My thoughts on A City That Works’ 5-Step Process

You may have noticed there are quite a few grading platforms for municipal candidates this election cycle. One of these is A City That Works, which emphasizes pragmatism over ideology and a strongly data-oriented approach to city management. In this post I, as a candidate, turn the dynamic around by reviewing the grading platform, if only to give you a better idea of where I stand.

Let’s start with the good points. I actually like A City That Works’ pragmatic framework, and its priorities are sensible. I also like that its criteria are transparent and reflect priorities of the electorate. Some of its proposals are even cool, like this one I picked at random:

M18

Community pride — replace graffiti with public art

Expand the “My Great Neighbourhood” grants for community gardens, murals, and block clean-ups. Commission neighbourhood-specific murals and installations — art that tells Victoria’s story: lək̓ʷəŋən history, maritime heritage, natural beauty. Neighbourhoods that take ownership stay clean.

I would support this as a former member of the street community because this is by far the best way to prevent graffiti; indeed it’s considered rude among street artists to paint a tag over a mural.

So far so good. What I don’t like about the framework is its rigid, data-oriented approach. In particular I’m tripping really hard on its 5-Step Process, which I reproduce below:

The 5-Step Process

No major new public project without these five steps.

The Dowler Place file proved why this matters. Under this framework, no project skips any step.

STEP 01: Local consultation
Problems, pain points, what needs to improve.

STEP 02: Expert design
Engineers, planners, affected residents.

STEP 03: Visualize & analyze
AI imagery (M53b) + GIS traffic, utility and infrastructure analysis (M53). See the effects on adjacent streets and businesses before a dollar is spent.

STEP 04: Referendum if > $25M
Binding public vote on new (non-lifecycle) capital, under the Community Charter — Assent Voting or the Alternative Approval Process.

STEP 05: Quarterly reports
On time, on budget, or explain why not.

I’m reeling at the use of AI in the process, as some of you already know—but that’s a conversation for another day. Instead I would like to review the rationale behind those steps, which is to avoid a repeat of the Dowler Place polemic, indeed a public relations disaster.

---

Dowler Place is a transitional shelter which recently opened in North Park amidst controversy caused by the council’s lack of transparency. Back when the project was announced, there was a lot of confusion and pushback from neighbouring residents who feared the worst, resulting in acute drama and ultimately a formal apology from the mayor. According to the Capital Daily:

The lack of clear information led some to believe, falsely, that the site—which connects people to housing, healthcare, and treatment programs—was meant to act as a safe consumption site. Many voiced concerns that the homeless encampments on Pandora would migrate to North Park. The backlash led to several public meetings between the public, the city, and SOLID, and one suspension for a public employee who voiced opposition.

The public employee in question was Josh Montgomery from the Victoria Fire Department, who got suspended for one day for writing directly to Premier David Eby in opposition to the project. On a side note, while I strongly disagree with Montgomery, I also find that the suspension was unconscionable.

I understand that the 5-Step Process means to avoid such a debacle. But let’s reflect upon it for a moment: would the process have helped? Allow me to point out that the council made the right decision, even though its process lacked transparency. The Dowler Place rollout turned out to be a success. None of its detractors’ worst fears materialized. The shelter has already helped dozens of residents find housing, whereas they would otherwise still be on the streets.

---

In contrast, there was a notable instance in which a project followed a similar path to the 5-Step Process only to result in a spectacular mess: the Crystal Pool Replacement Project.

For many years the municipal council had been pushing back the conversation on Crystal Pool’s approaching end of life, juggling with options from mere refurbishing to complete reconstruction. By 2024, kicking the can down the road was no longer a defensible option, and the council had to contemplate extensive renovations or even building an entirely new facility.

The municipality then moved on from interminable local consultation to expert design for the two options that would be retained for further consideration: either the current Central Park North location, which of course meant razing the existing facility and building the new one on its footprint, or the Central Park South location, which would keep the current pool facility longer at the expense of other amenities.

Of course both options would prove a tough sell to the public, for the simple reason that procrastination had inflated the projected price tag to a mind-boggling $209M, thus compelling a referendum over whether the municipality should proceed even if it meant borrowing up to $168M to make up for the budget shortfall.

While there’s nothing wrong with consulting the public prior to undertaking such a colossal project, the referendum campaign proved in hindsight to be a huge embarrassment. The highly polarized debate was marred with allegations of misinformation and partisanship on the municipality’s part. The debate got so acrimonious that Councillor Caradonna publicly accused Councillor Hammond of lying about the municipality’s referendum advertisement being partisan and heavily slanted in favour of the proposal, a statement he had to apologize for under threat of legal action for defamation.

The public ultimately voted in favour, and also preferred the Central Park North option. Notably, turnout was an abysmal 21 percent, which isn’t healthy when it comes to asserting a popular mandate. Moreover, concerns about cost overruns are causing buyer’s remorse among some supporters of the project, and some lament that the public wasn’t properly informed of retrofitting options.

In hindsight, it might have been better for the council to have made the decisions internally rather than dumping them on the public’s lap. In fact, instead of a costly referendum and protracted debate, it could simply have bet on the Alternative Approval Process, which challenges the electorate to come up with a counterpetition with at least 10% of signatures; judging from the low referendum turnout, an eventual petition would probably have failed. While this option might seem disrespectful to taxpayers, at least it would have saved considerable time and expense, and spared us all interminable drama only to reach the same outcome.

---

So how can our municipal council do public consultation right? As a community advocate and activist, I would like to present a third example of debacle in which the council got it spectacularly wrong, and how it could have reversed course before things got out of hand.

The Centennial Square Revitalization Project was an ill-fated endeavour notable for how the council wasted $750,000 in consulting fees for an initiative that ultimately got aborted amid public backlash. In February 2024, at about the time the contract was awarded, the Friends of Centennial Square launched a petition and even mobilized for a march to save the fountain. The following year, dozens gathered in protest to save the large Sequoia tree which was planned for removal.

This debacle could have been avoided simply by regularly meeting with constituents, attending community events, and attending protests. As a rule of thumb, if citizens rally against an initiative, it’s unpopular and ill-advised.

There, no need for complex project management methodologies, which among software engineers are notorious for leading to development hell (the federal Phoenix Pay System being an infamous example); better Keep It Simple, Stupid (KISS), an approach which irons out complexity altogether.