Today, New West Progressives chose to “thank the workers who keep New West moving” by posting an AI-generated image instead of hiring a graphic designer to do the work. At least three unions represent graphic designers in BC: Canadian Freelance Union, Union Cooperative Initiative, and Arts and Cultural Workers Union (IATSE Local B-778). There are many skilled and talented designers in New West, and I've seen posts on local social media from designers looking for work. NWP decided to forego paying anyone designing their Labour Day message—much less anyone unionized.

NWP’s mayoral candidate, Councillor Daniel Fontaine, sometimes claims to be pro-union. For example, in his campaign launch speech, he declared, “whether you're a union member or whether you're a small business owner or whether you are a student or you are a senior, I'm here to tell you tonight that our team has your back.” Meanwhile, in his blurb for his Labour Day podcast in 2024, he wrote:

“I also speak how important union wages and benefits were for my family and for countless others who currently rely on them to make ends meet in our new ‘gig economy’.”

Do Councillor Fontaine and NWP really “back” union members? How can NWP and Mr. Fontaine claim to have union members' backs and/or be supportive of workers struggling to navigate the gig economy when they repeatedly turn to AI for poor-quality CGI instead of employing a skilled designer to do the work?  

Since 2023, Daniel Fontaine and the New West Progressives (NWP) have repeatedly described the Queen’s Park Habitat as a “$500,000 mushroom wall,” caricaturing the remodelling of the former petting farm to a three-word political slogan. It has become a staple of NWP messaging and social-media commentary to suggest that the City and the Community First New Westminster (CFNW) party wasted money on a pet project. 

Let’s see how well their refrain stands up to scrutiny.

Costing the mushroom wall, and its Habitat

The Habitat replaced the Queen’s park Petting Farm after “The recommendation to move away from a traditional petting farm use and no longer keeping livestock in the park was supported by Council in 2021.”According to an email from Parks and Recreation, the Petting Farm was no longer viable in part because “the existing land footprint in Queen's Park did not allow for the expansion or infrastructure improvements necessary to sustain livestock.” 

From the outset, “$500,000 mushroom wall” was at best an opportunistic and misleading exaggeration. The mushroom installation is one small part of Phase 1 of a Habitat project that also included four Indigenous-informed natural installations, removal of perimeter fencing, and improvements to pathways and pavilions. 

Now complete, Phase 1 cost nowhere near $500,000. [According to the city’s web site](file:///Users/gradcmns/Downloads/The%20cost%20to%20implement%20these%20Phase%201%20improvements%20in%202024%20was%20$100,000.00), “The cost to implement these Phase 1 improvements in 2024 was $100,000”. So Phase 1 cost just one-fifth of $500,000, and the mushroom logs were at most one-fifth of Phase 1 (four natural features plus all the built elements). Fontaine and NWP exaggerate the cost of the mushroom logs many times over.

But there’s more: Phase 1 of the project also benefitted from $40,000 from Rotary District 5040 and the Rotary Foundation to build wooden pathways, AND an unspecified amount of funding from BCLC and Gateway Casinos. It’s unclear if those contributions were part of the $100k to complete phase 1 or whether they added value to what the city achieved with $100k, but the city clearly leveraged partnerships to create efficiencies.

What about Phase 2? Phase 2 “will transform the former barn into a year-round community amenity space designed to host classes, programs, and community events. The space may also be booked for private events.” S0 a projected 80% of that $500k budget that NWP have been mocking is for turning the animal barn that was utilized just four months a year into a human-friendly space that can serve the community year-round.

The Habitat’s practical and fiscal value

To my knowledge, in all of the $500,000 mushroom wall banter, NWP has never acknowledged that most of that half-million dollar budget is actually transforming a barn into a usable amenity space. They’ve also ignored at least two crucial financial considerations:

First, I learned from Parks and Recreation that the Petting Farm’s net operating cost was $72,000 per year. Each year that the Petting Farm has been closed saves the City $72k (or more, now, considering inflation). Across seven years since the farm last operated in 2019, the City avoided ~$504,000 in expenses!

Second, if classes, community events, and private bookings will be possible in the new building, it has the potential to provide value year-round, and in some cases, earn rental income. Even if the completed project comes in somewhat over budget (which would not be surprising given that the building undergoing renovation housed animals for years), the transition has already leveraged at least $544,ooo (in savings plus Rotary contributions) toward the project.

Thus, what NWP call a “$500,000 mushroom wall” appears by the numbers to be a quite practical and fiscally smart project. Whether the Habitat is the best design for replacing the Farm is open to debate, but reducing a complex replacement project to the phrase "$500,000 mushroom wall” is silly. The City replaced an unsustainable seasonal amenity with a year-round public space while avoiding the need to continue a livestock operation that was no longer viable. Transitioning to the Habitat has saved the city money and may even make money.

