According to legislation and protocol, elected officials are expected to remain neutral on a subject of a Public Hearing prior to hearing from the public.

It has come to our attention that regarding the Public Hearing currently in session this evening, 2-Nov-2021, a letter to Council is included in the public correspondence, purportedly from a "Michael Wiebe" from Mount Pleasant, articulating support for the staff proposal "Streamlining Rental Around Local Shopping Areas - Amendments to the C-2, C 2B, C-2C and C-2C1 Zones and Creation of New Rental Zones for Use in Future Rezoning Applications in Surrounding Low Density Areas Under the Secured Rental Policy."

As this seems to match the identity of a sitting City Councillor of the same name, the Chair of the meeting would be in order to verify with that Councillor whether or not those words are from him. The question needs to be worded well to get an truthful response. Was the submission to the Public Hearing made by him? Did someone submit it on his behalf? Was this a prank? Did or can the City Clerk verify the source of the submission (e-mail address is redacted).

If the statement comes from Councillor Wiebe, he should probably recuse himself from voting in this Public Hearing, as Mayor and Council are expected to attend Public Hearings with an open mind, hear from the public and then deliberate and vote.

If the statement can be confirmed to come, coincidentally, from another person from Mount Pleasant and with the identical name, perhaps nothing further is needed.

If the source of the statement cannot be confirmed and it appears likely to be a prank, it should probably be deleted from the public record. That would also raise a future discussion about how to validate and view the correspondence received by Council for meetings and Public Hearings.

First step would be for the Chair of the meeting to confirm the origins of the statement with Councillor Wiebe.

The statement is at the bottom of page 9/11 of documents posted on October 19, in this PDF: https://council.vancouver.ca/20211102/documents/phea1support20211029_redacted.pdf

10/28/2021 16:28
Support
After failing to build enough housing for decades, we need to add a lot of rental housing as quickly as possible.
Streamlining the rezoning process is a step in the right direction, but we should also consider removing the rezoning
requirement altogether. Moreover, apartments should be available everywhere in this city. We have a housing crisis,
and we need to take stark measures to fix it. Renters deserve to live on quiet streets, and should not be used as noise
buffers for rich homeowners. Many homeowners will be upset by this policy. After all, our zoning policy has been
skewed to their benefit for decades, and they don't want to lose their privileges. But the government is supposed to
design policy for the benefit of everyone, not just a narrow interest group like owners of detached homes. This policy
has the potential to create homes for tens of thousands of renters, and it is your duty to account for the interests of
those future renters.