DarrenBarefoot.com

Sorry. I’m just as clueless as you.

As the author of the aforementioned article, that “prime example comment leaves me asking, “prime example of what?” ;) That said, Kris Krug’s cover photo of Sully was a big winner. Yes, his rival’s people were just a wee bit envious.

Here’s what’s really important: the mayoral race gets all the attention, but, ironically, the mayor of Vancouver has less power over council than anywhere else in BC. The mayor is one vote out of 11, as opposed to 1 in 5, 7 or 9 in other municipalities in BC.

Sure, he or she will chair the council meetings and get to be as a lead singer is to the rest of the band, but the council composition counts more. This last one was interesting — the dealmakers iun the so-called “COPE lite” crowd, now Vision, usually got their way despite being only four (Larry Campbell, Jim Green, Tim Stevenson, Raymond Louie) of eleven. On some development issues and fiscal issues, they voted with the NPA minority, while on a lot of social matters, city projects such as Woodward’s or the 2nd Avenue RAV station, and issues like laws governing the convesion of single-occupant rooms to other, more expensive units, they voted with the more left-wing COPE members. This year, the NPA is the NPA, the former COPE pragmatists are Vision, and the hardcore COPEsters are still COPE. NPA will, in theiry, be more developer-friendly (although the support seems to be split between Vision and NPA), more hardline on negotiations with city staff, and somewhat more compliant towards the province. That said, Vision understand that they have to play ball with the province too — and both Vision and NPA candidates tend to oppose twinning the Trans-Canada and the Port Mann bridge. Split your ticket as you will.

One of the glaring differences between the big-name mayoral runners is their philosophical apprach to governing, and it’s not centred around the size of government. The size of the city budget would be about the same under either council. Sam Sullivan is a wonk; he likes to formulate policies, and follow them strictly until the end of the policy’s life. Jim Green and friends like to say “let’s make a deal” and make more exceptions, and modify their approach from time to time,or under certain circumstances. The question is which one is more vulnerable to each side’s weakness: sclerosis in Sullivan’s case, incoherency and unintended consequences in Green’s? Answer: hard to tell. And that’s without going over individual splits on how council vote on certain issues. It’s fun, complex, and runs on a lot of different levels.

So, to echo what others would say, trach the three rags mentioned above (although I’m naturally biased toweards TC) and don’t forget Frances Bula’s and Jeff Lee’s reportage in the Sun.

You should vote for Jim Green, because he’s gangsta.

It has a little ‘new’ label so maybe it wasn’t there when you posted, but the City website you link to has a link to candidate profiles. It doesn’t help you sort the contenders from the also-rans though.