The Burrardview Community Association asked all 35 Park Board candidates seven questions about consultation, accountability and the use of public parkland, including issues at Burrard View Park.
Responses are published in full, without scoring or ranking. Responses received after the October 2 deadline are added as they arrive, with the date received. The BCA does not endorse candidates.
To keep this page focused on the candidates’ responses, comments have been closed.
Read the candidate responses below
Read the questionnaire and background sent to candidates
Read additional Burrard View Park background and sources
Official City of Vancouver candidate list:
https://vancouver.ca/your-government/2026-candidates-park-board-commissioner.aspx
Voting dates
Vancouver’s municipal election is Saturday, October 17, 2026. Advance voting takes place October 3, 7, 10 and 13. Voting hours are 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Find voting locations and dates · Official election information and how to vote
2026 Vancouver Park Board Candidate Questionnaire
Published October 3, 2026. Updated as additional responses are received.
The BCA sent the same seven questions and background to all 35 candidates for the seven Park Board seats. The questions arose from Burrard View Park but address consultation, use of public parkland, transparency and elected oversight generally.
Responses are published in full, without scoring or ranking. Short BCA summaries are included for reference; the full responses are definitive. Where a party has expressly confirmed that a response represents the party or all of its Park Board candidates, that is identified.
Candidate responses are reproduced as submitted. Factual, legal and policy statements in candidate responses are the candidates’ own and have not been independently verified by BCA. Where a candidate subsequently corrected or clarified a response, that is identified.
The BCA does not endorse candidates.
RESPONSE SUMMARY:
| Candidate / Party | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 |
| Green Party of Vancouver: Tom Digby, Breanne Smart, Spencer van Vloten | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | No | No |
| Independent Parks Party: Michael Robert Caditz, Niknaz Alemi, Brynja Marshall, Cam Rothery, Leonard Vanderstar | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| TEAM: Mayeli Alvarez, Allan Fawley, Wah Gee, Jon Girard, Alex Tkach | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Vancouver Liberals: Mark Halyk, Amanda Bains, Amir Bajehkian, Tricia Barker, Shayla Bird, Scott Jensen | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Vote Vancouver: Stephen Menon, Summit Wannamaker | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes* | Yes | Yes* | Yes* |
| COPE Vancouver: Sacia Burton, Jamie Han, Tamiko Suzuki, T’uy’t’tanat Cease Wyss | Maybe | Not stated | No | No | No | No | No |
| ABC Vancouver: Jay Bailey, Cheryl Grant, Christian Kyle, Stephen Molnar, Chris Qiu 仇云霞, Marie Rogers and Jas Virdi | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
https://vancouver.ca/your-government/2026-candidates-park-board-commissioner.aspx
* Stephen Menon qualified these answers. All candidates’ full responses should be read for context.
The Seven Questions
1. Consultation and combined effects
Before a significant area of parkland is allocated to an organization or converted to a different use, should the Park Board meaningfully consult affected residents, assess the combined effects of related projects and publish how public feedback influenced its decision?
2. Elected Board decisions
Should proposals for permanent park facilities, or material departures from what the elected Board approved or residents were told, return to the elected Board for a public decision rather than be approved solely by staff?
3. Written agreements and site plans
Before significant or ongoing use of parkland begins, should the authorized area, permitted uses, public-access rules, maintenance and fire-safety obligations, monitoring requirements and restoration requirements be set out in a publicly available agreement and site plan?
4. Review at end of term
Should ongoing allocations of parkland or park buildings, including fieldhouse residencies, be publicly reviewed at the end of each term, before they are renewed, extended or allowed to continue, with compliance and public benefit assessed and the space re-offered through an open process with published criteria where appropriate?
5. Notice to neighbours
Should nearby residents receive reasonable advance notice of recurring park activities likely to cause smoke, noise or other effects beyond the park?
6. Assessment of effects on nearby homes and park users
Before approving or renewing recurring activities that may affect nearby homes or other park users, should the Park Board obtain and publish a qualified assessment of those effects, including smoke and air quality where relevant?
