Letter to Councillor Dell in regard to your comments during the deliberations regarding the City’s membership in the Urban Development Institute at the City of Victoria Sept 4 Committee of the Whole
By Sasha Izard
Sept 25, 2025
Hello Councillor Dell,
You will recall that recently on Sept 1, 2025 I sent you and the other City of Victoria Councillors, the following letter in regard to the Sept 4 Councillor Member Motion that the City of Victoria end its membership with the Urban Development Institute:
Letter sent to Victoria’s Mayor and Council and City Manager’s office, regarding the City’s potential withdrawal from the UDI development/real estate lobby. – CRD Watch Homepage
I did not, however, get the impression that you read that letter based on your deliberations at Council. I suggest that you review it closely so that you are informed on the subject of development industry lobbying in the City of Victoria, and not merely speculating about it during important council deliberations on the issue.
I observed closely the deliberations on the subject, and transcribed the content so as to analyze the discussions involved.
This can be helpful to you as well moving forward.
The transcription of your deliberations, I’ve added as an appendix at the end of this letter.
I will add my own commentary to your comments below, so that you are more fully informed on this issue and that you are under no illusions as to the UDI and the City’s relationship to it, as you proceed forward on the issue of lobbying in the municipality, which will appear again in the near future, as the UDI withdrawal motion was temporarily postponed to be deliberated on soon after the issue of a potential municipal lobbyist registry is discussed by council, as it has been.
—————————————————————————————————
You began your deliberations on this subject by comparing your own Constituents and their community groups approaching their elected representative with their concerns – with industry lobbyists that represent billions of dollars of outside corporate interests:
“I’m sure, I’ll just want to put on the record that I think I’m going to oppose this for a couple of reasons. One every single conversation I have as a councillor is some type of lobbying generally. Um from neighborhood associations and CALUCs that are that are pushing to oppose projects or neighbors pushing to oppose projects or people who are very comfortable in single family homes, pushing to oppose projects in their neighborhood, uh to developers coming to go, hey, what kind of things are you looking for that might help new housing being built?” – Councillor Dell
If you are to compare feedback from your Constituents and community organizations, with industry lobby groups that is one thing, whether one agrees with it or not (I do not and I doubt few others will); but your position either way, is inconsistent. If you are to place all of these categories on the same plane, then why is the City of Victoria not a paying member of the resident and other community associations, as well for that matter of Community Association Land Use Committees (CALUCs) that you brought up?
Why do your Constituents pay taxes, and you as government officials, hand over their money to a lobbying group representing an industry, that benefits financially from upzoning these communities? Why are the Constituents on the one hand paying the City, and on the other hand the City is paying the industry’s lobby with the same money? This is not a fair, nor an even-handed process. It is the opposite. The money is tilted towards the public subsidizing the same industry that has pushed to keep the public as limited from being involved in the input process as possible (removing vast swathes of public hearings). In this process, your Constituents lose money and opportunities for democratic participation, while the development industry which has closed-door access to city staff gains, including by the City’s transfer of public money into the lobby.
You continued:
“So we are all very good at listening to different sides of an argument and saying yes or no and balancing those things, so the information from UDI, we’ve proven that we rejected their last information where they were advocating against our climate goals.” – Councillor Dell
As I showed above, there is no balance in this relationship, it is tilted both financially and through access to the development industry.
As you noted, the UDI is lobbying against your climate goals. They use the term “advocating” as a euphemism for lobbying as they register their lobbying activities as “advocating” on the BC Lobbyists Registry, as I showed you in the Sept 1, 2025 email.
The question is then, why is the City of Victoria paying the UDI using public funds, to finance lobbying against your own stated climate goals?
Let’s say you advance climate policies in Victoria, but then the UDI successfully lobbies other municipalities and levels of government to implement opposite policies. In that case, then through financing the UDI with public funds, you have helped counter your own efforts.
Does operating in such a self-negating way by ostensibly pushing policies, while simultaneously publicly funding opposing industry interests, make the elected officials look intelligent? How is advancing an agenda, while simultaneously subsidizing the pushback against that agenda, an appropriate and well thought out use of limited public resources?
