[MalcolmTucker]

^ I think you really overestimate:
1) The percentage of people that care about municipal issues
2) The percentage that will bother to vote

Even with the issues, there isn't much of a problem. There isn't much anger. There is no anti Stelmach edge to every news piece on Bronco like there has been on Stelmach since he became PC leader. The issues are diffuse and hard to explain. Watering down plan-it might split off votes to a 'Better Calgary Campaign' backed candidate, where the 10,000 people that will still care about the bridge once it is done would have already voted against Bronco last time.

This all being said, I don't believe Bronconnier is going to run again. He does not need to run to protect his legacy. All the things he accomplished are locked in. There isn't money (capital spending) to accomplish much more during the next term. It is all already programmed.

[Riise]

This all being said, I don't believe Bronconnier is going to run again. He does not need to run to protect his legacy.

I'm not his biggest fan but the thought of him not running kind of scares me. If he leaves, who will protect Calgary from the likes of McIvor?

[Bigtime]

I think it would be quite funny to watch what happens if McIver runs and wins. I almost think it could be quite similar to what is happening to Obama. All these citizens will think there will be big change and that their taxes will drop a huge amount, McIver comes into office and...oh right it does take this much money to run a city this size. Nothing changes. The media will not fall in love with him like they have with him as opposition, they will scream out "WHERE IS OUR TAX REDUCTIONS?" and Blinky will just stand there in front of the cameras like a deer in a cars headlights.

I will laugh.

[MichaelS]

This all being said, I don't believe Bronconnier is going to run again. He does not need to run to protect his legacy. All the things he accomplished are locked in. There isn't money (capital spending) to accomplish much more during the next term. It is all already programmed.

I think he has already announced that he will run again. I remember seeing an article about it a few months ago.

[MichaelS]

It's different this time, many Calgarians have had enough with the current aldermen and mayor. Last election there wasn't a clear opposition, just alnoor but he failed miserably and really didn't have any issue to ride on other than transit.
This time you have McIver who's really the only friend of taxpayers in city hall, and given the liberal reputation city hall has he will fare much better than alnoor. People are actually upset with bronconnier this time around and they have particular issues to cling to, the pedestrian bridge is just the start and will likely be the main over-bearing negative issue that Bronconnier will somehow have to defend. The bridge issue is a mascot for how liberal the guy is.

Out of curiosity, what are the other issues? The only other big one I have heard public outcry over is snow removal. And I hope you realize that to get better service in that area, it will mean increasing taxes. Something McIver is against.

[MalcolmTucker]

I think he has already announced that he will run again. I remember seeing an article about it a few months ago.

If he didn't say he was going to, would he be able to get any votes over council which even with him running is jockeying for position?

[freeweed]

Why the heck is snow removal such an issue here? I know for a fact that most Calgarians have lived in other cities, and most other places in Canada have far worse road conditions snow-wise. In non-Vancouver western cities, the snow doesn't even melt for months at a time, and in eastern cities, it can get so bad the army is required just to keep the roads open.

Seriously - it's November 18th and we haven't a flake on the ground. You'd think these whiners all grew up in California or something. I think Calgary has maybe 10 bad snow days a year, in a bad year. Why does everyone want to piss away tax money on a non-issue? Have we even had a snowfall of more than a few inches in the past 5 years?

[You Need A Thneed]

If Bronco runs again in 2010 - he will win in another landslide. To think otherwise is lunacy, IMO.

I think it would be quite funny to watch what happens if McIver runs and wins. I almost think it could be quite similar to what is happening to Obama. All these citizens will think there will be big change and that their taxes will drop a huge amount, McIver comes into office and...oh right it does take this much money to run a city this size. Nothing changes. The media will not fall in love with him like they have with him as opposition, they will scream out "WHERE IS OUR TAX REDUCTIONS?" and Blinky will just stand there in front of the cameras like a deer in a cars headlights.

I will laugh.

Exactly. One person cannot change the city that dramatically, all the mayor's got is one vote on council.

The pedestrian bridges really didn't have much to do with the mayor (or council) at all anyway.

Council is mostly there to approve the recommendations of the various departments, it's not there to make recommendations to those departments. Council can't possibly know every single detail that goes on in the city, nor should they.

[korzym]

Out of curiosity, what are the other issues? The only other big one I have heard public outcry over is snow removal. And I hope you realize that to get better service in that area, it will mean increasing taxes. Something McIver is against.

Raising taxes where ever they can, that list is lengthy and I don't have time to go back and list them all. Just snow removal? I don't think so. The memorial drive party and other decisions like that have ruined their reputation.


To the guy that says people are not angry this time, and didn't even know bronconnier already announced he would run again - ok then...

[korzym]

I think it would be quite funny to watch what happens if McIver runs and wins. I almost think it could be quite similar to what is happening to Obama. All these citizens will think there will be big change and that their taxes will drop a huge amount, McIver comes into office and...oh right it does take this much money to run a city this size. Nothing changes. The media will not fall in love with him like they have with him as opposition, they will scream out "WHERE IS OUR TAX REDUCTIONS?" and Blinky will just stand there in front of the cameras like a deer in a cars headlights.

I will laugh.
No offense but I purely interpret your post as satire. McIver isn't proposing "change", he's the fiscal responsible guy so this change example is completely out of tune with what he's about, I certainly don't expect anything drastic. He will address priorities and thats important.

[mooky]

The memorial drive party is such a non-issue... it didn't cost that much and it was a test run which may or may not be repeated, and I was there for a little while, I don't think traffic was that bad. Boo-hoo to a few inconvenienced drivers, there are alternate routes, it was a one day event on a Sunday, and as stated before by others: people don't seem to bat an eyelash when any other road is clogged through rush hour, so why does a one day festival on a Sunday get unfairly whipped for slowing down a little bit of traffic.

My guess it won't be repeated unless some more grand plans for it can draw a bigger crowd and give it a more thought-out purpose, it seemed sort of slapped together and hodge-podge. That said, the lanes of traffic really were needed as their were enough people on the side of the memorial to push any bikers/bladers onto the road simply for pedestrian safety.

As for taxes, sure they've gone up, but compare them to the rest of Canada, and also take into account the massive (um.... sprawling) growth this city has seen when you make such off the cuff comments.

[Wooster]

I think that the kind of people that are really opposed to the the bridge and something as inane as the memorial drive lane reduction never have and probably never will vote for Bronconnier. In the end, people will focus on whether he's been a good mayor in terms of getting important projects done. Like or hate him, Bronconnier has gotten a lot built in Calgary during his term.

All McIver says is no. 'no' doesn't get things done, it just scores some cheap political points from time to time.

[Bigtime]

No offense but I purely interpret your post as satire. McIver isn't proposing "change", he's the fiscal responsible guy so this change example is completely out of tune with what he's about, I certainly don't expect anything drastic. He will address priorities and thats important.

Satire? No satire in my post, all these fanatical McIver supporters are probably expecting him to slash their taxes and save them all this money. You don't think they will be shocked when that doesn't happen?

[gantenbein]

All McIver says is no. 'no' doesn't get things done, it just scores some cheap political points from time to time.

And even that he only does when there's a camera or microphone around. He has grandstanded on issues that he had no problem voting in favour of previously.

I would also like to know where putting 'Support our Troops' stickers on emergency services vehicles and organising an anti-coalition rally in front of city hall (federal politics, if I'm not mistaken) fit in with his duties as an alderman.

Taxpayer's best friend my ass. He's only the best friend of hacks at the Sun and Herald, who indulge him in his own PR.

[korzym]

I think that the kind of people that are really opposed to the the bridge and something as inane as the memorial drive lane reduction never have and probably never will vote for Bronconnier. In the end, people will focus on whether he's been a good mayor in terms of getting important projects done. Like or hate him, Bronconnier has gotten a lot built in Calgary during his term.

All McIver says is no. 'no' doesn't get things done, it just scores some cheap political points from time to time.
You can downplay the idiotic decisions made by city hall all you want, and deny that people are angry about this but it won't change the fact. It's a subjective matter person to person, and you read the articles and most people are upset over these issues. The comments, the polls that show 85% are against these things are proof. Don't get too excited over the poll we had here, for one you have people from all over the world perusing this forum that will not vote. The point is whether you have valid points or not the majority aren't happy over the mentioned issues

[gantenbein]

Which poll are you referring to?

If it's one of those CTV online polls, do you really think the results are any more representative than a poll on here would be? CTV viewers are a special demographic.

And I won't even mention comments on fora -- most of those people are trolls from Free Dominion or working out of the CPC war room.

[korzym]

The memorial drive party is such a non-issue... it didn't cost that much and it was a test run which may or may not be repeated, and I was there for a little while, I don't think traffic was that bad. Boo-hoo to a few inconvenienced drivers, there are alternate routes, it was a one day event on a Sunday, and as stated before by others: people don't seem to bat an eyelash when any other road is clogged through rush hour, so why does a one day festival on a Sunday get unfairly whipped for slowing down a little bit of traffic.

My guess it won't be repeated unless some more grand plans for it can draw a bigger crowd and give it a more thought-out purpose, it seemed sort of slapped together and hodge-podge. That said, the lanes of traffic really were needed as their were enough people on the side of the memorial to push any bikers/bladers onto the road simply for pedestrian safety.
Your opinion, but most people didn't like this. Go to news articles and see the amount of comments against it and the amount of people that agreed with those comments.

It never is wise to make decisions that will annoy your electoral base.


As for taxes, sure they've gone up, but compare them to the rest of Canada, and also take into account the massive (um.... sprawling) growth this city has seen when you make such off the cuff comments.

Your taking things out of context. People here understand raising taxes isn't good, the rest of Canada wouldn't go to work if it could depend on Alberta. Socialists vs. conservatives, is it really a surprise to you? The fact we have lower taxes compared to other cities proves we can survive with less gov

[gantenbein]

Your opinion, but most people didn't like this. Go to news articles and see the amount of comments against it and the amount of people that agreed with those comments.


This hardly needs repeating, but do you really think this is a scientific way to guage public opinion?

[korzym]

Which poll are you referring to?

