The 17 candidates vying for positions on Vision Vancouver’s council slate fielded tough questions Wednesday night during a series of mini-debates at the Jewish Cultural Centre.
In three teams of four – and one team of five – the contenders addressed a crowd in the hundreds under the glaring lights of the Norman Rothstein Theatre.
Each candidate had one minute to make an introduction and then two attempts to answer questions from a panel of moderators that ranged from strategies for affordable housing to waste recycling initiatives.
Newcomer Vaune Adams Kolber netted the first laughs of the night during her opening address when she stated: “I’ve been described as new, unknown – even naïve. I prefer fresh.”
Probably the freshest answers from the first round of debaters though came from incumbent Heather Deal, who focused on organic waste when asked what Vancouver should do to create a sustainable waste collection strategy. She proposed public composting units on a block-by-block basis and called for recycling at every bus stop.
The second round of debaters will be remembered for the one-two comedic punch of newcomer Kerry Jang and incumbent George Chow.
“I decided to run for city council because of this pain in my head,” said Jang during his opening remarks. He slapped his forehead as he added, “Every time I walk around the city I go, ‘Jeez, why are they doing that?’”
Meanwhile, Chow drew some of the biggest laughs of the evening when he compared his decision to join Vision in 2002 to the current nomination process, which sees 17 contenders battling for eight spots on the council slate.
“We didn’t have to go through this process (then), speaking to you, grovelling for your support," Chow said.
Later on, Geoff Meggs put forward carefully thought out solutions to Vancouver’s lack of affordable housing that called for the city planners and developers to work together to solve the crisis. He proposed that the city waive certain parking requirements, speed up the building approval process and set up an authority to allocate a set amount of affordable housing.
“Developers are part of the solution, not the problem,” Meggs said.
In round three, Rey Umlas delivered his introduction with a fiery passion. Claiming that he had to come to Canada from the Philippines with only one suitcase and $50, he declared, “I am a supporter of all hard working Canadians.”
The rousing remarks continued when incumbent – and former mayoral hopeful – Raymond Louie was asked if he would support measures to ticket and arrest people sleeping on the street.
“Let’s be clear,” Louie replied. “Homelessness, mental illness and drug addiction are not a crime.”
But the biggest fumble of the night followed shortly after when newcomer Ray Lam was stumped by Vancouver’s rental housing shortage.
“I don’t have an answer to this complicated question,” Lam said, netting some cheers for his honesty.
Andrea Reimer took the stage for round four with a well conceived but nervous-sounding opening address packed with jokes, some well executed, some not.
In contrast, David Eby’s opening address exuded confidence and knowledge as he described the city’s housing shortage in human terms and expressed outrage at the lack of a credible housing authority.
But in the end, the energy and enthusiasm of all 17 candidates was perhaps summed up best by Chow in his closing remarks when he exclaimed, “we all have the passion and commitment to build a better city.”
Geoff Dembicki is a staff reporter for The Hook.


2
Login or register to post comments
jcosman
3 years ago
Ray Lam's fumble?
I'd say Ray Lam actually did a pretty good job with his policy question. Rather than BSing and making some totally unrelated point (like some of the other candidates) he actually admitted that he didn't know.
Lam was able to admit that, and was willing to learn what's going on - this seems a lot more important, and reassuring, than the ability to speak pleasingly without knowing about the issue.
hopeforchange
3 years ago
A Response
A position on City Council demands that a Councilor have a rounded sense of all city issues. Not having a response to a critical issue such as housing is unacceptable because when it comes time for Lam to contribute to the issue he cannot have no answer. Albeit, Lam's specialty is the environment and lobbying, but there is more to this great city of Vancouver than these two issues, and perhaps he should branch out and acquire a more diverse understanding of the city before taking on the comprehensive responsibility of being a City Councilor.
Please don't get me wrong - I believe that Lam has the best intentions and that having no answer IS better than redirecting all of the questions towards his specialty, as others such as Eby do, but I'm looking for a group of Councilors with a wealth of experience and an understanding to contribute to all major issues.
As I mentioned above, the real disappointment last night was David Eby. The Tyee states that he portrayed confidence, yet even his 'confidence' couldn't hide the fact that he is a one issue candidate. When asked about Olympic security, the city hosting military camps and installing street cameras, and how he would guarantee that Vancouver does not become a police state he answered to his specialty: Downtown East Side housing. Somehow the security and chartered rights of every individual in Vancouver was an issue only because it would push out people from the Downtown East Side. David Eby has to come to terms with the fact that Vancouver's issues affect more than the Downtown East Side, they affect all of us. His other question, about helping those with drug addiction once they have completed rehab, was more apt for his single issue towards Downtown East Side housing. However, the two candidates that came across as having a comprehensive understanding of the issue of drug abuse and the next step after rehab were Demitri Douzenis and Andrea Reimer. Instead of assuming that giving a shelter over recovering drug addicts' heads was a solution, they went one step further into wanting to ensure that they create a life for themselves. What struck a cord with me with Douzenis' understanding was that not only do you have to find them a home, but that the city of Vancouver has to aid them in acquiring a PURPOSE and help them to empower themselves.
I do agree that we need to deal with the issue of housing, but I do not agree with it being a candidate's sole crutch for every issue. The problems that face this city deserve more clarity than finding a way to redirect it to one initiative.
I agree with Geoff Meggs' comprehensive plan about how to address housing, and I also agree with the fact that he talks about housing only when it is the issue being discussed.
The last thing our city needs is someone with no answer, or worse someone who is a one issue candidate.