7. Burrard View Park
If elected, would you support a motion directing staff to report publicly to the Park Board, within six months, on the food forest, ceremonial fire and fieldhouse arrangements at Burrard View Park?
The report would cover the original approvals and later changes, the areas authorized versus actually occupied, public resources committed, and options to reduce the footprint, relocate uses or restore space for general public use.
The underlying records would be published with it, and the food forest, ceremonial fire and associated storage areas independently measured.
The elected Board would then publicly consider whether the existing arrangements should continue unchanged, be modified, or not be renewed at the end of any applicable fixed term.
Candidate Responses
Green Party of Vancouver
Tom Digby, Breanne Smart and Spencer van Vloten
Summary: Joint response. Yes to Questions 1 and 5. No to Questions 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7.
Full response
The GREEN Park Board candidates, Tom Digby, Breanne Smart, and Spencer van Vloten are aware that some members of the BCA are concerned about the food garden footprint, and the unpermitted uses of the ceremonial fire pit in Burrard View Park. We strive to accommodate all users, and we realize not everyone is satisfied with the results.
Your questions do overlook the important successes we have had in the park in recent years. The re-activation of the hospice. The playground renewal. The very substantial commitment to replace the wading pool with an up-to-date recirculating splash park ($2-3m). We were also grateful that neighbours notified us of the property line infringement at the pocket park on Wall Street. This has now been rectified with the owner.
We have answered your questions specifically without over-promising or exaggeration. As GREENS we expect to be held accountable to what we say during the campaign. We hope your organization recognizes our goodwill and intent to continue discussing the problems you identify.
The food garden and the ceremonial fire pit reflect implementation of city wide policies that are impacting many parks and neighbourhoods. They also reflect legal and policy obligations towards the Tsleil-Watuuth First Nation who’s aboriginal title claims have not yet been settled. There are certain tensions in the community, and the city, and not everyone is satisfied with the outcomes so far. The Greens are willing to examine where policy initiatives conflict and provide undesired outcomes.
1. Consultation and combined effects
Yes. Every major change of use to a section of a park must be reviewed by Park Commissioners. Greens will bring a motion to ensure staff understands our expectations on this requirement.
2. Elected Board decisions
No. Minor departures are operational in nature and Greens do not expect minor changes to come to the board. Only major changes such as permanent park facilities need to come to the Board (per question 1). The Chair of the Board can work with the GM to determine if the change is major or minor, and whether it needs to come to the Board.
3. Written agreements and site plans
No. The Park Board has thousands of permitted users in hundreds of parks across the city. It is not feasible and not desireable to release all permit agreements. Certain agreements, or parts of agreements, can be released according to freedom-of-information standards. Where there is a specific public interest in a specific permit, Commissioners must be proactive and motivate staff to release before FOI request is needed. Again this can be discussed between the GM and the Chair.
4. Review at end of term
No. Fieldhouse residencies are selected by staff on the basis of community benefit, equity and a wide range of policies. The elected Board’s job is to set governance standards on these residencies, but not to evaluate individual choices, which is operational.
5. Notice to neighbours
Yes. As there were only 3 permitted fires at the Eagle Inspirit site during 2025, this was not deemed “recurring” at a level sufficient to warrant public notice. We understand there was unauthorized use at the site at intervening times. Enforcement needs to be enhanced, and timely. Please report any unpermitted events to 3-1-1, and to commissioners individually.
6. Assessment of effects on nearby homes and park users
No. Occasional wood burning fires occur throughout the city, in residences and, where permitted, on public property. If a particular property creates an on-going nuisance, it should be reported to staff, and dealt with under by-law enforcement or police action if severe.
7. Burrard View Park
No. The current use of the land is not substantially inconsistent with its original approval by the previous board in 2022. The field house residency will be reviewed in its ordinary cycle. The Ceremonial Fire was installed by city council mandated policy in view of our commitment to reconciliation. City councillors have an equal role in this decision and should be contacted for feedback.
