September 7 (Monday) | City Staff Inspect My Property

That day, I received a phone call from City of Richmond staff informing me that the City had received a complaint alleging that illegal construction was taking place at the property without a permit. The property in question houses Luxmore Realty’s Richmond office. This came after I had held a press conference at that very location. I manage the property myself.

Based on the information available at the time, no such construction was taking place at the property. Luxmore’s Richmond office and the other tenants in the building were all operating normally.

September 12 (Saturday) | Completed Two Municipal Election Information Roundups

“For the First Time in 21 Years, No Malcolm Brodie: 8 Candidates for Mayor, 55 for 8 Council Seats”

Compiled from the candidate list released by Richmond’s Chief Election Officer, the article covered candidates for mayor, city council, and school board, along with practical information on advance voting, election-day voting, mail voting, voter eligibility, and non-resident property electors.

After serving as mayor for more than two decades, Malcolm Brodie is not seeking re-election. This election has drawn 8 candidates for mayor and 55 candidates competing for 8 council seats.

“8 Candidates for Mayor, 2 Ballots, 4 Advance Voting Days”

The article covered Vancouver’s municipal election candidates, voting arrangements, the capital plan borrowing questions, the public opinion question, and information on voting eligibility for non-resident property owners, on-site registration, identification requirements, and multilingual assistance.

I made the purpose of both articles very clear: a compilation of public information and personal commentary, with no support for, opposition to, or endorsement of any candidate or elector organization.

My longstanding view has not changed: increasing voter turnout is what matters most. Each voter should decide for themselves whom to vote for. No association or individual should make that decision on voters’ behalf.

September 14 (Monday)

4:20 p.m. | Notice of an FOI Extension

I received an email from the City of Richmond informing me that more time would be needed to process my earlier request for records.

The new estimated date for providing the records: October 28, 2026. Pushed back until after the new council is elected.

October 17 is voting day.

I offer no comment. I simply place the two dates side by side here.

7:00 p.m. | Regular City Council Meeting

Quite a few Chinese residents attended to observe the meeting.

The matters concerning me were not raised at that day’s public meeting, and there was no new public discussion.

September 16 (Wednesday) | City Staff Inspect the Property Again

Following the September 7 visit, City staff returned today to inspect the Richmond property.

Through my assistant, I learned more: the complaint the City had previously received was made by telephone.

The complaint alleged that someone was carrying out electrical work inside the property, that there was extremely loud noise at the site, and that there were exposed wires.

During that day’s inspection, City staff found none of the alleged violations.

From the first notification on September 7 to the second inspection on September 16, Luxmore’s Richmond office and the other tenants at the property continued operating normally throughout.

I am recording this matter in full, including the specific allegations in the complaint and the results of the inspections.

I do not know who made the complaint, and I draw no inferences. I am simply recording what happened: two inspections, no violations found.

The Same Day | A New Development in Richmond’s Municipal Election

Malcolm Brodie and former mayor Greg Halsey-Brandt held a press conference to publicly endorse mayoral candidate Rob Howard.

With Brodie not seeking re-election and 8 candidates running for mayor, this was a public event that day worth recording.

A List of Silence

Over the past month and more, I have done everything I could through the proper procedures.

As of today, the number of substantive replies I have received is: zero.

I list them here.

1. Letters to the Mayor and All City Councillors

   Four letters in succession, copied to the Chief Administrative Officer.

   Zero substantive replies. Not disagreement, not rebuttal, not explanation—not even a simple “Received.”

   My request has remained the same from the first letter to today: please identify the sentence in the article that supports the characterization adopted by council.

   One sentence would be enough. No one has answered to this day.

2. Complaint to the British Columbia Ombudsperson

   Accepted, with a case number on record.

   The Ombudsperson referred the matter back to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) for handling.

   There has been no reply to date.

3. Complaint to CBC News

   There has been no reply to date. But I have seen that the commentary in that Chinese-language Radio Canada International article has been removed. If you know you were wrong, is it so difficult to apologize? When something is done wrong, it should be corrected.

4. The Chinese Benevolent Association Has Still Made No Statement

   The Chinese Benevolent Association was founded in the era of the Chinese Exclusion Act and the head tax. There was only one reason for its existence: when Chinese people were treated unfairly, there would be somewhere to speak up for them.

   Now, an ordinary resident has been singled out by name and condemned by city council in a unanimous eight-vote decision over an article, and told to apologize publicly—with no advance notice and no opportunity to present his case.

   This is precisely the kind of thing our predecessors most feared would happen.

   Yet the Chinese Benevolent Association did not ask whether the process was fair. Instead, it joined in the criticism without having read the original Chinese text.

   I do not ask it to take my side. You may criticize me—but please read the original first.

   City council reached a conclusion without reading the original.

   A Chinese community association also reached a conclusion without reading the original.

   If an institution established to defend the rights and interests of people of Chinese descent responds this way when a Chinese resident is singled out for condemnation by a public authority, then whom should the next ordinary Chinese person turn to when the same thing happens?

   An institution’s credibility does not rest on how many years it has existed, but on which side it stands when it matters.

   The vice-chair of the Chinese Benevolent Association made those comments in the Chinese-language Radio Canada International commentary without having read the original text. The remarks concerning Richmond City Council, in particular, were clearly whitewashing its actions.

5. Freedom of Information Requests (FOI)

   One has been answered. The other was originally due on September 28 and has now been extended to October 28—11 days after voting day.

6. That Image

   Posted on July 25 and July 28.

   It is still on the public pages of two city councillors.

   More than seven weeks have passed since the vote to condemn me.