If it's one of those CTV online polls, do you really think the results are any more representative than a poll on here would be? CTV viewers are a special demographic.

And I won't even mention comments on fora -- most of those people are trolls from Free Dominion or working out of the CPC war room.

Why would a poll here thats in a forum frequented more by people from around the world, and with an audience thats prone to approve of urbanism, be more valid than a mundane news website followed mostly by locals of a wide demographic?

[Wooster]

Your opinion, but most people didn't like this. Go to news articles and see the amount of comments against it and the amount of people that agreed with those comments.

It never is wise to make decisions that will annoy your electoral base.



Your taking things out of context. People here understand raising taxes isn't good, the rest of Canada wouldn't go to work if it could depend on Alberta. Socialists vs. conservatives, is it really a surprise to you? The fact we have lower taxes compared to other cities proves we can survive with less gov

I do think the bridge is unpopular - the media has also contributed to making sure of it. It's a matter of whether Calgarians care enough about the issue to make it a dealbreaker. Somehow, I doubt it. People have more important things on their mind with regard to the services they recieve and infrastructure that is built by the city.

[gantenbein]

Why would a poll here thats in a forum frequented more by people from around the world, and with an audience thats prone to approve of urbanism, be more valid than a mundane news website followed mostly by locals of a wide demographic?

Because I doubt that CTV viewership -- especially those that frequent fora and respond to those polls -- are representative of the public at large. Just like I don't think your typical Sun reader is representative. At least I hope not.

[korzym]

This hardly needs repeating, but do you really think this is a scientific way to guage public opinion?

Nobody's saying its scientific, you do have people that go there who's opinions do not favour urbanism and in many cases socialism unlike here or whatever it is here. From where ever that demographic comes from their opinions are not as swayed as those of people here.

You guys are in such denial its not funny. Your all convinced that anything the media says will not be regarded as truthful by the majority. Fact is people will take the media's word on things whether you like it or not. You have no idea what the demographic of those commentators voters are, yet you talk like you have access to some scientific means to prove those polls are flawed. Its a myth running around here and frankly funny that you people believe the opinions of thousands of people on those articles are inapplicable to local politics

[Stang]

I find that Calgarians, in general, want a lot of things until it comes time to pay for them.

Of course, I'd like my commute to be quicker. Until my taxes go up to pay for the infrastructure. Silly Hall has lost it!

Everyone seems to want their suburban cul-de-sac showing bare pavement year round, even if it means having a fleet of snowplows and drivers sitting idle waiting for the first snowflake to drop. Tax increase? Bronconnier is out of control!

One thing I will say, however, is that I actually agree with Korzym for once. There - I said it. :) I'm not talking about left/right, spend/slash, etc. because we'll never be able to meet in the middle on some of that stuff. And fair enough - differing opinions keep life interesting. I'm talking about the tone of the public going into this election. The media has polarized the city on a number of relatively small civic issues that will become huge election issues. I can just sense it.

There are much bigger issues to talk about that have greater implications for the city than a bridge or two. Do I think that the whole bridge issue has been blown out of proportion? Absolutely. Are there more important things to talk about during the election? Definitely.

But, unfortunately, there seems to be no end of people in a frenzy about relative non-issues and are basing their opinions on what they hear in the media. And the votes all count the same.

Of course, I realize that not everyone votes and that radio callers and Sun letters to the editor writers aren't exactly a true cross section of the population, but I do predict a McIver win.

And then, fast-forward a few years and Calgarians will realize that tax increases were due to the growth of the city and the need to catch up on infrastructure (that they demanded) and not the reckless spending of the past administration, and vote in a do-er to get shit done again. ;) But I digress.

[gantenbein]

So, is it funny or not funny? Make up your mind. I haven't made a claim to having scientifically verifiable data, and I can't be living in denial, because I haven't been confronted with any data to deny. All I'm saying is you know much less than you intuit, and your intuition is a slave to your own political bias. Not everyone shares that bias. Thank Christ.

[korzym]

I find that Calgarians, in general, want a lot of things until it comes time to pay for them.

Of course, I'd like my commute to be quicker. Until my taxes go up to pay for the infrastructure. Silly Hall has lost it!

Everyone seems to want their suburban cul-de-sac showing bare pavement year round, even if it means having a fleet of snowplows and drivers sitting idle waiting for the first snowflake to drop. Tax increase? Bronconnier is out of control!

One thing I will say, however, is that I actually agree with Korzym for once. There - I said it. :) I'm not talking about left/right, spend/slash, etc. because we'll never be able to meet in the middle on some of that stuff. And fair enough - differing opinions keep life interesting. I'm talking about the tone of the public going into this election. The media has polarized the city on a number of relatively small civic issues that will become huge election issues. I can just sense it.

There are much bigger issues to talk about that have greater implications for the city than a bridge or two. Do I think that the whole bridge issue has been blown out of proportion? Absolutely. Are there more important things to talk about during the election? Definitely.

But, unfortunately, there seems to be no end of people in a frenzy about relative non-issues and are basing their opinions on what they hear in the media. And the votes all count the same.

Of course, I realize that not everyone votes and that radio callers and Sun letters to the editor writers aren't exactly a true cross section of the population, but I do predict a McIver win.

And then, fast-forward a few years and Calgarians will realize that tax increases were due to the growth of the city and the need to catch up on infrastructure (that they demanded) and not the reckless spending of the past administration, and vote in a do-er to get shit done again. ;) But I digress.

The answer to those costs is to make them get factored into mortgages. I can't believe how much people want more gov in the economy on this forum. Don't you people understand? Have any of you taken a single course in economics? With less gov you wouldn't see a gov that goes after motorists with every tax possible to force them to take transit. You wouldn't see the entire city subsidizing the costs of suburban infrastructure [definately less]. What this means is that the inner city would become price competitive with the suburbs. More skyscrapers. Maybe more people taking transit out of their own will instead of coercion by city hall.

[freeweed]

Don't you people understand? Have any of you taken a single course in economics?

Don't forget kids, everyone who has a different opinion than you is a) uneducated, b) clueless, and c) just plain wrong. It's simply impossible that two people can research the same issue and yet come to different conclusions.

Ah, the debating style of the Internet.

[korzym]

Don't forget kids, everyone who has a different opinion than you is a) uneducated, b) clueless, and c) just plain wrong. It's simply impossible that two people can research the same issue and yet come to different conclusions.

Ah, the debating style of the Internet.

Well you like taking the conversation O/T so hell, yeah the internet - what a place.

[mooky]

Developers already screamed about the costs they'd have to pass on to potential buyers under plan-it doing denser construction, how is it any different then them screaming about passing on the cost of that new interchange for the roads into there subdivision? Unrealistic. What you are talking about would amount to a massive tax shift from inner city to suburbs as new large roadway infrastructure/police/fire/rec stations will never be allowed by the mass suburb-dwelling electorate in their mortgages or tax bill.

The answer to those costs is to make them get factored into mortgages. I can't believe how much people want more gov in the economy on this forum. Don't you people understand? Have any of you taken a single course in economics? With less gov you wouldn't see a gov that goes after motorists with every tax possible to force them to take transit. You wouldn't see the entire city subsidizing the costs of suburban infrastructure [definately less]. What this means is that the inner city would become price competitive with the suburbs. More skyscrapers. Maybe more people taking transit out of their own will instead of coercion by city hall.

[korzym]

If you want to do things the right way you would educate yourself to find the best way to go about it. Coercion is not a good business practice by city hall. Thats the #1 issue I have with city hall. 3rd highest parking in the world? Coercion.
The gov's best course of action is to stick to making policies in regards to property zoning and see the changes come about through the power of the free market. Why subsidize industries with poor economics? i.e. suburbs? Whenever the gov medles with the economy it has a poor impact. I'm all for a city with low taxes, and a urban environment delivers on that. But don't force it on us through coercion, let the market decide on the matter

[Wooster]

Socialists vs. conservatives, is it really a surprise to you?

False Dichotomy in almost all civic issues. Is everything so black and white to you?

How in your mind have you made the leap from urbanism=socialism?

Do you consider me a socialist because I'm an urbanist? if so, you know nothing about me.

[korzym]

Developers already screamed about the costs they'd have to pass on to potential buyers under plan-it doing denser construction, how is it any different then them screaming about passing on the cost of that new interchange for the roads into there subdivision? Unrealistic. What you are talking about would amount to a massive tax shift from inner city to suburbs as new large roadway infrastructure/police/fire/rec stations will never be allowed by the mass suburb-dwelling electorate in their mortgages or tax bill.

The point I'm making is the city should say screw you to developers and all businesses seeking a bailout and you would then see real economies of scale take hold and the market for high-density housing would increase.

End the childish games of coercion.

[lubicon]

I find that Calgarians, in general, want a lot of things until it comes time to pay for them.

Of course, I'd like my commute to be quicker. Until my taxes go up to pay for the infrastructure. Silly Hall has lost it!

Everyone seems to want their suburban cul-de-sac showing bare pavement year round, even if it means having a fleet of snowplows and drivers sitting idle waiting for the first snowflake to drop. Tax increase? Bronconnier is out of control!

One thing I will say, however, is that I actually agree with Korzym for once. There - I said it. :) I'm not talking about left/right, spend/slash, etc. because we'll never be able to meet in the middle on some of that stuff. And fair enough - differing opinions keep life interesting. I'm talking about the tone of the public going into this election. The media has polarized the city on a number of relatively small civic issues that will become huge election issues. I can just sense it.

There are much bigger issues to talk about that have greater implications for the city than a bridge or two. Do I think that the whole bridge issue has been blown out of proportion? Absolutely. Are there more important things to talk about during the election? Definitely.

But, unfortunately, there seems to be no end of people in a frenzy about relative non-issues and are basing their opinions on what they hear in the media. And the votes all count the same.

Of course, I realize that not everyone votes and that radio callers and Sun letters to the editor writers aren't exactly a true cross section of the population, but I do predict a McIver win.

And then, fast-forward a few years and Calgarians will realize that tax increases were due to the growth of the city and the need to catch up on infrastructure (that they demanded) and not the reckless spending of the past administration, and vote in a do-er to get shit done again. ;) But I digress.