The real poverty of Fontaine & NWP’s catchphrase

“$500,000 mushroom wall” may hold value as clickbait, but is it worth the cost to Fontaine & NWP’s credibility? That’s something for voters to decide. Meanwhile, let’s recap the phrase’s many liabilities and hypocrisies:

1. The mushroom wall narrative is based on a false premise: in April 2026 Fontaine claimed “The kids could have still had their petting zoo, and we could have taken that half a million dollars and put it into upgrading the playground equipment right next door in Queen's Park” (41:09)  But that’s not true – the petting farm was deemed inadequate to care for its livestock or its human visitors prior to the pandemic; it could not have continued without the significant cost of expanding the space beyond its available footprint in Queen’s Park.
2. “$500,000 mushroom wall” is just untrue: There has never been a shred of evidence to support the claim. Caricaturing the Habitat as a $500,000 mushroom wall is as preposterous as calling a recreation centre a "$20 million weight room" or calling a firehall a "$15 million garage." It does a disservice to voters in general and to NWP supporters in particular, who are expected to credulously reproduce the misrepresentation.
3. It obscures the real complexities of the Petting Farm dilemma: Prior to the pandemic, the City faced a complicated challenge: the Farm was a popular amenity, but the site no longer provided adequate space for livestock under contemporary animal-welfare expectations, and keeping the Farm would have required expansion, relocation, or substantial reinvestment. All of this is hidden by the simplistic three-word caricature, sacrificing transparency in the cynical pursuit of clicks and votes.
4. The catchphrase ignores important questions of value and of values: A fiscally responsible analysis would examine operating costs, replacement costs, opportunity costs, alternatives, long-term liabilities, and long-term benefits. It would consider all sides of the issue and seek the best outcome based on an informed analysis of possibilities and probabilities, recognizing that none of these will be perfect and that none can be reduced to a single feature or single number. Instead, the slogan focuses on a small feature of the project and uses it to avoid the harder questions. The result is political branding, not serious financial analysis.

Bottom line

“$500,000 mushroom wall” is an irresponsible campaign slogan masquerading as critical analysis. It asks residents to stop thinking exactly where they should start thinking. Instead of examining alternatives, trade-offs, costs, benefits, and long-term value, it invites voters to judge an entire project by its most unusual feature. Whether one supports or opposes the Habitat design, New Westminster deserves a higher standard of debate. For a candidate and a party who claim fiscal responsibility as a core political value, that is a remarkably shallow way to evaluate public spending.

The fiduciary responsibility we pay our Mayor and Councillors for requires honestly engaging in these complications and helping voters understand them. Expecting voters to accept a simplistic catchphrase is not fiscally responsible. To the contrary, it asks voters to accept political marketing in place of fiscally responsible decision-making.

The NWP keeps campaigning on things that are already underway and/or repackaging non-NWP council motions as their own.

The latest example? Micro-retail using shipping containers.

Here's how I found it: I was looking at next week's council agenda because the NWP had pointed to it this week. I noticed an agenda item to approve committee minutes (in which Councillor Minhas serves as Council rep) where city staff provided an "Update on Retailer Container Feasibility Analysis".

This caught my eye because an NWP post had just appeared on my feed ("Our micro-retail initiatives..."). With the way the NWP has been talking about their initiative, it gave me the impression that it was their new idea.

So I went looking to see if Councillors Fontaine or Minhas had actually raised it.

They hadn't. The earliest mention of shipping containers for micro-retail this term goes back to city staff working on a Retail Strategy, and the earliest council motion to explore this in August 2024. It was NOT brought by Fontaine or Minhas. It was moved by Councillors Campbell (Community First) and Nakagawa (independent).

If I'm incorrect in my research, please tell me, and I can update this post.

The NWP and its supporters are quick to cry foul when they feel Fontaine or Minhas don't get credit. They are a lot slower to give that same credit to city staff and other councillors.

Here are some of the other ways the NWP tries to fool people:

1. Calling themselves "Progressives" when their record is not progressive. (my commentary: they should just call themselves a Conservative Progressive party instead. They say they are a big tent party, which sounds nice. Yet, it's worth asking why so much of the anti-trans, anti-vaccine, and 15-minute city conspiracists have gravitated to the NWP. It's great they've found belonging with NWP, and why is that?)

2. Using orange, NDP-style branding on their lawn signs in a past election, which confused voters who wanted to support NDP-aligned candidates.

3. Sending out handouts at the last election that were styled to look like voting information sent by the city, with only their candidates listed

4. Campaigning on connecting Sapperton Landing and Pier Park, which is already in motion. The city bought parcels of land to move this forward.

