The Mayor Who Wouldn’t Stay Down

A personal reflection on resilience, change, and why underdogs still matter

My attention to municipal politics didn’t begin with personalities or insider knowledge. It began during the Alternative Approval Process for the performing arts centre and the arena multiplex. At the time, I had basic questions about the information being given to citizens. Some of those questions went unanswered. Others were met with incomplete explanations. That pushed me to start paying closer attention to how decisions were being made.

Over time, as I continued following local politics, I noticed a pattern. Most mayors don’t arrive looking for a fight. They learn how City Hall works. They try to get along. And if they are careful, they avoid pushing too hard against the system, because the system usually pushes back.

Reid Hamer-Jackson did not take that approach.

He entered the Mayor’s office as an outsider. He didn’t have long-standing allies inside City Hall, and he didn’t seem interested in quietly fitting in. From the beginning, his term has looked less like a smooth transition and more like a long, difficult struggle against institutions that were already firmly in place.

That’s why I often think of the movie Rocky. Not the champion who wins easily, but the underdog who keeps getting back up.

The weight of the pressure

I want to be clear about my starting point.

This article assumes that the Mayor’s claims are sincere. It assumes he believes he is acting in the best interests of the community. If those assumptions are wrong, readers should draw different conclusions.

But if they are true, then what he has faced would overwhelm most people in the same position.

There has been ongoing conflict with Council. There have been investigations, legal disputes, and court decisions that played out in public. There has been constant criticism in the media. His finances and personal life have been scrutinized. His character has been questioned, often harshly.

Based on my own observation, and on how most people respond to sustained public pressure, I would expect many mayors to pull back in this situation. Some would stop pushing difficult issues. Some would burn out. Others might stay in the role, but give up on the changes they promised.

That assessment isn’t based on insider knowledge. It’s based on common sense and the limits most people have when pressure never lets up.

What stands out about Hamer-Jackson is that he hasn’t stepped aside or gone quiet.

The personal cost

Politics often treats elected officials as if they are immune to stress. They aren’t.

If the Mayor’s account is accurate, then his time in office has come with serious personal strain. Prolonged legal conflict is exhausting. Being isolated at the council table is draining. Knowing that mistakes will be amplified while efforts are dismissed takes a toll. Family life, reputation, and finances all feel the impact.

There have also been incidents that go beyond normal political disagreement. The Mayor’s car dealership has been vandalized multiple times, including at least one fire. He has had beer poured on him in public. He has described being physically assaulted by a member of the media. No charges resulted, but many people understand that there can be a significant difference between a pat and a slap on the back, and unwanted physical contact can still feel threatening, even if it doesn’t meet a legal standard.

On top of that, there have been serious allegations made publicly. These include claims of boundary violations, misogyny, inappropriate touching, and even spying on bathroom visits. These claims have been repeated by a councillor and people close to her. They are serious, but they remain unproven and are disputed.

I am not in a position to decide whether those allegations are true. I am not asking readers to accept or reject them based on my opinion. What I am saying is that context matters. When someone is already under intense public scrutiny, facing legal challenges and constant media attention, it is reasonable to ask whether the behaviour being alleged makes sense in that setting. People can make bad choices, but they usually don’t invent new ways to destroy themselves when the spotlight is already on them.

This unresolved tension is damaging. It harms the people involved, and it harms public trust.

This is what we voted for

One thing is often missing from the discussion. This is what many voters chose.

We did not elect a mayor to quietly settle in and follow the usual patterns. We voted for change. Change is rarely comfortable. It often creates conflict, especially when it challenges established ways of doing things.

If voters wanted a mayor who would eventually blend in and avoid controversy, there were other options. They were not chosen.

Messiness does not automatically mean failure. Sometimes it means pressure is being applied where it hasn’t been before.

Unequal protection

There is also an imbalance that is hard to ignore.

When councillors or senior officials face legal issues related to their work, the City can choose to cover their legal costs. In at least one case, it did. The Mayor, by contrast, has largely faced his legal and financial risks on his own.

That difference matters. It changes how much each person has to lose. Treating those positions as equal obscures the reality of how uneven the stakes actually are.

Why underdogs matter

Stories like Rocky endure for a reason. They are not about winning every fight. They are about refusing to quit when the odds are against you.

Hamer-Jackson has lost votes. He has lost court cases. He has been publicly limited and criticized by institutions far stronger than he is. But he has not withdrawn, and he has not accepted a purely symbolic role.

Some people see this as chaos. Others see it as commitment.

For those who believe local government no longer listens closely to residents, persistence can look less like stubbornness and more like a fight to do the job voters expected.

What this says about the man

Again, everything depends on whether his claims are true.

If they are, then Reid Hamer-Jackson is not a polished politician or a careful strategist. He is an imperfect person who believes the mayor’s job is to speak for residents, not just manage processes.

People like that don’t move easily through systems built for consensus and control. They collide with them.

Those collisions hurt. They leave lasting marks. But they also remind us that democracy is not meant to be comfortable. It is meant to be challenging, noisy, and accountable.

Where I stand

I plan to vote for Reid Hamer-Jackson again. Not because everything has gone smoothly, and not because every decision has been right, but because I believe leadership means facing the storm you were elected to face.

What I hope for next is a council that understands teamwork. A council that knows disagreement doesn’t require obstruction, and that working with a mayor you didn’t support is part of the job.

Change was always going to be disruptive. That was the point.

We didn’t vote for someone to give up. We voted for someone to stay standing. He has.

Editor’s Note

This article is personal and interpretive, but it is grounded in research.

My interest in Kamloops politics began during the Alternative Approval Process (AAP) for the performing arts centre and arena multiplex. Concerns about missing or unclear information led me to review council agendas, city documents, court decisions, media coverage, and public statements over an extended period of time.

I write as an engaged resident, not as a political insider. Readers are encouraged to review the same material and form their own views.

This piece also reflects my belief in the Mayor’s stated intentions. That belief is based on the consistency of his claims over time, his willingness to speak publicly despite personal cost, and my view that his actions are not motivated by corruption or personal gain.

Reasonable people can disagree. What matters is being honest about how conclusions are reached. This article reflects my considered judgment, formed through observation, documentation, and careful thought.