Yes, you may listen to both sides of an argument, but why are you publicly funding the counter-argument to your own argument? Why has the City of Victoria joined in the form of membership, the organization that is going around to multiple branches of government including the City itself, pushing an agenda that is in opposition to the claimed climate agenda of the elected officials?
I made a quick Google search for “What is conflict of interest?”.
This was the first result that I received:
“Conflict of interest
noun
a situation in which the concerns or aims of two different parties are incompatible
“the conflict of interest between elected officials and corporate lobbyists”
Sound familiar?
“So that’s one. Um, but I think two it’s pretty clear that housing is probably housing administrative red tape, housing policies is probably one of the most complex areas in our country, and that’s one of the reasons why we have a housing crisis.” – Councillor Dell
While, I appreciate your channeling of Avril Lavigne’s “Complicated” on this issue. Is it too complex for you to look at the root causes of the housing affordability crisis?
If simply increasing the housing supply is the reason for a lack of affordability, then how come the City of Victoria massively increased its housing supply and the housing in it is unaffordable according to CMHC definition, and the price of housing and rental skyrocketed there in the last half decade? If simply increasing housing supply leads to affordability, how come the opposite has happened in every major city in North America, including Vancouver, Toronto and New York City?
What is it that they call, doing the same thing over and over again, and still expecting a different result the next time?
Do you have any examples where simply increasing the housing supply at market-rate led to affordability in a big city?
If you don’t, then why are you pushing a false narrative in regard to increasing housing supply as the road to affordability?
The UDI recently lobbied against affordability.The UDI recently lobbied the B.C. Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs to allow landlords including corporate landlords to keep rents unaffordable, and even increase the cost margin of allowable rent increases to well above the rate of inflation annually.
2025-07-30-UDI-Letter-Ministry-of-Housing-and-Municipal-Affairs-2026-Annual-Allowable-Rent-Increase.pdf
As it states in the lobbying letter: “UDI asks that the Province restore the AARI formula to CPI +2% for 2026.”
AARI stands for Annual Allowable Rent Increase. CPI, stands for the Consumer Price Index, a commonly used gauge of inflation.
So they lobbied against what the elected officials are doing in regard to climate, and they lobbied against affordability, so why again are you advancing the UDI’s agenda?
If you are serious about these issues and not merely paying lip service to them, why are you supporting with City funds, an organization that is on the record as having lobbied government against them?
Why are you advancing the UDI’s primarily market-based supply narrative that benefits developer profit margins and has not been shown to lead to affordability, and while at the same time missing the fact that the UDI has lobbied the government against affordability in the form of annual allowable rent increase, considerably above the level of inflation, based on the Consumer Price Index?
“There’s so many different layers to this, and so allowing staff to be part of the discussions with people who actually build our housing, including folks, I look on the membership like Byron Chard, who’s going to be building a ton of affordable housing right over here, going to those people and going, hey, what can we do to incentivize this type of housing we need in the city that you’re gonna be building with your sort of blood on the line is helpful.” – Councillor Dell
UDI memberships are corporate as of November 2023, they are not personal, but it is good that you indirectly brought up UDI member company Chard Developments.
The following is an excerpt from a CBC article that I think you are probably already familiar with:
“The nearly 4,000 pages of FOI documents provide detailed insight into the failings of a program heralded as “great news” for middle-income citizens when then-housing minister David Eby announced the completion of construction at the 135-unit Vivid building in May 2021.
Almost three years later, CBC revealed as many as a third of those units were sold to people who violated the terms of contracts requiring them to live in their suites for at least two years. Many also already owned property — in some cases, multiple homes worth millions.
B.C. Housing has bought back at least 19 of the units, and court records show lawsuits against more than two dozen Vivid purchasers accused of undermining the “Affordable Home Ownership Program for personal benefit.”
The FOI documents shed light on one of the key questions to emerge around the project. In the same news release announcing the end of construction on Vivid, B.C. Housing said buyers “could not own property anywhere else in the world.”
But according to the same executive committee report warning of risks around public perception, “Chard requested, and B.C. Housing agreed, that this last requirement be relaxed and so purchasers were permitted to own other properties.”
