Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts not seeking re-election

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by spm2013

She'll at least be able to bring in federal funding for those projects.

I think you are on to something here. If she does run for the Feds and win, all the more reason why LRT will be pushed for Surrey since she, being a known LRT advocate, will be able to hold bigger purse strings now.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

I have family and close friends in municipalities south of the Fraser in Surrey and the Township of Langley. One thing I've remarked upon is that there is a mistaken belief, somewhat echoed in your comment, that the population of South of the Fraser municipalities are either now larger than those North of the Fraser or that the majority of the recent population growth in Metro Vancouver has occurred South of the Fraser. True: proportionately, Surrey is growing faster than the large north of Fraser Municipalities of Vancouver and Burnaby. However, this is confusing proportionality with absolute numbers. I went through Stats Canada's 2006 and 2011 population stats and grouped the region into the following: North Shore Municipalities, Burrard Peninsula, "River Cities", and South of the Fraser.

North Shore municipalities (Bowen Island, Lions Bay, North Van (City), North Van (District), and West Van)
2011 combined census population - 180,022
2006 combined census population - 174,548
Population growth 2006-2011 - 5,474

Burrard Peninsula (Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam, New West, Port Moody, Port Coquitlam, Anmore, Belcarra, and Electoral District A; mostly UBC)
2011 combined census population - 1,124,240
2006 combined census population - 1,047,664
Population growth 2006-2011 - 76,576

River Cities (Richmond, Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows)
2011 combined census population - 284,261
2006 combined census population - 259,033
Population growth 2006-2011 - 25,228

South of the Fraser (Tswwassen First Nation, Langley, Surrey, White Rock, Langley City, Township of Langley)
2011 combined census population - 717,431
2006 combined census population - 628,460
Population growth 2006-2011 - 88,971

Were one to combine the North Shore, Burrard Peninsula, and River Cities into the "North of the Fraser" block it would look like this:
2011 combined census population - 1,588,523
2006 combined census population - 1,481,245
Population growth 2006-2011 - 107,278

My point with all of this is that I think Mayor Watts succeeded in instilling a lot of pride to live South of the Fraser and The Province newspaper had a good run ceaselessly comparing her against Mayor Robertson: the defacto North of the Fraser representative. I think that the story of tremendous recent growth South of the Fraser underscores the need for more public transit and improvement and upgrades to the road and highway network. I do think it is disingenuous to say that all the investment has gone North of the Fraser. Surrey and the South of the Fraser municipalities needed a Mayor Watts and I sincerely hope that someone of comparable vision is elected and can articulate for continued investment and an accelerated region-wide transit investment strategy.

Good points. Wanted to break down my response into a few parts so I put lines to break it up.

------------ Part 1

Yah population numbers are a bit deceiving and you can slice them any way you want. When people talk North of Fraser and South of Fraser, and by people I mean most politicians (and when I reference the terms) or in the news it is typically political lines that are drawn.

Because of that I don't think you can actually include the North Shore. And Pitt Meadows/Maple Ridge are far out there to the point I'm not sure if they would be included North of Fraser in the general discussion that typically happens or they would be their own section since they technically have the Pitt River between them and Coquitlam and with the GEB are kind of in the middle.

Also if it is simply where people commute from then I'd argue for South of Fraser you probably should include Abbotsford in there but really we can't because they are outside of Metro Vancouver. So typically the lines drawn when using the two terms are:

South of Fraser = Surrey + Delta + Langleys
North of Fraser = Vancouver + Burnaby + New Westminster + Coquitlam

Richmond I think it depends on the discussion. They kind of fly both ways and really they are middle of River because they are between the North arm and South arm. They also have the Airport so things like Canada Line just make sense and were a direct "North of Fraser" benefit but they will also benefit from a new Massey Tunnel so they benefit from SoF improvement. So I'd kind of put them together politically in the argument.

I know Delta sees them as a partner city and a lot of trade, commerce, and workers go back and fourth between the two so there is more of a connection than with other "North of Fraser" cities in that regard.

Based on those lines then the numbers do turn out with SoF having > growth overall. But again like you showed you can slice the population numbers differently and show the opposite.

------------ Part 2

Really then the argument is a political one not a realistic one. I agree with your main point that you can slice the populations in a way that shows the opposite, that NoF gained more people and it is probably as valid as slicing it the way I mentioned depending on the context of the argument.

