Engaged Port Moody residents know the sad saga well: in March 2019, Mayor Vagramov was charged with sexual assault stemming from a 2015 incident. Vagramov was never exonerated of his sexual assault charge. His trial was adjourned in September 2019 with an announcement that he would be completing a course of “alternative measures”, the contents of which were withheld from the public.

Letting the Mayor off the hook by making “alternative measures” available to him raised concerns from women’s organizations and the public; they pointed-out that the process is normally reserved for less serious offences than sexual assault, and that the victim may have agreed to the measures to avoid the political pressure of trial testimony against the Mayor – the highest-ranking public official in Port Moody.

In October 2019, Council voted 4-3 (split along gender lines) to ask Vagramov to take a leave of absence until his legal issues are resolved. That public hearing and a September Council meeting (following the trial’s adjournment) gave the residents of Port Moody the opportunity to evaluate the thought processes, priorities, and ethical perspectives of the council members who spoke at the  meetings.

Hunter Madsen and Steve Milani both spoke in their capacities as council members, while David Stuart spoke as a member of the public. Today, they’re campaigning as a slate – and they presented a unified front in vigorous defense of Vagramov.

Watch for yourself below:

David Stuart

When Vagramov returned to Council after his trial got paused, his old campaign aide David Stuart could hardly contain his delight. In a cheery short speech to council, Stuart had nothing to say about the sex assault charges but found it in himself to complain that there’s “something fundamentally wrong in the discourse”, before welcoming the Mayor back and saying “there are many more important issues in Port Moody.”

Steve Milani

During Council debate in October 2019, Milani delivered a bizarre speech where he struggled to maintain composure while praising Vagramov’s “gentle soul” and how nice his family members seemed:

Hunter Madsen

Dr. Madsen’s principal contribution to the October council debate was a 4-minute tirade attacking Port Moody residents for the public outcry surrounding the Mayor’s sex assault charges. It’s worth watching in full as a lesson in the public persuasion techniques that Hunter mastered in his previous careers – appeals to emotion, vilification of opponents, and a characterization of his side (Vagramov) as the victim deserving of sympathy.

Who is Hunter Madsen, really, and why does he want to dominate the Port Moody political scene?

Councillor Hunter Madsen presents himself himself as a Johnny-come-lately to politics, entering the municipal arena as a way to give back following a successful career as a tech executive, a Madison Ave. ad man, and an academic. However, if we examine Madsen’s life and career more closely, we see that he is deeply political—and that his varied pursuits have had a single common thread. That common thread is that he is an expert and professional persuader.

Madsen has used many different names to describe his field of expertise, each carrying a different shade of meaning: persuasion, marketing, public relations, influence, public opinion, advertising…and, if we may quote directly from his book: “we’re talking about propaganda.” (After The Ball, p. 161)

Mark Hunter Madsen has always been bright. He earned his BA in Government and Russian Studies from Dartmouth College in 1977, where the long-haired young leftist from Southern California jumped at the opportunity to study abroad in both Ceaușescu’s Communist Romania (the most hated of the Eastern Bloc communist dictatorships) and the USSR. This can be found on his LinkedIn profile.

Thereafter, he decamped to Harvard. It was in those hallowed halls that he began his deep study of the science of persuasion, psychology and propaganda. It was there too that he met Marshall Kenneth Kirk, a student of neuropsychology and fellow member of Cambridge’s gay community.

Madsen didn’t just want to learn about persuasion, he wanted to put it to use – so he and Kirk, drawing from their studies of political science, psychology, marketing and propaganda, started working together to develop socio-political analyses, communications strategies and even specific ad campaigns to refine the political consciousness and enhance the position of the gay community in America. They began to publish these ideas, with Madsen using the pseudonym Erastes Pill, in publications catering to the gay community or belonging to gay rights groups,

In 1985, after completing his thesis on the shaping of global public opinion, Madsen earned a Harvard doctorate in Government—and became a hot commodity. He later recounted: “my academic work straddled the fence between politics and psychology. I was principally interested in why people agreed to things, persuasion psychology if you like. Now you understand why Madison Avenue was greatly interested in me.”