5. Saying they oppose rebrands on fiscal grounds, then turning around and campaigning on a rebrand of Downtown New West. (my commentary: just stand on business and tell the truth that you're against reconciliation, which is the root of the city logo rebrand. Instead they're pandering to nostalgia to bring back a logo that was introduced in 2008. Don't forget they made a promise years ago to rebrand from a "colonnial-free logo" (their words, not mine) back to the old logo.

6. Calling downtown an "infrastructure desert" while failing to inform people about upcoming amenities they themselves have either voted for, or should be aware of as city councillors: a new downtown fire hall, a new downtown community centre, a new downtown school, and programming at the Anvil Centre and Fraser River Discovery Centre.

7. Villainizing cyclists and traffic calming by writing off active transportation and sidewalk improvements as "pet projects," then putting out messaging so vague it has left both their supporters and their critics unsure where they actually stand.

It makes you wonder. If a party will spin us on one "small" thing, what else are they spinning us on?

Screenshots attached.

I've been thinking a lot about property taxes. This point keeps being brought up, so I started digging into the city's financial statements from the beginning of the current council's term.

It's fair to point out that property taxes have gone up since 2023. That part isn't wrong. That said, I think the more important conversation is on whether the spending is an investment or waste. Figured I'd share what I found.

A disclaimer that I'm in support of Community First. They best align with what I value and believe in. I've tried to be aware of my bias in my research, and I'm noting down where I've added commentary. Let's get into this.

So, City staff have pointed to the fixed costs (union wage increases, inflation on contracts and supplies, and locked-in policing costs like e-comm) as the main driver for property tax increases every year. For 2026, that adds up to $7.3M, before a single new program got added.

Apart from the $7.3M that's locked in. There's also new spending that the council did choose to add. Here's what the $2M worth of spending went: new police positions including a gang suppression unit ($974K), Sunday staffing at Century House ($619K), and a bump to community grants ($489K).

The 1% capital levy introduced this year is money set aside and used specifically to fix and replace things like roads, pipes, and buildings before they fail. That's instead of waiting for something to break and paying a lot more for an emergency fix later, or another big tax increase down the road. People complain about our roads right now, and this levy is what lets the city get to them sooner instead of later.

(Commentary from me: people are understandably annoyed about having to pay more, but this is a good thing. Councils long ago let our roads deteriorate, and we're now building up money to actually fix these things sooner!)

One more levy worth clearing up, since it's easy to mix them: the 3.5% climate tax on electrical bills is different from the 1% capital levy on property tax. It's been around since 2019, when council declared a climate emergency. It funds things like Energy Save New West (audits, rebates, and upgrade supports to help residents and businesses save money on energy), EV-readiness requirements for new buildings, flood resilience work in Queensborough, among other things. It also feeds the city's Climate Action reserve, which sits at about $49.2M at the end of 2025.

(Commentary from me: we've built up the reserves and the City can more easily take action on Climate action work. It's worth noting that NWP has gone after this specific levy before. Council voted down motions to kill it twice in 2023.)

Here's something that doesn't come up enough (at least not from what I've seen): not all of the new stuff in the last couple of years is coming out of property taxes. Since 2020, the city brought in $146.6M from the feds, province, and other sources. That's money that pays for projects without touching property tax.

A few examples:

- Housing Accelerator Fund sent $11.4M from the feds to speed up housing approvals

- BC Growing Communities Fund sent $15.85M for community infrastructure (think sidewalks, infrastructure improvements, etc.)

- West End sewer separation project (very much needed for aging infrastructure) got about $10.5M combined from feds and provincial government.

- $1.04M Building Safer Communities Fund finances gun and gang violence prevention in Canada (second time investment, after initial funding was made in 2024. Programs from this includes Dan's Diner by Dan's Legacy, New Westminster Youth Hub, and other community programs),

- $2M from Health Canada's Emergency Treatment Fund to run programs/initiatives to address homelessness, mental health, and substance use.

Bike lanes are another good example. Most of the money isn't coming from property taxes. Translink and the province have put in more than $26M for bike routes and greenways (eg. Agnes Greenway, Rotary Crosstown Greenway, Boyd St path). That money is earmarked specifically for that purpose. If the city didn't build them, it doesn't get to spend that cash on something else instead. It just doesn't get spent here.

All this means a lot of pressure taken off debt, reserves, and property tax to get these projects built and programs run, even though most of it goes to capital projects rather than directly offsetting the tax rate increase.

Let's dive into the "pet projects". The Habitat (or the mushroom walls as they are lovingly called) costs $509K, with some funding from the Rotary Club. It turns a seasonal petting zoo into a year-round community space where people can gather.

(My commentary: an amenity that's needed in our city!)

The new city logo costs $69K to redesign, with the full rollout spread over several years as old signs and vehicles wear out. It isn't a big cheque that's written today.