But the discussion is around Mayor Watts' and what she accomplished. And ultimatley what she accomplished was Political Change. Unfortunately politics and reality rarely go hand-in-hand.

So we can't really look at it from a realistic standpoint but more on a political standpoint.

What Surrey Mayor's in the past said for decades was "Surrey is the fastest growing city in the region yet has had less investment per capita than almost every other city in the region including Coquitlam which has 1/5th the population of Surrey."

But as true as that may or may not be, it just sounds like a cry baby who doesn't get to play with their toys in the sand box with everyone else. And that's largely why Surrey gained the reputation it did in the past (outside of crime) and why nearly everything was sent the direction of NoF. And in fairness, 20 years ago Surrey was an after-thought and really didn't have a big population so not all of the crying was really warranted.

What Mayor Watts did was change her "crying" from "Surrey this and Surrey that" to "South of Fraser this and South of Fraser that." which suddenly brought other Mayors into the equation like Mayor Jackson of Delta, Fassbender (at the time) of Langley and so fourth. It also brought the Province more into the discussion as it went from 1 city crying foul to visually half the regional district crying foul.

The truth is though that she really was still saying "Surrey" when she was articulating "SoF." It becomes politics then. When you replace SoF with Surrey, then the numbers make sense. Surrey's growth from 2006 -> 2011 = 15.64% growth rate for a city over 400,000. Compare that to other big cities in the region like Vancouver with a population of 600,000 yet had a growth rate of 4.2% in the same time. Or Burnaby with 220,000 and a growth rate of 9%. So she sort of had a point.

And remember a lot of this happened before the Evergreen started construction or even went to tender so when you look back at her arguments even though technically Coquitlam would lump into North of Fraser, she was often including them in the "South of Fraser" equation when discussing lack of transit and infrastructure regionally. For the Evergreen arguments "North of Fraser" really meant Vancouver + Burnaby + Richmond because they were arguing SkyTrain.

Thus why the realistic boundaries don't really apply when politics enter into things.

------------ Part 3

Finally, just think of the city numbers even from a realistic standpoint and how that can be perceived regardless of the ACTUAL numbers:

South of Fraser = 5 cities/towns
North of Fraser = 9 cities/towns

If you include all the "NoF" cities you put down in your population numbers then it actually because:

North of Fraser = 17 cities/towns


When you look at:

17 cities = 107,278 growth
5 cities = 88,971 growth
Difference = 18,307 but the bigger had 12 more cities added to it

it just further emphasizes Mayor Watts' point politically even if the number of cities doesn't _really_ matter as in reality you have to take into account the geographical size. Surrey may be just 1 city but size wise it = almost all of North of Fraser combined.

So in conclusion, I think that's why she was a very successful politician at the end of the day because she argued politics very very well even if it didn't and doesn't align fully with reality.


That said:

Nobody can argue though that Surrey isn't the fastest growing city in the region. I do think though that with the new B-Line, I don't think you can make as strong an argument as to Surrey being hugely neglected from a transit standpoint. In 10 years time if there still isn't any action on rapid transit expansion out here and the numbers look like:

Surrey 2021 = 615,000 people
Vancouver 2021 = 655,000 people
Surrey SkyTrain Station Count = 4
Vancouver SkyTrain Station Count = 25

.. then expect more of the same political arguments to start happening again. I hope some gap starts to happen at least from a realistic standpoint. I also don't think it is realistic to SkyTrain all over Surrey because as I pointed out, size wise it is massive. LRT may actually be a good solution to connect town centers together. But it at least has to get off the talking board and onto the construction board within the next 10 years.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Yah population numbers are a bit deceiving and you can slice them any way you want. When people talk North of Fraser and South of Fraser, and by people I mean most politicians (and when I reference the terms) or in the news it is typically political lines that are drawn.

Because of that I don't think you can actually include the North Shore.

I'd like to hear a good reason why not. We don't support transit anywhere, north shore, Vancouver, and especially not south of Fraser.

Transit is only supported in this sort of sentence "We need better transit before we can build Manhattan-like towers over three storeys."

But we do actually count as people north of the Fraser no matter how you slice it.