And so, the energetic, intelligent and ambitious young Dr. Madsen, with many possible paths open to him, went for a gig at the esteemed New York advertising firm J. Walter Thompson. Here he learned the advertising trade first-hand, working on campaigns for the likes of Unilever, Sprint and Chevron. He worked his way into a senior in-house position with Yahoo!, eventually ending up as director of marketing for Yahoo! Canada. Madsen’s time at the former internet titan proved to be a springboard to further digital-primary roles with Postmedia, and a startup he co-founded.

Meanwhile his publications as Erastes Pill developed a reputation for wit, insight, and controversy.

He applied those same persuasion lessons to a cause very dear to his heart, the rights and status of gay people in America. With co-author Marshall Kirk, Hunter published his signature work: “After the Ball“, based on the essay “The Overhauling of Straight America” he co-authored as Erastes Pill. The book is widely available online and makes for fascinating reading from a thoughtful activist at the top of his game.

It’s a manual for public opinion manipulation – for any objective, good or ill. Madsen and Kirk mince no words in expounding their theory of public persuasion.

• Lying is fine as long as the lies are advancing what he deems to be an ethical cause: “It makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us, because we’re using them to ethically good effect” (p. 154)
• He is a fan of propaganda: “The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising” (Introduction, xxvi) and “We mean conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media” (p. 153)
• His conception of propaganda is very specific (ft. lying, again): “Three characteristics distinguish propaganda from other modes of communication… First, propaganda relies more upon emotional manipulation than upon logic… its frequent use of outright lies… Third, even when it sticks to the facts, propaganda can be unabashedly subjective and one-sided. There is nothing necessarily wrong with this. Propaganda tells its own side of the story as movingly (and credibly) as possible” (p. 162-163)

Per his own texts, Hunter Madsen is a proud student of propaganda, a teacher of propaganda, and a practitioner of propaganda. He’s spent a four-decade career perfecting the art and science of propaganda, and is undoubtedly deploying his expertise in pursuit of his agenda for Port Moody – whatever it really is.

Perhaps after a lifetime at the cutting edge of social and technological change, Dr. Madsen decided to use his craft to freeze Port Moody in time.

Claim: Steve Milani’s opponents support housing resulting in population growth exceeding the OCP by 16,300 residents.

Verdict: Egregious whopper. He’s off by a factor of 21!

In a mail-out sent by the Milani campaign to residences in Port Moody, a number of claims have been made that are keeping us busy. Milani claims that 3 developments constitute growth of 16,300 new residents over and above an unspecified plan, which we presume must be the Official Community Plan (OCP). In this, he demonstrates a significant misunderstanding of Port Moody’s OCP.

His mail-out overstates the potential population growth beyond the City Plan attributed to Coronation Park, Oceanfront, and Woodland Park by 21 times!

To start, the 3 neighbourhoods Milani mentions—Woodland Park, Flavelle Oceanfront and Coronation Park – have all been included in the City’s current OCP for years.

Woodland Park

Milani proudly states that he voted against a project (the only Councillor to do so) that delivers approximately 325 subsidized homes provided by BC Housing, in addition to 151 market rentals and 1590 strata apartment homes. Milani estimates these 2,066 homes will be occupied at a rate of 2 persons per unit, to get to an estimate of 4,200 residents.

Here’s what he got wrong:

1. MilaniMath didn’t account for the 200 existing market rental homes, containing around 400 residents.
2. MilaniMath also doesn’t consider that the existing OCP, prior to the Edgar proposal, permitted new development on the site up to 6 storeys. That density would commonly work out to around two times the overall site area in terms of built form. Using that measure, the 23.4 acre site under the un-modified OCP could have potentially permitted 2.038 million square feet of building area. The Edgar proposal, featuring slightly more height, totals 2.14 million square feet. In addition to more homes, benefits of the approved proposal are the ability to create a childcare centre, two public parks, a new trail, bike paths, and a public art walk.

By our estimate, Woodland Park adds only about 123 homes, or approx. 246 residents, more than the un-amended OCP.

Flavelle Oceanfront

Since 2018 following a community visioning process, the City’s OCP supports transforming the heavy industrial site into a mixed-use community with full public access to the waterfront and park expansion. It permits an overall density of approximately 3.84 million square feet including employment space.

Any development that conforms to this is firmly part of the OCP, so there would be zero growth exceeding the Plan.

Coronation Park

Milani states that he didn’t support Coronation Park and recently said that he’s more worried about protecting trees in single family yards. His math (I use the term with reservation) estimates that 5,100 new residents will move to Port Moody as a result of Coronation Park above and beyond “the Plan”, which again, is the City’s OCP which Milani clearly has not read.

