We’re going to chronicle flip-flops of any candidate this election, starting with one of the biggest enthusiasts of the tactic: Mayoral candidate Steve Milani. Let’s explore.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
A quick recap: in September 2020, the Madsen-Vagramov-Milani-Lubik team pushed for a dramatic expansion of the the city’s Environmentally Sensitive Area policy far in excess of federal or provincial guidelines, including a policy draft suggesting that the City should be able to expropriate private property in any of the newly-proposed Environmental Development Permit Areas (on top of a whole raft of other new red tape, none of it required by senior government policy).
Upon realizing that they created an electoral problem for themselves, the slate claimed to have cancelled the policy. But Madsen and staff conceded in May that they’re simply punting to 2023 (ie. after this election). That’s flip-flop #1.
At the September 22 Pleasantside Community Association debate that we attended, Milani supported revisiting the supposedly-cancelled initiative next year. He untruthfully claimed that the proposed changes are required by the provincial and federal governments. He also suggested the main problem was a lack of clarity and predictability – not the substance of the changes themselves:
“I think the key when it does come back is to make sure that there’s predictability so that homeowners know what to expect… we do have to follow the policies of the federal government and the provincial government, we can’t override that. But I think the communication factor and predictability factor with residents is key here.”
6 days later at the Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce debate, Milani stated that he doesn’t think that the City’s current ESA rules should change and he made no reference to any reopening of the issue next year. While welcome from a property rights perspective, that’s flip-flop #2 on the same issue.
Coronation Park
Also in the September 22 debate, Milani contradicted himself within the same answer: he claimed to oppose the Coronation Park development because it required an OCP amendment, and because it didn’t include subsidized housing – which was never required by the OCP.
And in January 2021, Milani actually voted to remove subsidized rentals from the project! (p.14 and p.15)
It gets even more contorted. In this recent interview he recited an entirely different litany of complaints, which would suggest he wants nothing to get built in the area, stating the project “absolutely does not make any sense… clear-cutting 14.88 acres and digging-out basically the side of a mountain.”
The Coronation Park area was already clear-cut for single family homes, sits across the street from Inlet Centre SkyTrain, and is quite far away from any mountain we’re aware of. Milani just can’t find a consistent tune to sing to justify the continued obstructionism; one wonders how many other excuses he’ll cycle-through over the next couple of weeks.
This post will be updated as the flip-flops stack up. Send us any we might have missed, and for other candidates too.
Port Moody Fact Check 