[korzym]

I thought I'd make a new thread about this topic. Everytime you read a local online news article, bronconnier and his city council crew get hammered. First the pedestrian bridges to "encourage" [encourage: a word used in planning which really is meant to say force], people to take transit and drive less. But then buys the cecil for $10M, with plans to build a parkade - at essentially the other end of one of two $25M pedestrian bridges...IMO spending is out of control on City Council's behalf. Let's not forget about the raises each council member gave themselves during an economic downturn

Another area of concern is taxation. We're going through a recession and the only thing this council can think of are ways to take our money: recycling tax, red and green light camera taxes, making people pay for parking at transit stations. I do not plan on voting for bronconier next election. And for the first time I'll admit, I'm going to pay attention to the platforms of potential aldermen in my ward.

The next municipal election for Calgary is in October of 2010, it's going to be heated and current members of city hall going to get torn up

[Wooster]

I kind of wonder why the provincial goverment isn't getting "hammered" over raising Calgarians taxes about 6% through the increase in the education property tax.

City does it: hell to pay
Province does it: don't pay any attention

[frinkprof]

Another area of concern is taxation. We're going through a recession and the only thing this council can think of are ways to take our money: recycling fee, red and green light camera fines to violators, making people, who choose to park in the lots pay for parking at transit stations.
Fixed.

First the pedestrian bridges to "encourage" [encourage: a word used in planning which really is meant to say force], people to take transit and drive less.How do pedestrian bridges encourage/force people to take transit and drive less? I'm not trying to be antagonistic. I'd seriously like to hear the reasoning.

---------------------------------------------

I also think it will be a heated election. I think it will mostly be driven by the mayoral race, depending on who decides to run. Last election's mayoral race was really no contest.

I think it's way too early for myself to make any decisions. Lots of things to think about though. Will Hodges call it a career? Will Chabot's ward be nixed? I think Ward 1 will be the most interesting one to watch, regardless of whether Hodges retires or not.

Good idea for a thread.

[korzym]

I kind of wonder why the provincial goverment isn't getting "hammered" over raising Calgarians taxes about 6% through the increase in the education property tax.

City does it: hell to pay
Province does it: don't pay any attention

Check today's ctv poll:
How would you rate the provincial budget?
Great 3%
Good 13%
Fair 26%
Poor 58%

So what one should take away from this, at least people in this province don't approve of onerous taxes. Other cash grabs like the speed/red light cameras aren't going to help these politicians either.

[Wooster]

I think it's way too early for myself to make any decisions. Lots of things to think about though. Will Hodges call it a career? Will Chabot's ward be nixed? I think Ward 1 will be the most interesting one to watch, regardless of whether Hodges retires or not.

Good idea for a thread.

Hodges has got to go. His opponent in the last election came quite close, I bet she could go over the top this time if Hodges doesn't retire.

Last election finally showed that you can be vulnerable as an alderman - with people like King and Burrows losing.

It's hard to say whether Bronconnier will run again and if he does whether someone like McIver thinks he has a shot to beat him. It's a bit risky, because if you decide to go for it and lose, you're pretty much out of luck for being mayor, and you don't have your aldermanic seat anymore.

[Wooster]

Check today's ctv poll:
How would you rate the provincial budget?
Great 3%
Good 13%
Fair 26%
Poor 58%

So what one should take away from this, at least people in this province don't approve of onerous taxes. Other cash grabs like the speed/red light cameras aren't going to help these politicians either.


I think people are always going to generally disapprove of a big deficit budget. But I have yet to hear much specific comment about the tax hike in Calgary. Where's that same rage that was directed towards council, for pretty much exactly the same thing?

[korzym]

I think people are always going to generally disapprove of a big deficit budget. But I have yet to hear much specific comment about the tax hike in Calgary. Where's that same rage that was directed towards council, for pretty much exactly the same thing?

I think the issue with city council is that they always find ways to take more money and then theres public outrage over what they spend that money on. Many people dislike the pedestrian bridges, and almost all are united against the raises the aldermen gave themselves during these times.

I'm sure there are spending items on the provincial budget I don't like, but I assume people are appeased by spending on major projects like the ring roads. Plus Stelmach won with 71% I believe, this is conservative country, perhaps he can get away with stuff like that..