Prior to the Wesgroup proposal, the City’s OCP permitted a transit-oriented development at Coronation Park, including high-rises up to 26 storeys and multi-family residential areas. The OCP did not stipulate a density, but a reasonable assumption based on TOD areas with a similar mix of building heights would be a floor area ratio of 3.0 times the lot area at final build-out.

What did Milani get wrong?

1. As with Woodland Park, MilaniMath forgets there are existing residents of Port Moody in Coronation Park. There are 59 single family homes in the community. At a typical single family household size of 3.2, that works-out to 189 existing residents.
2. MilaniMath assumed that the City Plan said nothing would happen at Coronation Park! At the 2017 OCP permitted building mix, a density of up to 3.0 times the lot area could have been achieved—allowing approximately 1.93 million square feet, 2,325 homes, and 4,650 residents.

By our estimate, Coronation park adds only about 262 homes, or approximately 525 residents, more than the old OCP.

Conclusion

All 3 projects have been permitted by the OCP for years, including before recent amendments. Even if we take those amendments to be somehow illegitimate because Milani doesn’t like them, we calculate that the 3 projects would add around 770 residents (not 16,300!) more than envisioned in the old versions of the OCP—which is entirely consistent with a document intended to be a statement of neighbourhood planning guidelines.

The Milani campaign knows what it’s doing in keeping its most blatantly incorrect claims to mail-outs, which influences a demographic that spends little time online. Please consider sharing these facts with friends and family who spend less time in the weeds than us nerds—regardless of political leanings, it’s better for everyone that democratic debate is based on facts.

You may have seen the graphic below floating around on social media. As we were investigating the claims, the Port Moody resident who created it reached out to us, so we worked with them to verify the information, and found the troubling findings to be true.

When they took control of council, the Milani-Madsen-Vagramov-Lubik bloc dissolved all civic committees. Family members, campaign donors/aides, and members of activist groups aligned with the bloc all featured prominently when new appointments were made to the committees.

Given that two of these appointments included Mayoral Candidate Steve Milani’s son, along with Hunter Madsen’s husband, we chose to explore their qualifications for these roles.

In summary: we believe the appointment of Nash Milani to the Economic Development Committee to be an abject example of cronyism, as his qualifications do not remotely relate to the role of that committee. The appointment of Marcus Madsen to the City’s Transportation Committee, while it may raise questions, appears to have been appropriate given the Terms of Reference for that group.

Nash Milani was appointed as a 20-year-old to the Economic Development Committee. The purpose of the EDC is to provide Council with advice and recommendations on strategic economic development direction. Its membership is to be comprised of 12 members with a usefully diverse range of knowledge and experience relevant to the Committee’s responsibility and work plan. A list of examples is included, which is: property owners, small and mid-sized business owners, members of the professional business consulting community, seasoned local businesspeople with notable experience or academic training in entrepreneurship, and professionals with experience in important economic areas such as real estate, retail, medicine, light industry, high tech and sustainable industries, tourism, entertainment and the arts.

From his LinkedIn profile, the economic development credentials of Nash Milani consist of a Diploma in Office Administration from BCIT, and having served as a clerk at the (lovely) Village Toy Shop in Newport. With zero disrespect intended to the Jr. Milani and retail employees, it is difficult to see how a 20-year-old clerk would be qualified to provide strategic economic development advice to council. He may have been more qualified to serve the City as a member of the Youth Focus Committee or the Arts and Culture Committee, for example.

Marcus Madsen was appointed to both the Transportation Committee and the Port Moody Police Board. The Police Board appointment saw controversy in 2019 which resulted in Marcus resigning before serving. In a statement, the spokesperson for the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General noted that Ministry Staff will be “reviewing its screening process to ensure this doesn’t happen again.”

Based on Marcus’ LinkedIn profile, he is employed by Air Canada as a Customer Services Agent along with being a background artist for Film production Companies. Madsen has also been employed by Golds Gym, Home Depot, Lufthansa and has worked as a Realtor in the past. The terms of reference of the Transportation Committee exist to provide council with advice and recommendations on traffic and transportation issues such as traffic safety, accessibility, sustainable transportation, parking needs, traffic calming, and other measures. The Committee is to be made of Port Moody residents in addition to a member from ICBC, the Seniors’ Focus Committee, the Climate Action Committee, HUB Cycling, and two staff members.

