Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts not seeking re-election

[SFUVancouver]

Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts not seeking re-election

CBC News Posted: Apr 26, 2014 2:33 PM PT Last Updated: Apr 26, 2014 2:33 PM PT

At the grand opening for Surrey's new City Hall, Mayor Dianne Watts announced she would be leaving city politics.

Watts, who has served as the mayor of B.C.'s second-largest city since 2005, said she would not be running again in municipal elections this year.

Watts is currently in her third term as mayor.

read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...tion-1.2623137

[spm2013]

Can you say federal MP?

[queetz@home]

This is sad. She is probably the best mayor in Metro Vancouver and has done so much to make Surrey a better place. She was also instrumental in bringing the Evergreen Line into fruition, and has made a positive impact in regional politics.

I'm sure she will be successful if she runs at a Provincial or Federal level. I also suspect Marvin Hunt could be her successor.

[Tetsuo]

Originally Posted by spm2013

Can you say federal MP?

Considering Cloverdale-Langley City is going to be a new riding, she'll fit right in there

[GlassCity]

Hopefully the new mayor will support Skytrain.

[go_leafs_go02]

Sad days, has done so much for the City over 9 years. Hope that continues, but I guess we'll see.

[Pinion]

Was she really that great? I didn't follow her specific actions but it seems like Surrey has just been spinning its wheels for decades. Crime is worse than ever and most of the development was (to use a software term) vapourware.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by spm2013

Can you say federal MP?

Probably running for the Harpercrites. Sad.

Cllr. Barinder Rasode has opbviosuly been positioing for a run at the mayor's chair.
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Surr...060/story.html

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Was she really that great? I didn't follow her specific actions but it seems like Surrey has just been spinning its wheels for decades. Crime is worse than ever and most of the development was (to use a software term) vapourware.

Were you living under a rock all these years? Surrey has improved quite a bit since ugly little troll predecessor was turfed! Just look at Whalley today and the development that's been happening.

All those businesses that have moved into Surrey. The new Coast Capital building under construction, Innovation Blvd, the RCMP HQ, Civic Plaza, and so on. Even some struggling projects like the one in the Gateway Station area is being resurrected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PbPyDlSIfc

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Were you living under a rock all these years? Surrey has improved quite a bit since ugly little troll predecessor was turfed! Just look at Whalley today and the development that's been happening.

All those businesses that have moved into Surrey. The new Coast Capital building under construction, Innovation Blvd, the RCMP HQ, Civic Plaza, and so on. Even some struggling projects like the one in the Gateway Station area is being resurrected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PbPyDlSIfc

I was honestly asking because I don't know, just hear a lot about crime and see photos of Surrey's skyline that seem to show disappointing results from all the ambitious plans compared to places like Metrotown, Brentwood, New West, Coquitlam Centre etc. Glad to hear there's improvement.

I've been to Central City about five times in the last decade, even with my brother living in Whalley/Quattro. Now he's in south Surrey which seems like a totally different place.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by Pinion

I was honestly asking because I don't know, just hear a lot about crime and see photos of Surrey's skyline that seem to show disappointing results from all the ambitious plans compared to places like Metrotown, Brentwood, New West, Coquitlam Centre etc. Glad to hear there's improvement.

I've been to Central City about five times in the last decade, even with my brother living in Whalley/Quattro. Now he's in south Surrey which seems like a totally different place.

Surrey's a cool place, just I refuse to live there. Terrible walkability and transit access.

I prefer living in the more progressive transit oriented cities like vancouver, Burnaby, new west, etc.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Hopefully the new mayor will support Skytrain.

Amen. At the party on Civic Plaza, they were pushing at-grade LRT quite hard. Propaganda at best, methinks.

[queetz@home]

Mayor is only one vote on the council, so if a successor from the mayor's party takes over, whatever views Dianne Watts had wrt LRT / Skytrain will remain. I doubt she alone is the one pushing for LRT within the council ranks.

That said, Darryl de la Cruz should run for mayor if Skytrain is so desired. Even if its there "just to get his name out", this would be an indicator whether how serious he is with his agenda, and gauge whether Surrey, rather than solely a few Skyscraperpage enthusiasts, really *wants* Skytrain.

