I strongly support faster, simpler housing approvals while maintaining necessary safety and public-interest reviews. I want Vancouver to measure homes completed and occupied, not just applications processed. An approval is not a front door.
Supports simplifying zoning, development and building-permit processes to reduce time and costs.
Supports consolidating the City multiple housing-approval departments into a single process.
Supports streamlined permitting for low-rise apartments, row homes, townhomes, infill and wood-frame construction across Vancouver.
Supports simplifying and speeding up the development process.
I favour accountable permitting and more homes with tenant, accessibility and servicing safeguards; "existing character" should not be a blanket veto on needed housing.
ABC commits to cutting red tape and delivering a City that works for residents and businesses.
Why the model reads it this way: Applied to housing, ABC's general red-tape commitment suggests support for faster approvals, although the cited promise is not housing-specific.
Would introduce a 21-day rule under which permits are automatically granted if not decided within 21 days.
Why the model reads it this way: The automatic-approval rule and a target of 2,000 homes approved or in the pipeline strongly indicate support for faster housing approvals.
Existing neighbourhood scale should not become a permanent ceiling on housing. I support thoughtful growth, including low-rise housing and greater density near transit, while considering infrastructure, heritage, services and neighbourhood impacts.
TEAM will visit all 22 officially-designated neighbourhoods in the city of Vancouver to listen to residents' thoughts...
Qualification: Density balanced against infrastructure capacity and neighbourhood context.
Vancouver doesn't need one kind of housing everywhere. We need more ways for people to find a home that fits their life and their budget.
New projects will include a mix of towers, mid-rise and low-rise buildings, townhomes, and prefabricated modular housing, depending on the neighbourhood and the site.
Qualification: Form determined by neighbourhood and site.
I favour accountable permitting and more homes with tenant, accessibility and servicing safeguards; "existing character" should not be a blanket veto on needed housing.
Would build more affordable housing in every part of the city and consolidate housing approvals into one process.
Why the model reads it this way: Allam prioritizes citywide housing growth and faster approvals, which points away from allowing homes only where they retain existing neighbourhood scale and character.
Commits to making City Hall permitting faster and easier.
Why the model reads it this way: A broad faster-permitting commitment points away from restricting approvals to existing neighbourhood scale, but ABC does not directly address the scale-and-character test.
Supports pre-zoning key neighbourhoods for family-sized, multigenerational, co-op and missing-middle housing.
Why the model reads it this way: Pre-zoning neighbourhoods for more housing points away from requiring every approval to preserve existing scale and character.
I support new supportive housing where it is professionally operated, properly staffed and connected to mental-health, addiction and recovery services. Location, safety, operator capacity and measurable outcomes should be part of every approval.
Supports ending the pause on new supportive housing.
At the September 8 mayoral debate, Fry was reported as firmly supporting reversal of the pause on new supportive-housing units.
Supports ending the pause on new supportive housing.
Supportive homes should be evaluated on sound design, staffing and community outcomes.
Growth and development should be planned in consultation with local residents and within the scale and context of each neighbourhood.
Why the model reads it this way: TEAM supports housing and services but emphasizes neighbourhood fit and consultation. That does not point clearly toward maintaining or reversing this specific pause, so the estimate is mixed.
The ABC-led council maintained the restriction on net-new supportive-housing projects covered by the pause.
Why the model reads it this way: The pause was maintained by the ABC-led council and Sim's current campaign does not propose reversing it. Continuity with that governing decision strongly indicates opposition to reversal.
Would create a permanent affordable rental stream building subsidised, non-market and below-market rental homes.
Why the model reads it this way: Ahmad's housing and culturally safe support commitments suggest support for allowing new supportive housing, though he has not addressed the pause directly.
I do not support automatic tax freezes or automatic annual increases. The City should first reduce duplication, improve procurement and demonstrate value. Any increase should be transparent, justified and tied to maintaining measurable services.
Limit tax increases to inflation to maintain municipal services at levels agreed to by voters.
The mayor has committed to pursuing another zero per cent property tax increase next year...
...as the City struggles with Sim's reckless tax cuts, disrupting city services and leading to widespread fee increases, people are calling for change.
End the 0% property tax freeze and replace it with predictable, sustainable property tax increases based on responsible long-term financial planning.
I do not endorse an arbitrary tax freeze or automatic annual increases detached from service needs, nor a guaranteed inflation ceiling regardless of costs.