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.

Haven Lurbiecki really doesn’t like it when people move into a local condo, especially if it’s in a building with more than a few floors. Her campaign consists of various attacks on condominiums, some of which we’ve written about.

As we were looking-up financial agent contact info on a publicly-available Elections BC document, something caught our eye.

As it turns out, Lurbiecki (listed as her own financial agent) happens to live in one of these condo high-rise buildings she is so against. In her own words on the City’s candidate page, Haven describes high-rise condo buildings like hers as “the wrong type of housing for our community”.  Since she claims to have read the City’s housing needs report, we’re perplexed by that statement – 15% of Port Moody families live in apartments of 5 or more storeys. And we now understand that Lurbiecki is part of that 15%!

Why is it ok for her to live in a mixed-use apartment community that benefits from walkability to shops, services, and transit – when she keeps telling us these are bad and unacceptable projects, and campaigns to block the opportunity for others in Port Moody to enjoy a similar lifestyle?

Claim: A ‘last-mile’ shuttle service by Translink could help fix traffic woes by connecting residents to the two SkyTrain stations.

Verdict: While the Bowen Island pilot was well-regarded by users, we just don’t know yet if the economics work. 

Meghan Lahti correctly observes that while Port Moody has two SkyTrain stations, many residents lack quality transit service to get to them – keeping much of the city dependent on their cars. In addition to the novel idea of actually allowing people to live near the stations, she’s promised to “lobby Translink to make Port Moody a pilot for a ‘Last Mile’ Uber-style Shuttle Service, similar to Bowen Island.”

She’s referring to a pilot program that Translink operated on Bowen Island called Transit On-Demand. The idea was for people to book rides up to 2 weeks in advance using the TapRide app, for additional shuttles that supplemented established routes.

Based on a report published by Translink about the program, the service was rated well (average 8.6 out of 10) by users in its 2-month run, and it improved service over a wider geographical area. Of 1,600 people who downloaded the app, 554 people used the service and made a total of 2,000 trips.

But it’s still unclear how much the program cost. Translink said the pilot project will cost the Mayor’s Council $200,000, but we couldn’t find the final bill or cost breakdown. $200,000 for 2,000 trips works-out to $100 per trip, but this likely included start-up capital costs. Operating costs per-trip would need to be far below this for Translink to justify providing the service.

Meghan’s website referred to the service as “Uber-style” – but to be clear, this was not a bus version of Uber. Riders could only request rides (pick-ups and drop-offs) along pre-designated routes. Translink was keen to work-out the kinks of the app, then consider using it in Metro Vancouver; it’s unclear if this is still on the table.

Ultimately we need to ask:

• Is the service appropriate for Port Moody? Bowen Island is over twice the area of Port Moody, with a fraction of the population.
• Would lobbying efforts be better spent on improving conventional bus service instead? Bus routes already cover most of the city, but their lack of frequency is the major problem.
• Are operating economics even in the ballpark range of viability?
• Wouldn’t Port Moody taxpayers be on the hook if the program just serves us?

Since the flyers directly named and smeared some candidates while promoting Milani, the flyers almost certainly count as election advertising. Elections BC requires that Sponsorship Information, also known as an authorization statement, is required on most election advertising and must include: the name of the financial agent, the words “authorized by” in front of the financial agent’s name, and a B.C. phone number / mailing address / email address at which the agent can be contacted (p. 42 of the guide).

None of the legally required information was included on the flyer distributed by Milani’s campaign. The candidate is still responsible even if the advertising is provided to the candidate as a campaign contribution, or another individual or organization conducts advertising on behalf of the candidate. If the BC Chief Electoral Officer makes the determination that a candidate or third party sponsor failed to include sponsorship information when required, the individuals or organizations involved will face monetary penalties up to $10,000.

Voters have had to deal with enough misinformation and fear-mongering this campaign. As if that wasn’t enough, we may have to also sift through violations of campaign finance law.

Claim: Haven Lurbiecki and Steve Milani claim the next council will decide whether 24 towers will surround Rocky Point park.

Verdict: False. Very disappointing to see fear-mongering of this extent.