[Wooster]

By the way, the Province approved the funding for the pedestrian bridges, through it's transfer agreement with the City. There's also a lot of people as well that support the pedestrian bridges -it's a democracy - if people don't like the stuff that their politicians do, they are more than free to vote to try and get them out. The current council isn't really acting or governing any differently than the previous council or the council before that. But they don't municipal turnout continues to plummet.

[frinkprof]

The pedestrian bridges issue took on a life of its own, which is fine in principle. The problem was that the media, certain aldermen, and much of the general public consistently got facts wrong, heavily slanting opinion to one side.

[korzym]

By the way, the Province approved the funding for the pedestrian bridges, through it's transfer agreement with the City. There's also a lot of people as well that support the pedestrian bridges -it's a democracy - if people don't like the stuff that their politicians do, they are more than free to vote to try and get them out. The current council isn't really acting or governing any differently than the previous council or the council before that. But they don't municipal turnout continues to plummet.

The city approved it, they should manage their money better. That way they wouldn't have to introduce all these taxes.

[Wooster]

Whether the bridges were a wise expenditure is a matter of opinion. I'm of the opinion that it will pay for itself many, many times over for not only its practical value, but also the value as a selling piece for the city. I'm quite certain that it will probably grace almost every tourist brochure and marketing piece for the city for decades. Whether old farts in Calgary realize it or not, young people who are considering moving or visiting the city see things like quality architecture, design and iconic structures as important symbolizers for a place. This bridge alone will not change people's minds about Calgary - lots of stuff needs to happen including downtown and inner city reurbanization - but this bridge WILL contribute to a change in people's perceptions of Calgary as a city that is actually starting to care about what it looks like.

In my opinion, the reason why the city has to constantly increase taxes (along with every other municipality in Canada I might add) is because we rely so heavily on a fundamentally flawed taxation system - property taxes, which doesn't automatically keep up with economic growth, like income taxes do. I'm not defending all expenditure as prudent or wise - much of what the City of Calgary prioritizes I think is total bullshit - but I understand why tax rates from property goes up.

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

^
Taxes are for operations only. In no way could not funding a capital asset in this years budget keep this years taxes down.

[frinkprof]

What's the percentage the $25M make up of a single year's budget again? Something on the order of 1%? Way bigger fish to fry.

[Stang]

I think the issue with city council is that they always find ways to take more money and then theres public outrage over what they spend that money on. Many people dislike the pedestrian bridges, and almost all are united against the raises the aldermen gave themselves during these times.


City council didn't vote themselves a pay raise. Their salary increase is tied to the average salary increases of Albertans between a certain time period. The economy during that time was strong, the cost of living was increasing.

http://www.calgary.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_777_203_0_43/http%3B/content.calgary.ca/CCA/City+Hall/Municipal+Government/Office+of+the+Aldermen/Ward+Offices/Ward+14/Topics+of+Interest/2009+Council+Compensation.htm

The whole point of the Independent Compensation Review Committee was so that aldermen couldn't vote themselves a pay raise. They didn't and can't vote themselves a pay raise. The media spin on the issue suggested otherwise, and the general public accepted it.

I would imagine that the next time this issue comes up it will result in a decrease of salary given the economic situation.

I'm not defending all of city council's actions as I feel that fearing the voters is often a good thing. But in this case, the media whipped people into a frenzy with misinformation. Sells more papers and gets more viewers, I guess.

[wild wild west]

The rumour is that Bronco is leaning more towards staying. That's probably a good thing, since Council already is suffering from a right-left split exacerbated by grandstanding over meaningless symbolic issues, and an ideologue running the show would only make matters worse.

Re: taxation, Council is taking heat because taxes and user fees have generally been on an upward trajectory beyond the rate of inflation for quite some time. Comparatively this latest budget (which does suck by the way) is the first tax hike of any kind in quite some time. Also, the Province is sort of hiking taxes by stealth - since most people equate Provincial tax with income taxes - while people consider municipal taxation to be property taxes. If anything the masses will blame the city even more because they're too dumb to understand that the education portion of their property taxes goes to the Province.

[Bigtime]

Decision 2010: Anyone but McIvor.

That pretty much sums up my feelings.

I almost feel like I have to applaud the critics and media that have spun the pedestrian bridge issue into the big deal that it is. It seems like everyone I talk to is an expert on that situation :rolleyes:

[nik8063]

I just hope McIvor doesn't get elected and come in to scrap those bridges in some chest thumping idiocy. I realize a contract has already been signed with Calatrava for the design, but does that ensure it being built? :(

[wild wild west]

Yup, agree with the above two posts. I'm not a huge Bronco fan but he is preferable to the likely successor.