Would cut selected property taxes and cancel the proposed second City Hall project.
Why the model reads it this way: Allam's targeted tax cuts and major spending reductions point away from immediately returning to regular broad increases, although he has not committed to continuing the zero-per-cent freeze.
Would seek a marginal luxury infrastructure levy on residential assessed value above $5 million, with deferrals for eligible owners.
Why the model reads it this way: Targeted new levies do not clearly settle whether ordinary property-tax increases should resume, so the estimate is mixed.
Keeping increases at or below inflation should be the goal where responsibly possible. Inflation is a useful benchmark, but I would not impose an arbitrary ceiling if essential services genuinely require more after efficiencies have been pursued.
Supports limiting property-tax increases to inflation while maintaining agreed municipal services.
Current ABC affordability materials commit to tying future property-tax increases to inflation.
Supports keeping property-tax increases in line with inflation.
I do not endorse an arbitrary tax freeze or automatic annual increases detached from service needs, nor a guaranteed inflation ceiling regardless of costs.
Criticises a 26 per cent property-tax increase and proposes targeted property-tax reductions funded by spending changes and new revenue.
Why the model reads it this way: Allam's affordability and tax-cut commitments suggest support for restraining annual increases, though he has not endorsed an explicit inflation cap.
Would use a luxury-property levy and stronger vacancy-tax enforcement to fund housing and infrastructure.
Why the model reads it this way: Ahmad identifies new targeted revenue but does not state how ordinary annual property-tax increases should relate to inflation, so the estimate is mixed.
Criticises tax cuts that the campaign says disrupt City services and lead to widespread fee increases.
Why the model reads it this way: Fry's criticism of tax restraint that constrains services points away from a general inflation cap, though he has not proposed a specific alternative ceiling.
Police are essential for violence, serious crime and immediate danger, however, not every call requires police. I support using the right resource for the right problem, including health-led crisis teams, while funding police positions where evidence shows they are needed.
Ken Sim's approach to safety amounts to "give the police whatever they ask for." While we support our men and women in uniform - this approach isn't working.
Qualification: Supports police while opposing budget-led approaches as the primary strategy.
Fry told The Tyee that he supports police, but sees them as just one element for improving public safety.
Qualification: Supports police while rejecting policing-only approaches to public safety.
Prioritizing prevention, education, and support over criminalization.
Public safety requires prevention, housing, treatment, infrastructure and accountable policing together.
Would refocus the City on core responsibilities including policing, sanitation and bylaw enforcement.
Why the model reads it this way: TEAM places policing among its core public-safety tools, but its platform does not establish that additional police funding is the main determinant of safety.
Supports fully funding police and continued investment in police officers, alongside mental-health nurses and treatment capacity.
Why the model reads it this way: Sim makes police investment a core public-safety priority, but his simultaneous health and treatment commitments keep the estimate below strong agreement with policing as the main factor.
The Universal Care pillar calls for a treatment-first crisis response.
Why the model reads it this way: A treatment-first response indicates that Ahmad does not see additional policing as the main route to public safety.
I support extending SkyTrain to UBC, subject to a clear scope, funding plan and partnership with TransLink, UBC, the Province and federal government. It should advance alongside improvements to bus reliability and other mobility gaps across Vancouver.
TEAM says the UBC SkyTrain extension should be reconsidered alongside alternatives and a business case rather than treated as a settled commitment.
Qualification: Calls for reconsideration and comparison of alternatives rather than categorical rejection.
Identifies extending SkyTrain to UBC as a top transportation priority.
The Transit pillar calls for a ready path for SkyTrain to UBC.
Supports extending SkyTrain to UBC.
Transit extensions and major recreation projects require credible costs, funding, alternatives and operating plans.
ABC's platform presents continued investment in infrastructure and a growing Vancouver as core priorities.
Why the model reads it this way: Those priorities make support for completing the Broadway rapid-transit corridor to UBC more likely than opposition, but no specific current commitment was found.
Fry's campaign identifies climate action and transportation alternatives as ongoing priorities.
Why the model reads it this way: Those priorities make support for the UBC SkyTrain extension likely, although the current campaign material reviewed does not contain a specific commitment.
I would assess parking by location, demand, accessibility, transit options and neighbourhood impacts. Some busy destinations may need pricing to manage turnover, but parking policy should not unnecessarily penalize families, seniors or people without practical alternatives.
Reverse council's decision and restore off-street parking minimums for all new construction...