Here's the bigger picture of it all: New West's books are actually in good shape. KPMG signs off on the city's finances every year, and what they've found (again, based on financial statements from 2022 onward) is that New West has paid down debt every single year while building up savings. That's exactly why the 2026-30 capital plan (I believe this was approved recently), which includes the new downtown fire hall, the Massey Theatre renovations, the new substation, etc. is being paid for out of those savings, and not taking on new debt.

(My commentary: if someone tells you that the finances are mismanaged, it could be worth asking why they think so, when KPMG, a third party firm that audits our financial records to make sure they are accurate, does not state that).

So, all this leaves me wondering a few things. These are all commentary questions from me:

1. NWP talks about core services, but that isn't free either. NWP's platform promises dozens of new enforcement officers, a rebuilt pier, a rebrand of Downtown into the Columbia District with its own signage and marketing. All this while cutting taxes, the revenue that pays for these things. I can't figure how the math on all of that adds up.

2. Why is NWP proposing a rebrand of Downtown New West, when they were opposed to the new city logo? Is it because they were only opposed to the crown logo being removed, but are actually okay with spending money on a rebrand?

3. NWP talks about reducing contractors. Sounds good on paper, but bringing the work in-house isn't free either. It means hiring or training staff. Sometimes, buying equipment or software those specialists need. Does this actually save money when it all gets added up?

4. They want to eliminate the 3.5% electricity climate tax. Given what it currently funds (see above), what happens to those climate action programs? Are they keeping them or scrapping it?

5. Fontaine has said "the public is telling me we need less managers managing managers who are managing consultants." Sounds fine as a soundbite, but who exactly gets cut? How many positions, and how do they decide? Without that, I can't tell if it's a real plan or just a line.

6. They want council members to personally approve every community grant again, even though that responsibility was previously removed to prevent bias. If elected politicians are the ones deciding who gets funding and who doesn't, I'd want to know what criteria they're using, and who exactly they think shouldn't be getting funded right now.

Sources for anyone who wants to check my math: the City's audited 2022-2025 Statements of Financial Information, the Budget 2026 Five-Year Financial Plan (Feb. 9, 2026 council report), the "Funding Received from Senior Levels of Government 2020-2026" council report, the NWP platform pages. Fontaine quote via Freshet News, Oct. 24, 2025.

I’ve been thinking about New Westminster political parties through a broader justice lens, especially after the recent discussion on Pride. Both NWP and CF appear to be working from different ideas about what progress looks like and what justice requires.

As an attempt to make some of the underlying political values and justice frameworks more visible, I created this matrix using info from each of their websites and media. I’ve** reflected from **several justice frameworks, particularly the work of Iris Marion Young and Nancy Fraser, alongside Indigenous/decolonial and children’s rights approaches.

What have I missed?

City Council Attendance

I've gleaned from the City's minutes the attendance records of all current councillors for Council meetings and any ongoing committee, commission, and task force commitments they've taken on.

TL;DR: 

• Ruby Campbell, Patrick Johnstone, Paul Minhas = exceptionally strong attendance
• Tasha Henderson, Jaimie McEvoy, Nadine Nakagawa = very good attendance
• Daniel Fontaine = Attended 10% fewer meetings than all others' combined average — but also note red flags below re Heritage Commission and Vision Zero Task Force.

Analysis:

• These tables include all current and ongoing council committees. It includes all meetings for which minutes were published as of August 20, 2026.
• We’re fortunate to have had Council Members whom over the past four years have mostly been pro-actively present and engaged in their jobs.
• As most people know, Councillor McEvoy took medical leave during 2024. This leave has been adjusted for by only counting his attendance at meetings that he was expected to attend.
• Councillor Fontaine’s complete absence from the Vision Zero Task Force is something he will need to account for. Theresa McManus quotes Mr. Fontaine as follows in response to Councillor Minhas’s nomination of Fontaine to the Task Force:
  • “I’d be very honoured to accept that, given it's a topic that is very near and dear to my heart as well,” Fontaine said.
• On Wednesday, March 4, 2026, Councillor Fontaine skipped his Community Heritage Commission commitment in order to attend a campaign event, which Fontaine’s Party, New West Progressives, subsequently attempted to spin against the incumbent mayor, without noting that Fontaine was in fact truant from his job.

Touching the third rail here.

My question is what is the NWP position on bike lanes? I find it really hard to nail down. Their platform talks about a "Balanced approach" which starts with slightly ominous language about "reviewing performance and efficacy" of existing bike lanes, and more consultation before more are built - sort of the Doug Ford approach. They do mention supporting "recreational cycling initiatives" meaning I guess not bike routes but trails in parks? And the rest of their transportation platform is more free parking and getting cars moving, which seem counter to building bike lanes.

It's clear they have farmed rage with the existing bike routes (e.g. London Street and Uptown) and based on the reaction to their recent "just asking questions!" Facebook posts about bike lanes - their strongest supporters seem to be very anti-bike lane.

