What a Mamdani-Style Agenda Could Look Like in Metro Vancouver

What it would take—financially, politically, and institutionally—for Metro Vancouver to match New York’s new progressive vision

Nov 07, 2025

Zohran Mamdani’s victory in New York City’s 2025 mayoral race stunned political watchers — a sign that the left wing of the Democratic Party can win, not just agitate.1 He pulled 50.4 percent of the city-wide vote, flipping precincts in Queens, Brooklyn, and the Bronx while consolidating progressive Manhattan. More than 70 percent of voters under 35 backed him, and he built majorities among Latino, Asian, and working-class Black voters.2 He’s the first candidate since 1969 to clear a million votes in the city, and exit polls showed him up forty points among men 18–29.

His message was direct: cities should use public power to make life affordable and dignified for working people.

A new nationwide survey from Data for Progress shows that Mamdani’s key policy ideas have broad, bipartisan appeal. Large majorities of likely voters back his proposals to speed up affordable housing approvals (83% support), penalize exploitative landlords (82%), and cut fines for small businesses (70%). Even progressive revenue measures—like taxing millionaires and corporations—garner over 70% support each. His social policies, including violence de-escalation programs and universal child care, also receive solid majorities. Across the board, support outweighs opposition by margins of 40 to 70 points, signalling that Mamdani’s platform aligns with the priorities of most Americans, not just the political left3.

As our region in Canada faces versions of similar affordability issues — rising costs, stagnant wages, and widening inequality — I ponder what a Mamdani-style affordability agenda would look like here. What would it cost—and what would we have to trade off?

Housing: scale, law, and the price tag

Mamdani’s housing plan relies on New York’s rent-stabilization system, which covers roughly 41 percent of its rental units.4 That legal framework allows the city and state to cap annual rent increases, but only for units covered by that system. In British Columbia, it’s the Province that has the same authority, but it encompasses all renters, not just 41%.

It’s also important to recognize that the politics of these two regions are different because of the material conditions of people in these regions. The tenure mix — meaning how many people own their homes versus how many rent — is nearly inverted. About 38 percent of Metro Vancouver households rent, compared with roughly 69 percent in New York City.5 The result in Metro Vancouver is a more homeowner-dominant politics in municipal and provincial elections. In Canada, the dream of home ownership is particularly strong among younger Canadians, with 86% of those aged 18–29 wanting to own property, according to AbacusData polling.

Mamdani proposes 200,000 new publicly subsidized, union-built, rent-stabilized homes over ten years. Scaled by population, Metro Vancouver’s equivalent would be about 65,000–70,000 units.6 At current delivery rates, that’s an enormous leap.7 Hitting 68,000 units in a decade means a four-to-seven-fold acceleration.8

The cost for this is steep. Non-market projects in B.C. now cost $500,000 to $850,000.9 At those prices, 68,000 units would run between $34 billion and $58 billion over ten years—roughly $3.4–$5.8 billion annually. For scale, all levels of government combined spent about $8 billion on non-market housing province-wide over the past decade.10 Matching New York’s scale would require multiplying our financing, workforce, and institutional capacity several times over.

Still, the vision could be scaled to something realistic. Adding 25,000 publicly subsidized homes over a decade would mark a major step up from current trends—costing roughly $1.25 billion to $2.1 billion per year. With public land contributions and low-interest financing, that level of investment is ambitious but within reach.

a train pulling into a train station next to a platform — Translink is governed by a Board of Directors controlled by the Province and advised by a Mayor’s Council on Transit comprised of the mayors of Vancouver’s 21 municipalities.

Transit: affordability vs. reliability

New York’s free-bus pilots proved what riders already knew: lower fares increase ridership. However, in Metro Vancouver, fares make up about 42 percent of TransLink’s operating revenue—roughly $750 million of a $1.8 billion budget.11 Remove fares, and you lose nearly the cost of running every bus and SeaBus route.

Then comes demand. Cities that go fare-free see 20–60% increases in ridership. Keeping service reliable would mean hiring more drivers, buying more buses, expanding depots, and dedicating more street space. That could push new annual operating costs close to $900 million–$1 billion. Add back lost fare revenue, and you’re staring at $1.7–$1.9 billion per year in new funding needs. Even before that, TransLink faces a $600 million structural deficit by 2026 due to slower ridership recovery, inflation, and labour costs.12 “Free” without a new, stable revenue source risks eroding service—crowding, delays, deferred maintenance—the opposite of accessibility.

In Metro Vancouver, a practical first step—echoing New York’s approach—would be to make transit free along select high-value routes that serve large numbers of working-class riders. Prioritizing corridors, such as major east–west bus routes or key suburban connectors, could immediately reduce transportation costs for those who rely most on transit. At the same time, expanding frequency and coverage in underserved areas—especially South Fraser and North Shore communities—would make the system more equitable and reliable.

Wages: setting the floor high enough to stand on

Mamdani’s proposal framed wage justice not as charity but as economic planning—a recognition that cities function best when workers can afford to live in them. If Vancouver wants a fairer economy, it has to start by making work pay enough to stay.

One of Mamdani’s most galvanizing campaign planks was his call to lift New York City’s minimum wage to US $30 an hour by 2030—roughly double the state rate—and then tie it permanently to inflation.13 The idea wasn’t symbolic; it was a math problem about dignity. His campaign argued that no one working full-time in the country’s wealthiest city should be priced out of rent, transit, or food.

