Glen Chernen

Glen is running to provide a viable winning choice to provide a Council member with independent thought, an eye for detail, and who will demand accountability from the City. Glen has been unrelenting in his push for honesty, integrity and transparency from the City of Vancouver and will continue pushing from Council for a strong ethical foundation that benefits you and your community.


There is a reason why Vancouver City Hall is broken. The elite are in charge. Some of the Mayor’s most unwanted plans have been approved, while scant details are ever disclosed by staff. Things must change. Council must demand better information from staff before voting. Decisions must be more carefully considered. The public must be truly consulted and involved.


Can Vancouver be Repaired?

It won’t be easy but with the right people it can be done.


Mr.Chernen is a long time resident of Vancouver where he was born and raised. Glen and his wife have two beautiful children who are the primary reason why Chernen is so concerned for the future of this great City.


In 2012 Glen began to feel that harm was being done to Vancouver by the Mayor. In that time he has linked with and helped grow a network of fellow researchers while exposing many of the schemes that appear to be negatively affecting the City.

Glen has been involved in financial analysis, and investment for almost twenty years.

Contact Glen on twitter @glenchernen , or campaign email at

Keep the Viaducts

The inability of City of Vancouver to sell our property for market prices through fair and open bidding processes is an epic failure which costs us all. The viaducts removal concept is a pure money grab that will hurt locals instead of helping us. The city should be looking at ways to make real estate more affordable but concepts such as this only make housing less affordable to locals while increasing pollution.

Keep the Viaducts

  • A beautiful park has been owed to the City for many years.
  • The land disposal brings no added benefits to our community.
  • A removal would increase commuting times, delivery times, and raise the cost of living.
  • A removal would decrease our quality of life.
  • A removal would lead to substantial financial losses.
  • A removal would lead to added density
    • without adequate “transportation”,
    • with increased education systems stress,
    • with underfunded demands on health care, policing, etc.