Vancouver resident Peter Bracchi says citizens who raised questions at City Council meetings were met with silence

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and may not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com

Most residents of Vancouver have never heard of ICLEI — the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. Yet our city is a member. Citizens who raised this at City Council meetings were met with silence. No explanation, no clarification, no open debate. While City Hall stays quiet, the evidence of ICLEI’s influence is plain to see.

ICLEI provides local governments with global frameworks: Complete Streets, 15-minute neighborhoods, climate action plans, density-based redevelopment. These are packaged as “best practices,” but they also shift power toward city officials and away from the people who live here.

Look at the Heights District. Marketed as revitalization of the old Tower Mall, it is being rebuilt into a dense, mixed-use, walkable community — mirroring ICLEI’s model. The project emphasizes reduced car use, mixed-income housing, and transit access. Even the $17.5 million federal grant backing its infrastructure reflects how aligning with these global principles opens doors to outside funding.

This is how ICLEI empowers officials:

• Legitimacy — city leaders cite international “best practices” to advance controversial projects.

• Tools & metrics — staff use standardized scorecards and frameworks, not community-crafted vision.

• Funding leverage — aligning with ICLEI language makes projects more competitive for state and federal dollars.

Meanwhile, citizens are left with fewer choices. When residents organized against road diets through Save Vancouver Streets, their initiative was blocked in court. When annexation was floated — even with projected deficits of tens of millions — the conversation moved forward anyway. All while silence on ICLEI remained.

Candidate for mayor Justin Forsman has been one of the few willing to say it directly: Vancouver’s membership in ICLEI erodes local sovereignty. He has pledged to end that membership, stop following international frameworks, and restore decision-making to the people of Vancouver. Whether you agree with him or not, he is at least addressing the issue that City Hall refuses to acknowledge.

To be clear, ICLEI is not a mystery. Its own materials outline five guiding principles for cities: zero-emission, nature-based, equitable, resilient, and circular development. Many of Vancouver’s projects, from road diets to the Heights District, echo these very themes. For those who want to judge for themselves, ICLEI makes its principles available at iclei.org.

If ICLEI membership truly benefits Vancouver, City Hall should be proud to explain how. If not, it should end the membership and let residents design their own future. What we cannot accept is silence while global frameworks are quietly put in place.

Vancouver deserves transparency. Vancouver deserves self-determination. Vancouver deserves leaders who answer to its people — not to international networks.

Peter Bracchi
Vancouver

---

Also read:

• 
  Opinion: ‘Seeking might over right destroys representative government’
  Retired judge Dave Larson argues that prioritizing political power over constitutional principles has undermined representative government and calls for renewed civic responsibility.
• 
  Letter: ‘Immigration’ resolution scheduled for this Wednesday at Clark County Council Meeting
  Rob Anderson urges residents to closely watch an upcoming Clark County Council meeting where an immigration-related resolution and proposed rule changes are expected to be discussed.
• 
  Opinion: The 1700-square-foot solution to Washington’s housing crisis
  An opinion column arguing that Washington’s energy code has driven up housing costs and outlining how HB 2486 aims to limit those impacts for smaller, more affordable homes.
• 
  Letter: Public school vision
  Clark County resident Larry Roe urges a deeper community discussion about public school priorities, levy funding, and the long-term affordability of education for local families.
• 
  Opinion: House Bill 1834 would create a regulatory nightmare and restricts parental control on social media
  Mark Harmsworth argues that House Bill 1834 would undermine parental authority and create sweeping regulatory and legal risks under the guise of protecting minors online.