‘Inconsistencies with middle-income households’
Chard received a $53 million low-interest loan from the province to underwrite below-market sales of suites listed at an average of 12 per cent below market rates.”
B.C. Housing warned about project issues but kept quiet: FOI docs | CBC News
In this and many other examples, isn’t it better for the government to keep an arm’s length from the developers and development companies that they are dealing with; companies that government are underwriting low interest loans for, with millions of taxpayer dollars? Isn’t it better for government not to be financing their lobbies that are seeking to influence the same governments that are offering them millions of dollars in low interest public loans?
UDI member BC Housing has also come under fire in the press for a perception of not being at arm’s length in its dealings with a UDI member development company:
Internal Audit Slammed BC Housing Deal in Victoria | The Tyee
The Provincial Director of Redevelopment at BC Housing is simultaneously Director of the UDI Capital Region, and previously worked for the company mentioned in the above Tyee article. She also sits as an advisor (up until this year referred to as a director) to the UVic Real Estate Club.
You continued:
“And I think regretfully, I think this is a bit of a political movement I’ve seen against UDI just to go to get sort of push people who want to support housing in the pocket of developers. So that’s not true at all.” – Councillor Dell
It may be that there needs to be a political movement for elected officials to speak clearly with complete sentences, and express their views in a manner that is both consistent and makes sense.
A non-sequitur means that the train of thought, ‘does not follow’ logically, from what was previously stated.
What is not true at all?
You continued:
“We are in the pocket of trying to build more housing in the city” – Councillor Dell
How are you in the pocket of trying to build more housing in the city?
Although what you are saying about pockets is not clear, I’d like you to clarify what you meant. The issue of pockets that you brought up is an important one
During the election you were supported by the 3rd Party Election Advertising Sponsor group Homes For Living. Although the organization didn’t donate to your campaign, they included you in a list of candidates that they were “For” on their website and in their advertising material that they sent out.
Victoria Candidate Rankings
Over 93% of the donors to Homes For Living’s campaign during the last election, donated anonymously:
Over 93% of the donors to the 3rd Party Election Advertising Sponsor Homes For Living during the 2022 Local Government Election, donated anonymously. Serious questions need to be raised with the Province over the lack of transparency surrounding local government election campaign financing. – CRD Watch Homepage
In their Constitution, they wrote:
“We want to take a data-driven approach and transparently cast a light on whatcouncillors support/dont support so that people can pressure them to support policies that are the most impactful instead of paying lip service to affordability.”
2 Sentence Constitution of the Homes For Living Foundation removes any doubt that Homes For Living (HFL) is a purpose-built pressure group designed to influence municipal politicians. – CRD Watch Homepage
Homes for Living, like yourself, pushes a primarily market-based housing supply agenda, which has not turned into affordability for the general public, but has garnered the development industry significant profits over recent years.
Yet the organization’s pocket-books are not transparent.
I noticed that you received considerable funding for your own campaign from the development industry and from employees of UDI member companies.
For example, both Stan Sipos and Johnathon Sipos, work for Cielo Properties: Cielo Properties Team | Cielo Properties Inc. Cielo Properties was listed as a UDI member company before the UDI pulled its members directory from public view.
Public Release of the Urban Development Institute (UDI)’s hidden members directory dated to the beginning of 2024. The directory contains dozens of government branches that are hiding their memberships in the registered lobbying organization for development and real estate interests from the public. – CRD Watch Homepage
According to Elections BC, Johnathon Sipos donated $350 to your election campaign of 2022. Stan Sipos donated $500 to your election campaign. (2nd page in the link).
FRPC – Local Election Contributions Search Results
You received several donations from Wayne Foster for the campaign totaling to $550.
According to Linkedin, the name Wayne Foster is President of Norm Foster Properties Inc., that specializes in multi-unit developments. Wayne Foster – President | LinkedIn
Is this the same Wayne Foster that donated to your campaign?
The name of this company does not turn up on the UDI members directory, however it is clearly a development company that builds multi-unit developments, which is something that you have been keen to push as an elected official.
Rob Jawl donated $500 to your campaign. This is apparent from the written form of the name that you submitted to Elections BC. It appears that Elections BC digitized the name incorrectly to Rob Jal on their website. When the form results were digitized however, the scanned report also on their website (see below) shows that the last name was Jawl, not Jal.
