Why independent councillors are important to the next council

The municipal level of government is intensely local - the focus is intended to be on local issues: the nitty gritty of policing, transportation (roads, sidewalks, bikeways), recreation and parks services, garbage and recycling, zoning, bylaws and bylaw enforcement. On a day to day basis, what happens at the municipal level impacts residents most acutely. 

As those who read this blog know, I've been thinking a lot about running for council this October. In truth, I have made my decision and am in that space between having thought about running and making a formal announcement about doing so. One element in that space is: run independently OR join a slate. The advantage of a slate is you're not at it alone, the group builds a brand, and share resources to leverage name recognition. In many respects running on a slate makes the job of running (yes it's a job - fundraising, branding, marketing, etc.) much easier for a candidate. It also, should enough the slate be elected makes pushing through policies the slate wants easier. It pushes a "party system" to the municipal level. This means that there is a "governing party" and an "opposition party/side" - at a local level. It's a style of governance that works at the provincial and federal levels, but does it work at the local level?

In my opinion, the emergence of slates has brought a level of dysfunction to local politics that undermines effective local governance. With a slate that controls a significant share of votes, a minority of residents have their views amplified. Rather than having all councillors working together to find the best path forward, there's a group that imposes its views and approaches on the whole. As a result, rather than balance, we see meetings that are painfully long and dysfunctional. As a result, we see decisions that do not reflect what the public at large needs or wants.

We see public engagement and consultation defied - as an example, the changes to Clover Point. This undermines public trust in the local government, and the engagement process. The public needs to trust that those at council table will work towards a public engagement process that is robust and reliable, and that the results of their input into that process will be respected. If the process is viewed as a means of decision based evidence making, it becomes a useless echo chamber that ensures bad ideas are implemented.

We see a lack of balance in policy - as an example the closures of both Richardson Street and Vancouver Street - streets that could have amply accommodated bike lanes while maintaining reasonable vehicle traffic. As a consequence of those changes, emergency response is compromised. As a consequence of those decisions, road safety on adjacent roads is compromised. As a consequence of those decisions, greenhouse gas emissions are increased, not decreased and the functionality of our transportation system is undermined.

We see people being unable to trust their neighbourhood representative will fairly advocate for their interests. As an example, while 24/7 sheltering in Beacon Hill Park was permitted, the same person who was running the Community Care Tent, was also the Fairfield Gonzalez community rep. 

Further, when individual council members act wholly out of bounds (ie: repeatedly violating the provisions of FOIPPA), we see a lack of accountability for those actions. Perhaps because they happen to be members of the "governing" slate.

Given these considerations, I think a more functional municipal government happens when those around the council table are independents, a group of people committed to undertaking their role in a professional manner, who work together and put the needs of the city first.

As such, should I run, I assure you that I will be doing so as an independent candidate.