Outcomes and Significance
A motion was introduced at Vancouver City Council to reverse the city’s ban (pause) on new supportive housing, which had originally been put in place in 2025 to halt new projects and focus on upgrading existing units.
During the council meeting, the proposal sparked significant debate among councillors, reflecting ongoing divisions over how the city should address homelessness and housing supply.
In the end, council voted 5–4 against the motion, meaning the attempt to lift the ban did not pass. As a result, the pause on new supportive housing remains in effect, and no policy change was made.
Wallace Pang, leader of WeVote, attended the council session along with other residents, voicing their perspectives and concerns on the issue.
April 1 Speech
Good Day Vancouver Mayor and Council,
Let me be direct.
I am founder of WeVote which have connected more than 15 cities’s communities. We shouldn’t be here if the BC Housing’s supportive housing policy is successful.
Opposition to this Supportive Housing project is not a lack of compassion. It is a refusal to accept policies that repeatedly fail both vulnerable individuals and the surrounding community.
Ask yourself, do you support to build a one within 150 m of your home, your kids’ school? Think and study the truth of consequences of your votes which should represent the people who gave you the votes. Have you asked your neighbors? Have you done your due diligence before you come here today?
Jesse Affleck, a 22 years old recovered former drug addiction victim, and running the Richmond council now because his real experience told him that the current provincial Supportive Housing policy is not working but instead keeping the drug addiction victims in the sea of the drugs! He strongly want the government to use the resources to build detox programs and facilities instead of failing supportive housing programs.
Community safety is not negotiable. It is the most basic responsibility of government. Without safety, there is no real compassion, no quality of life, no stable community. Public safety concerns are not theoretical, and they are not driven by prejudice. The negative impacts associated with many supportive housing and low-barrier facilities are widely reported, documented, and easily verified.
Residents are not imagining these risks. They are responding to observable patterns.
Over the past three months, from South Surrey to Richmond, Burnaby, Abbotsford, Vancouver, Mission, Kelowna, Powell River，Sechelt, and Prince George, residents have reached out to me with the same message: they know these projects will threaten their community safety. In Surrey’s Foxglove last October, a resident lay dead for 14 days before being found. So-called “good management” is often just rhetoric. There is no transparency and no accountability. Please pay attention to the news if you are representing people.
Yet governments continue to present housing as a simplified solution to deeply complex problems — homelessness, severe addiction, and mental health crises. A housing facility alone cannot solve these issues. Suggesting otherwise is unrealistic and dangerously misleading. Complex social problems require professional, evidence-based treatment, long-term care systems, and accountability — not political slogans.
We are often told that housing will solve the overdose crisis. But the reality is more complex. Public data indicate that approximately 78% of fatal drug overdose deaths occur indoors. This fact highlights an important truth: the mere presence of housing does not eliminate overdose risk. Addiction is not a housing problem — it is a medical and psychological condition requiring treatment, detoxification, and long-term recovery support.
Compassion without accountability is not compassion. It is negligence.
If any councillors remain undecided, I urge you to consider this carefully. Ignoring legitimate safety concerns does not make those concerns disappear. Dismissing residents does not build trust. Voters are not blind to consequences.
And I ask you honestly, Councilors, please vote according to this question
Would you accept such a facility next to your own home, where your family lives?
We, the residents raising these concerns, are not privileged, and we are not without compassion. We have lived responsibly, contributed to society, and we support real solutions that genuinely help vulnerable people — solutions that are effective, transparent, and do not destabilize neighborhoods.
Protecting community safety and helping the vulnerable are not opposing values. Responsible governance requires both.
WeVote Vancouver Media Coverage
