Consider this a cautionary note before you head to the polls tomorrow.
The last time an incumbent Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»mayor was beaten at the polls was more than 30 years ago when Mike Harcourt took out Jack Volrich.
That's unlikely to repeat itself. But there is a narrative out there that even if Gregor Robertson is returned for a second term, he lacks the coattails to secure the five Vision council seats he needs for a firm majority.
Never mind for the moment what the opposition NPA is saying about Robertson; there is sufficient lack of enthusiasm amongst centre left voters to cause Vision concern. The view is that he's not tough enough; he's a captive of his staff who keep him bubble-wrapped; the heavy lifting, including attacks on the opposition, are too often left to Coun. Geoff Meggs who just happens to be the smartest guy in the room.
Rather than a mayor who is muscular, we appear to have one who is milquetoast.
It is a perception the NPA has seized on to considerable effect.
It makes it hard to recall that Robertson's term began with complaints from the NPA that he was far too deliberate. Remember the swift removal of city manager Judy Rogers who was replaced by Penny Ballem. That was followed by a tough, dare we say ruthless, exercise called a "shared services review" where jobs were eliminated and departmental budgets were reduced.
With virtually no consultation, that first winter in power Vision moved on its commitment to reduce street homelessness. With provincial funding, they opened a number of low-barrier HEAT shelters. The neighbours were understandably pissed but the homeless came in out of the cold.
At the same time, there was an aggressive attack on the inherited problems of the Athletes Village. Most notably, Robertson et al convinced the province to change the Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»Charter so the city could become the development's banker, saving taxpayers millions in interest charges. And finally, the developer was forced into receivership giving the city full control.
These were hardly the moves of a wimpy administration. But none of those could have happened without a solid majority.
Now Suzanne Anton and the NPA want to "take back the city." And it may be worth spending a moment remembering what that meant when Anton's mentor Sam Sullivan was at the helm.
"Consultation" was not in Sullivan's vocabulary. He announced his "EcoDensity" policy at an international conference before the planning department had a decent chance to consider it or council had any inkling. He was in the habit of holding press conferences to announce new initiatives offsite, at the hotel across the street from city hall. Senior city staff were left to stand at the back of the room painfully ignorant about what was to take place. They received the news all packaged up in brochures bearing the city's logo. It was a done deal long before council knew anything about it.
And it was a style, as former NPA Coun. Peter Ladner noted as he finally abandoned ship to oppose Sullivan, which drove the party "onto the rocks."
All of that history has been smothered by a successful NPA campaign to frame the issues in this campaign. Aided as they were by circumstances and the short attention span of my media colleagues, much has been made of the Stanley Cup riot and Occupy Vancouver.
Life before those events seems distant. Issues of housing affordability and transit seem mundane; they lack the magnetism of rioters burning police cars and the absolute squalor of what is taking place on the Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»Art Gallery lawn.
With results a day away, both sides would have us believe the race is "close." No better way to activate their support. That is what this whole exercise has been about and what will determine whether Vision will hold the majority at city hall.