[WarrenC12]

There is a large segment of the population that seems to think LRT is "the practical solution", because it's cheaper, it's "cool", construction is "easy", whatever.

There seems to be no conception to what at-grade transit really means.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Tetsuo

Considering Cloverdale-Langley City is going to be a new riding, she'll fit right in there

Actually, if Watts does decide to jump into the federal arena, it would be the new riding of South Surrey-White Rock, which northern boundary is Hwy 10 - from Hwy 91 in the west to 196th Street in the east at the Langley boundary.

Watts not only resides in the riding of South Surrey-White Rock but the current MP previously announced that he won't be running again in October, 2015.

I would characterize Watts as a "blue" liberal or a "red" tory but since that riding is in the metro Con belt, that's likely where she will throw her hat if she decides to jump.

Only 2 BC politicos that I have ever considered to have political "gold" capital - Watts and Carole Taylor.

Who knows. Nothing available politically on the provincial scene, riding-wise (unless someone steps down and a by-election ensues). Watts might even find something attractive in the private sector.

Again, when Watts first ran for mayor she publicly gave a self-imposed 3 terms. And she stood by her word.

Good luck Dianne! Whatever ya decide.

[GMasterAres]

Watts actually gave herself a 2 term limit then was pressured into going 1 more term to finish what she "had started" but at that time said it would only be 1 more and she would not run again for a 4th.

Thus her not running now. As for what she accomplished, I think what she accomplished was just as much regional as it was for Surrey.

1. She lead a group of Mayor's for the first time to represent South of Fraser and stand up to the big 2 in Vancouver & Burnaby who have for 15 years now had defacto say on what happens in Metro-Vancouver. It gave South of Fraser a voice finally in politics and helped force some major issues including an acknowledgment that dispite the majority of population growth happening South of Fraser, all the funding and investment was happening North of Fraser.

From a regional standpoint it is no different than the past 25 years of cries in BC about how we and Alberta get ignored by the Federal Government that does nothing but pour all its funding into Ontario and Quebec year after year. For those of us living and working South of Fraser that was quite a big stance and it changed attitudes throughout the regional politicians so that I feel they now realize we need an inclusive system for the regional growth.

She also helped Surrey start to get over its being seen regionally as the little brother that gets into mischief all the time with dirty hands and pop-cycle around his mouth. Surrey has had the reputation for many years as being that little brother the rest of the cities simply patted on the head and said "there there, here have another pop-cycle" to. She realized that we had to be given a voice in order to finally be heard and have say in the region and in our own city on the Provincial and Federal levels.

2. She acknowledged the fact that Surrey had (has still in some ignorant circles) a bad reputation regionally and that was bleeding into the investment and development communities. It was under her watch that some big name developers staked claims in Surrey Central. While the transformation has a long way to go and we're certainly behind the 8-ball time wise, once you started to not only see the likes of Concord Pacific, Bing Thom, Century Group, Bosa, etc. staking claims but actually constructing project, it made other developers and investment companies take some notice.

3. There was pressure from Mayor and Council to expand Surrey Memorial and while the Province gets to stick their pin on that project due to their funding, she was a large part of making not only that happen, but also starting the spark for this Innovation Boulevard which is seeing a lot of investment from the medical and research communities come this way.

That is something Vancouver and UBC have had in their caps for 50+ years.

It also resulted in Surrey Memorial upgrading many departments including it's Neonatal Intensive Care being upgrading to Level 3 and being 1 of only 3 Level 3s in Metro Vancouver (the other two being BC Women's/Children's Hospital, and Royal Columbia). For a city that per capita has the most children born every year and where many regional families call home, I think that is a major symbolic victory for the citizens investment wise and for expecting parents to know if something goes wrong they don't have to be rushed out of Surrey to New West or Vancouver potentially costing precious time.



Now all the above said and including some of what others posted such as her being instrumental and finally getting Evergreen under construction, and helping establish more Mayoral powers regionally when it comes to agencies like Translink, she did have some falters.

1. As a Surrey resident, I think infrastructure has not been quite so well paced given our growing demands. Rather than build infrastructure before development that is often well known years ahead, development seems to build like a giant out of control fire and then infrastructure comes a decade later.

