Vision Vancouver councillor George Chow plans to leave city politics this fall

The Board of Variance is appointed by the majority on Council, so basically Tang is another Vision Insider. The track record of the Board of Variance is incredibly pro-developer, so this nomination bodes ominously against communities and community plans. Does Vancouver need another council member in the pockets of developers?

This is no surprise. George, a likeable fellow, said TWICE at the Shannon Mews Town Hall last week that if voters didn't like what Vision was doing they should vote them out of office! I thought, George, you and I can agree on that.

Any politician telling it like it is like that isn't hanging around. Those comments also indicate a degree of frustration with the over zealous Vision muzzle, and even perhaps their inept and mis-guided policies. George is an engineer and he probably would prefer to be more pragmatic and less idealogical.

George was the final Vision panel representative after Geoff Meggs and 2 others cancelled. I got the impression the Vision-masters didn't want anyone of them to attend. It was good that George did have the courage and conviction to do so even though he took a lot of heat.

I wish George well in the next chapter of an already interesting life.

I cannot imagine a more anti-democratic, more self-entitled character who might run for Council than Tony Tang.

As Board of Variance (BoV) Chair, Tony Tang is the fellow who attempted to do away with site inspections of appellant properties under appeal, and attempted to stop appellants from being heard by the BoV ("we've read the material, we don't need to hear from you"), and who for two years has run roughshod over City process.

Tony Tang also headed up a Board of Variance that failed to support the re-instating of "third party appeals" so that you and me, your neighbours and mine, might have a say into development in our neighbourhoods.

Over the past two years, Tony Tang is the guy who has shown time and time again that he doesn't give a damn for the democratic rights of those of us who live in the city of Vancouver.

And Vision Vancouver wants to run this ---- for Council?

My god, I can't beleive that your readers are so biased & speaking as if he or she represents everyone in the city. Speaking of democracy, it's the will of Vancouver residents who voted in Vision Party because the alternative is much worse. So, either some your readers who posted these comments are politically biased ( & with no actual fact or evidence), racially biased, or plain having a hidden agenda.
Bill McCreery1's comment is honest & constructive, but the other 2 comments are more of a personal attack. Especially the language used by City Observer, the 'Vision Vancouver wants to run this ---- for Council?'
Who is this City Observer? Too afraid to use his or her real name.

@Byron
I don't see much evidence of racial bias in any comments here. The one poster certainly mentions a lack of respect for democracy but outlines the exact reasons for that opinion rather than tie them unfairly to the interests of a foreign government -- an unfair attack Mr. Chow did endure. As for speaking for everyone, not everyone is in love with Vision Vancouver. In speaking for myself I think the only difference between them is that Vision is in and the NPA is out (of power). They are two sides of the same casino token. What I dislike about this governing civic coalition of Greens and federal Liberals posing as the left is that when it is defeated, it will leave a bitter taste of what a left city council was like, even though it wasn't one.

Let me be clear. Until some new, intellgent, innovative, people to step up and run for council and to replace the joke we have as a mayor we are stuck with hacks like Gregor, Meggs, Louie, Stevenson, Anton, and Deal that think this city is for their benefit and the benefit of the well off and powerful.
They have forgotten that they are supposed to rep all people in the city.
By the way James G is not James Green

I consider neither Robertson nor Meggs to be a hack. Instead, I believe the mayor is a puppet of other interests. Meggs and Louie I consider to be master manipulators, with Meggs in temporary ascendency. Louie must stay because the Chinese community needs someone and Chow is going and Kerry Jang is too new. Stevenson is merely a weak representative of a once politically spirited community but one which needs to have someone there (a role only Jim Deva could rightly play but he wisely avoids elective office). As for the Green Chicken Alliance, Andrea Reimer can go (I had to grind my teeth to check any ballots for Vision last time around, trying to accommodate to the continuing lack of wards but I swear I chipped a tooth when I came to that one). Heather Deal I cannot fathom. What is her appeal and what is her contribution? An also-ran that got lucky and hangs on due to the lack of wards. I guess that makes her the only hack in my eyes. This year, with Vision right-flanking the NPA and no real contest for mayor or council, I will just plump for COPE and I know I will never again vote for the Vision list. The key thing is that I despise none of these people but I do despise the slate system that forced my hand in voting for them. No candidate list of any party could be completed without hacks, puppets and manipulators. I just don't get what I wanted in policy from them with my vote and so they won't get it again. That leaves only my mayoral vote completely up for grabs since neither Anton nor Robertson will get it. Maybe I should consider you, James Green? Thank you for pointing out that I am not you and he you are not me. It is great that you have taken that initiative and I hope it is not too forward of me to suggest that you are probably also not Jim Green? I think if that fact had been put forward a little more forcibly to the voting public in 2005, we would not have this ridiculous Liberal-Green coalition at city hall today.

Thank you James G. I am thinking about this and will make a decision soon.It is time for a new direction for Vancouver.