Subsequent clarification from Tom Digby, October 2, 2026
BCA asked which City Council policy was referred to in his answer to Question 7. Mr. Digby replied:
“The city has a formal policy aiming at reconciliation with the 3 first nations. The Eagles Inspirit fire program was lead by city decision makers and never came to the Park Board. I do not know the specific policy.”
Independent Parks Party
Summary: Michael Robert Caditz provided the response. Yes to all seven questions, with the Burrard View report to be completed within 90 days.
Mr. Caditz subsequently confirmed: “It’s on our party platform.”
Other Independent Parks Party candidates are Niknaz Alemi, Brynja Marshall, Cam Rothery and Leonard Vanderstar.
Full response
1. Consultation and combined effects
Yes. The elected commissioners are under no obligation to hastily accept staff recommendations before proper consultation with all stakeholders, including neighbourhood users, residents, and relevant experts. Contextual and combined effects must be considered because an isolated-case analysis would fail to capture the real-world effects. Moreover, staff are not permitted by law to make policy decisions with respect to parkland usage on their own volition.
2. Elected Board decisions
Yes. Policy decisions rest solely upon the seven elected commissioners who are also known as the “Park Board”, pursuant to the Vancouver Charter. “Staff” are unelected City of Vancouver employees who are operational support for the Park Board who act only on direction of the Park Board. Staff are not policy makers although they have inappropriately injected themselves in that role.
Corrected from “No” at Mr. Caditz’s request.
3. Written agreements and site plans
Yes. These are policy decisions which must be made by the elected commissioners at public meetings.
4. Review at end of term
Yes. These are policy decisions which must be made by the elected commissioners at public meetings.
5. Notice to neighbours
Yes. Not only should residents be notified, but a scientific impact study must be conducted before any such approval. A legal opinion should then be obtained to assess compliance with bylaws and environmental regulations. Finally, the commissioners (not staff) must approve or deny the projects/programs/land usages at a public meeting.
6. Assessment of effects on nearby homes and park users
Yes, see above.
7. Burrard View Park
Yes, but I would require a response within 90 days.
TEAM
Mayeli Alvarez, Allan Fawley, Wah Gee, Jon Girard and Alex Tkach
Summary: Slate response, expressly confirmed by Wah Gee on behalf of all TEAM Park Board candidates. Yes to all seven questions.
Full response
1. Consultation and combined effects — Yes.
TEAM’s platform puts residents at the centre of parks and recreation and commits to restoring public accountability. To put those principles into practice, we support meaningful consultation before significant parkland allocations or changes of use. The Board should assess the combined effects of related projects on public access, green space and surrounding homes. It should publish what it heard, how feedback influenced its decision and why it chose a particular approach. Consultation should include nearby residents, park users, affected organizations and appropriate engagement with First Nations.
2. Elected Board decisions — Yes.
TEAM is committed to retaining an independent elected Park Board with the resources and authority to protect parks in the public interest. We support requiring permanent park facilities and material departures from approved plans or public commitments to return to that Board for a public decision. Staff should manage routine operations within clear delegated authority. Significant changes to a project’s footprint, use, duration or public access should receive elected oversight, with the proposed changes clearly explained before a decision.
3. Written agreements and site plans — Yes.
TEAM’s commitments to public accountability, publicly owned and operated park assets, and safe, accessible parks support clear conditions for significant or ongoing parkland use. We would require publicly available agreements and site plans identifying the authorized area, permitted activities, public-access rules, maintenance and fire-safety obligations, monitoring and restoration requirements. These should be in place before use begins and include review dates and a process for addressing non-compliance. Only legally protected information should be withheld. Residents and participating organizations should be able to understand the same clear rules.
4. Review at end of term — Yes.
TEAM’s platform commits to protecting parkland and ensuring parks serve the public interest. We support public review of ongoing allocations, including fieldhouse residencies, before renewal or extension, assessing compliance, public benefit, accessibility and the suitability of the space. Where appropriate, opportunities should be re-offered through an open process with published criteria. Reviews should recognize successful community contributions while ensuring continuation is justified. Requirements should be proportionate, with reasonable notice and fair transitions. This approach should respect TEAM’s separate commitment to supporting Community Centre Associations and renewing their Joint Operating Agreements.
