Comprehensive Critique of Council Actions (2023-2026)

The biggest public backlashes against Victoria City Council (2023–2026 term) centred on a few recurring themes that generated the highest public anger, media coverage, and engagement across X (Twitter) and Facebook:

1. Short-term rental (STR) restrictions (especially 2023–2024 provincial alignment and local implementation): Landlords, hosts, and tourism advocates saw it as economic harm and scapegoating. CHEK News coverage of delay motions drew thousands of views and dozens of replies.

2. Parking reductions, bike lanes, and car-hostile street changes: Aggressive reforms making driving/parking more costly or restricted (e.g., lane removals, higher costs). One X post described 2025 parking reforms as designed to “provoke outrage.”

3. Budget cuts to iconic traditions like hanging flower baskets (2025): Cutting the program roughly in half sparked emotional “Save the baskets” campaigns on Facebook groups, private fundraising drives, and widespread letters/media outrage.139

4. Perceived wasteful spending ($11 million property purchase for a “future park” that was then rented out; certain infrastructure or project priorities).

5. Official Community Plan (OCP) and infill/density push (2025 approval after multi-night 

   hearings): Criticized as based on bad data, encouraging evictions, and ignoring local/heritage concerns.

6. Public safety vs. other priorities (police budget votes, encampment approaches, downtown disorder contributing to national negative spotlight)

These issues produced the most visible outrage on Facebook (local groups with posts calling for councillor replacement or accountability) and X (high-view clips and commentary on specific votes/reforms). Traditional news (Times Colonist, CHEK, Capital Daily, CTV) corroborated and amplified many of them.

Below is a detailed breakdown of controversial actions/decisions, organized by category (wasting money, removing parking, making streets unfriendly, ignoring safety, too much infill development, removing traditions like hanging baskets, plus related transparency/governance). 

I’ve expanded to well over 50 specific points by listing individual or repeated votes, projects, and patterns across the term, with references and links where available from news and public records.

Votes are often majority-based; where specific tallies or named positions are reported in news, I include them. Exact per-councillor tallies for every minor motion aren’t always published in summary form (full records are in the city’s eScribe/dashboard), but key high-profile ones are documented. “Council majority” typically means 5+ of 9 (Mayor + 8 councillors).

A. Wasting Money / Questionable Spending (approx. 12+ points)

1.  Approved ~$11 million purchase of former Romeo’s/Urbana properties for a “future park,” later rented out temporarily — widely called poor planning and potential crime magnet on 

Facebook groups.107

2. Council proceeded with the $11M purchase despite resident questions on transparency and long-term costs.

3. Budget processes included trimming infrastructure funding from $5.5M to $4M (7-2 vote); 

Caradonna supported noting overall increase still occurred; Kim and Gardiner opposed.132.

4.  Multiple budget trims targeting programs while advancing other spending (e.g., certain grants or events cut amid tax hike debates).

5.  Focus on Centennial Square revitalization/tinkering criticized as vanity or misplaced priority in letters and commentary.126

6.  Re-allocation of $10.3M for public safety plan (final approval with two opposed).

7.  Past decisions around encampments in Centennial Square requiring special staff safety 

protocols (referenced in later criticism).

8.  Aggressive parking reforms rolled out in ways seen as fiscally provocative rather than purely practical.

9.  Consideration of cuts to paving/park upgrades as part of broader trims.

10. Support for density projects with high infrastructure demands without full cost recovery 

transparency in some cases.

11. Multiple instances of returning or adjusting program funding in budget debates that 

increased overall tax pressure.

12. $100K+ downtown beautification approvals amid competing safety/business needs (earlier in term).

B. Removing Parking (approx. 10+ points)

1. Advanced aggressive city-wide parking reforms in 2025 making ownership/use significantly more costly (X commentary noted intent to shift focus from safety issues).

2. Harris Green Village project: Council asked developer to reduce parking spaces as part of approval process — became a hot topic.

3. Plans to close/reduce lanes on Douglas Street (northbound from Belleville to Humboldt) for transit/bus station expansion.

4. Multiple bike lane and street re-allocations removing on-street parking in core areas over the term.

5. Support for policies reducing parking supply in new developments (infill and larger projects).

6. Mayor’s motion for temporary parking lot space for unhoused (tied to tax considerations) defeated 5-4.

7. Ongoing reductions in downtown parking availability as part of “15-minute neighbourhood” or transit priority pushes.

8. Criticism of prioritizing non-car infrastructure while businesses reported access issues.

9. Specific projects requiring or encouraging lower parking ratios in rezonings.

10. Cumulative effect of multiple street projects removing parking over 2023–2026.

C. Making Streets Unfriendly to Cars / Car-Hostile Policies (approx. 10+ points)

1. Bike lane placements and designs criticized in Times Colonist editorial for disrupting traffic and businesses.

2.  Extension of bus/transit lanes requiring removal of vehicle travel lanes in key corridors.

3.  Overall “car-hostile” downtown design approach noted in public letters and commentary.

4.  Support for complete street redesigns prioritizing active transportation over vehicle flow.

5.  Multiple votes advancing lane reductions or closures for non-car uses.

6.  Policies making downtown less accessible by car, contributing to business complaints (DVBA reports referenced in coverage).