Within the first year of a Vancouver Liberal Government, we're going to get rid of every single parking meter in front of beaches and community centres throughout the entire city
Qualification: Within the first year of a Vancouver Liberal government.
We are in favour of making parking cheaper and easier for drivers by reducing prices at public locations.
Parking reductions need a transparent funding and access assessment.
Remove pay parking at beaches and community centres and end residential parking permit fees.
Why the model reads it this way: ABC's current platform directly commits to cheaper and easier parking at the locations named in the question.
The transit pillar proposes fare relief, faster buses, safer stations and free transit for Vancouver residents.
Why the model reads it this way: Ahmad prioritizes non-car affordability and transit access, which weakly points away from subsidizing parking, but he does not address parking meters.
Fry's transportation work emphasizes accessible transit and new low-emission mobility options.
Why the model reads it this way: Those priorities weakly point toward managing rather than broadly reducing parking prices, but the campaign does not address the meters named in the question.
I strongly support expanding Vancouver’s tree canopy where feasible, especially in low-canopy, high-heat and park-deficient neighbourhoods. Trees are only part of the climate solution. Nearly 60% of Vancouver’s carbon pollution comes from buildings, primarily from burning natural gas for heat and hot water. We need to accelerate building and facility electrification, improve energy efficiency, and reduce fossil-fuel emissions as much as possible while continuing to grow and maintain a healthy urban canopy.
Expand tree planting, mature tree protections, retention and enhancement of green space, and consider the heat island impacts of development growth when planning communities.
The number of trees in Vancouver is going down, not up. This is driving up electricity consumption, reducing livability, and worsening air quality.
Maintaining Vancouver's 30% tree-canopy target while separately measuring mature canopy and newly planted trees.
Strengthen the tree-canopy strategy: 4.
Commits to renewed parks, playgrounds and community infrastructure without a specific tree-canopy pledge.
Why the model reads it this way: The reviewed 2026 platform does not establish whether Sim would strengthen the existing tree-canopy strategy, so the estimate is mixed.
Pure Vancouver directs protected revenue to public infrastructure and neighbourhood resilience.
Why the model reads it this way: His environmental and neighbourhood-resilience commitments suggest support for a stronger canopy strategy, though trees are not specifically named.
Fry's campaign identifies climate action, natural-habitat protection and resilient public spaces as core priorities.
Why the model reads it this way: Those established Green priorities strongly indicate support for strengthening the City's tree-canopy strategy.
I support one clear path through City permits and licences, with published service standards, predictable timelines and a single point of guidance. Necessary rules should protect the public; unnecessary delay is simply another cost for local businesses.
Supports streamlining permitting for business establishment and expansion.
Supports cutting City red tape for businesses.
Supports simpler processes and better technology to reduce permitting delays.
Simplify City business permitting and regulation: 5.
Would modernise zoning and business rules so small businesses can manufacture and sell products in the same space.
Why the model reads it this way: Allam explicitly proposes modernizing rules that he says hold back small firms, directly supporting simpler City permitting and regulation.
The Local Economy pillar proposes a 21-day permit rule before covered permits are automatically granted.
Why the model reads it this way: The 21-day rule and commitment to lower business and building costs directly indicate support for simpler permitting and regulation.
Would modernise City procurement while supporting local hiring and local suppliers.
Why the model reads it this way: Fry's support for modernized City processes, streamlined housing permits and local enterprise indicates support for simpler business-facing rules while retaining social and environmental requirements.
I support keeping an independently elected Park Board while improving coordination and accountability between the Board and City Council. Residents should be able to see who is responsible for decisions, spending and results.
Supports preserving an independent elected Park Board and returning finance, operations and facilities to its jurisdiction.
Strongly supports keeping and properly funding an independent elected Park Board.
ABC no longer seeks to dissolve the elected Park Board and is running Park Board candidates in 2026.
Supports retaining the elected Park Board and is running a Green Park Board slate.
We strongly agree with this, and it remains a part of our platform.
Keep an independently elected Park Board: 4.
The Blueprint sets out parks and service priorities without taking a recorded position on Park Board governance.
Why the model reads it this way: The source does not indicate whether parks should remain under an elected Park Board, so the estimate is mixed.
I support targeted investment where asset condition, safety, accessibility, demand and long-term value justify it. I would not commit to a blanket increase in capital spending without first reviewing priorities, costs and the condition of facilities citywide.