You can replace the word 'Calgarians' with 'Canadians' for that matter, and you would still be correct. Everyone wants something for nothing, or at least have someone else pay for it.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[Stang]

The answer to those costs is to make them get factored into mortgages. I can't believe how much people want more gov in the economy on this forum. Don't you people understand? Have any of you taken a single course in economics? With less gov you wouldn't see a gov that goes after motorists with every tax possible to force them to take transit. You wouldn't see the entire city subsidizing the costs of suburban infrastructure [definately less]. What this means is that the inner city would become price competitive with the suburbs. More skyscrapers. Maybe more people taking transit out of their own will instead of coercion by city hall.

On the flipside, charging developers and/or new home purchasers more is just another form of taxation. I would be in favour of suburban purchasers paying for more of their own infrastructure (rather than inner city dwellers who use less of it), but at the end of the day, the developers buy where the land is cheap. The homeowners buy where the houses are cheap.

While I see your point, I don't see how you can increase the price of the suburbs without forcing developers (and subsequently, homeowners) to pay more than the market value for the land by way of some sort of tax, whether it be up front or subsequently.

[korzym]

False Dichotomy in almost all civic issues. Is everything so black and white to you? yes

How in your mind have you made the leap from urbanism=socialism?

Do you consider me a socialist because I'm an urbanist? if so, you know nothing about me.

When urbanism asks for bailouts [their no diff than the suburb developers], when urbanists demand gov intervention and coercion to do certain things.

Knowing you personally - I don't know what it has to do with anything. But if you read into what I'm saying you'll probably find the end we both would like to see is quite similar. The way about going about that is not by having massive government that meddles with the economy and forces citizens to do things.

[korzym]

On the flipside, charging developers and/or new home purchasers more is just another form of taxation. I would be in favour of suburban purchasers paying for more of their own infrastructure (rather than inner city dwellers who use less of it), but at the end of the day, the developers buy where the land is cheap. The homeowners buy where the houses are cheap.

While I see your point, I don't see how you can increase the price of the suburbs without forcing developers (and subsequently, homeowners) to pay more than the market value for the land by way of some sort of tax, whether it be up front or subsequently.

Dude the value of the land would go down. Higher costs mean less developers would want to get into the suburban industry. The costs of suburbs should ultimately be born by the customers.

[niwell]

Citing comments on news articles is not particularly indicative of actual public opinion. Rather, the opinion of the few that are irate enough about a specific issue to log in and complain about it. This has been true for major news outlets of all 3 major Canadian cities I've lived in (Calgary, Ottawa, Toronto). When it comes down to the actual voting things generally turn out different.

Oh, and having been through the election of a "business friendly", "zero means zero" mayor in Ottawa I can safely say these things rarely end up ringing true. The reality of municipal finances in Canada are a far cry from what gets bantered about in the media.

Every city has their councilors/aldermen who grandstand like McIver. In Toronto it's Rob Ford and the rhetoric is strikingly similar.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[korzym]

The "free market" ceases to exist with property zoning.

Altogether I think you're oversimplifying complex issues into black and white, us vs. them scenarios.

Then here's a point where there may be some 'give' in this conversation. If you were fully for the free market then you may argue where current infrastructure exists, its already "zoned" or prepared for high density, then it comes down to a matter of building a high rise where people want to live.
You know even if you want to do it through zoning, the rational behind that would be to see that you avoid having a high rise condo down in the deep south of the city.

[freeweed]

I'm still waiting for one of these large property tax increases, myself. Personally, my wages keep going up quicker than property taxes, and I'm not exactly raking in the big bucks. A property tax increase in line with other costs isn't exactly something to break out the pitchforks for.

We still pay some of the lowest taxes in Canada, combined with some of the highest incomes. And the average Calgarian (as opposed to the RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE who comment on Herald stories) knows this. Somehow we're still cheaper than just about every other city in Canada, and getting in most cases equal if not much better services for our money.

The only people I see complaining about Bronco are the exact same types who did before. Hell, Stelmach has had far more flack on a lot bigger issues, and yet the party faithful went and idiotically re-affirmed his leadership, and I bet we'd see the Tories win yet another provincial election if we held one tomorrow.

I just don't see the discontent in Calgary, beyond a couple of manufactured controversies. Certainly not enough to affect a sea change in civic leadership.

[Wooster]

Ironically, it's regulation (poorly conceived) that has pretty much guaranteed sprawl and enhibited good quality urbanism, not an unfettered market. Until recently there were maximum densities! And standards for road design and patterns are still way behind.

The best example I like to cite is that it took 7 years for Canada Lands to get approved a more mixed use, dense, community with non-standard parks, corner radius' and road widths they knew (and were proved right) the market wanted, but regulation wouldn't allow!

On the other hand of course, lack of thoughtful and practical regulation can also lead to super inefficient, horrible results as well.

[korzym]

Wow. If you truly think that things are as simple as left vs. right, I really don't know what to say. Are you familiar at all with the concept of a spectrum?


That's another thing. I'm almost afraid to ask, but can you expand on an example of what you call coercion (in this context), and why it is you would use that term.

coercion...it was taught to me in a U of C class by a city planner. Only he used "encourage", but when you then go on to list fixing parking rates high, taxing motorists with every imaginable tax, creating an us vs them scenario [transit vs. "evil cars"]...coercion is the word that comes up. Look with a Polish background you understand very well what the result will be when government has you by the neck and it ain't pretty.

[Wooster]

Citing comments on news articles is not particularly indicative of actual public opinion. Rather, the opinion of the few that are irate enough about a specific issue to log in and complain about it. This has been true for major news outlets of all 3 major Canadian cities I've lived in (Calgary, Ottawa, Toronto). When it comes down to the actual voting things generally turn out different.

Oh, and having been through the election of a "business friendly", "zero means zero" mayor in Ottawa I can safely say these things rarely end up ringing true. The reality of municipal finances in Canada are a far cry from what gets bantered about in the media.

Every city has their councilors/aldermen who grandstand like McIver. In Toronto it's Rob Ford and the rhetoric is strikingly similar.

Not to mention that I think "Hank H" and "Joe Conservative" (who I think are the same person - is it Korzym???) and whatever anonymous pseudonyms he uses account for about 30% of the super negative comments on the Herald. :)

[korzym]

Not to mention that I think "Hank H" and "Joe Conservative" (who I think are the same person - is it Korzym???) and whatever anonymous pseudonyms he uses account for about 30% of the super negative comments on the Herald. :)
Nope, I just vote on those sites.

[Wooster]

coercion...it was taught to me in a U of C class by a city planner. Only he used "encourage", but when you then go on to list fixing parking rates high, taxing motorists with every imaginable tax, creating an us vs them scenario [transit vs. "evil cars"]...coercion is the word that comes up. Look with a Polish background you understand very well what the result will be when government has you by the neck and it ain't pretty.

By definition any law or regulation is 'coersion' to some degree. Just sayin'. We live in a democracy. People elect representatives to make laws to coerce ourselves and the rest of society to make it orderly.

[korzym]

Ironically, it's regulation (poorly conceived) that has pretty much guaranteed sprawl and enhibited good quality urbanism, not an unfettered market. Until recently there were maximum densities! And standards for road design and patterns are still way behind.

The best example I like to cite is that it took 7 years for Canada Lands to get approved a more mixed use, dense, community with non-standard parks, corner radius' and road widths they knew (and were proved right) the market wanted, but regulation wouldn't allow!

On the other hand of course, lack of thoughtful and practical regulation can also lead to super inefficient, horrible results as well.

I oppose gov regulation, if suburbanites or urbanists are the victims of removing it - screw them.

[freeweed]

That's another thing. I'm almost afraid to ask, but can you expand on an example of what you call coercion (in this context), and why it is you would use that term.

Another frequent poster uses "social engineering" and "ideology" in the same context.

Still wondering why it would be Bronco's fault that we have expensive parking downtown (and hence high C-Train ridership). Weren't our parking policies put in place a couple of decades ago? And weren't those decisions predicated on a desire to avoid building another 19 lanes worth of bridge crossings into the core (latest figure I've seen on it)?

If Calgarians were going to riot over downtown parking, they've had 5 or more elections to do it already.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[korzym]

This is where that spectrum thing comes in. I don't think you can equate any level of government anywhere in Canada, much less Calgary's municipal government, with Poland under communist rule (which is what I presume you are referring to).

Anytime we get closer to socialism no matter where, oppose it cause you don't want momentum to build up. What's the trend in eastern Europe, or the world for that matter? Making the markets more free..i.e. China, Russia, India..etc. That should be a signal to people where socialism gets you. And thats why I oppose Bronconniers real iffy decisions

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[mooky]

Anytime we get closer to socialism no matter where, oppose it cause you don't want momentum to build up. What's the trend in eastern Europe, or the world for that matter? Making the markets more free..i.e. China, Russia, India..etc. That should be a signal to people where socialism gets you. And thats why I oppose Bronconniers real iffy decisions

Just to take you back to highschool social studies class, socialism does not equal communism.

Unfettered and unchecked market-driven laissez-faire economics are as destructive to a society as communism I'd argue.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[korzym]

Again, as in my post above, Bronconnier, acting solely, does not make every decision in the City. Nor does McIver as an alderman, nor will he if he ever sits as mayor.

Do you follow every ebb and flow in worldwide political trends, or just the ones that are convenient to your beliefs?

I'll oppose what I decide to oppose, thanks.

What I wrote didnt read "you must oppose this", so why are you being so dramatic with the last line you wrote?

As long as Bronconnier as the leader supports idiotic policies, I won't vote for him. Doesn't matter if he makes the decision or not, in a lead role you better be putting your support behind the issues your electorate is interested in. I can see a disconnect occurring because of that.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[freeweed]

Ironically, I've seen Bronco blasted by some groups for being way too conservative, with his pro-roads spending priorities and desire to keep taxes low even if it means cutting essential services.

ie: Things are a hell of a lot more complicated than some are making it out to be.