Building height is a perennial fixation of Port Moody politics. This election is no different: on the campaign trail, Haven Lurbiecki has been saying that 24 towers are proposed near Rocky Point Park, representing “overdevelopment.” The line was ominously repeated in solemn tones by other Madsen-aligned candidates at the Chamber of Commerce debate, and it’s one of the very first sentences on Steve Milani’s website.

Since completion of the Evergreen Line ended Joe Trasolini’s ban on new housing, Moody Centre has been home to a trickle of growth between 2016 – 2021. A handful of 6-storey lowrises were completed, representing a tiny rate of development relative to most comparable transit-adjacent neighbourhoods. It works out to around one 50-unit lowrise per year – none of them north of the CPR tracks near Rocky Point.

Zoning near Rocky Point Park is a mixture of M1 Light Industrial (Murray St.) and M2 General Industrial (Oceanfront). There has been a total of one rezoning application in the area, for a 12-storey rental midrise with ground-floor employment space and a new pedestrian connection across the CPR tracks. And the application is on hold, likely because the incumbent council finds even 12 storeys too much for a property directly connected to a transit hub.

So that’s Murray. What about the Oceanfront District?

Again, this looks like blatant fear-mongering. There is no application to change zoning from heavy industrial, which will take years. And the OCP Oceanfront guidelines – crafted from a public visioning process and approved with overwhelmingly positive public response – do not specify a development type or layout. Instead it establishes a vision which makes Lurbiecki’s claim impossible, with guidelines including:

• “Buildings set back to provide sufficient space for open/green space and to provide a buffer/transition between the waterfront and buildings.”
• “A minimum of 3.05ha of the site shall be dedicated as public park space and conservation and environmental setback areas.” (Note: this is almost as big as Rocky Point Park)
• “Opening the entire oceanfront to the community by permitting uses that encourage greater public activity, such as retail/commercial, residential, entertainment, open space, and an institutional/research facility.”
• “Integrating a West Coast sensibility (consideration of the natural aspects of light air, mountains, and water) in urban design.”
• “Integrating the existing community and the Oceanfront District through vehicle, pedestrian and cyclist linkages over the CP Rail and Evergreen Line rights-of-way.“

That’s enough park space for a near-doubling of Rocky Point park’s area, buffer spaces required to any future development, and public access to the entire waterfront.

To get close to the 24 tower figure, Lurbiecki is probably using an expansive geographic definition and counting the entire potential Moody Centre TOD area. But the TOD concept is located entirely south of the CPR/SkyTrain right of way, with the preliminary vision featuring 12 high-rises and employment space spread throughout 20 acres – creating a complete community adjacent to Port Moody’s transit hub. It’s also been indefinitely stalled by the goalpost-changing incumbent council.

An OCP amendment isn’t even being considered by the outgoing council, let alone rezoning or development permits. A thin council majority appears determined to maintain 1-2 storey light industrial buildings and parking lots around Port Moody’s transit hub. Because they’re embarrassed to say this outright, they have to find a new cover storey every couple of years (right now they say they want the area to become the next Burrard and W. Georgia financial district – yeah, right).

It’s unfortunate that some campaigns are resorting to fear-mongering, taking advantage of the fact that most voters are busy professionals who don’t have the time to fact-check preposterous claims or read planning documents. Please consider sharing this post with any friends or family who may have been impacted by the misinformation.

Claim: At the Tri-City Chamber of Commerce debate last night Hunter Madsen again claimed that the City would pay for its amenity demands by “making developers pay their fair share”. Madsen has spoken at length about this and in the past has claimed that the City can achieve affordable housing, new parks, and amenities without impacting the value of Port Moody residents property when selling to a builder.

Verdict: False. Even Madsen himself admitted this and stated that Port Moody needs to deflate property prices.

Hunter Madsen has stated that the City can get developers to provide amenities like parks, rental housing and other items without impacting property values. Does Madsen believe it himself?

In an email written in 2018 to Coronation Park residents on the eve of that election, Madsen asked for votes in support of himself, Steve Milani and Rob Vagramov. In that e-mail, Madsen told the owners of the community that was slated to be redeveloped that “paying attention to these things (amenities, parks, and subsidized rentals) doesn’t have to delay the redevelopment process or kill the sale price of your property.”