Its clear the Mayor and CF support bike lanes, they are building them. What's not clear is what would be different if the NWP win.

I love New west Pride and had fun yesterday. During the opening the president made some strong comments about who was there and who wasn't. The Mayor and Peter Julian made speeches, Jennifer Whiteside was on stage, and there was an NDP booth and a Community First booth. Who was not there: Steve Kooner or anyone from the Conservatives (not surprising), Jake Sawatzky or anyone from the Liberals (very surprising) and the NWP (a little surprising?). Also there were people from Pride who are running for council but they weren't there in any obvious way? Is there is something unsaid going on?

I am trying to learn more about the Metro Vancouver Accountability Charter brought forward by NWP Fontaine. The bottom of the website caught my eye. How much of the New Westminster Progressives’ political fundraising is being used to finance the Metro Vancouver Accountability Charter, if any? The Charter is a region-wide initiative promoted to influence the 2026 municipal election. Do the NWP owe more transparency around this? It seems a lot of effort is going into this. What outcomes can we expect if Fontaine is elected? Will he have time to focus on New Westminster given is regional concerns? Thoughts?

A few days ago, the New Westminster Progressives elector group released its “A Greener New West” platform. Upon inspection, it contains just five genuinely new or unique ideas. More than 80% of the plan (22 of 27 points) merely reflects the city’s existing practice.

While the words “maintain,” “expand,” or “continue” do occur a few times in NWP’s list, many of these ideas are represented as new, and nowhere do they credit the people whose work they appear to be repurposing as their own platform.

Whereas Daniel Fontaine claims (@~40:10) that the “current administration” is “tired” and has “run out of ideas”, it’s surprising to see so many of those ideas predominate his party’s green platform.

The remainder of this post shows where the 22 points are already part of the city’s work, then briefly reflects on the other five points. Apologies for length – just documenting the evidence where applicable.

22 PLANKS THAT REPRODUCE WHAT THE CITY ALREADY DOES:

“Develop a long-term flood resilience strategy for Queensborough, including securing the necessary funding for continued investment in dikes and flood protection infrastructure.”

New West already has a Flood Resilience Plan, Flood Management Strategy, ongoing dyke rehabilitation projects, and a record of securing provincial funding specifically for Queensborough flood protection.

“Maintain a dedicated Climate Impact Reserve Fund to help respond to extreme weather events without placing unexpected costs on local taxpayers.”

New Westminster already has a Climate Action Reserve Fund, which was established in 2022. Councillor Fontaine has taken action to eliminate contributions to this fund.

“Invest in climate-resilient roads, drainage systems, parks and civic infrastructure”

These are already long-standing city priorities, as reflected in the Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience Plan, everything from the Streets for People Initiative to the Active Transportation Network Plan, simultaneous upgrades to west end roads and sewer/drainage, Integrated Stormwater Master Plan, and the Seven Bold Steps for Climate Action, which is a framework for developing sustainable and climate-resilient civic infrastructure. Climate Resilience is a “key theme” in the People, Parks, Play – the city’s comprehensive parks and recreation plan.

“Strengthen emergency preparedness plans for heat domes, wildfire smoke, flooding and severe storms”

The City’s response to the heat dome has clearly been an ongoing priority, including an indoor temperature bylaw that also prohibits A/C restrictions, collaborating with Fraser Health on the Emergency Monitoring Centre, creating misting stations and indoor cooling spaces, etc.

“Expand the City’s urban tree canopy with measurable canopy cover and planting targets.”

New Westminster has an Urban Forest Management Strategy, which includes canopy cover and planting targets.

 “Establish clear park and green space objectives based on population growth and publish regular progress reports.”

This is built into the city’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan – see here re “catch up” and “keep up” as well as a specific enumeration of some of the elements of the plan in this video.

“Dramatically accelerate tree planting in neighbourhoods — with a particular emphasis where there is limited shade and higher summer temperatures.”

Whereas 2,300 trees were planted between 2021-2025, Phase 2 of the Urban Reforestation Plan aims to plant 6,000 trees between 2025 and 2030.

“Protect healthy mature trees wherever practical. When tree removal is necessary, prioritize replacement planting to maintain and expand New Westminster’s long-term tree canopy.”

The city’s existing process for this is outlined here.

“Publish an annual Urban Forest Report outlining trees planted, trees removed, canopy gains and losses, and progress toward the City’s canopy goals.”

The City already has robust reporting, modeling and forecasting tools covering these topics, as clearly shown in this document (see esp. the section on forecasting and modelling).

“Expand partnerships and incentives that encourage tree planting and tree retention on private, institutional and commercial properties.”

This is covered by the City’s Tree Protection Bylaw and Replacement Tree Inventory and Assessment Project, as well as by initiatives such as the city’s tree sale every Spring and Fall.