5. Notice to neighbours — Yes.
TEAM is committed to parks that are safe and accessible for families, children, seniors and residents across Vancouver. In keeping with that commitment, we support reasonable advance notice of recurring activities likely to create smoke, significant noise or other effects beyond park boundaries. Notice should include the schedule, expected effects, mitigation measures and a contact for concerns. Information should also be available to park users. Notice must be accompanied by responsible management, appropriate safeguards and timely responses when concerns arise.
6. Assessment of effects on nearby homes and park users — Yes.
TEAM’s commitment to safe, accessible and properly maintained parks should guide decisions about recurring activities. We support obtaining and publishing a qualified assessment where activities may materially affect nearby homes or other park users, including smoke and air quality where relevant. The scope should match the potential impacts and consider people particularly sensitive to smoke. Findings and proposed mitigation should be available before approval or renewal. Where needed, the Board should establish operating conditions, monitoring and changes to protect residents while allowing compatible park activities.
7. Burrard View Park — Yes.
Consistent with TEAM’s commitments to protecting parkland and restoring public accountability, we would support the proposed motion for a public staff report within six months. It should cover original approvals and changes, authorized versus occupied areas, public resources, and options to reduce footprints, relocate uses or restore general public space. We support independent measurement of the specified areas and publication of supporting records, subject to legal protections. After hearing from residents, participating organizations, park users and relevant First Nations, the elected Board should publicly decide on continuation, modification or non-renewal, respecting applicable agreements without prejudging the outcome.
Vancouver Liberals
Mark Halyk, Amanda Bains, Amir Bajehkian, Tricia Barker, Shayla Bird and Scott Jensen
Summary: Slate response, expressly provided by the Vancouver Liberal Team on behalf of its Park Board candidates on October 4, 2026. Yes to all seven questions.
Full response
1. Consultation and combined effects
Yes.
Parkland belongs to everyone, and residents who live beside a park should be consulted before a large part of it is given over to one use. Projects at the same site should be assessed together, since their combined footprint is what people actually experience. Publishing how feedback changed the decision is how residents can see that consultation meant something. Vancouver Liberals will support a consistent standard for this across all parks.
2. Elected Board decisions
Yes.
Permanent facilities and material changes to what the Board approved should come back to commissioners for a public vote. Staff do good work, but elected commissioners are the ones accountable to residents for how parkland is used. When a project grows beyond what the public was told, the Board should decide whether that change stands. Vancouver Liberals believe an elected, independent Park Board should be used for exactly these decisions.
3. Written agreements and site plans
Yes.
Clear written terms protect everyone, including the organizations using the space. A public agreement and site plan covering the area, uses, access rules, maintenance, fire safety, monitoring and restoration gives residents and partners the same reference point. It also gives staff something enforceable. Vancouver Liberals will support posting these documents before use begins.
4. Review at end of term
Yes.
Fieldhouse residencies and other ongoing allocations are public assets on loan. At the end of each term the Board should check whether the terms were met and what the public got from the arrangement before renewing. Where appropriate, Vancouver Liberals support re-offering the space through an open process with published criteria so other community groups get a fair chance.
5. Notice to neighbours
Yes.
Neighbours should know in advance when recurring activities will bring smoke, noise or other effects to their homes. Reasonable notice is a basic courtesy and reduces conflict between park users and residents. It also lets people with respiratory conditions or young children plan their day. Vancouver Liberals will support a clear notice standard.
6. Assessment of effects on nearby homes and park users
Yes.
Where recurring activities could affect air quality or nearby homes, a qualified assessment should inform the decision and be published. The scale of the assessment should fit the activity so the requirement does not become a barrier for small community groups. Smoke near homes and a playground clearly warrants a proper look, including how fire restrictions apply during high-risk periods.
7. Burrard View Park
Yes.
Vancouver Liberals would support a motion directing staff to report publicly on the arrangements at Burrard View Park. Residents were told most of the flat area would be preserved, and the record should show how the current footprint came about and who approved what. Indigenous cultural presence and food growing belong in our parks. A transparent review puts those uses on a secure, publicly understood footing, and lets the Board weigh the options with full information.
