10/31/2025
Taken from Kim Harless Felix’s reply to Mike Pond!
“Mike. I appreciate and care for you so I hope we can agree to disagree with love and respect for one another. I couldn't stand idle for something I am really passionate about, so I wanted to present a rebuttal:
1. Leadership Structure:
Mike: Vancouver currently elects all city council members at large. Charter amendment #13 would change this to a mixed system of district-based and at large elections. How would this change strengthen or weaken the city’s leadership structure?
Charter Amendment 13 might sound like progress, but it’s a risky experiment that weakens Vancouver’s leadership. Right now, every councilmember has to answer to all of us. With districts, that accountability breaks apart, each voter only gets a say in a fraction of the seats, and the rest of council is off-limits. That opens the door for big-money interests or outside groups to target and buy influence in small, low-turnout district races. We’d be trading a unified council that works for the whole city for one divided by geography, politics, and money. Vancouver deserves leadership that looks out for everyone, not just whoever funds a few neighborhood campaigns.
Rebuttal:
First, there’s no reward if you never take any risks. Also, if voting for everyone really made people feel represented, we’d be hearing it. We’re not. What I hear over and over is, “I don’t know who my councilmember is,” or “I never see them in my part of town.” Vancouver is the fourth largest city in the state and growing. No one, especially working families, can be everywhere for everyone all the time in a now fairly large and rapidly growing city. Districts fix that by giving people a clear point of contact at a councilmember who actually shows up where they live and feels more approachable.
This is also about who gets to run. Right now, citywide campaigns reward big budgets and name recognition. You can only buy so many mailers, signs, texts, and still never reach everyone. In a district, regular people can more likely knock on every door and talk to every voter, instead of only focusing their attention on “most likely” voters that databases spit out. Maybe more people would vote if they were actually being reached out to instead of the same people getting special treatment who have political access already. It lowers the cost and barriers, and opens the door to candidates who look like and live like the rest of Vancouver and not just retirees or folks with a financial cushion from their own wealth or a spouse who supports them financially. The “big money will take over districts” line has it backward.
Also, with a mixed system, we don’t lose the citywide lens because we keep at-large seats for the big-picture work and add district seats for everyday neighborhood reality. It doesn’t create division but a balance of perspectives.
If “leadership that looks out for everyone” is the goal, then let’s define it. Good leadership doesn’t pit neighborhoods against each other. It listens, doesn’t cause harm to one group to benefit another, and brings local needs into a citywide plan. Uplifting a community doesn’t mean someone else falls. Districts make it more likely that everyone gets seen, heard, and served.
2. Fair Representation:
Mike: Supporters say district elections increase equity by ensuring historically underrepresented communities have a voice. Opponents say every voter already has an equal vote in an at-large system. How do you define “Fair Representation” for Vancouver’s Neighborhood?
Fair representation means your voice counts equally no matter where you live or who you know. Amendment 13 sounds like fairness, but the reality is, it creates a two-tier system: some councilmembers elected citywide, others only by a small pocket of voters. That hierarchy sets up internal power struggles, district reps with limited reach, at-large members with outsized influence. Instead of empowering neighborhoods, it risks isolating them. True equity doesn’t come from carving up the city map... it comes from ensuring every voter can hold every councilmember accountable.
Rebuttal:
Fair representation means your voice actually carries when someone who knows your part of Vancouver is accountable to you.
From what I’ve seen on council, we already lean on each other’s lived experiences. When Paulsen talks about the Heights, it lands because he lives there. When Perez brings up the east side, we listen closer. When I raise issues around Andresen, Fourth Plain, or the mall, I see my colleagues tune in. That’s not a “hierarchy”, it is how proximity and relationships work. Districts don’t create division, instead they formalize the accountability that’s already happening informally to create a legacy of representation built in for future iterations of the council.
A lot of people don’t feel represented right now. You can see it in low turnout and low participation. Why show up if you don’t feel seen? Districts make it more likely you’ll know your councilmember and that they’ll know you, and make it so participation isn’t just a hope but can make it into a habit.
