In political circles, the news of Gregor Robertson’s
decision not to run again as Vancouver mayor has led quickly to discussions
about who will replace him.
Perhaps, though, before we get all wrapped up in the
question of who, it might be useful to spend a minute or two on the question of what. As in,
what should be the agenda - or vision, if you like - of Vancouver’s next mayor?
I’m not interested here in the location of the next bike
lane or the height of the next condo tower. I’m thinking about bigger questions.
For example, as we move into the next decade, will
Vancouver embrace and welcome the world or turn away and close its doors? For a long time, Vancouver
worked hard to draw attention to itself on the world stage. Expo 86 and the 2010 Winter
Olympics are the most obvious of these efforts. And at the same time, our
population has been diversifying, as we have welcomed people from every corner of the globe.
Of course it’s not been without some debate along the way, but if you look at my
elementary school class pictures from half a century ago and compare them to what
you’d see today, there’s been nothing short of a transformation.
As for me, this change has made Vancouver more dynamic,
more interesting, more reflective of the world. Today's New York Times even has an article about Kissa Tanto, a Vancouver restaurant that serves, in their words, "Italian food made with Japanese sensibility and ingredients."
But now there is talk of
prohibiting foreigners from owning residential real estate.
You can hear the sound of doors closing.
The influx of foreign capital has obviously influenced home prices. The precise extent of that influence remains up for debate, but it’s clearly been a factor. But since 1986 the population of the City of Vancouver has grown almost fifty percent, and yet the city’s boundaries have not grown. Sooner or later, relentless population growth within a limited geographic area will drive up the value of land. Without significant increases in density, that kind of population growth is inevitably going to put pressure on housing affordability.
The policy debate about affordability often reduces to a
debate between constraining demand and liberalizing supply, as though it were either
or, when it’s really a need for a balance of both kinds of mechanisms. But it’s essential
to be clear on the fundamental question: are we excited about the prospect of a
Vancouver that continues to diversify, urbanize and grow, or have we decided to turn away from
that path?
A second issue. For a decade Vancouver has been led by a
mayor whose most heartfelt aspiration has been to make ours the “greenest city in
the world.” Now Vancouver was built on the revenues,
capital and jobs of resource development. Today BC’s resource economy is still an
indispensable foundation of Vancouver’s prosperity. But our public discourse is often
dominated by the voices of opposition to resource development. As mayor, Gregor
Robertson was often one of those voices.
Even though the city would come to a complete crashing
halt instantly if we no longer had fuel for our vehicles, natural gas and electricity to
heat our homes and power our streetlights and smartphones, or concrete and lumber to
pave our streets and build our condo towers and homes, it’s become fashionable to
imagine that we can have all of the benefits of resource development while actively opposing
the enterprises that make them possible.
Yes, we need to accelerate our transition from a
carbon-dependent economy to a reduced carbon economy. And pollution is no longer an
acceptable byproduct of industrial activity. But is it really an either or
debate? Can we possibly imagine a Vancouver which is a world-leading centre - and cheerleader - for
responsible, sustainable, innovative resource development? And what is the role of our city
governments on these issues? Should city governments be spending tax dollars on costly
interventions in provincial and federal regulatory project approval processes, or on
the provision of municipal services: clean water, sewage treatment, paved streets,
local parks and community centres?
And then there are the problems of social distress.
Gregor Robertson began his first term as mayor a decade ago with a promise to end street
homelessness. For all of his efforts - and they were significant - the homelessness
count is higher today than it was when he took office. And we are staring into the face of
an appalling epidemic of drug poisoning caused by the introduction of fentanyl into the
street user drug supply chain.
These two issues bring into sharp focus a reality: our
system of government, with responsibilities divided among federal, provincial and
municipal authorities, was designed in the 19th century for a largely rural society.
A century and a half later, we are a largely urban society, and our most serious social
problems are most acutely visible on the streets of our cities, and yet city
governments lack the tools and resources for comprehensive responses to those issues.
If we’ve learned anything from the last decade we ought
to be wary of civic politicians who make promises they literally cannot keep. But city
dwellers would not forgive a civic politician whose response to homelessness and the opioid
crisis was to say, “not my problem.” Where to strike the balance here? All of the
major social issues facing Vancouver have a provincial and federal dimension to them. Is the
best option an adversarial posture with the other levels of government, or an
insistence upon working collaboratively? The essence of successful government is
the ability to advance through compromise. The question for the next mayor will
be whether to work as a partner with other governments, or an adversary.
Some will argue that there are other issues that ought to
take centre stage on Vancouver’s policy agenda for the next decade. I also
acknowledge that questions of style and process are important because it’s increasingly
difficult for politicians at any level of government to advance policy without careful and
thoughtful engagement with stakeholders and the public. But I return to the place I
started. When we ask the question, what do we want from our next mayor, we’re
really asking, what do we want Vancouver to be?