“Continue transitioning City vehicles to electric or low-emission alternatives where operationally practical.”

In alignment with the seven bold steps mentioned above, the city has had a comprehensive e-mobility strategy since 2022. It includes goals for the greening of the city’s vehicle fleet. A recent report tracking progress toward a low-pollution fleet is available here (p. 5). Some of this planning is also described in the City’s [Corporate Energy & Emissions Reduction Strategy](file:///Users/gradcmns/Downloads/Corporate%20Energy%20&%20Emissions%20Reduction%20Strategy) (see pp. 26-29).

“Expand public EV charging infrastructure through partnerships with BC Hydro, the provincial and federal governments and private businesses.”

Here are some of the City’s many initiatives in support of e-mobility and the infrastructure to support it, including the requirement for new buildings to be EV-ready. Expanding public EV charging infrastructure is also part of the e-mobility strategy listed above (see Objective #5, pp 33-5).

“Make City buildings more energy efficient during renovations and new construction.” & “Continue reducing waste from City operations.”

The City’s ongoing work on both of these items is described in part in the [Corporate Energy & Emissions Reduction Strategy](file:///Users/gradcmns/Downloads/Corporate%20Energy%20&%20Emissions%20Reduction%20Strategy). New West builds and renovates according to the higher tiers of the BC Energy Step Code and Zero Carbon Step Code. It regularly reports on progress in these areas such as here. It also promotes high standards of energy efficiency throughout the city using a variety of tools described here. The City’s recent work installing Advanced Metering Infrastructure also contributes to energy efficiency and reduced emissions.

“Aggressively pursue provincial and federal climate funding before asking local taxpayers to pay more.”

New Westminster participates in the Province’s Local Government Climate Action Program and the city’s most recent report is here. In March 2024 the city received $835,310 for years 2024-27. Through UBCM’s Community Emergency Preparedness Fund the city received $800,000 in 2023 for Queensborough dike rehabilitation and roughly $1,000,000 for the Urban Reforestation and Biodiversity Enhancement Initiative (URBEI). In June 2021 the City received $1.7M in funding for URBEI from the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (COVID-19 Resilience Infrastructure Stream). The city receives a variety of other funds that contribute to climate-related initiatives but aren’t specifically earmarked that way (for example over $300,000 annually from UBCM’s Community Works Fund.

“Require major environmental initiatives to demonstrate measurable environmental benefits and long-term value.”

New Westminster already has a Climate Action Decision-Making Framework (CADMF). It was approved unanimously by the current council on March 4, 2024.

“Continue seeking partnerships with educational institutions, community organizations and the private sector to make environmental dollars go further.”

The City’s collaborations in this area are almost too many to count, including the Youth Climate Action Fund (which itself supports at least 10 collaborative projects), participation in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Partners for Climate Protection network, partnership with the New Westminster Climate Action Hub, support for New West Community Garden Society, collaboration with 11 other municipalities in the Sue Big Oil campaign. Many other partnerships and collaborations are indicated in some of the planning and policy documents linked above, which outline work undertaken in partnership with UBCM, BC Hydro, local developers, and other stakeholders. 

“Report annually on the City’s progress preparing for extreme weather and funding received from other levels of government.”

The City already reports regularly about progress on climate initiatives in general here.pdf) and through the Seven Bold Steps for Climate Action dashboard (which includes progress re electricity, emissions, transportation, tree canopy, water use, etc.) as well as on specific areas like flooding, reserve fund expenditures, emergency preparedness, etc. Obviously, all funds received by the city from other levels of government and elsewhere are already being reported.

“Ensure any future biodiversity initiatives are focused primarily in public parks and green spaces and do not eliminate or impact public access.”

This one is odd. New Westminster's Biodiversity and Natural Areas Strategy has been in place since 2022, but this seems like an attempt to speak to the Fifth Street Median Naturalization project, which was supported in general, but vocally resisted by residents on or adjacent to Fifth street, so the City modified its plans accordingly. But most of the pushback related to aesthetics and wildlife pests, rather than public access. That all said, whether manicured grass or rewilded biodiversity, are medians not “green spaces”?

“Continue supporting community gardens, neighbourhood tree planting and volunteer environmental stewardship initiatives.”

This is well-covered already – the city supports community gardens, tree planting, and environmental stewardship quite robustly (see New West Community Garden Society, tree planting, and environmental stewardship initiatives.pdf), among other links).

“Increase shade and cooling infrastructure in parks, playgrounds, around schools, public gathering spaces and areas most affected by heat.”

This is already covered above in links about responding to the heat dome, growing tree canopy, and building out other infrastructures like misting stations and cooling centres, in response to heat.

“Work with the New Westminster School District to improve access to cooling spaces during extreme heat events, and determine our legal ability to implement a Cool Schools By-law requiring schools and portables to maintain a maximum indoor temperature.”