In Metro Vancouver, the same gap between wages and reality runs wide. British Columbia’s minimum wage is CA $17.85 an hour as of 2025,14 while the region’s “living wage”—the hourly rate a worker needs to cover basic family costs—is CA $27.05. That’s not an ideological gap; it’s arithmetic. It measures the difference between survival and participation.

The fiscal logic is sound: higher wages boost local spending and reduce dependence on social assistance, while increasing pressure on productivity in low-wage sectors.

But the authority problem looms. New York City doesn’t have the authority to set minimum wages and would need approval from the New York State legislature to implement such a change. A regional minimum wage here would similarly require new enabling legislation from Victoria.

a large body of water surrounded by a city — Comparing New York City to Metro Vancouver—not just the City of Vancouver—makes sense because both function as regional urban systems. Metro Vancouver’s 21 municipalities, home to 2.9 million people, share one housing market and transit network, much like New York’s unified city of 8.5 million.

Who pays: income, land, and what we can control

New York enjoys fiscal tools Metro Vancouver doesn’t: layered city + state income taxes that yield billions each year. British Columbia municipalities can’t levy income taxes at all; property taxes are their primary source of revenue, regardless of income differences.

New York’s tax base is also simply larger. Roughly 1 percent of NYC residents earn over $1 million annually — 10 per thousand people — compared with 1.7 per thousand people in Metro Vancouver.1516 That gap translates to capacity: a 1-point increase in NYC’s personal income tax yields $1.3 billion a year.17 A 1-point increase on B.C.’s top provincial bracket would net maybe $150 million from Metro Vancouver households.18

What local governments can touch is land. Alex Hemmingway, a Senior Economist at BC Policy Solutions, proposes that a progressive property-tax overlay — scaling with assessed value and the number of properties — could help. As Hemingway notes, ultra-low property tax rates on rising land values are entrenching wealth inequality and speculation, and progressive land and wealth-based taxes are needed to rebalance fairness.

Imagine two homeowners in Vancouver. One owns a modest condo worth $700,000. The other owns four houses worth $4 million each. The condo owner would keep paying about the same rate, while someone with multiple $4-million houses would pay more on their extra or high-value properties. The additional revenue would fund non-market housing and public services, while discouraging speculation by requiring investors to contribute more to the system they profit from.

Metro Vancouver’s residential property is assessed at roughly $1.7 trillion, generating $3.8 billion in annual municipal taxes.19 A modest progressive layer — charging higher rates on the top 10 percent of properties and multi-property owners — could raise $500 million–$1 billion a year.

To match New York’s powers, Metro Vancouver would have to become one or two metropolitan governments, each with an elected mayor and council, replacing its 21 separate municipalities. It would also require new provincial legislation granting the region authority to levy income and payroll taxes, issue bonds, control rent policy, manage its own housing and transit corporations, set regional budgets, and even determine minimum wage levels for the region. Until Metro Vancouver gains comparable powers, it will remain a collection of small governments planning regionally but acting municipally.

How Progressives Here Can Win

Mamdani’s win in New York wasn’t a fluke of demographics or charisma—it was the outcome of organization. His campaign didn’t just sell hope; it built it. A hundred thousand small donors. Hundreds of thousands of volunteers. Renters, students, transit riders — people who usually don’t see themselves as political actors were drawn in by a message that didn’t flatter them but included them: cities should use public power to make life affordable and dignified for working people.

That’s the real lesson for Metro Vancouver—not just the platform, but the method. Mamdani’s campaign turned big ideas into a common cause through disciplined organizing: deep conversations with people who didn’t already agree, networks that linked workplaces to neighbourhoods, and a campaign built around what would materially improve people’s lives. It wasn’t social media mobilization; it was patient, physical, and local. Every renter contact, every door knock, every street-corner table was practice for governing power.

With this, I am reminded of Jane McAlevey’s No Shortcuts: Organizing for Power in the New Gilded Age. McAlevey draws a sharp line between organizing, mobilizing, and advocacy. Advocacy, she says, is when professionals make arguments on behalf of others. Mobilizing is when activists rally those who already agree. But organizing — what actually shifts power — is developing the leadership of ordinary people to build strong majorities capable of taking collective action. In No Shortcuts, she argues that effective organizers identify and activate natural leaders across the full diversity of a constituency — race, class, faith, and workplace — because winning requires a majority, not a faction. Her concept of “whole-worker organizing” builds on this: people aren’t just workers or tenants or parents; they’re all of those things at once, connected through multiple networks (unions, churches, neighbourhoods, cultural groups).

McAlevey’s point is that power emerges when these associations—each with its own trust and legitimacy systems — are linked through structured, face-to-face organizing that turns shared grievances into coordinated collective action. Diversity, in her view, isn’t a challenge to organizing — it’s the raw material of it.

“There are no shortcuts to building the kind of power it takes to win meaningful change. As an organizer in a county with an acute housing crisis, simmering racial tension and little unionization, I learned that I had to help the community take on the fight themselves.”
- Jane McAlevey

Mamdani’s campaign reflected that distinction. It didn’t just call for justice—it built the capacity to demand it. For progressives in Metro Vancouver, that’s the difference between a movement that performs and one that practices it.

Progressives here need to relearn that craft. Politics isn’t won by positioning; it’s won by people organizing. We have to start where material conditions hurt most—rent, transit, and wages—and build outward from there. Every conversation about a missed bus or an unaffordable basement suite is a political entry point. When working people believe change is possible because they can see themselves in it, organizing stops being charity and becomes self-interest.

For Metro Vancouver, that’s the map forward: root politics in material needs, rebuild the institutions that let ordinary people act together, and reclaim the purpose of city government—to use public power for public dignity.

Khelsilem's Writings

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?