[Genauso]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Surrey 2021 = 615,000 people
Vancouver 2021 = 655,000 people
Surrey SkyTrain Station Count = 4
Vancouver SkyTrain Station Count = 25

True, but there's always nuance that gets left by the wayside when the debate is split into a feud based on identity of Us vs. Them.

I had no idea Vancouver had 25 Skytrain stations, because if you live in Vancouver Skytrain was useless for anything but visiting Metrotown until the Canada Line was built. The original Expo line wasn't about serving demand between where the population lived or worked. (is that 25 station count double counting Expo stations under the 'Millennium line', or is that including Burnaby, New Westminster, Coquitlam, etc.)

It was purely political about Expo, building fast on cheap land, and attracting manufacturing jobs to counter recession of the early 80s rising interest rates which began with oil prices in the late 1970s. It was a region building plan because demand was not there at all, even if you built where the most demand was. Land, houses, and gasoline were at their cheapest and it was at the very beginning of the North American inversion form suburb to city led by road congestion.



Based on ridership, the Broadway line would have been built first. The cost has only gone up, but so too have the savings. I'm critical of BC not dreaming big enough, but poor planning that renders invested money into waste is the only thing more terrible. We could build Skytrain to Hope and try to create trip sources and sinks along the way, but it's still a line and you would need to expand track capacity in the core every time you wanted to extend it. Doing so would also waste a lot of the infrastructure's useful life waiting for ridership, and the most valuable dollar financially is the one received on opening day.

It just makes sense to add track closer to the hot spots of demand instead of on the periphery. It was never an artistic aesthetic that dictated road or train networks should look like the rivers of a watershed. It wasn't an accident that Surrey grew up around a major road like Highway 1. When land is removed from the ALR, people will pick Richmond or Tsawassen over Surrey to build in when they get the chance to move closer to the coast. Los Angeles is a mess, but the Valley has never overtaken it. It is very rare for one city to overtake another historically. Cities are surprisingly resilient, and they tend to grow together in fixed relation (outside of something like land being made available at the stroke of a pen like the ALR.)

I would worry more about a supply of vacant units creating a 'Detroit' population decline loop if condo carrying costs exceed market rents and politicians try to relocate undesirables in a money saving cleanup project, than I would worry about transit demand in Surrey exceeding bus/road network capacity any time soon. The population of the region is a single unit, we succeed together. The labels and slogans come up because the lower levels of government run out of money to deliver much sooner than the demands to spend it. We fight over crumbs because we're afraid there won't be food left on the table when the time comes that we are hungry.

[queetz@home]

I think a mod should change the thread title into Surrey Municipal elections or something like that, since its about to get interesting....

Blast from the past: Doug McCallum talks about running for mayor of Surrey

Former three-term mayor Doug McCallum, who was defeated by Dianne Watts in 2005, is considering a political comeback.

"There are a lot of people out there pushing me, I'll say that," McCallum told the Surrey Leader. "I can see out there where there are people out there who think we need to have a tighter fiscal policy."

More news from the Surrey Leader...

Former Surrey Mayor Doug McCallum is giving serious consideration to running for the job again this fall.

The Leader has learned the South Surrey resident, who was ousted by Mayor Dianne Watts in 2005, is likely coming back for a run at the centre chair this November.

Sources say he will make the announcement on July 7.

I personally cannot believe this! I CANNOT STAND THAT UGLY LITTLE TROLL! He is one of the primary reasons why transportation has been such a contentious issue here in the Lower Mainland, and why Surrey became the butt of jokes for such a long time. The city (and region) under his tenure suffered greatly because of him, and why Surrey has such a bad reputation for sprawl and poverty.

If he wins somehow, everything that Dianne Watts and her team has done for the city (and region) would be destroyed. So it is imperative that Doug McCallum never ever wins for mayor this time around, and forever! And to think he was ousted because of sexual harrassment...the mere thought of that ugly little troll having sex with anybody....I DID NOT WANT TO PICTURE THAT!

[SFUVancouver]

^ I heard him on the radio the other day saying that he is very unhappy with the direction the city has taken in recent years. He said that when he left office Surrey had no debt and a sizable cash reserve. Now it is cash poor and it's debt has sky-rocketed. Certainly, some of the debt has come about from investments in the new library and city hall, but much of it has also come from long, long overdue investments in such basics as sidewalks, road widening, bike lanes. I assume that these are some of the investments that McCallum was critically referring to as transportation "problems" made by the recent administration.

