In the weeks leading up to the November 15 municipal election, Business in Vancouver will interview the mayoral candidates for Vision Vancouver, the Non-Partisan Association (NPA) and the Coalition of Progressive Electors (COPE) to find out where they stand on business and economic issues.
BIV spoke to Kirk LaPointe, the mayoral candidate for the NPA, on October 23.
BIV: When you talk to businesses in Vancouver, what are their biggest concerns?
KL: They’re frustrated. They’re enraged in some cases. I think it’s the lack of attention on the issues that matter to them. On management of the economy, on attracting investment, on serving the city in a fiscally conscious way … They tell me they’re upset that the streets have never been dirtier. They tell me that there are more rats in the laneways and garbage bins in ever. They say that our streets are unswept, they say that … the tourists who talk to them in the downtown shake their head at how messy Vancouver can seem.
That kind of lack of aesthetic is hurting our reputation. Our parks have never been less well-kept. Those fundamentals, if you can’t get them right, people don’t trust you with the bigger stuff.
BIV: What are the key differences between you and Vision?
KL: We’re prepared to work with all sectors of the economy. I think Vision has locked out the resources sector … when I talk to people in the mining sector, for instance, the mayor doesn’t meet them, Vision councillors shun them.
I’m a big early tech adopter so I know we have to attract tech jobs here. I also know we need to attract knowledge economy jobs here. On those two fronts I think I can be a stronger advocate because I think I’ve been an earlier adopter of tech.
BIV: As far as resources, one of Gregor Robertson’s key concerns is increasing oil tankers. Is that a concern for you?
KL: He’s had 111% more oil tankers arrive in our harbour since he’s been mayor, and he hasn’t kicked up a fuss about it. I think he’s kicking up a fuss now because it’s an election issue, and I think he believes that people in Vancouver believe him when he says that he can stop the pipeline. What I’ve said about the pipeline is that I only want an environmentally safe project, I want the world’s best tech to come to that project and if the National Energy Board can’t produce that in a review, then we’ll oppose it.
BIV: Resource industries often have their projects outside of the city, and most of the regulatory issues they deal with are under provincial jurisdiction. What can the city do to encourage the resource sectors?
KL: The mayor has a leadership role to play around this. For instance, mayor [Gregor Robertson] never goes to mining conferences that exist in our city or elsewhere. We are a global city for mining head offices. As a result, other cities are starting to get a better break.
It’s not just around our resource sector, it’s around our infrastructure. Vancouver now is not part of any serious national conversation on any front, social or economic. As a result we are not getting our share of infrastructure; we are not getting our place as a major city in the conversation on some of our social challenges. And it means that that the rest of the country appears less willing to help us.
BIV: Can you give us an example of what Vancouver is not participating in?
KL: Let’s look at homelessness. Our city doesn’t have a conversation underway of any meaningful import with regional mayors, with the provincial government, with First Nations, with the non-profit organizations, with the residents themselves. … Big ideas require partners, and our city has decided that it doesn’t want partners.
BIV: It’s clear that many Vancouver voters care deeply about the environment. So how would you win them over?
KL: I’ve said all along that we need strong encouragement of environmental technology. We need strong encouragement of growth in sectors that are attached to initiatives to make our economy greener, and there are some smaller things we can do in this city.
Our transit ideas are designed to reduce what is the No. 1 new growth area for environmental degradation in our city, which is the idling car, truck and bus. The city has done nothing about that. It’s pitted motorists against cyclists and considered that to be its green initiative. We need all forms of transportation supported properly.
BIV: Vision has been pretty clear that they want fewer cars on the road and they want more people biking and taking transit. Would you agree with that, or do you think we need to focus more on congestion?
KL: Nobody’s out to put more cars on the road. I think we recognize that the cars that are on the road are having a hard time getting around. Vision’s view is that if you frustrate the motorist enough he will give up the car. My view is that if you frustrate the motorist enough, he’s going to get angry … I just want effectiveness. I think the city has consciously made it more difficult to get a car around the city.
BIV: How does your NPA differ from Suzanne Anton’s NPA or Sam Sullivan’s NPA?
KL: Our backgrounds are quite different. [Mine is] maybe not so different from Sam’s … but my [early life story] was in poverty, it wasn’t in privilege at all, so I think I have a very strong social conscience about what needs to be done. I think I have greater compassion for those in need, and I think I know what happens when you break promises to vulnerable people … We have a litany of broken promises right now, for the homeless and for those that are vulnerable.
BIV: You’ve promised to put a child poverty food program in place. Can you give us any more details on how that would be funded and maintained?
KL: My sense is that is isn’t a costly program in the least. I’ve met several benefactors in this campaign who believe the funds do exist and say they would step up. I’ve met a couple of organizations who don’t want to talk because they’re already doing business with the city who say that there’s more money that could be spent here that the city actually turns back.
BIV: The gap between residential and commercial property tax is always a concern for business. Vancouver businesses currently pay four times more property tax than residents, the second highest ratio in Metro Vancouver. The gap has been closed a little bit under Vision, but is this something you would revisit?
KL: What worries me a lot is that while the city says Vancouver has the lowest property tax rate, it has the highest tax take. The tax take has grown 46% under its administration. It’s the biggest take because of the value of our housing stock. That’s just not sustainable for a typical homeowner. It’s one of the reasons people choose to sell.
I want to be able first of all to have the transparency around our books … but I believe that we can freeze taxes … while we dig into the books and produce something that is far more rational.
BIV: About the city’s rising land costs: this is an issue that affects residents, but it also affects businesses as the cost of doing business in the city continues to rise.
KL: I don’t thing [the city] is being creative around things like rent abatement or tax relief or other measures to improve amenities … to make, say, shopping districts more attractive by foot. That’s one of the reasons we went at the parking issue. That’s a small measure, but it’s designed to make people feel like you’re not going to have a $6 cup of coffee in the city.
I want to explore the concept of an enterprise zone as a test in the city, I want to explore, when we start attracting technology companies, a much faster audit process to get them set up. … One of the things we know is that time is money in the construction business, and the unit cost for housing and other construction are increased by the kinds of delays we have at the city. What I want to be able to promise is that for certain scopes of projects, you will know a range of time in which it will take to get the answers that you need to start your building.
BIV: Another issue on the development front is the community amenity contributions (CACs). What’s your take on the current setup, which is kind of arbitrary?
KL:We don’t know how many of these CACs end up being written to the city for general revenue, so at the very least we need to make sure there is a clear link between a city’s decision, in consultation with the community, with current information to augment density and the amenity that comes with it. I would create a system by which we’d furnish a lot of information transparently, we’d have a much better consultation process, and ultimately the decision-making would be clear-cut.
BIV: Housing affordability is a huge issue. Have you hammered out your policies around that?
KL: [I have spoken] about a tax credit around rental property. I’m interested in exploring the notion of more tenured rental agreements that permit a greater sense of stability, and it might mean that it requires small incentives for owners to make sure they furnish those long-term leases. I think one of things that properly concerns renters is the year-by-year existence they seem to have around their leases and how that can change under them.
It’s back to what the market forces are going to do and what the city can do. We have to make sure that we’re still generating a healthy supply of new housing, but I think we also need to take better care of the housing stock we have.