...pledge $739 million over four years to invest in our parks and recreation facilities
Qualification: Subject to an annual baseline review of the Park Board budget.
That's why we're committing 400 new frontline workers and a historic $1.35B investment in parks, recreation, and pools.
Rebuilding and renewing community centres across Vancouver.
Deliver a 50-metre pool. Committing to pools at Sunset and Marpole Community Centres. ... Restoring full practical public access to Kitsilano Pool.
Transit extensions and major recreation projects require credible costs, funding, alternatives and operating plans.
Would protect revenue for infrastructure, intergenerational community hubs and neighbourhood resilience.
Why the model reads it this way: Ahmad proposes dedicated funding for public infrastructure and community hubs, indicating support for more capital investment without specifying a parks-and-recreation total.
The Vancouver Greens describe parks and recreation services as essential public services that must be supported as the city grows.
Why the model reads it this way: Treating parks and recreation as essential services indicates support for increased capital investment, although Fry has not published a specific total.
I support a citywide network of accessible public washrooms with dependable hours, clear wayfinding and service levels based on demand. Public washrooms are basic civic infrastructure, particularly around parks, transit and busy commercial areas.
...the Vancouver Liberals will also build new public washrooms across the city.
Building more public washrooms in and near: commercial districts, parks, the Downtown Eastside, community centres, pedestrian plazas, and other highuse public areas.
Build more public washrooms: 5.
Pledges major capital investment in parks and recreation facilities.
Why the model reads it this way: A large parks-and-recreation capital plan makes additional washrooms plausible, but TEAM does not make a specific citywide washroom commitment in the reviewed material.
Commits to major renewal of parks and community facilities across Vancouver.
Why the model reads it this way: Large public-facility investment makes additional washroom provision plausible, but the platform does not state a specific washroom commitment.
The Universal Care pillar includes accessible civic spaces and the plan funds neighbourhood infrastructure.
Why the model reads it this way: Accessible public-space and infrastructure commitments make more washrooms plausible, but the Blueprint does not specifically promise them.
The Green Park Board slate prioritizes accessible public spaces and increasing public washrooms and water fountains.
Why the model reads it this way: The party slate running with Fry expressly supports increasing public washrooms, providing strong party-level evidence for support.
I support reviewing funding and increasing targeted support where there is a clear public benefit, demonstrated need or connection to the City’s reconciliation commitments. I would not support an automatic across-the-board increase without defined outcomes. Reconciliation must be more than a signed agreement, it has to be visible in the City’s actions and in the way we work with Indigenous communities.
We will review funding for non-profits to make sure the city is getting value for money and that we are focused on core responsibilities.
Qualification: Review framed around value for money and core responsibilities, not around increasing funding.
Funding should be indexed to inflation to ensure new progress in breaking down systemic barriers aren't regressing.
...while maintaining the current level of community grants.
Qualification: Framed within a commitment to another zero per cent property tax increase.
Reconciliation must show in the budget as well.
Yes. I would review current funding levels for Indigenous organizations...
We commit to a public review of city funding allocated to Indigenous organizations within the first year of the term, measured against the Vancouver Test, with results reported back to MVAEC member agencies directly.
Qualification: Measured against the party's Vancouver Test; results reported to MVAEC member agencies.
Funding increases for Indigenous organizations require meaningful partnership, transparent need and fair accountability, not a predetermined amount.
I support Indigenous-led development and additional housing, but I would not endorse every detail of a major project simply because it is currently proposed. I would consider housing, infrastructure, transit, public benefits, phasing and community impacts.
TEAM supports MSTDC to develop their lands, however, the public has not been satisfied that the Jericho Lands in particular has been planned properly within the local context, so the Jericho Lands will be reconsidered through neighbourhood-based community planning.
Qualification: Jericho Lands to be reconsidered through neighbourhood-based community planning.
Yes. I consulted on this project to MST and may be conflicted from being able to vote on the projects.
Qualification: Candidate discloses a potential conflict of interest that may prevent him from voting on the projects.
Yes, we support the MST Development Corporation's vision for both the Jericho Lands and Heather Lands.
Yes. I support the right of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations to pursue economic development and build long-term prosperity for their communities.
Yes I support the developments, and at council I voted in favour of these projects and their subsequent policy amendments.
Both developments reflect the kind of partnership we want to build on.
Land-development proposals must respect Indigenous rights and be assessed on their actual current details, not given a blanket approval.