When it comes to equity and “ensuring historically underrepresented communities” have a voice, look at who’s supporting Amendment 13. BIPOC by-and-for organizations, both councilmembers that are women of color, and our woman veteran councilmember are all in support. Maybe we should listen to the communities who’ve been underrepresented instead of deciding for them. I think we know what we need more than anyone else claims they do about us, maybe we should actually listen to those who are most impacted, and we’re asking for Amendment 13.
And this change would create a mixed system. You’ll still have a Mayor and two at-large seats to keep the citywide perspective. What changes is that your most local councilmember will be directly accountable to your neighborhood. Right now, your voice gets diluted in the citywide mass. With districts, you keep the citywide lens and gain a clear, local advocate who will fight for you. That’s the best of both worlds.
3. Accountability for Outcomes:
Mike: Voters often measure government by outcomes: safer streets, affordable housing, cleaner parks. How would the adoption or rejection of district based elections influence council accountability for those outcomes?
People judge government by results, safer streets, affordable homes, clean parks. District elections don’t make that easier; they make it harder. Once you divide accountability, it’s easy for officials to point fingers instead of fixing problems. “That’s not my district” becomes the new excuse. And with small, low-turnout district elections, special interests can dominate, leaving everyday residents out of the conversation. Keeping our council citywide keeps the pressure where it belongs, on everyone elected to deliver for all of Vancouver.
Rebuttal: I honestly don’t understand this one. Isn’t everyone accountable? As Vancouver gets bigger, citywide-only seats force councilmembers to be reactive. You can’t know every block or catch problems early when your “constituency” is the whole city. Districts make accountability practical where one person is seen as a technical expert for one of the defined areas, with relationships close enough so that issues surface to the attention of council faster so we can fix them sooner. This is why you see boards and commissions, for example, have specific seats to represent certain sectors or industries to bring attention those details they see day-to-day, why doesn’t council do this too through geography?
The “everyone’s accountable” line ignores how its working today. When you can’t be everywhere, you end up hearing mostly from the loudest or most resourced voices. Districts lower that barrier so that regular people get a councilmember who’s nearby and more reachable as there is less competition for attention.
And no, this doesn’t let anyone say “not my district.” We’ll still have a Mayor and two at-large members to keep the citywide lens. It’s a mixed system of local accountability plus citywide responsibility. Also, all councilmembers take an oath to the city, not to their district.
On “special interests dominating”, well that’s actually a feature of large, expensive, citywide races where big money stretches farther. Districts make everyday residents have more leverage. Districts don’t dilute accountability, they sharpen it. You keep the citywide pressure, and you add a local champion who knows your streets.
4. Transition and Fairness:
If amendment passes a district commission must draw 4 districts by 2026. If it fails the city maintains its large structure. How should Vancouver approach the transition whichever direction voters choose to maintain fairness and trust?
If this passes, drawing district lines will be a political minefield. However fair it looks on paper, somebody will always claim the map was rigged, and lawsuits will follow. That’s not how we build trust. If it fails, we should still strengthen representation by making it easier for working people and diverse voices to run citywide, but without dividing Vancouver or inviting the kind of gerrymandering chaos that’s plagued other cities. However this goes, fairness means one thing: a council accountable to everyone, not carved up by district maps and political insiders.
Rebuttal: This is sounding like a fear-based argument that ignores the actual safeguards already written into the amendment. If it passes, “a Districting Plan will be maintained by the City,” not by politicians. The plan says districts “should preserve identifiable communities,” “should be geographically compact,” “shall not be drawn for purposes of protecting incumbents,” “should be bound by natural boundaries,” and “should be drawn to promote demographic and economic diversity on the Council.” That’s the opposite of a “political minefield”. We won’t have what went wrong at the County, as those problems were caused by poor leadership, and the City is non-partisan. The county districting committee has partisanship in it, which is a top candidate platform issue for multiple charter review commissioner candidates this year.
If it fails, we still have work to do. We should make citywide campaigns more accessible, but we should do these if it passes too, such as lower filing and participation barriers, expand small-donor support, and get serious about outreach so working families and diverse voices can actually run and win. Portland and Seattle both have public campaign financing. In Portland they have the “Small Donor Elections” where there is a 9 to 1 match on small donations from residents, and in Seattle they have the “Democracy Vouchers” where residents each get four $25 vouchers they can assign to candidates. I am unsure what public campaign financing would look like for Vancouver, but I am sure we would find a version that is designed by us and for us, and is something I have already started looking into to help future candidates.