Interesting on the Polish angle; I know a Polish ex-pat and yeah, living for decades under the old Soviet-influenced system has, shall we say, coloured his perceptions of anything government. The word "propaganda" comes up any time anyone in any official position say anything, for example.

[MichaelS]

The answer to those costs is to make them get factored into mortgages. I can't believe how much people want more gov in the economy on this forum. Don't you people understand? Have any of you taken a single course in economics? With less gov you wouldn't see a gov that goes after motorists with every tax possible to force them to take transit. You wouldn't see the entire city subsidizing the costs of suburban infrastructure [definately less]. What this means is that the inner city would become price competitive with the suburbs. More skyscrapers. Maybe more people taking transit out of their own will instead of coercion by city hall.

Yet you vehemently support for mayor a man who was one of the main advocates for "watering down" Plan-It, thus further subsidizing suburban developers?

[fusili]

Wow, that was a lot in two pages. I just have a few questions for you Korzym:

1. How can I be a moderate libertarian and still be an urbanist?
2. If I believe that public goods should be provided by the government and private goods by the market, does that make me a socialist?
3. If I believe that cost calculations for infrastructure should account for externalities and proximate benefits, does that make me a communist?
4. If I believe that public investment and public spending can leverage growth in the private sector, am I out to lunch?

I just don't get your dichotomy. You said yourself, if government got out of the way, there would be a lot more skyscrapers. So which one is it?

I am confused.

[MalcolmTucker]

Because I doubt that CTV viewership -- especially those that frequent fora and respond to those polls -- are representative of the public at large. Just like I don't think your typical Sun reader is representative. At least I hope not.

CTV Viewership for 6 o'clock news is shockingly high. Over 300,000 eyes, 180,000 households. I would say that any self selecting sample (polls on wesites, story comments on news websites), have a selection bias towards angry people that inflates the 'con' side of all these issues at least by 2 times , likely more like 4 times compared to a scientific sample. While angry people vote at a higher rate than happy people, they have been angry in Calgary for a long time, and have been able to accomplish nothing.

As for all this "McIvor is going to bring us to a city on a hill" type stuff, I have to say pftt. There is little fat to cut. The only cuts available are to everyday budgets, of a 'do the same with less' variety. Sure, you can do that for a few years, delaying computer replacement, not rehiring loss through attrition, but eventually you have to pay the piper when you need to replace all your computers at once and you need to hire competitively during a boom, necessitating larger across the board wage increases by the Unions.

Calgary spends almost the entire budget on core services, a bit on things people don't want cut, like the Zoo, Heritage Park, etc and a bit on ancillary social agencies (like youth outreach, homelessness, some community health). There is very little stuff that would be a good idea to cut, which is why when Rick complains about taxes, he doesn't propose cuts to the operating budget.

[fusili]

:previous: Well said. This city runs a pretty tight ship. Not too much frivolous spending at City Hall. I do hate unions though.

[Wooster]

:previous: Well said. This city runs a pretty tight ship. Not too much frivolous spending at City Hall. I do hate unions though.

but, but....pedestrian bridges....memorial drive parties....gyms for city staff...alderman expensing $7 dry cleaning...fancy foot bridges...$8 recycling....pedestrian bridges!!!! :hell:

Druh the Shrew, LIBERAL Mayor Dave, all the latte-sipping social-engineering hippies along with the rest of Silly Hall are out to lunch! Vote these fools out!!!!!!!!!!!! This is CONSERVATIVE cowboy calgary. yeeeeehaaaaw!!
















....PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES!!

[korzym]

Yet you vehemently support for mayor a man who was one of the main advocates for "watering down" Plan-It, thus further subsidizing suburban developers?
McIvor who's against these tax raises vs. bronconnier who's whining to the media that the increases are ok.

Secondly I don't know what I have to do with this. Many of you are now picking and choosing ridiculous items like this to lambaste me over, why don't you stick to the issues instead of saying shit like "yet you this or that"

[outoftheice]

I just find it funny that McIvor wrote a big "told ya so" op-ed piece in the Sun the other day talking about how all these lay-offs at City Hall could have been prevented had we only just listened to him last year. He then goes on to tell us to watch the up-coming budget debates closely to see that he's fighting for the tax-payers' interest and trying to bring some sense to 'Silly Hall'. But for some strange reason, what doesn't appear anywhere in the article is that one of the most expensive items that may be added to the budget this year is the money required to keep Race City operating for another few years... a project that was championed by Dr. No himself! And yet I haven't seen a single media outlet pick up on this fact. So what gives? Why does McIvor get a free pass and Bronconnier has every single decision he makes examined with a micro-scope. If McIvor wins the next election it will be because he can manipulate the media better than any other candidate... because if you look closely, his conservative principals are only really conservative when it makes for a juicy sound bite.

[MalcolmTucker]

McIvor who's against these tax raises vs. bronconnier who's whining to the media that the increases are ok.

Secondly I don't know what I have to do with this. Many of you are now picking and choosing ridiculous items like this to lambaste me over, why don't you stick to the issues instead of saying shit like "yet you this or that"

How do you expect to pay for the salaries of police and firemen if taxes don't go up? Are you going to break the union? Or lay off officers?

In Calgary if you don't raise taxes, the city's budget stays flat.

[freeweed]

How do you expect to pay for the salaries of police and firemen if taxes don't go up?

Police and fire services are classic socialism and should be done away with. Let the private sector keep my house from burning down.

Oh, would you mind somehow making sure YOURS doesn't burn down, too? That's a good neighbour. Oh, and the guy on the other side, too. In fact, it sure would be nice if there was a way to coerce both of you to purchase fire protection, so that my house is at much less risk. I wonder what we could come up with as a strategy there...

[MichaelS]

McIvor who's against these tax raises vs. bronconnier who's whining to the media that the increases are ok.

Secondly I don't know what I have to do with this. Many of you are now picking and choosing ridiculous items like this to lambaste me over, why don't you stick to the issues instead of saying shit like "yet you this or that"

McIver who is against them yet offers no alternative on how to provide revenue, or what services to cut. Bronconnier who is not whining, but simply trying to explain to the public the necessity of them.

I guess I am "singling" you out since you seem to be the only one really pushing for McIver for Mayor on here, I want to know why you support him so much? What do you think he is going to do that will be so different? If he is not going to raise taxes, what services do you want him to cut? What is it that Bronconnier is doing that is so wrong, other than spending a provincial grant on a capital project, that had to be spent on a capital project. Okay, maybe it shouldn't have been a designer bridge. What do you think it should have been?

It is not wanting to lambaste you. I am just trying to understand your position beyond the rhetoric of taxes are too high!

[outoftheice]

Finally, an article in the Herald that calls out the politicians on council. Hopefully we see more articles along these lines as the election approaches. I have no problem with fiscal conservatism.... just so long as the candidates actually practice what they preach.

City budget reveals lack of fiscal conservatives


By Naheed Nenshi, For The Calgary HeraldNovember 19, 2009

Pop some popcorn and slip on your comfy slippers --it's City Hall budget time again! Over the next week (or two, or three), we'll be treated to a lot of grandstanding, clumsy attempts at spin, a bunch of what-are-they-thinking moments, and, in the end, a budget increase that won't really affect most of us.

What we won't see is a thoughtful discussion on what services we need, what kind of a city we want, and how to address the systemic issues that prevent us from getting there.

Part of this is due to who we have on council.

First, it's clear to me that we don't actually have any fiscal conservatives on council. Or any effective ones, anyway.

Ald. Joe Connelly cried bitter figurative tears when council decided not to pursue an Expo bid it could not win--just pursuing would have cost $2 million, and the total loss on the event was estimated at over $1 billion. Connelly's argument? Forget the money, since we could convince the province and feds to pay. He seems to forget that it's all one taxpayer.

Ald. Diane Colley-Urquhart studiously refuses to support redevelopment in her ward that would increase the property base and has recently been crowing about the need to hire more inspectors to rip out stoves in people's perfectly safe secondary suites, thereby infringing on property owners' rights, increasing city costs, and increasing the price of housing. What part of that is conservative?

And then there's Ald. Ric McIver. While he often says the right things, it's telling that in his recent media musings, including a column in the Herald, he has so far been unable to come up with one example of a taxpayer-friendly policy he has actually implemented.

(And while it's nonproductive to belabour his long list of complaints against me personally, I did find it amusing that he seemed mostly upset that I lost an election five years ago, and that lots of folks ask me to run for something at some point in the future. McIver himself lost three times--two municipal elections and a provincial Conservative nomination-- before finally being voted in. McIver has apparently been transparently lusting for the mayor's chair for this entire term, but he refuses to publicly confirm this or announce his aspirations.)

Indeed, the single best recent money-saving idea --a drug court system that has saved taxpayers at least $9 million over the last four years--came from Ald. Druh Farrell, for whom the word "conservative" does not immediately come to mind.

But fun as this finger-pointing is, it masks the real problems in our system --council members who do not or cannot ask smart questions of administration (almost no questions were asked about the Park and Ride fee last year, for example, including whether it would be charged on nights and weekends), an antiquated system of budgeting (while zero-based budgeting likely would not work in such a complex system, there are many other systems which do not reward end-of-year spending binges and do not automatically confer budget increases), and a bias toward suburban development that, as one developer confided in me this week, could cost the city budget as much as $60 million per year in hidden costs.

The biggest problem, of course, is that the property tax is an antiquated way of funding municipalities and leads to these silly turf battles since it's not pegged to inflation.

Changing this will take a provincial political party to propose eliminating the property tax and sharing income tax revenues with cities instead. Any takers?

Naheed Nenshi Teaches At Mount Royal University's Bissett School Of Business

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

[Corndogger]

coercion...it was taught to me in a U of C class by a city planner. Only he used "encourage", but when you then go on to list fixing parking rates high, taxing motorists with every imaginable tax, creating an us vs them scenario [transit vs. "evil cars"]...coercion is the word that comes up. Look with a Polish background you understand very well what the result will be when government has you by the neck and it ain't pretty.