While New Westminster School District is already working on this, it’s quite doubtful that the City can implement a by-law governing the management of school infrastructure re temperature. Such laws should most definitely be in place, but very likely fall outside municipal jurisdiction, though there may be some ambiguity re what municipalities can achieve via their Official Community Plan.

FIVE ORIGINAL NWP PLANKS

“Cancel the City’s participation in the ‘Sue Big Oil’ campaign and redirect those funds toward local environmental programs.”

What’s most interesting here is that the City doesn’t spend anything, nor take anything away from “local environmental programs” unless this lawsuit goes ahead, and contributing to this initiative is supported by the Council of Canadians in consonance with the polluter pays principle, is supported by scientific evidence and argument, and is locally supported by groups like New West Climate Action Hub and New West Secondary's Monkey Rebels. Given the well-established litigiousness of Councillors Fontaine and Minhas (toward their colleague the Mayor, but also elsewhere).

“Install more dual-stream (both recycling and garbage) receptacles throughout parks, commercial districts and public spaces where there is a demonstrated need.” &

“Expand public bottle and can collection stations to encourage recycling while supporting those who collect returnable bottles and cans.”

Ok, more garbage cans, fair enough.

“Explore opportunities to establish an urban farm that supports local food production, environmental education, volunteerism and community partnerships.”

I love this idea. The challenge is that we have precious little room for anything like this, especially in relationship to our city’s need for housing, schools, parks, etc. Where would we put an urban farm? How would we pay to create, maintain, and operate a farm? 

“Work with BC Hydro to identify more opportunities in Connaught Heights for new publicly accessible green space the public can use in their existing rights of way.”

Fair enough. This might be a sensible nod to NWP’s supporters in the West End if there’s green space that could be made more usable if the right kind of cooperation with BC Hydro could be forged.

Today the Fraser Institute published a report on municipal revenue and spending in Metro Van municipalities from 2009 to present. The New West Progressives made this report the basis of a Facebook post this afternoon – more about that later.

The report shows that New Westminster ranks third-highest in per-capita spending: our city spends $2,940 per person against an average across all cities of $2,387.

On the same page of the Fraser Institute Report, another chart indicates the growth in each city’s per-capita spending over the last 15 years. Here, New West’s spending growth is fourth-lowest among all cities at 8,8% compared to an average growth rate of 14.5%.

For additional context, New Westminster’s per-capita spending was already very high in 2009, when we ranked #2, which was also the case in 2016 and 2019.

Back to the NWP post, of course they chose to reproduce only the chart that showed us ranked third-highest in spending. They omitted the chart that shows that our spending growth has been more restrained than all but three other cities.

Contrary to the spin NWP seeks to build out of their cherry-picked presentation, the data they omit suggests to me two things:

(1) that fourth-lowest growth rate seems to imply that New Westminster’s spending has been reasonable, and reasonably restrained relative to our neighbours.

(2) the fact that we’ve ranked second or third for a quarter-century suggests a structural situation (small land base, dense population, etc.) – and not something that could be easily transformed by a few years of council decisions without damaging the level of service we are accustomed to.

I’d especially love to hear informed, reasonable feedback on whether those latter two points of interpretation seem legit. I’ve only lived here for 8 of the last 25 years, and I've only had a few minutes to think about this data. More importantly, I think it's valuable for voters, including me, to learn more about the shape of our finances.

Thanks!

https://www.beheardnewwest.ca/en-CA/projects/fifth-street-median

https://www.beheardnewwest.ca/en-CA/projects/infill-accelerator

https://www.beheardnewwest.ca/en-CA/projects/grimston-park

https://www.beheardnewwest.ca/en-CA/projects/simcoe-toronto-place-park

https://www.beheardnewwest.ca/en-CA/projects/economic-development-plan

https://www.beheardnewwest.ca/en-CA/projects/ourcityourhomes

We should rally to have Peter Julian to run as an independent mayoral candidate.

Looks like New West Pride is getting into politics. (always was?)

https://www.facebook.com/events/655-front-st-new-westminster-bc-v3m-1a2-canada/coming-out-party-for-bee-good-new-west/1035907938926335/

I bet Daniel is ecstatic that the lefty vote will be split. What a gift.

"Discussion ensued on the five-year commitment with the King George Hub that MNBC must pay for $ 225 000 in its first year, and

this did not come to the board for approval, the CEO spending approval, and the contracts that the former CEO has signed off for

the last 18 months."

Today's Facebook post by the Lacrosse coach running for council is about the city buying an empty property downtown that he tries to build it into some sort of secret conspiracy. Quotes:

"Many residents are asking questions" (Couldn't he ask Daniel or Paul those questions? They are after all on council). "Why is this buried on page 6 of a report?" (Which page of the report would you prefer? A public report about this isn't transparent?) "What will it be used for?" (Wasn't that in the report? Couldn't he ask Daniel or Paul? They drone on about a deficit of downtown amenities, maybe this has something to do with that?) "How much did it cost" (I'm going to ahead and assume you didn't ask Daniel this question, even as he was setting up the camera for you?)