100145467.pdf
Robert Jawl is a former President of the UDI Capital Region, and Jawl Construction and Jawl Residential were listed as UDI member companies prior to the UDI hiding its members directory from the public.
Ed Geric of Mike Geric Construction, donated $500 to your campaign. Mike Geric Construction was also listed on the UDI’s members directory (that included the City of Victoria too), prior to the UDI hiding the members directory from the general public.
You also received $500 from Gary Pooni for your campaign. Pooni has been on the Boards of the UDI Capital Region based in Victoria and also the UDI Pacific Region based in Vancouver. Both Pooni Group and Pooni Group Inc. were listed on the now hidden from the public UDI members directory.
Gary Pooni has also served on the Board of Directors of the UVic Real Estate Club, now renamed the Advisory Board.
UVIC Real Estate Club compelled to rename its Board of Directors the “Advisory Board” after it turned out that the board was overwhelmingly dominated by current and past Directors from the same Provincially registered development/real estate lobbying organization. 6 out of 8 of the UVIC club Board members as it turned out, were not students attending UVIC. – CRD Watch Homepage
Index of documentation covering the UVic Real Estate Club and development industry influence over it. – CRD Watch Homepage
Students of the UVic Real Estate Club have spoken in favour of UDI member company projects at public hearings in the City of Victoria. Their main annual events have been held at the projects of UDI member companies and they have received food and drink, including bubbly wine at these events.
UDI (registered lobbying organization) Newsletter from March 2023 Advertised “connecting with the University of Victoria Real Estate Club for your next public hearing” – CRD Watch Homepage
The top sponsor of the UVic Real Estate Club is the UDI, followed by its member companies.
There is one name however, that is a mystery on your campaign contributions listing that you sent to Elections BC. It is the name Tavish, which as you submitted, donated $500 to your elections campaign in both the original report, and in the amended report both available on the Elections BC website.
100145467.pdf
100146479.pdf
Unlike every other name you submitted in the reports, Tavish is missing a last name.
Does Tavish not have a last name?
Did Elections BC ask you about why you did not include a last name in your campaign contributions report that you submitted to it?
An Elections BC employee must have seen it, as Elections BC turned your report digital and an employee must have punched it into a database, because in the digital version as well publicly posted on their website, simply the name Tavish is applied.
FRPC – Local Election Contributions Search Results
Now I don’t know who Tavish is, but I am aware of one person named Tavish that donated to quite a few candidate’s campaigns in the 2022 local government election. It is Tavish Rai, CEO of Abstract Developments.
Tavish Rai – Abstract “As Chief Executive Officer, Tav guides the Abstract executive team with recognized leadership and extensive experience.”
Is Tavish Rai, the Tavish you listed on your campaign contributions report that you submitted to Elections BC?
Abstract is not only a UDI Capital Region member company listed on the UDI’s membership directory at the time, but also at the time of the 2022 election, the UDI Capital Region Chair was Adam Cooper of Abstract, and an address associated with the UDI Capital Region was included in the BC Lobbyists Registry at the time. The address provided was Abstract’s Cook Street office.
Urban Development Institute / Anne McMullin, President & CEO – Registration – Organization – Lobbyists Registry – Office of the Registrar or Lobbying of BC
The following is a screenshot of Adam Cooper’s Facebook ‘recent activity’ page in 2022:
The UDI Capital Region’s Chair at the time wrote in the comment that can be seen at bottom left: “yup thank goodness we have everyone in our pockets!”
This can be compared to your own comment in your public deliberations on the City’s membership in the UDI Councillor Dell:
“We are in the pocket of trying to build more housing in the city” – Councillor Dell
—————————————————————————————————
“and I think participating in professional associations and allowing staff to learn what other jurisdictions are doing, allowing staff to learn from developers.” – Councillor Dell
Do you think that staff should be participating in an industry lobbying association?