I just noticed this forum and have been reading posts from the last few weeks or so. Korzym, I feel for ya! One would have to be blind not to realize that the city administration is engaging in social engineering to achieve what they want. Most of the posters here happen to agree with those goals so of course they think everything is fine. But that is not the case with the general public. Wasn't there a scientific poll from a month or so ago that showed Bronco's approval rating is *way* down? He and most people on council would not get reelected if the election were held now. Unless a miracle happens over the next 11 months they won't be reelected.

The comments being made about McIver being a single issue politician seem to conveniently leave out a lot of facts. McIver has supported a lot of projects that people here want so I'm not sure why they are so afraid of him. Trying to minimize tax increases doesn't have to mean we are going to receive less service or crappier service. We need to study how services are delivered and if there are more efficient ways of doing so we need to change delivery methods. Putting city council back in charge instead of the administration is another thing that most people would like to see. I could list a number of other reasons why big change is coming and you've touched on a number of them. People want bang for their tax bucks and that hasn't been happening this term.

[MalcolmTucker]

Could someone please post the poll? I don't remember there being one.

[Corndogger]

Another frequent poster uses "social engineering" and "ideology" in the same context.

Still wondering why it would be Bronco's fault that we have expensive parking downtown (and hence high C-Train ridership). Weren't our parking policies put in place a couple of decades ago? And weren't those decisions predicated on a desire to avoid building another 19 lanes worth of bridge crossings into the core (latest figure I've seen on it)?

If Calgarians were going to riot over downtown parking, they've had 5 or more elections to do it already.

Yes, it's true that Bronco didn't vote in the current parking policies. But nothing is stopping him and the current council from modifying them. People didn't riot in the past because parking rates were reasonable. But now the administration has gone crazy with their anti-car policies and people have had enough. The Calgary Parking Authority's last stunt (no doubt planned with the administration) is going to cause Bronco and company more headaches than they want at this time. Basing the budget on huge increases in fines and extending pay parking times is an excellent example of just how unethical these people have become and Bronco is just as bad because he knew about these plans. Now he has to figure out how to make up the shortfall and this will cause him more grief. McIver could probably win the next election by just promising to do whatever it takes to get rid of people like Dale Fraser, Bill Bruce and the senior planners in this city and replace them with people who are customer focused.

[Riise]

Look with a Polish background you understand very well what the result will be when government has you by the neck and it ain't pretty.

It's not exactly fun when big business has you by the balls.


Anytime we get closer to socialism no matter where, oppose it cause you don't want momentum to build up. What's the trend in eastern Europe, or the world for that matter? Making the markets more free..i.e. China, Russia, India..etc. That should be a signal to people where socialism gets you. And thats why I oppose Bronconniers real iffy decisions

It goes both ways though. Look at the trend in countries like Great Britain and the United States, they are suffering the consequences of almost entirely relying on the free-market and have started to move towards a more happy medium. Mooky (copied below) makes a great and rather important point.



Just to take you back to highschool social studies class, socialism does not equal communism.

Unfettered and unchecked market-driven laissez-faire economics are as destructive to a society as communism I'd argue.

[bookermorgan]

I'm just happy i dont live outside the city in black diamond, turner valley or nanton and have to pay +/- 8%

well actually as a renter, i pay no taxes. but i do pay recycling, water, and waste :)

[MalcolmTucker]

I'm just happy i dont live outside the city in black diamond, turner valley or nanton and have to pay +/- 8%

well actually as a renter, i pay no taxes. but i do pay recycling, water, and waste :)

As a renter, you pay taxes, they are just hidden. Saying renters don't pay taxes therefor shouldn't be consulted in city budget decisions is a tactic groups here in Toronto play that is pretty much class warfare. I haven't seen it much in Calgary, likely since Calgary's renters are much less visible.

[DizzyEdge]

The answer to those costs is to make them get factored into mortgages. I can't believe how much people want more gov in the economy on this forum. Don't you people understand? Have any of you taken a single course in economics? With less gov you wouldn't see a gov that goes after motorists with every tax possible to force them to take transit. You wouldn't see the entire city subsidizing the costs of suburban infrastructure [definately less]. What this means is that the inner city would become price competitive with the suburbs. More skyscrapers. Maybe more people taking transit out of their own will instead of coercion by city hall.

Wouldn't any council which offloaded these costs on the suburban residents be considered the epitome of 'social engineering' and 'liberals' and be the focus of a giant revolt? I'm not disagreeing with the concept, but rage over a pedestrian bridge would be nothing compared to the anger over this.

[outoftheice]

I just noticed this forum and have been reading posts from the last few weeks or so. Korzym, I feel for ya! One would have to be blind not to realize that the city administration is engaging in social engineering to achieve what they want. Most of the posters here happen to agree with those goals so of course they think everything is fine. But that is not the case with the general public. Wasn't there a scientific poll from a month or so ago that showed Bronco's approval rating is *way* down? He and most people on council would not get reelected if the election were held now. Unless a miracle happens over the next 11 months they won't be reelected.

The comments being made about McIver being a single issue politician seem to conveniently leave out a lot of facts. McIver has supported a lot of projects that people here want so I'm not sure why they are so afraid of him. Trying to minimize tax increases doesn't have to mean we are going to receive less service or crappier service. We need to study how services are delivered and if there are more efficient ways of doing so we need to change delivery methods. Putting city council back in charge instead of the administration is another thing that most people would like to see. I could list a number of other reasons why big change is coming and you've touched on a number of them. People want bang for their tax bucks and that hasn't been happening this term.

I'm not afraid of McIver, I just think he's full of it. Personally, I like Bronconnier as mayor. He has a vision that he wants to see realized and he's not afraid to do what it takes to make it happen. Yes he has ruffled a few feathers lately and yes we have seen tax increases that were un-heard of back in the Duerr days, but we've also seen him be the driving force behind a lot of projects during his time in the mayor's chair.... alot of which probably never would have happened had we had a less take-charge person in the mayor's chair or one who was more worried about the bottom line. That being said, I'm not afraid of a fiscal conservative winning the mayoral race, even if that means that Bronconnier would be out as a result.

What I don't like are "sound bite" politicians like McIver. I don't think he's all that much of a fiscal conservative... he just likes the way it plays in the media. Look at the Race City issue.... it's going to cost Calgary tax-payers millions in additional funds over the next few years to keep it open.... and McIver was the one who pushed it through council. Yet he is first in line at the microphones to go on and on about the spending at the City of Calgary and how he's been the lone warrior fighting against property tax increase. Well maybe we shouldn't have to lay off city staff Ric, but how many of them would still have the jobs for the $600,000 that council now has to find to pay for Race City? "No this, no that" all the guy says is no to spending on any issue he thinks will play well in the media. Sorry Ric, it's easy to blast others for their ideas when you never actually present any of your own...

Call me old fashion, but I will vote for a candidate with real principals. Like I said, like him or hate him, everybody knows where Bronconnier stands on the issues and which direction he wants to see the city move. (fortunately for me, it's a direction that I agree on). If he's going to lose, he'll lose because people don't like who he is and what he stands for, and I'm okay with that. However, if McIver wins, he'll be winning because of how he's manipluated the media, and how he delivers his fiscally conservative sound-bites. He'll be winning because he seems to get a free pass on the issues where he isn't a fiscal conservative... where he's just as liberal as the rest of them. As Corndogger pointed out.... he's supported a lot of issues that people on here (in our crazy liberal ways) also support.... But why doesn't the average Calgarian know that? In short, if McIver wins he'll be winning because of who people think he is, not because of who he actually is. If Bronconnier loses, so be it. But I want him to lose to somebody who has the guts to make a stand for what they believe in and take the heat from the public when what they believe in doesn't exactly jive with public opinion. I have yet to see this from McIver in his time as alderman. All I've seen is grand-standing on certain key issues and a fairly liberal agenda when the cameras are focussed elsewhere. This next election should be one by the person with the best vision for the City.... not the person who managed to weasel their way to the top.

[DizzyEdge]

I just noticed this forum and have been reading posts from the last few weeks or so. Korzym, I feel for ya! One would have to be blind not to realize that the city administration is engaging in social engineering to achieve what they want. Most of the posters here happen to agree with those goals so of course they think everything is fine. But that is not the case with the general public. Wasn't there a scientific poll from a month or so ago that showed Bronco's approval rating is *way* down? He and most people on council would not get reelected if the election were held now. Unless a miracle happens over the next 11 months they won't be reelected.

The comments being made about McIver being a single issue politician seem to conveniently leave out a lot of facts. McIver has supported a lot of projects that people here want so I'm not sure why they are so afraid of him. Trying to minimize tax increases doesn't have to mean we are going to receive less service or crappier service. We need to study how services are delivered and if there are more efficient ways of doing so we need to change delivery methods. Putting city council back in charge instead of the administration is another thing that most people would like to see. I could list a number of other reasons why big change is coming and you've touched on a number of them. People want bang for their tax bucks and that hasn't been happening this term.


I'm one who happens to agree with council's goals, but I think the delivery has been atrocious. I feel for people who feel that council as coerced them into following those plans, as I am of the opinion that council doesn't seem to have done what it needs to do to get public buy-in. One example is Plan It.

I do agree with the plan as a whole, for sure, but for example council only did the study that indicated it would save $11 billion over x number of years AFTER everyone was all up in arms. This seems backwards to me, all of these studies should be done and the evidence of 'this is a good idea' done BEFORE bring it to council. If people get pissed off about some policy and then you do the study to determine how great it will be then people are going to think that's a bit too convenient, and also wonder why these sort of proving studies weren't done before coming up with the plan. Instead of "here's a plan, and we're going to implement it", and then deal with the blowback, I'd like to see council indicate it's studying options to solve problems everyone acknowledges, and then come out with a plan they indicate will solve them, not come out with the plan then try to explain what it's supposed to achieve.

[Corndogger]

I'm not afraid of McIver, I just think he's full of it. Personally, I like Bronconnier as mayor. He has a vision that he wants to see realized and he's not afraid to do what it takes to make it happen. Yes he has ruffled a few feathers lately and yes we have seen tax increases that were un-heard of back in the Duerr days, but we've also seen him be the driving force behind a lot of projects during his time in the mayor's chair.... alot of which probably never would have happened had we had a less take-charge person in the mayor's chair or one who was more worried about the bottom line. That being said, I'm not afraid of a fiscal conservative winning the mayoral race, even if that means that Bronconnier would be out as a result.