That sounds comforting, although any land economist would surely disagree with you. Contrast that to April 19, 2022, when Madsen stated in a Council meeting while discussing the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Policy for Affordable Rental Units. Keep in mind, Madsen had just heard a presentation from City Staff and a third-party expert who told them that requiring new multi-family projects to provide a minimum of 15% subsidized housing would result in property values in Port Moody being reduced by 47%.

Madsen stated: “If they (developers) won’t be able to make the economics work because off current hyper inflated land cost…then what developers will be able to pay land Owners for parcels will go down”. Madsen continued, speaking about what he called “unrealistically, unsustainably high land prices” and stated that “we have to find a way to deflate gradually”.

This is a very different claim that he made to Coronation Park residents. You can watch the video for yourself here – tune in at the 2:55:45 mark. 

Dear Coronation Park residents:

Having read the interpretation in Grant Gardner’s report on the
conversation that Rob Vagramov, Steve Milani, and I had with CP residents
at Tyler Brown’s home in late September, I am concerned that readers might
not leave with an entirely accurate perception of where we stand regarding
the future of Coronation Park.  So before you folks head to the polls
tomorrow, here is what you should know.

1)      Given its downtown location (ideal for both residential and
commercial) and its proximity to Translink and amenities, Coronation Park
is probably the city’s most appropriate neighbourhood to be redeveloped and
densified, and we want to see the area move from vision to sale and
construction without further delay.  If we can shift the mayoralty and
majority on Council, we’re pretty sure that we can do a better job of
helping this along than your neighbourhood has gotten, of late, from the
current leadership at City Hall.

2)      You and your neighbours have been fully involved from the start in
decision-making about CP’s future, which is the right way to do things.
The Coronation Park community took time to go through a very difficult and
contentious but proper process of building toward neighbourhood alignment
(not complete, of course, but, at this point, very substantial) in favour
of land assembly and redevelopment.  While this outcome may not be perfect
in all regards, and though it can still be improved, and while we do
understand that it’s not to everyone’s satisfaction today (and that the
dissenters have some valid gripes), we must and do support the collective
outcome as legitimate.

3)      The thrust of London Pacific’s message seems to be that CP
residents who are eager to move forward with the land sale are best advised
to support the city’s longstanding incumbents instead of those of us who
want to bring fresh leadership to the city.  But the brute fact is that the
current regime has been at the City’s helm throughout this long, drawn-out
process over many years,  and what we’ve observed looks more like
foot-dragging rather than progress toward removing critical roadblocks,
such as road access.  If any of us three lived in Coronation Park at this
point – with the escalating taxes and declining neighbourhood care and
general loss of momentum around this project – we’d be pretty upset and
pissed off too.  It’s got to change, and fast, but you’re likely to
continue getting exactly what you’ve been getting, so far, if you keep
re-electing the same folks who got you to this stagnant spot.  Rob, Steve,
and I – each of us – believe that the City has let its Coronation Park
residents down in this affair. If elected, we’re committed to tackling the
roadblocks and getting redevelopment back into forward drive as quickly as
possible.

4. That said, we have to advise you that getting your properties sold and
you moved out as quickly as possible so that you finally advance to
whatever you’re doing next will be a key goal of ours, but it cannot be our
only goal, or else we’d be lousy city leaders. That is why, yes, we have to
worry about things like ensuring that Coronation Park’s *next* residents
get enough additional park space to play with their kids (if not on the CP
parcel, then acquired elsewhere), and that the CP plan includes, alongside
all the top-priced condos, a decent amount of affordable rental housing so
that Port Moody remains a diverse, welcoming, and livable place for folks
from all walks and stages of life.  These are simply the right things to do
in city development, and the right things to do for persons who care about
others in this world.  Even if you’re planning to sell and leave town, we
suppose that you would wish the leaders of your next town to be worried
about such things as well.

That said, paying better attention to these things doesn’t have to delay
the redevelopment process or kill the sale price of your property: what the
development community needs most of all is better clarity about the city’s
expectations in these regards, so that they can factor them into planning
and pro forma, and move forward.  Fresh leadership at City Hall will get
everyone off the fence and clear up the remaining clouds of uncertainty
concerning what’s really on the plate here.

In sum, Rob, Steve, and I view ourselves as your allies: let’s get
Coronation Park out of the idle gear and moving forward again.  This starts
with receiving your support at the ballot box tomorrow, so that we can make
change happen at City Hall.

Sincerely,

Hunter Madsen

City Councillor, candidate for re-election