[Whalleyboy]

I laughed so hard when I first read he was thinking of running again. As if Hepner wouldn't hold Surrey back enough. If he thinks hes the one to bring Surrey into a better future he must be hanging out with Rob Ford and his people.

From what I've seen there has only been one good suitable person running for mayor. The only one who suites Surreys motto of "the future lives here."

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

I laughed so hard when I first read he was thinking of running again. As if Hepner wouldn't hold Surrey back enough. If he thinks hes the one to bring Surrey into a better future he must be hanging out with Rob Ford and his people.

From what I've seen there has only been one good suitable person running for mayor. The only one who suites Surreys motto of "the future lives here."

Well said. He complains about Surrey having some debt when it didnt under him but he fails to mention it had no debt because he didnt build anything at all including sidewalks on roads. This council has had to play catch up from day 1 including long overdue renos to most rec centers, new facities in south surrey, cloverdale, and central surrey, and slews of new infratructure. There is always improvements to be done but since he was ousted, Surrey has had to catch up big time and that costs money unfortunately.

He cant be believed anyway. Months ago he said he wasnt running "hadnt even thought about it" and now he is thinking about it and may run. Amazing.

[nickinacan]

Wow. I never thought McCallum would ever decide to come back. He did nothing for Surrey but let it rot. He invested nothing into the city and saw the same in return for its citizens: Nothing. I'll pass.

Regardless, it will be an interesting time in Surrey as there seems to be quite a few people eyeing up the still brand new Mayor's office.

[SFUVancouver]

I think McCallum has also fallen hard for the fallacy that a city's costs scale in a linear fashion with its population. They don't. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the Fraser Institute are the poster children for this wilful ignorance.

Consider this example: a dispersed, low density community at the functional edge of a metro region lacks the residential density and mixture of uses to warrant substantial transportation capital expenditure on non-automotive infrastructure. Nobody walks so there's no need for sidewalks, pedestrian crosswalks, etc. Demand for road space is low enough to be accommodated by 4-way stops, simple uncontrolled T-intersections, and beside the roads run quasi-rural open drainage ditches leading to retention ponds and combined sanitary-storm sewers, though much of the population is on backyard septic systems.

As neighbourhoods of this sort are built out on the periphery, the simple infrastructure can be replicated over and over and the cost to the city scales on a linear basis with subtle upticks on capital expenditures for occasional road widening for main collector streets and limited intersection upgrades at 'pinch points'.

However something funny happens when you begin to move past a certain residential density and mixture of land uses: the demands for capital expenditures suddenly sky-rocket because of multiple, simultaneous demands for infrastructure improvements that were simply unnecessary at the lower densities and reduced mixture of land uses.

Higher density neighbourhoods generate enough demand for mobility that sidewalks become non-negotiable, road widenings become necessary to accommodate the additional trips at peak periods, the enlarged impervious surface area of roads and new rooftops overwhelm the ability of drainage ditches, retention ponds, and storm sewers to accommodate. The simultaneous increase in residential population and increased impervious surfaces overwhelm the combined storm sewers from both the sanitary sewer and storm sewer sides of the equation, necessitating major expenditures in new larger sewer pipes, or ideally, full separation. The growing population exceeds the capacity of septic fields and tanks to accommodate, so investments need to be made - sometimes for the first time- in local plumbing and municipal water treatment plants.

Meanwhile, even the humble T-intersection and 4-way stop must be upgraded to signalled intersections, widened to accommodate turn bays, improved to Provincial design standards that accommodate pedestrians and wheelchair accessibility - even if sidewalks are otherwise absent. Bus service needs to be accommodated with laybys and - in theory- sidewalks. Due to the wide dispersion of the major road network and limited network inter-connectivity, saturation quickly occurs during peak periods despite the investments in road widening and intersection upgrades.

This just goes on and on. My point is that a city's costs don't scale in a linear fashion. A simple road with uncontrolled intersections that handles a low number of vehicles costs X, however you can't scale that intersection cost up to X+X to double it's capacity. A more busy intersection requires signalization, turn bays, etc., and these are exponentially more expensive and require a level of ongoing maintenance, signage, property acquisition, etc., meaning a doubling of capacity might cost three, four, five, etc., times as much.

TL;DR: McCallum doesn't likely understand today's Surrey and what it costs to run it, much less grow it further.