Earlier individual response from Mark Halyk
Mark Halyk had previously provided an individual response, also answering Yes to all seven questions. That earlier response is reproduced below for completeness.
Full response
1. Consultation and combined effects
Yes. Meaningful consultation must occur before significant public parkland is allocated or materially changed. Residents, park users, Indigenous partners and affected organizations should receive clear information about the complete proposal—not individual elements considered in isolation. The Park Board should assess cumulative effects on public access, recreation, safety and surrounding homes, and then publish what it heard, how concerns were addressed and why the final decision was made. Consultation does not require unanimous agreement, but it must be timely, transparent and capable of influencing the outcome.
2. Elected Board decisions
Yes. Staff require reasonable authority to administer approved projects, but permanent facilities and material changes in footprint, use or community impact should return to the elected Park Board. Commissioners are publicly accountable for decisions affecting public parkland. A public report should clearly identify what was originally approved, what has changed, why the change is recommended and how affected communities were consulted. Minor operational adjustments should remain delegated to staff, but delegation should not be used to approve a substantially different project without public oversight.
3. Written agreements and site plans
Yes. Significant or ongoing use of public parkland should be governed by a clear agreement and accurate site plan before it begins. These should define boundaries, permitted activities, public access, maintenance, storage, safety, monitoring, insurance and restoration responsibilities. The essential terms should be publicly available, while appropriately protecting personal information, culturally sensitive knowledge and legitimate security information. Clear agreements protect residents, participating organizations, staff and the Park Board by establishing shared expectations and a fair, enforceable accountability framework.
4. Review at end of term
Yes. Parkland and park buildings belong to the public. Before an allocation is renewed, the Park Board should assess compliance, demonstrated community benefit, public access, neighbourhood effects and whether the arrangement remains the best use of the space. Where appropriate, opportunities should be publicly advertised using clear, equitable criteria. Renewal should not be automatic; however, successful organizations should be able to demonstrate their value and apply again. The process must be fair, proportionate and accessible, including for smaller and Indigenous-led organizations.
5. Notice to neighbours
Yes. Nearby residents should receive reasonable advance notice when recurring activities may create smoke, noise, traffic or other effects outside the park. Notice should identify expected dates and times, the responsible organization, applicable permits or safety conditions, and a contact for concerns. The notice requirements should be proportionate to the likely impact and should recognize that emergency, cultural or weather-related circumstances may occasionally require changes. Good communication respects neighbours while allowing valuable cultural and community activities to continue responsibly.
6. Assessment of effects on nearby homes and park users
Yes. Before recurring activities with potentially significant effects are approved or renewed, the Park Board should obtain an appropriately qualified, evidence-based assessment. Its scope should be proportionate to the activity and address smoke, air quality, fire risk, accessibility, noise and effects on other park users where relevant. Findings and mitigation measures should be publicly summarized, subject to legitimate privacy and cultural protections. Assessments should support informed decisions and practical safeguards—not create unnecessary barriers to Indigenous cultural practices or community programming.
7. Burrard View Park
Yes. I would support a public report within six months establishing the facts and providing the records needed for an informed decision. It should independently confirm boundaries and footprints, explain the authority for each approval and subsequent change, disclose public resources committed, assess compliance, programming, access, maintenance and safety, and present practical options. Residents, the participating organizations and affected Indigenous partners must all be heard. Supporting this review does not prejudge its outcome; it ensures that the elected Park Board makes the final decision transparently, respectfully and on reliable evidence.
Vote Vancouver
Stephen Menon
Summary: Stephen Menon’s response, endorsed by fellow Vote Vancouver candidate Summit Wannamaker on 6 October 2026. Yes to all seven questions, with qualifications on Questions 4, 6 and 7. See full response below.
Full response
1. Consultation and combined effects
Yes. Vote Vancouver is committed to restoring meaningful, community based planning, and that applies to parkland. Residents should be consulted before land is allocated. The combined effects of related projects should be assessed together, not piece by piece. The Board should publish how feedback changed the outcome. That last step builds trust: people accept decisions they disagree with when they can see they were heard. Every proposal I bring forward will be held to our Vancouver Test, including whether it builds public trust and whether we can measure the results.