2. In that same token, I think the Mayor and Council have failed miserably when it comes to helping to reduce car frustration through many parts of the city. You walk through many neighborhoods with new townhouse or rowhouse developments like in Clayton or Panorama, and the developers were able to build places with 1 car spot and 1 visitor parking spot per 20 units. Given most households in Surrey have at least 2 cars, that means for every development built, the total count of units worth of cars are out on the streets parking often resulting in those cars being parked next to new developments taking their spots for their 1 and 2 cars causing them to park further away and so on.

While I applaud them for pushing for transit alternatives, the simple truth is that the one area Mayor and Council have ABSOLUTE control over is what they allow developers to get a permit for and too often I found this Mayor and Council would stamp through developments that had far too few parking spots but got away with it by ponying up some cash to the city.

3. Crime. While crime has been steadily declining not only in Surrey but through all of Metro Vancouver, if you look at statistics, there was no spike downward under Mayor Watts and on the contrary, violent crimes per 100,000 people actually fluctuated up and down becoming somewhat flat overall during her tenure as Mayor.

Funding for Police is always an issue given we use the RCMP and are largely at the mercy of the Federal Government, but again there is a lot a Mayor can do to help reduce crime and I don't think crime is something she can ultimately hang her hat on and say she fought vigorously.

Is crime better in Surrey today than it was 10 or even 20 years ago? Absolutely without a doubt. But Surrey still has higher overall violent crime statistics per capita compared to other cities in the region. The gap from 10 to 20 years ago has certainly closed, but not entirely and ultimately statistics would show the Mayor and her Surrey First group of council really had little impact on crime trends in Surrey.


What I do hope is that the next mayor incoming continues to not only focus on transit and development initiatives, but really takes a hard look at crime and what types of development move forward. I don't want Surrey to become another Vancouver where developers rule council and whatever they want as long as the money bags are large enough, get slid right through without any discussion whatsoever. In addition I would like to see them focus more in infrastructure outside of transit sabre rattling. While bike lanes have been built on many roads under Mayor Watts, many are just extended curbs on the side of major roads that get riddled with dirt, rocks, and garbage, and the long promised green way is in my opinion well behind schedule. Finally infrastructure wise we still have some major east and west bottle neck roads that should be expanded sooner than later such as 100th ave, Fraser Highway through Green Timbers, having some balls to finally punch through 84th between KGB and 140th, and then finally widening 64th from 152nd to Langley.

And a few sidewalks along other streets in residential neighborhoods wouldn't hurt.

As a citizen and voter, I am definitely watching to see who steps up to run for Surrey First and who will step up to run against them.

[SFUVancouver]

I appreciate you writing such a thorough post; a postmortem on her mayoralty, if you will. I think Mayor Watts made a lot of good come about for her city during her service as Mayor. I think she has set in motion a number of things that will pay huge dividends in the long term. Particularly, taking the plunge and committing to building up a true downtown for Surrey and the South of the Fraser municipalities will be viewed in posterity as the right thing to do at the right time. Her advocacy for Surrey and the South of Fraser municipalities have truly turned a corner in the regional balance of power. For too long I think the municipalities South of the Fraser were content to be suburban/semi-rural/rural communities or unable to articulate a clear message that gained traction.

Originally Posted by jhausner

1. She lead a group of Mayor's for the first time to represent South of Fraser and stand up to the big 2 in Vancouver & Burnaby who have for 15 years now had defacto say on what happens in Metro-Vancouver. It gave South of Fraser a voice finally in politics and helped force some major issues including an acknowledgment that dispite the majority of population growth happening South of Fraser, all the funding and investment was happening North of Fraser.

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.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

There is a large segment of the population that seems to think LRT is "the practical solution", because it's cheaper, it's "cool", construction is "easy", whatever.

There seems to be no conception to what at-grade transit really means.

I agree.. I am not a fan of LRT being the one and only next step for Surrey's next Rapid Transit development.

[jsbertram]

So, will her unstarted projects happen now that she's not around to champion them?

Is she now a 'lame duck' just waiting to move on after the election, or will she try to push some 'scorched earth' projects (since she won't be around to be blamed for them if they fail) that otherwise can't be done because of political expediency (ie: we can't do some project without risk of being dis-elected in November).

[spm2013]

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