As far as I'm concerned, the media is mostly responsible for building up McIver's reputation as being against everything. His voting record definitely indicates otherwise. Too often the media seems to be taking his questioning of what the administration wants to do as being against something. Demanding transparency and accountability are good things and I believe most people want those two principles to be adhered to. A big knock against Bronco, Druh, etc. is that they honestly don't seem to care about what the majority wants and way too many decisions are now being made behind closed doors. Bronco in his first term and the first half of his second term seemed to be in touch with the needs and wants of citizens but that has completely ended this term. He's completely shifted his priorities and they do not match what the majority want. Did he actually change or did he grow tired of dealing with a completely out of touch administration and decide to give up because he doesn't care about a fourth term?

What I don't like are "sound bite" politicians like McIver. I don't think he's all that much of a fiscal conservative... he just likes the way it plays in the media. Look at the Race City issue.... it's going to cost Calgary tax-payers millions in additional funds over the next few years to keep it open.... and McIver was the one who pushed it through council. Yet he is first in line at the microphones to go on and on about the spending at the City of Calgary and how he's been the lone warrior fighting against property tax increase. Well maybe we shouldn't have to lay off city staff Ric, but how many of them would still have the jobs for the $600,000 that council now has to find to pay for Race City? "No this, no that" all the guy says is no to spending on any issue he thinks will play well in the media. Sorry Ric, it's easy to blast others for their ideas when you never actually present any of your own...

People seem to be forgetting that the city had an agreement with Race City until 2015 and it wouldn't look good to break that deal. At least that's what McIver is saying along with concern about illegal street racing. Spending money on something with a limited life doesn't make sense but then neither does breaking agreements, especially based on some dubious and contradictory reasoning.

As for city jobs, the city never should have expanded so quickly and they definitely should not have done recruiting trips to the UK. If McIver pledges to put an end to such practices he'll have greatly increased his chances of getting my vote.

Call me old fashion, but I will vote for a candidate with real principals. Like I said, like him or hate him, everybody knows where Bronconnier stands on the issues and which direction he wants to see the city move. (fortunately for me, it's a direction that I agree on). If he's going to lose, he'll lose because people don't like who he is and what he stands for, and I'm okay with that. However, if McIver wins, he'll be winning because of how he's manipluated the media, and how he delivers his fiscally conservative sound-bites. He'll be winning because he seems to get a free pass on the issues where he isn't a fiscal conservative... where he's just as liberal as the rest of them. As Corndogger pointed out.... he's supported a lot of issues that people on here (in our crazy liberal ways) also support.... But why doesn't the average Calgarian know that? In short, if McIver wins he'll be winning because of who people think he is, not because of who he actually is. If Bronconnier loses, so be it. But I want him to lose to somebody who has the guts to make a stand for what they believe in and take the heat from the public when what they believe in doesn't exactly jive with public opinion. I have yet to see this from McIver in his time as alderman. All I've seen is grand-standing on certain key issues and a fairly liberal agenda when the cameras are focussed elsewhere. This next election should be one by the person with the best vision for the City.... not the person who managed to weasel their way to the top.

The problem is do most people know where Bronco stands on the issues? I really like how he fights to make sure Calgary gets funding from higher levels of government but I'm not a fan of what the money has been spent on lately. I'm quite sure that most people would agree with me. If Bronco would get back in touch with what the majority want and stop listening to the social engineers that make up the administration, he would win the next election easily. But since that doesn't seem to be happening (at least not fast enough) McIver will have a good chance of defeating him. Ric has close to a year to present us with his vision and if he presents something reasonable and promises to take back decision making from the administration and to make city council decision making transparent and accountable he'll more than likely win. Promising no or smaller tax increases will not do it for him. It's how the money is spent that is what most people are concerned about.

[Corndogger]

I'm one who happens to agree with council's goals, but I think the delivery has been atrocious. I feel for people who feel that council as coerced them into following those plans, as I am of the opinion that council doesn't seem to have done what it needs to do to get public buy-in. One example is Plan It.

I do agree with the plan as a whole, for sure, but for example council only did the study that indicated it would save $11 billion over x number of years AFTER everyone was all up in arms. This seems backwards to me, all of these studies should be done and the evidence of 'this is a good idea' done BEFORE bring it to council. If people get pissed off about some policy and then you do the study to determine how great it will be then people are going to think that's a bit too convenient, and also wonder why these sort of proving studies weren't done before coming up with the plan. Instead of "here's a plan, and we're going to implement it", and then deal with the blowback, I'd like to see council indicate it's studying options to solve problems everyone acknowledges, and then come out with a plan they indicate will solve them, not come out with the plan then try to explain what it's supposed to achieve.

Was it city council that asked for that study or the administration? I bet a lot of people don't believe results of that study at all. The number seems to be coming out of thin air, downplays the huge costs involved in (re)developing old land and over estimates the costs of suburban infrastructure and now doubt based such costs on road/interchange plans, etc. on plans that they would never consider. Plan It also revealed how the administration has been lying to us for years about certain items which also didn't please a lot of people.

The next city council has to take control back from the administration or else this city will never move forward in a meaningful way. Expecting citizens to never question decisions and to keep paying ever increasing costs for projects that the vast majority don't want is not going to last long. The current council is starting to see that but the administration sure isn't. It might be time to consider making the chief adminstrator's position an elected one along with Bill Bruce's decision. Don't laugh about the Bill Bruce suggestion, he probably has just as much impact on people's lives as does their council member and it's usually a negative impact.

[wild wild west]

Bronco is still the least of all evils out of potential candidates so far, as far as I am concerned. He's driven/supported a few really bad decisions (LRT park & ride fees in particular) but overall he's done more good than bad - East Village TIF financing (even if it took too darn long to get going), was a big supporter of Plan|it|, WLRT (even though I still think SE would have been a better investment), securing a better deal from the development industry in terms of development fees, transit investment, securing more money from the province (he nagged incessantly but it paid off). Granted it takes a vote by Council, but as mayor he sets the tone and was a big driver of such things. I just can't see someone like McIver getting very much done - I don't consider a return to the Duerr years of no tax hikes but no infrastructure investment of any kind to be a positive step for a city that is evolving into a metropolis.

[freeweed]

Corndogger, this is going to sound like a back-handed compliment but believe me when I say that I mean it with utmost sincerity. Something's changed in your posting style and I actually rather enjoy reading your posts as of late. Whatever you've done, keep it up! I wish I could get away from the stupid bickering of the Internet, myself.

Anyway, who wants to get a pool going on the next election? :P

[fusili]

I would disagree about McIver's voting record. I mean the guy votes against procedural motions. Things like updating text and spelling errors and crap like that. I do think he does have some good ideas, but he votes against things sometimes just for the sake of having an opposition.

[Corndogger]

Bronco is still the least of all evils out of potential candidates so far, as far as I am concerned. He's driven/supported a few really bad decisions (LRT park & ride fees in particular) but overall he's done more good than bad - East Village TIF financing (even if it took too darn long to get going), was a big supporter of Plan|it|, WLRT (even though I still think SE would have been a better investment), securing a better deal from the development industry in terms of development fees, transit investment, securing more money from the province (he nagged incessantly but it paid off). Granted it takes a vote by Council, but as mayor he sets the tone and was a big driver of such things. I just can't see someone like McIver getting very much done - I don't consider a return to the Duerr years of no tax hikes but no infrastructure investment of any kind to be a positive step for a city that is evolving into a metropolis.

Bronco has done good things in his three terms but it's what he's done lately and how he's done it that I believe is annoying a lot of people. Standing up to the province was a very good thing but I can see some people saying that the municipal infrastructure money he secured was more about money falling out of the sky for the province and "paying" him off was easier than constantly fighting with him. Don't forget that they also bought peace with the teachers by promising them billions and that they could still change the terms of the deal with the city. Bronco still hasn't achieved the ultimate deal which would be to obtain a stable, adequate, inflation protected source of funding from the province on an ongoing basis.

Development of the East Village is not a priority for most Calgarians. We've seen way too many false starts in the past to ever believe that a sizeable number of people will want to live there. Allocating a couple of hundred million dollars to getting it ready for development will be used against Bronco next year if he runs. McIver was right when he said during the boom that if the area was so desireable that the development industry would have scooped up the land. Personally, I think the area has such a bad reputation that we need to consider other uses for the land such as making it a sports hub (football stadium, new arena, baseball, etc.) or an entertainment hub (large concert halls, etc.) or a combo of both. Even though there would still be some opposition I think there would be enough support to make a go of it.

Plan It Calgary is a prime example of where Bronco and most of council either are not reading public sentiment correctly or simply don't care. People are not going to change their lifestyles because a bunch of bureaucrats tell them that they are not being sustainable. Some of them might say they want to be sustainable but when it comes to actually changing they won't. The city knows this as well which is why Plan It will be like the Go Plan. Nothing will happen other than it will screw up actually implementing what people really want.

The West LRT is another example of where the city could have handled things a lot better. Sure they had 168 public meetings or whatever the number is they are using but they didn't listen to a lot of what people on the west side had to say. Giving people the impression that what they have to say doesn't matter is not the way to go about getting reelected.

Having said all that it's clear I will not be voting for Bronco next election. I did vote for him last time but only because he had no serious opposition. Kassan (?) had serious baggage attached to him and I wasn't about to vote for someone who was accused of fleeing another country with over $10 million that didn't belong to him. If McIver's main agenda is to keep taxes low just for the sake of keeping them low I won't vote for him either. I remember the Duerr years all to well and I know that by near the end of his second term a lot of people were demanding that the city start building infrastructure projects to catch up with the rapidly rising population. Those do nothing years caused us a lot of pain this decade and we wasted a lot of money building during boom times. Hopefully the next mayor and council will be disciplined enough to keep building what citizens want and need and be open-minded enough to consider the best way to deliver services. If that means privatizing services such as garbage pickup, etc. I'm all for it.

[freeweed]

A new football stadium in the east village would have been brilliant. Downtown is really the way to go with sports facilities.