The UDI made clear that they want staff involved in their lobbying work. As I showed you in the Sept 1, 2025 email, in a UDI newsletter under a section about the City of Victoria and advocacy, they wrote:
“If you are working in a municipality listed here and would like to be involved in our advocacy work, please contact” which was followed by the name of The UDI Capital Region’s Executive Director/registered UDI in-house lobbyist with the Province at the time.
Letter sent to Victoria’s Mayor and Council and City Manager’s office, regarding the City’s potential withdrawal from the UDI development/real estate lobby. – CRD Watch Homepage
This in turn was immediately followed by “Ongoing & Upcoming Educational Offerings”.
So we know that the UDI has approached staff in writing to get them engaged in their “advocacy work” and we know as shown in the Sept 1, 2025 letter that the UDI registers their lobbying activity on the BC Lobbyists Registry as “advocating”. In other words, the UDI has approached staff to be involved in the same type of activities that the UDI files as lobbying.
If the UDI are as brazen as to write to staff in their Advocacy and Policy updates newsletter, asking them to be involved in their advocacy work. What sort of approaches can they make to them at a UDI ‘educational event’ where they have an easy publicly subsidized venue to push their agenda to government workers unrecorded and off the record?
Keep in mind that the staff signed the City of Victoria using public funds up to be a paying member of this organization that was offering to collaborate with them, without the authorization of the elected officials. How is that acceptable in a democracy?
Carrots that the UDI offers through its functions, include networking and professional development opportunities. We have all heard of the revolving door between the private and public sector.
Why should staff be learning from private developers which have vested interests in City Policy and are openly through their lobbying organization offering as a sales point, their ability to influence government to their paid industry member organization?
Shouldn’t staff instead, be learning from appropriate non-biased, public post-secondary institutions?
If government staff want to learn from the developers through their lobby, including how to advance their careers through professional development, they can always pay for their own attendance at lobby events out of their own pocket.
They do not need to be using taxpayer funds to attend these events including luncheons. There is nothing stopping them from using money out of their own pockets to attend these events. That would at least show integrity, but they only want to attend these events on the public chequebook.
Why?
Why condone such activity as an elected official, as you are doing?
The following is an excerpt from an FOI response that I received in regard to UDI-Victoria Liaison Committee Meetings. The following excerpted text was under the heading “Information sharing”:
“3. Collaborative work with all departments to ensure there is alignment with all departments
4. Staff are looking at requesting more delegated authority to staff. ACTION Kathy and Alison will connect on this to give UDI more information and timing to have a letter written.”
From the appearance of this excerpt, the city staff were asking the UDI to write a lobbying letter in this regard requesting more delegated authority to staff. The UDI has pushed delegating authority from elected officials to unelected staff on issues such as forms of variances and waiving public hearings based on staff-claimed OCP compliance of development applications. This has taken place in the District of Saanich, and recently, a delegation of powers from elected officials to staff has also taken place in the neighbouring District of Oak Bay.
Housing minister orders Oak Bay to amend bylaws to meet housing targets – Oak Bay News
Documents obtained by Freedom of Information reveal that the Urban Development Institute (UDI) and the Province of BC collaborated on the Housing Supply Act. The Act would lead to Provincially mandated housing targets and advisors being appointed for some municipalities. – CRD Watch Homepage
Just as the UDI sought municipal staffers to advocate (lobby) on their behalf, so it seems that staff in the City of Victoria sought the UDI to lobby on their behalf, to take powers from elected officials and/or the Board of Variance, and put them into their own hands.
Elected officials are elected primarily for one reason, to uphold the public interest, and make the governmental process transparent and accountable to the electorate. Why has there been a push for powers being moved from elected officials to unelected staffers, and why does it seem staffers were asking the development and real estate lobby to lobby on their behalf, to take powers in regard to variances, something that stands to reason would be in the industry crosshairs?
“I’d like to hear the next event is with premier Eby and him talking about provincial rules.”
Do you mean this event?
The above image is from the front page of UDI.org at the time that I am writing this letter.
On October 3, 2025 David Eby as he has before, will make his almost annual pilgrimage, to pay obeisance to his political master Bob Rennie, the so-called “Condo King” at the UDI’s equivalent of Woland’s Ball, this year held at the Hyatt Regency Ballroom in Vancouver.
