and served for a time on the North Shore Regional Health Board. She hopes these skills, beneficial to consensus building and fiscal responsibility, will draw votes to her.

This is Dixon’s second run for mayor and Sadler’s third. Sadler has operated a food distribution company for 30 years and Dixon, an engineer, has worked around the world with Bombardier, building mass transit systems. Both candidates are campaigning on the issue of fiscal responsibility and infrastructure development. However, with each focusing on particular projects, Dixon wants rapid transit on the North Shore similar to the West Coast express and Sadler wants the Lions Gate water treatment facility upgraded, they tend to come across as one-trick ponies.

It’s difficult to say who will be the winner on November 19. The incumbents seem to have an edge because of the obvious advantage of being known to residents of the district. However, there is a sense, from speaking with residents who turned out at recent all-candidate meetings, that there is an underlying desire for change. The question is will voters take the risk of choosing as a mayor either Dixon or Sadler who are relatively unknown and who have little experience in government.

This brings it down to the incumbents and the safe bet seems to be on Richard Walton. He knows the issues and though at times he comes across as a bit of a policy wonk with a tendency to over-use jargon, he speaks knowledgeably about solutions. Tight in second place will come either McKeon Holmes or Cuthbert.

Voter turnout in 2002, when Don Bell won his third term as mayor, was 36 per cent. Considering there is no clear favorite going into this year's election I predict turnout will be higher, at around 42 per cent.