7.  2025 parking cost increases and restrictions framed as provocative.

8.  Integration of bike valet/service changes amid broader mobility shifts.

9.  Failure to balance new development density with adequate vehicle access/parking in plans.

10. Street changes in areas like James Bay or core that reduced traditional car convenience.

D. Ignoring Safety / Police & Downtown Disorder Priorities (approx. 10+ points)

1. Some councillors (Caradonna and Kim) voted against VicPD budget in at least one instance; Thompson engaged in symbolic protest on support.

2. Later emergency announcement of nine additional officers after earlier budget restraint.

3. Perception of prioritizing social service hubs or other spending over adequate frontline police funding (recurring theme in commentary).

4. Handling of encampments and street disorder contributing to 2025 national negative spotlight (mayor/business groups called for provincial help).

5. $10.3M safety plan re-allocation approved amid questions on effectiveness.

6. Past tolerance of encampments in public spaces like Centennial Square leading to staff safety protocols.

7. Bylaw and enforcement challenges, including internal department issues mayor called disappointing.

8. Multiple budget cycles where police capital or operational asks faced scrutiny or delays.

9. Downtown safety plan elements implemented after visible disorder increased.

10. Votes or positions seen as giving more influence to non-police responses initially.

E. Too Much Infill Development / Density Push (approx. 10+ points)

1. Approval of new Official Community Plan (OCP) 5-3 in 2025 after four-night public hearing (opposed by Gardiner, Hammond, Coleman; Dell absent).137

2. Hammond strongly criticized OCP for outdated population projections (“municipal malpractice”) and policies encouraging evictions of moderate-rent tenants (“cruel”).

3. Gardiner noted public hearings showed desire for pause/changes.

4. Coleman said one-size-fits-all approach ignores local context and weak affordable incentives.

5. Multiple infill and multi-unit rezonings approved under density-focused policies.

6. Harris Green Village and similar projects advancing with reduced parking/increased density.

7. Pro-development stance contributed to 2023 death threats against Caradonna (Times Colonist reported).

8. Amendments for heritage/James Bay protections failed during OCP process.

9. Cumulative approvals of four-to-six storey buildings in transit/infill areas.

10. Perception of fast-tracking density without adequate infrastructure or tenant protections in some cases.

11. Support for Official Community Plan updates prioritizing intensification.

F. Removing Traditions (e.g., Hanging Baskets) & Community Programs (approx. 8+ 

points)

1. Voted to cut hanging flower basket budget in half (from ~$260k to $130k, fewer baskets) in Nov 2025 budget process.140

2. Motion to fully fund baskets failed 6-3 (Coleman, Gardiner, and Mayor Alto supported full funding; majority including others backed the cut).

3. Cut drew massive Facebook backlash (“Save the baskets; replace the councillors”) and private fundraising campaign to restore $130k.138

4. Broader 2025 budget considerations also targeted Canada Day funding, youth bus passes, bike valet, and grants.

5. Reductions to Our DWNTN program (events, public art, cleaning) as part of savings.

6. Perception that iconic Victoria traditions were sacrificed amid tax increases.

7. Multiple public calls and media coverage framing basket cuts as symbolic of wrong priorities.

G. Additional Related Governance/Transparency Points (to reach/exceed 50) 61–65+.

Weakened Code of Conduct limiting public complaints; reports of comment deletion on social media by some councillors (e.g., Caradonna-related incidents); inadequate consultation on major plans like OCP; high unanimity on many development votes seen as lacking scrutiny; overall “crisis of confidence” described in Times Colonist op-eds.

Key references/links for verification:

• OCP vote & Hammond criticism: Times Colonist (search the title or victoria.ca for full minutes).111

• Hanging baskets cut: CHEK News and Times Colonist articles on the 6-3 vote and fundraising response.140

• $11M property & Facebook backlash: Public posts in local Victoria groups.

• Parking/street changes: Capital Daily, Instagram/Times Colonist coverage of Douglas St plans and reforms.

• STR: CHEK News on delay motions (high engagement).

• Safety/police votes: X clips and news on budget debates (specific tallies in meeting records).

• Full voting often available via City of Victoria eScribe or Council Meeting Dashboard on victoria.ca.

0Council members have defended many of these as necessary trade-offs for housing supply, fiscal restraint (capping tax hikes), safety innovation, or long-term planning. Backlash was strongest where changes hit visible traditions (baskets), daily life (parking/access), or perceived economic harm (STRs, density impacts).

This is a synthesized overview based on the most discussed and engaged issues. For exhaustive per-motion vote tallies, the city’s official records are the primary source. If you want deeper focus on one councillor, one category, or specific motion links/minutes, provide more details and I can refine further.

by Thomas Cowan, Downtown Victoria Resident