As at similar events in the past, government employees and public officials will likely be lined up to watch like pigs at the trough, at $150-$300 a pop of taxpayer money per person to attend the lobby’s luncheon, like it was a Christy Clark Liberal fundraising dinner in reverse, or a mass gathering of a cult in Denver Colorado. This is the logical endpoint of the BC NDP, a party so sold out to corporate interests that even their minions have no shame left to lose.
Thank you,
Sasha Izard
—————————————————————————————————
Appendix: Transcription of Councillor Dell’s deliberations at the Sept 4, 2025 Committee of the Whole in regard to the potential withdrawal of the City’s paid membership in the UDI.
Cllr. Dell:
“I’m sure, I’ll just want to put on the record that I think I’m going to oppose this for a couple of reasons. One every single conversation I have as a councillor is some type of lobbying generally. Um from neighborhood associations and CALUCs that are that are pushing to oppose projects or neighbors pushing to oppose projects or people who are very comfortable in single family homes, pushing to oppose projects in their neighborhood, uh to developers coming to go, hey, what kind of things are you looking for that might help new housing being built?
So we are all very good at listening to different sides of an argument and saying yes or no and balancing those things, so the information from UDI, we’ve proven that we rejected their last information where they were advocating against our climate goals.
So that’s one. Um, but I think two it’s pretty clear that housing is probably housing administrative red tape, housing policies is probably one of the most complex areas in our country, and that’s one of the reasons why we have a housing crisis.
There’s so many different layers to this, and so allowing staff to be part of the discussions with people who actually build our housing, including folks, I look on the membership like Byron Chard, who’s going to be building a ton of affordable housing right over here, going to those people and going, hey, what can we do to incentivize this type of housing we need in the city that you’re gonna be building with your sort of blood on the line is helpful.
And I think regretfully, I think this is a bit of a political movement I’ve seen against UDI just to go to get sort of push people who want to support housing in the pocket of developers. So that’s not true at all.
We are in the pocket of trying to build more housing in the city, and I think participating in professional associations and allowing staff to learn what other jurisdictions are doing, allowing staff to learn from developers. I’d like to hear the next event is with premier Eby and him talking about provincial rules.
Those are the kind of conversations that we should be having and I think leaving any type of organization where staff can have more information, is probably unhelpful, including a couple that were referenced previously. They are staff or professionals. They are not bowing over to whatever they hear at UDI.
I think they’re taking that in and weighing that with a lot of the other information that comes, so I see this is a bit of a political motion against, you know, housing in the city, and I’m just gonna stand up and say, uh, let’s just keep working with the people who build housing and the city, and I think that’s gonna be better for us in the future of the city.”
—————————————————————————————————
See also:
Index of articles about lobbying influence on the City of Victoria and deliberations regarding it. – CRD Watch Homepage
City Councillors Hammond and Gardiner put forward Motion to “Terminate Victoria’s membership in the Urban Development Institute” “effective immediately”. – CRD Watch Homepage
Transcript of City of Victoria Council Deliberation on Motion put forward by Councillors Hammond and Gardiner to “Terminate Victoria’s membership in the Urban Development Institute”. (Sept 4, 2025) – CRD Watch Homepage
Letter to Councillor Thompson in regard to your comments during the deliberations regarding the City’s membership in the Urban Development Institute at the City of Victoria Sept 4, 2025 Committee of the Whole – CRD Watch Homepage
Letter to Councillor Coleman in regard to your comments during the deliberations regarding the City’s membership in the Urban Development Institute at the City of Victoria Sept 4 Committee of the Whole – CRD Watch Homepage
Letter to Councillor Loughton in regard to your comments during the deliberations regarding the City’s membership in the Urban Development Institute at the City of Victoria Sept 4 Committee of the Whole – CRD Watch Homepage
“We need to take the approach of all areas potentially supporting up to six storeys to ensure we have a pivotal opportunity to arrive at where we will inevitably need to get by 2050” – Quote from Sept 19, 2024 UDI Workshop on City of Victoria Official Community Plan (OCP) update. – CRD Watch Homepage
Index of articles regarding lobby events and other meetings between government and lobbyists. – CRD Watch Homepage
CRD Watch Homepage 
Leave a comment