2. Elected Board decisions
Yes. Permanent facilities, and material departures from what the Board approved or residents were told, should return to the elected Board for a public decision. That is the reason to keep the Park Board elected: residents can hold commissioners to account for decisions about public land. Staff need authority for day to day operations and genuinely minor adjustments. But “material” must be defined clearly in policy, including changes to a use’s footprint, so that neither staff nor residents have to guess where the line sits.
3. Written agreements and site plans
Yes. Any organization making significant or ongoing use of parkland should work under a public agreement and site plan setting out the authorized area, permitted uses, public access, maintenance, fire safety, monitoring and restoration. This should apply to new uses from the start and to existing ones at renewal. Clear terms protect the organization as much as residents, because uncertainty is what breeds conflict. It also fits our commitment to set clear standards for maintaining parks.
4. Review at end of term
Yes, with conditions. Fieldhouse residencies and other allocations should be reviewed publicly before renewal, with compliance and public benefit assessed against the original terms. An open process with published criteria should be the default. Some allocations reflect partnerships with host Nations (xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam), Sḵwx̱wú7mesh (Squamish) and səlilwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh)) and Indigenous organizations, or long term cultural commitments. Those should still be reviewed publicly, but re-offering may not be the right outcome, which is why “where appropriate” matters. Organizations also need enough tenure to plan and invest.
5. Notice to neighbours
Yes. Neighbours should get reasonable advance notice of recurring activities likely to produce smoke, noise or other effects beyond the park. A simple published schedule would do, so people can plan. It is a courtesy, not a permission process. It should be designed with organizers, recognizing that some cultural and ceremonial practice can’t be scheduled far in advance. Residents should also know who to contact when something goes wrong, and expect a reply within the 10-day standard Vote Vancouver proposes for City Hall.
6. Assessment of effects on nearby homes and park users
Yes, with conditions: proportionate to the risk. Where a recurring activity plausibly affects nearby homes or other park users, the Board should obtain and publish a qualified assessment, including air quality where relevant. Conditions during fire bans or air quality advisories should be set out in advance, consistent with the requirements of fire safety and air quality authorities. A blanket requirement for formal studies on every recurring activity would price out small community groups. The standard should be risk based, applied consistently, and be published.
7. Burrard View Park
Yes, with conditions. I would support a public report on the approvals, the areas authorized versus occupied, independently measured, and the public resources committed. That is the transparency I am campaigning on. It must be fact finding, not a predetermined outcome. Staff should engage the Eagles Inspirit Protecting Indigenous Fathers Society, the Vancouver Urban Food Forest Foundation and the host Nations before developing options, and those options should include continuing and improving the existing uses. Current uses should continue while the review is underway. I am committed to Indigenous cultural presence in our parks, and getting the process right protects it.
COPE Vancouver
Response received October 6, 2026. Stephanie Allen advised that the response was provided on behalf of COPE’s Park Board candidates: Sacia Burton, Jamie Han, Tamiko Suzuki and T’uy’t’tanat Cease Wyss.
1. Consultation and combined effects
Maybe
COPE will bring back community-led planning across the city and protect park spaces as the vital public infrastructure they are for communities. We also recognize that certain changes are critical to larger public policy objectives such as biodiversity, restoration, commitments to accessibility, and Truth and Reconciliation. COPE will not hand over public parks to corporate interests.
2. Elected Board decisions
COPE will make sure that major proposals for new permanent parks are reviewed by the Park Board and include community participation in co-creation as much as possible. Minor changes due to unforeseen sub-soil conditions or other technical issues are operational in nature and do not require Park Board approval.
3. Written agreements and site plans
No
COPE believes in pro-active community-led planning will make sure that public voices are incorporated as much as possible in the planning of park space. Individual plan details can be provided as requested but would cause significant administrative impact if the many plans underway across the city were distributed to residents.