[Corndogger]

Corndogger, this is going to sound like a back-handed compliment but believe me when I say that I mean it with utmost sincerity. Something's changed in your posting style and I actually rather enjoy reading your posts as of late. Whatever you've done, keep it up! I wish I could get away from the stupid bickering of the Internet, myself.

Anyway, who wants to get a pool going on the next election? :P

I don't think my posting style has changed. At least I haven't made any conscious efforts to change it. I agree that the mindless bickering can be a real PITA but I've grown to accept it since I spend a lot of time in Usenet newsgroups. Unless something is said about something I passionately believe in I usually just ignore things or have a good laugh over some of the crazy fights people have.

As for a pool on the next election, as long as there's no money involved I might be interested. I think a pool on who *won't* run could be very interesting. I could see Hodges, Lowe and Hawkesworth all seriously considering packing it in.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[Corndogger]

A new football stadium in the east village would have been brilliant. Downtown is really the way to go with sports facilities.

It definitely is. The city needs to find a location to build a sports hub downtown tied in with a new convention center. Other cities have done this and it seems to be the way to go.

[Corndogger]

I would be shocked if Hodges ran for yet another term. Lowe, maybe. Not sure about Hawkesworth. I could see Dianne Colley-Urquhart moving on to provincial politics. I don't know enough about Fox-Mellway or Ray Jones to say one way or the other. Everyone else I would expect to either run for their current seat, or the mayor's seat.

Lowe was nearly beaten the last time. If the same woman who nearly beat him runs again next year she'll have had three years to get better prepared so she'll have a much better chance of winning. I've heard Hawkesworth has said he thinks it might be time to say enough is enough which is probably true. For an admitted NDP member he has been very reasonable for the most part during his long time on city council. If Jones left I wouldn't be shocked as he seems to be getting tired of the job. I think I would actually be shocked if DCU left for provincial politics unless she plans on jumping ship to the WRA. The big question is would they give her a party job until the next provincial election and if she won would she expect to put in charge of healthcare?

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Who ran against Lowe last time I forget? Wiki has some guy with no policy on his website as the second place to Lowe. Are you sure you weren't thinking about Hodges v. Banks?

As for Hodges, if Hodges runs again or not ( with his health problems I doubt it) I think if Jennifer Banks runs again she will win. Was close last time out of no where (she did really pound the pavement!)

I think if Evonne Whelan chooses a Ward the suits her, or is the leading candidate against Mar she could win.

George Chahal I think is a shoe in as well, although that depends on the redistricting, and I haven't looked at the map too closely.

With just those three likely changes, the City could open up Plan-It and get high density targets back in, put a blanket redefinition of R-1 to allow secondary suites and anything up to 4 plexes without rezoning (of course still following all the other rules for frontage, parking etc.) to help the free market better meet the target.

And yeah Corndogger, your posting style has changed, more argumentative using a bit of facts and opinion instead of talking head style 'loudness' like on the crossfire political talk shows. I am glad you're back, makes things interesting.

[bob1954]

Canadian cities can learn from the screw-ups of US cities in that convention centers and sports stadiums ect., are far more siccessful in or near their downtowns rather than out in the "sticks". It's fiscally smartwe also.

[Corndogger]

^ Who ran against Lowe last time I forget? Wiki has some guy with no policy on his website as the second place to Lowe. Are you sure you weren't thinking about Hodges v. Banks?

As for Hodges, if Hodges runs again or not ( with his health problems I doubt it) I think if Jennifer Banks runs again she will win. Was close last time out of no where (she did really pound the pavement!)

You're right. It was against Hodges. I remember the media saying her website went down in the last days of the campaign which didn't help but she did a great job for being a relative nobody. If she runs again she'll have a great chance of winning and I would assume will have more money behind her.

I think if Evonne Whelan chooses a Ward the suits her, or is the leading candidate against Mar she could win.

She needs to run in Ward 11 again so we can get rid of Pincott. I know he supports Plan It but the guy is a complete jerk and I don't think he has hope in hell of getting reelected regardless of who runs against him.

Getting rid of Mar would be good as well. As a resident of Ward 8 I can only hope that for once we get a better crop of candidates than we've had for about the last decade. It seems to be either one extreme or the other.

George Chahal I think is a shoe in as well, although that depends on the redistricting, and I haven't looked at the map too closely.

If Stevenson runs again in Ward 3 he'll win. He's done a lot and he's been involved in some high profile issues like the airport tunnel.

With just those three likely changes, the City could open up Plan-It and get high density targets back in, put a blanket redefinition of R-1 to allow secondary suites and anything up to 4 plexes without rezoning (of course still following all the other rules for frontage, parking etc.) to help the free market better meet the target.

The city has high density targets already. The new suburbs have them and they need to be stopped until the city addresses the safety issues that the fire department has brought up.

Changing the definitions of existing zones will never fly because it's unfair to those who bought expecting a certain type of neighborhood. They should look into relaxing the rules for secondary suites however as long as there are no parking issues or other concerns. In areas that are zoned for higher density the city needs to relax their own rules. If they are going to allow 20 story condo towers why not 50? I'm being serious. If more density can be achieved in some areas then that can compensate for areas where there is little density.

And yeah Corndogger, your posting style has changed, more argumentative using a bit of facts and opinion instead of talking head style 'loudness' like on the crossfire political talk shows. I am glad you're back, makes things interesting.

I used facts before but at times I expected others to have read/heard the same things I had. I'll try and present more facts/background info when I can. Sometimes a person reads too much and then forgets where they saw certain things so presenting links, etc. isn't always possible right away.

Thanks for saying you're glad to have me back. Differences in opinion are always interesting and makes people think through issues in more detail.

[Corndogger]

Canadian cities can learn from the screw-ups of US cities in that convention centers and sports stadiums ect., are far more siccessful in or near their downtowns rather than out in the "sticks". It's fiscally smartwe also.

Indianapolis is a great example of building such facilities downtown. They're new football stadium (Lukas Oil Stadium) is not only a great facility but looks very good. Such a complex would have been great in the East Village.

[Wooster]

There isn't much opportunity to move a major sports facility downtown. I don't think McMahon stadium is going anywhere anytime soon. The new Flames arena is a good opportunity to do some interesting things with a new sports facility.

I'm glad they're building out the east village the way they are planning. It will be unique to have a large scale medium-scale high density neighbourhood in our downtown as opposed to a podium-point tower configuration. Of the two, east village or west village, if there was a sports arena I would think West Village would be best suited.

As for Lucas Oil Stadium, I think it must be one of the most ridiculous and heinous looking football stadiums in all of the US. But that's just my opinion. I really dislike that style of architecture.

[earl69]

I wish I lived in Druh Farrell's ward... so I could vote against her.

Currently living in John Mar's ward, and really have nothing but good things to say about him. Bronco will never be getting another vote from me.

...off topic, but I saw John Mar driving around in a brand new Range Rover on 8th Ave. last week. Surprising to say the least when he exited the drivers seat :D

[Wooster]

Druh Farrell is not alway the most potitically deft alderman, but I really wonder what council's viewpoint would be on urbanism if she hadn't been there giving her point of view during debates over the past 8 years. I think we'd be pretty far behind where we are on city-building issues most people on this board care a lot about.

[fusili]

I think Druh has he heart in the right place. Sometimes I question her tactics, but I think I agree with her objectives.

[Wooster]

^Yeah, that's true. I just think that it's extremely valuable and important for Council to have someone that thinks through the lens of and sees the value in good urban planning, urban design and architecture. She's council's concience from this perspective.

[MalcolmTucker]

Race City lease in doubt after landfill work axed


CALGARY HERALDNOVEMBER 24, 2009 6:14 AMBE THE FIRST TO POST A COMMENT


City council has rejected paying $3.1 million for work on city-owned land necessary to extend the lease for Race City.

Ald. Ric McIver wanted his council colleagues to fund the work from a reserve fund, saying it would help "business not get out of business."

But in an 8-7 vote, council rejected the move.

A number of aldermen argued that paying for the work was essentially a subsidy for a private business.

"It's highly unusual to subsidize private business and ask Calgarians to pay for it," Ald. Druh Farrell said.

Race City owner Art MacKenzie said Monday's vote during budget discussions doesn't affect him.

"It doesn't make any difference to us," he said, adding Race City won't pay for the work. "We'll continue to negotiate the lease. If all else fails, there's legal action."

McIver, an ardent supporter of the speedway, which is in his ward, said he hoped it wouldn't come to that.

" If worst comes to worst, I hope Race City is successful in suing the city to get their lease reinstated," he told reporters.

Council had previously directed city staff to continue talking to MacKenzie about coming to terms on a new lease, which would allow the track to remain open until 2015.

However, the track staying open another five years requires additional work on that land, to accommodate an extension of the Shepard landfill if the city doesn't take back possession next year.

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Heraldhttp://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Race+City+lease+doubt+after+landfill+work+axed/2259425/story.html


Calgary tax hike trimmed to 4.8%

Aldermen add funding to fight vandalism

BY KIM GUTTORMSON AND JASON MARKUSOFF, CALGARY HERALDNOVEMBER 24, 2009 6:14 AMBE THE FIRST TO POST A COMMENT


CALGARY - Next year's tax increase is 4.79 per cent, even though council boosted snow clearing and graffiti clean up, eliminated the park-and-ride fee at bus lots and cut $200,000 from its budget Monday.

Council made a number of modest changes to its final 2010 plan--paying for some of them out of reserve funds--but ultimately rejected all the bigger-ticket items raised, including a bid to hire 12 more transit security staff and to pay for work on the Race City site.

It also voted against pulling another $2.9 million out of its rainy day fund to bring the rate down to 4.5 per cent, saving the average homeowner $3 a year. More than $13 million was already used to bring the rate down to 4.8 per cent.

"Well, four sounds better than 4.5 and three sounds better and two sounds better and zero sounds better, until you look at the domino effect or the unintended consequences," Mayor Dave Bronconnier said. "And council, your long-term strategic plans are the right ones."

He called it a matter of leadership rather than salesmanship.