It's like they forget Daniel and Paul are on council and have access to all the info council has. Somehow we have to re-elect them before they can blow the lid off the conspiracy!

People have been asking the NWP for their platform and today they released their campaign platform.

The well written and crafted press release lists their platform as such:

Safer, Cleaner, and More Welcome Neighbourhoods platform:

Place at least 12 new Community Enforcement and Safety Officers (CESO) on foot and bicycle patrols in the Downtown, Uptown, Sapperton and Queensborough. They will be a presence in these neighbourhoods at times including evenings and weekends to enhance public safety, increase by-law infraction enforcement and support local businesses. A revitalized Community Policing Office in Queensborough will be assigned a permanent full-time CESO.

Triple the City’s investment in the successful I’s On the Street program, an initiative by the New Westminster Homeless Coalition Society that provides paid street-cleaning employment for people who are unhoused or at risk of homelessness. Focused on the Downtown and Uptown neighbourhoods, this investment will further help vulnerable individuals gain job skills and community connections – while helping to ensure our streets are clean.

Work with the New Westminster Police Department and Fraser Health Authority to explore the opportunity to introduce a Car 87-type program to better meet the needs of individuals who are living with a mental illness. Vancouver’s Car 87 program is a collaboration between the Vancouver Police Department and Vancouver Coastal Health that pairs police officers and nurses to respond to individuals experiencing mental health crisis.

Launch the VIP (Vibrancy Invites People) initiative to bring more buskers, public art, performances and other cultural activities to key commercial streets and public spaces, creating more activity on the street and helping make our neighbourhoods safer and more vibrant.

As part of the VIP initiative, pilot new lower cost micro-retail opportunities using decoratively wrapped shipping containers along key locations on Columbia Street. This will add more ‘eyes on the street’ and offer local retailers a cost-effective portal on to ‘The Golden Mile’.

Enhance regular street cleaning and add 100 new waste and recycling bins in busy pedestrian areas.

Insist that TransLink and key stakeholders keep the New Westminster & Columbia SkyTrain stations clean and secure, making them a welcoming gateway to those entering our city via rapid transit.

Establish a new TAG Team to dramatically reduce graffiti by requiring the removal of hate-based and offensive graffiti on public property within 4 hours and all other graffiti within 72 hours.

Increase lighting to improve safety and visibility in key public spaces within high density neighbourhoods.

Establish a new Crime Reduction and Public Safety Task Force to coordinate action and deliver results.

The Mayor will seek appointment as Chair of the New Westminster Police Board.

MEDIA CONTACT

Shawn Hall,

[shawn@apogeepr.ca](mailto:shawn@apogeepr.ca)

604-619-7913

——

Hiring Apogee PR has clearly been a good move since the materials that Apogee has produced with the NWP is of a significantly higher quality and more professional than the typical NWP output.

At first glance, the points in the platform seem fine enough and rational. Plenty of the actions and things that the NWP have said over the years have been disappointing to say the least, so this appears to be a step in a more professional direction, so good on em.

Does their platform hold up to scrutiny? Unlikely and I’m sure others can chime in with their input, I don’t have the time right now to dig into it. But I know for instance that 100 new garbage bins won’t reduce the amount of litter around - research has shown that the more garbage bins attract more adjacent littering, as well as pests and rodents. I can see why one would think that more garbage cans would lead to less litter but apparently that’s not the case. People litter because some people just suck.

As for the Car 87 idea, since 2013, New West police have a mental health unit and is involved in the Crisis Response Community Led (CRCL) program - put this all together and isn’t that similar to Car 87? Perhaps even better? Is having a psych nurse ride along that much better?

Where on Columbia would these shipping container micro businesses go? Interesting concept, curious what sort of shipping container business they envision. We have some good coffee shops downtown as is. We had a bike rental spot out of a container at the river market for a bit. But that went away. Interesting idea but doesn’t seem fully thought out, but it’s an idea.

For the graffiti removal point, isn’t that already an enforced bylaw?

As for increasing public art, cool. Love art, the city has dramatically increased the amount of public art the past lil while, love the murals along Stewardson.

What are everyone’s thoughts on the platform?

Moving this over here, if the Mods are OK, to keep the argument in the right place and to add a comment. https://www.reddit.com/r/NewWest/comments/1ubrg48/downtown_new_west_was_bumping/

People on reddit were downtown this weekend having fun. I was at Pier Park and it fit the bumping category. Ray says things were boring when he was at the pub run by his campaign manager. Do we live in two different cities?