5. Timing and Motivation:
Public trust often depends on how reforms are developed. Some residents view Amendment 13 as overdue modernization; others see it as unnecessary bureaucracy. What would you say to those who question either the timing or motivation behind this proposal?
I understand the frustration—Vancouver’s growing, people want to be heard. But this proposal isn’t modernization; it’s manufactured reform pushed at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. District elections sound inclusive but often backfire, creating turf wars, silos, and pay-to-play district politics. The timing raises real questions: why now, and who benefits? Because the big winners in a districted system aren’t working families, they’re well-funded candidates and special interests who can dominate smaller races with less scrutiny.
Rebuttal:
Why now? Because this is the window to do it. The City’s charter review only happens every five years. The commission has raised districting before, but this time with the most diverse council we’ve ever had, we had a razor-thin majority to send it to voters. Unlike County Charter Review, the City’s charter review is appointed by the Mayor, they make recommendations, and the Council decides then what goes on the ballot or not. The only other way districting can get on the ballot is through an initiative but that is a huge lift and can only be done on certain years.
Who’s behind it? The same communities who’ve been underrepresented and are asking for a voice. Smaller districts lower that barrier so regular people can actually run, knock every door, and build relationships that aren’t just about who can afford the most mailers, tv ads, or billboards. I’m feeling this first-hand right now, as I don’t have personal wealth to pour into a campaign, I’ve been outspent by nearly four times, and I’ve tried not to overwhelm families with constant asks in a tough year. Districts make participation more reachable, not less.
As for “manufactured reform,” what I hear across the city is people want to be seen and heard where they live. This is not bureaucracy for its own sake, it’s a practical fix to a growing city. And it’s a mixed system where we keep at-large seats for a citywide lens while adding local accountability. If the goal is trust, then let’s make representation something people can actually touch, not just watch from a distance.
6. Trust and Representation:
This issue ultimately comes down to trust in representation in fairness, and in the city's direction. Why should Vancouver's voters trust your vision of what representation should look like?
This is about trust... who you trust to represent you, and who benefits when that trust is broken. Vancouver’s current system gives every voter a voice in all seven seats. Amendment 13 takes that away and replaces it with a fragmented structure that invites division, inequality, and big-money manipulation. I trust the voters of Vancouver to see through the sales pitch. Let’s keep one city, one council, and one shared responsibility to serve everyone, not a patchwork of districts competing for power.
Rebuttal: This amendment didn’t come out of nowhere. It’s the product of multiple charter reviews and representation taskforces over many years, and a city council committee. The only reason it finally made the ballot is because we have the most diverse council we’ve ever had by geography, background, and lived experience that got it to a razor-thin majority that said, “Let voters decide,” instead of the council making that decision for them.
I’m also honest with folks and let them know our current council makeup is a fluke, not a guarantee. The at-large system isn’t designed to keep that diversity, it’s designed to reward name recognition and money. Districts won’t solve everything, but they do lock in at least geographic representation and lower the barrier for working people to run by not needing a citywide war chest just to be viable. I don’t want to see another unopposed city council race in a city our size, as that’s not healthy democracy and is a glaring red flag.
As for “special interests,” look at who benefits from keeping things exactly as they are. The status quo is comfortable for the well-funded and well-connected. I’ve lived the other side scraping to compete against campaigns with far more resources TWICE now and am currently being outspent by almost FOUR fold. I only won by less than 60 votes last time and its uncertain where things will be this time with the dump-truck loads of money being spent by my opposition. If my district was smaller, I wouldn’t have to raise as much to hit every door that my opponent has touched with a mailer more than once. I just want to be able to get at least one touch, you know? The special interests that you talk about, those are the ones wanting to maintain this system that Diana and I were able to barely climb through due a series of cracks caused from the social unrest of the early 2020s. I am trying to ensure the door doesn’t close behind me. Districts make relationships, door-knocking, and neighborhood trust matter more than big checks.
If the new district lines end up drawing me out, so be it. I’m willing to take that hit if it means a fairer system that lasts beyond any one election or personality. I want to make it possible for more Vancouver residents to see themselves in leadership.”