Council also killed a proposal to start charging for parking on Sundays or for longer hours, while referring contentious fine and impound fee increases back to the parking authority board.

At the same time, council approved reducing rates for shorter-term stays in the city core.

"It's a very fine balance for an economy that's transitioning from somewhere to something better," Ald. Gord Lowe, chairman of the finance committee, said of the 2010 budget.

A4.8 per cent tax increase would add just under $54 to the municipal portion of the average residential tax bill.

The only money actually removed from the budget was $200,000 from human resources, suggested by Ald. Andre Chabot, the equivalent of lowering the rate by 0.02 per cent.

After the budget passed, Ald. Ric McIver asked that city staff try to cut an additional one per cent from department budgets, and report back next spring.

Bronconnier called it cavalier and a waste of resources.

"There's more to get, and we're not doing our jobs well enough unless we keep asking until we get what there is to get," McIver said.

But his move to cut $2.8 million from the corporate services budget was rejected, with Ald. Diane Colley-Urquhart calling the attempt reckless when no one could determine what the potential impacts might be.

"You've got to do your homework on this," she said. "Just coming up with a carte-blanche amendment with no idea what it's going to do doesn't work."

Other major items that didn't make it into--or out of--the budget included$ 1.3 million to add more transit security officers, a recommendation from the transit safety audit.

An attempt to reduce the park and ride fees at LRT lots to $1 a day from $3--at a revenue hit of $4.5 million --was voted down.

However a move to eliminate the fee at three bus park-and-ride lots passed, with transit saying they could absorb the $100,000 loss within existing budgets.

Paying $3.1 million for work at the city-owned Race City site, which would allow the organization to continue operating for another five years, didn't pass.

Two tries to cut grants to civic partners-- one including the library, the other not--were also rejected.

As well, council agreed to fund $1 million in each of the next two years for a pilot project that would see small private contractors called in to deal with trouble spots during heavy snowfalls. The money will come from a reserve fund and doesn't affect the property tax increase, unless aldermen decide to continue it after 2011.

They also took $200,000 from the reserve to cover increased graffiti cleanup on private property.

Proposed increases to sewer and water rates were also reduced because of lower capital costs. The average metered bill will now increase by $3.04 a month instead of $4.06, while non-metered bills will go up by $3.61 rather than $4.82, on average.

jmarkusoff@theherald.canwest.com

kguttormson@theherald. canwest.com
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Calgary+hike+trimmed/2259424/story.html

So it looks like Ric McIver tried to cut money from general administration to pay for work that would allow the city to renew Race City's lease. It is pretty irresponsible to encourage organizations to sue the city in any case.

[Bigtime]

Currently living in John Mar's ward, and really have nothing but good things to say about him. Bronco will never be getting another vote from me.

...off topic, but I saw John Mar driving around in a brand new Range Rover on 8th Ave. last week. Surprising to say the least when he exited the drivers seat :D

I'm of the opposite view, Mar hasn't really done much of anything. He seems to be a master fence sitter. Constantly engaging in politic-speak and always very vague when answering questions.

I think the word was that Mar is just using this job as a stepping stone up to provincial politics.

So it looks like Ric McIver tried to cut money from general administration to pay for work that would allow the city to renew Race City's lease. It is pretty irresponsible to encourage organizations to sue the city in any case.

A very unusual slip-up by McIver on that point. What kind of person would encourage someone to sue the entity they work for? Especially if it comes to that I would expect the media to be all over the money that it is costing us to fight it. Perhaps he is losing his mind?

[wild wild west]

Bronco has done good things in his three terms but it's what he's done lately and how he's done it that I believe is annoying a lot of people. Standing up to the province was a very good thing but I can see some people saying that the municipal infrastructure money he secured was more about money falling out of the sky for the province and "paying" him off was easier than constantly fighting with him. Don't forget that they also bought peace with the teachers by promising them billions and that they could still change the terms of the deal with the city. Bronco still hasn't achieved the ultimate deal which would be to obtain a stable, adequate, inflation protected source of funding from the province on an ongoing basis.

Development of the East Village is not a priority for most Calgarians. We've seen way too many false starts in the past to ever believe that a sizeable number of people will want to live there. Allocating a couple of hundred million dollars to getting it ready for development will be used against Bronco next year if he runs. McIver was right when he said during the boom that if the area was so desireable that the development industry would have scooped up the land. Personally, I think the area has such a bad reputation that we need to consider other uses for the land such as making it a sports hub (football stadium, new arena, baseball, etc.) or an entertainment hub (large concert halls, etc.) or a combo of both. Even though there would still be some opposition I think there would be enough support to make a go of it.

Plan It Calgary is a prime example of where Bronco and most of council either are not reading public sentiment correctly or simply don't care. People are not going to change their lifestyles because a bunch of bureaucrats tell them that they are not being sustainable. Some of them might say they want to be sustainable but when it comes to actually changing they won't. The city knows this as well which is why Plan It will be like the Go Plan. Nothing will happen other than it will screw up actually implementing what people really want.

The West LRT is another example of where the city could have handled things a lot better. Sure they had 168 public meetings or whatever the number is they are using but they didn't listen to a lot of what people on the west side had to say. Giving people the impression that what they have to say doesn't matter is not the way to go about getting reelected.

Having said all that it's clear I will not be voting for Bronco next election. I did vote for him last time but only because he had no serious opposition. Kassan (?) had serious baggage attached to him and I wasn't about to vote for someone who was accused of fleeing another country with over $10 million that didn't belong to him. If McIver's main agenda is to keep taxes low just for the sake of keeping them low I won't vote for him either. I remember the Duerr years all to well and I know that by near the end of his second term a lot of people were demanding that the city start building infrastructure projects to catch up with the rapidly rising population. Those do nothing years caused us a lot of pain this decade and we wasted a lot of money building during boom times. Hopefully the next mayor and council will be disciplined enough to keep building what citizens want and need and be open-minded enough to consider the best way to deliver services. If that means privatizing services such as garbage pickup, etc. I'm all for it.

Well, some fair points there...I do agree about the sports/entertainment hub, most major cities in the US have successfully used stadium and arena development to stimulate downtown revitalization. With Calgary already probably having a larger downtown-area population (both living and working) than most major-league US cities, the opportunity to create something really dynamic is (or rather, was) there.

Re: election - I think most of us would agree this was not Bronco's best term in office (actually his worst, IMO). I still can't wrap my head around the logic (or rather, lack of logic) of the Park & Ride fee. He mishandled a number of issues, even if he was right on some of them (tax hike). And he's a bit of a hypocrite for supporting Plan|it| while consistently voting against intensification in existign communities (particularly on the West side). Still, I am struggling to figure out in what ways the City would be better off under McIver...I consider myself a fiscal conservative - I have no problem with privatization if the private sector can do it better and cheaper, but I can't for the life of me understand why a supposed fiscal conservative would support the Race City bailout or the almost certain-to-fail Expo bid. Hmmm, maybe I'll spoil my ballot or vote for that whacko Oscar Fech (if he runs).

[Corndogger]

I'm of the opposite view, Mar hasn't really done much of anything. He seems to be a master fence sitter. Constantly engaging in politic-speak and always very vague when answering questions.

I think the word was that Mar is just using this job as a stepping stone up to provincial politics.

Good assessment concerning Mar. I've gone to some city-related meetings/open houses where he's been at and it was impossible to get a straight answer out of him. I also sensed he was more concerned about how some of his colleagues would vote on certain issues than with what his constituents wanted.

Does he have ties to the provincial PCs?

A very unusual slip-up by McIver on that point. What kind of person would encourage someone to sue the entity they work for? Especially if it comes to that I would expect the media to be all over the money that it is costing us to fight it. Perhaps he is losing his mind?

I think he wants the city to honor its agreements and be more business-friendly. What happened to private recyclers is probably still fresh in his mind as well as in the minds of a lot of citizens. A better option than encouraging a lawsuit would be to have the city work with Race City to find a new location and build a better facility. But something tells me there is a "cultural" component behind the city jerking these guys around.

[Corndogger]

Well, some fair points there...I do agree about the sports/entertainment hub, most major cities in the US have successfully used stadium and arena development to stimulate downtown revitalization. With Calgary already probably having a larger downtown-area population (both living and working) than most major-league US cities, the opportunity to create something really dynamic is (or rather, was) there.

Re: election - I think most of us would agree this was not Bronco's best term in office (actually his worst, IMO). I still can't wrap my head around the logic (or rather, lack of logic) of the Park & Ride fee. He mishandled a number of issues, even if he was right on some of them (tax hike). And he's a bit of a hypocrite for supporting Plan|it| while consistently voting against intensification in existign communities (particularly on the West side). Still, I am struggling to figure out in what ways the City would be better off under McIver...I consider myself a fiscal conservative - I have no problem with privatization if the private sector can do it better and cheaper, but I can't for the life of me understand why a supposed fiscal conservative would support the Race City bailout or the almost certain-to-fail Expo bid. Hmmm, maybe I'll spoil my ballot or vote for that whacko Oscar Fech (if he runs).

Unfortunately most of our council are hypocrites and don't listen to what the public is telling them. I know a lot of these policies are coming from the administration but it is council's job to make sure that what they approve is in the best interests of the city; i.e., the general public.

Next years election will definitely be interesting. I keep hearing that there are supposed to be high profile people who are going to be running for council but when are these people going to step forward? Hopefully soon because I want as much time as possible to figure out if they have agendas that will not be the best for the city. McIver's call for all departments to chop another 1% out of their budgets as knocked him down a notch in my books. Such a call is clearly a cheap political stunt and only serves to say that he tried to lower our taxes. Ignoring the fact that some departments probably need more money and that others could be cut by more than 1% is not going to provide us with the best bang for our tax dollars.

The Expo bid antics by council just gives people another reason to not vote for any of them. It was clear from Day 1 that this would never fly and even if we won the bid, we would end up losing a lot of money. So McIver's support on this issue really is strange. But at the same time did Bronco, etc. have another agenda? He knew as well this would never fly but I'm sensing they went through the initial work to get a study done on the West Village area which would have been hard to justify with the public given that the East Village hasn't even started actual development.