4. Review at end of term
No
COPE will perform the job of Park Board commissioners and deliver transparent, accountable governance for Vancouverites. Operational decisions will be accountable to established policies and the staff leadership team entrusted with upholding those policies. We respect these distinct roles and will monitor performance as part of our job as commissioners.
5. Notice to neighbours
No
COPE wants our parks to be places where everyone is welcome to participate when respecting bylaws and rules. If there are infractions by users, these can be reported in real time.
6. Assessment of effects on nearby homes and park users
No
Once activities are conducted within the approved uses under established policy guidelines, we trust the Park Board staff to ensure compliance. If there are infractions, residents are encouraged to report these in real time.
7. Burrard View Park
No
COPE supports the City Council and Park Board mandate to Truth and Reconciliation. As such, the creation of a food forest, ceremonial fire, and fieldhouse arrangements that have been implemented as part of that commitment to the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation, the original stewards of these lands who are also rights holders under law, is something we support.
ABC Vancouver
Response received October 6, 2026, on behalf of the ABC Vancouver platform.
1. Yes.
Vancouver residents deserve a meaningful voice in decisions that significantly change how public parkland is used. The Park Board should consider the combined impact of related projects, consult affected residents and park users, and clearly explain how feedback informed its decision. This is about good governance and respect for the public. It must also be done in a way that respects Indigenous rights, cultural practices and reconciliation, while ensuring decisions about public parkland remain transparent and accountable.
2. Yes.
The elected Park Board is accountable to Vancouver residents and should have the final say on significant changes to public parkland. Staff should implement Board direction, not effectively rewrite it through administrative decisions. Where there is a material change to an approved facility, footprint or use, the matter should return to the elected Board for a public decision. This approach strengthens accountability while respecting existing agreements, Indigenous rights and reconciliation commitments.
3. Yes.
Public parkland is a public asset, and its use should be governed by clear, transparent agreements. Significant or ongoing uses should have publicly available site plans and agreements that establish the authorized area, permitted uses, public access, maintenance, safety, monitoring and restoration responsibilities. Transparency should apply to all uses while recognizing that some Indigenous cultural practices and relationships with the land require appropriate respect and accommodation.
4. Yes.
Long-term use of public parkland should not continue indefinitely simply because an arrangement has been in place for years. At the end of an agreement or term, the elected Board should review compliance, public benefit and community impacts before deciding whether to renew or modify it. Where appropriate, space should be openly re-offered using transparent criteria. Any review must respect Indigenous rights, reconciliation and established agreements while maintaining accountability for Vancouver’s public assets.
5. Yes.
Residents living beside parks deserve reasonable notice about recurring activities that may create smoke, noise or other impacts beyond park boundaries. Good communication can prevent conflict and build trust between park users and surrounding communities. Notice should be practical and proportionate, and should recognize that parks support a wide range of recreational, cultural and community activities, including Indigenous cultural practices that deserve respect.
6. Yes.
Park Board decisions should be based on evidence, particularly where recurring activities may affect nearby residents or other park users. Where appropriate, qualified assessments should consider smoke, air quality, noise and other potential impacts, and the relevant findings should be made public. This is not about restricting legitimate cultural or community activities; it is about understanding impacts, managing them responsibly and ensuring different uses of our parks can coexist.
7. Yes.
ABC supports bringing the Burrard View Park arrangements before the elected Park Board through a transparent public report. The Board and public should understand the original approvals, subsequent changes, authorized and actual footprints, public resources committed and applicable agreements. We support publishing the underlying records and independently measuring the relevant areas. Any subsequent decision should respect Indigenous cultural practices, reconciliation and existing commitments, while giving the elected Board the information it needs to determine whether arrangements should continue, be modified or change at the end of an applicable term.
No Response Received as of October 6, 2026
The following candidates had not provided a response to burrardviewca@gmail.com as of October 6, 2026. No response should be read as either a Yes or a No to any question.
OneCity: Dominic Denofrio, John Irwin and Tyler Petersen.
Responses received later will be added. Candidates may send corrections, clarifications or missing responses to burrardviewca@gmail.com.