I can't see the bridges being scrapped as long as the process is far enough along by then - this is after all 18 months away.

[Riise]

I thought I'd make a new thread about this topic. Everytime you read a local online news article, bronconnier and his city council crew get hammered...

The next municipal election for Calgary is in October of 2010, it's going to be heated and current members of city hall going to get torn up

Have you forgotten where you live? Bronco and Council will stop passing big ticket items prior to the elections and appease the citizens in other ways (i.e. not making them care about Municipal politics) and all will be forgotten. In a way, Municipal politics in Calgary is like the Leafs in Toronto.


The city approved it, they should manage their money better. That way they wouldn't have to introduce all these taxes.

While Wooster touched on this (below), I'd like to go further. The main reason why Municipalities appear to be Nickle N' Diming it is due to the fact that they are limited to Indirect Taxation as they have no power to Direct Taxation. Worse yet, although they have a large number of taxes and fees, these combined amount to less than 15% of all taxes paid in Canada.



In my opinion, the reason why the city has to constantly increase taxes (along with every other municipality in Canada I might add) is because we rely so heavily on a fundamentally flawed taxation system - property taxes, which doesn't automatically keep up with economic growth, like income taxes do. I'm not defending all expenditure as prudent or wise - much of what the City of Calgary prioritizes I think is total bullshit - but I understand why tax rates from property goes up.



Yup, agree with the above two posts. I'm not a huge Bronco fan but he is preferable to the likely successor.

I've always voted against Bronco but so far out of everybody that has hinted they might run for Mayor, he'd be my choice.

[korzym]

Direct taxation..it was introduced as a temporary measure but then later regimes decided to break the promise, in Canada. The point is income tax is not "normal", but introduced to pay off war time debts. I suggest reading this for understanding: http://www.infowars.com/how-freedom-was-lost/ I'm not sure why anyone would believe the city could ever have a remote claim to part of your income. Budgets are about sacrifices....this city council only knows how to spend and ask for more money.

Mark my words, whoever gets elected in 2010 will be someone that wants to spend money more wisely. Seriously some of the revenue could have been put aside for rough times so that projects could be cheaper.

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

Umm, well surely the province could have put aside funding for now when it was cheaper to build, but once again if the city did, the funding to the city from other level of governments would have been cut.

As for the whole income taxes taking away freedom thing. You know why we need broad based taxes to fund our government? A lack of universal tariffs, which is what funded our government up to the first world war. (and a vast expansion of government, but even without that we would still need income or consumption taxes to fund our government)

Ultra right wing people often bring up before the first world war when we didn't have taxes as a golden age, and then ignore how we funded things. You have to get revenue from somewhere.

Taxes are useful, they provide services that have natural monopolies, and huge positive externalities. Taxes provide services that would otherwise not be provided efficiently due to a myriad of market failures.

Taxes, are most efficient and create the least amount of deadweight loss when applied to the broadest base. In Calgary's case, a value added tax or income tax or both which brought in equal revenue to a phased out property taxes would be much more efficient, and would distort the market much less.

Property taxes create a disincentive to capital investment, just like the capital tax that still exists in some provinces. It encourages labour intensive solutions and decreases productivity.

To increase accountability at the same time it would make sense to stop transfering funds from the federal and provincial levels, and to transfer tax points instead, and/or the gas tax. That way politicians would be solely responsible for all the spending in the city.

There would be no excuses of capital vs operational spending, no complaining to Ottawa or Edmonton, just sheer representative government.

As for spending money more wisely, everyone has a different view of what is wise. For me wise would be a city even more intensive than the one shown in Plan-It, since it would save tonnes of money. A city the would never need the second ring road. In that city, it makes sense to build a higher quality public realm because many more citizen would be sharing less space. We can get higher quality at a lower price per person.

[frinkprof]

Umm, well surely the province could have put aside funding for now when it was cheaper to build, but once again if the city did, the funding to the city from other level of governments would have been cut.And it still happened with the MSI funding being cut back.

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

^ Truth be told, 2009 was a 'spike' year in funding. MSI was to increase and the gas tax and other couple provincial programs were in their year of highest funding. Funding this year was going to be $150 million over funding next year for Calgary (if my memory serves me correctly)

There would have been an automatic pull back next year anyways as the other provincial programs ended and only MSI remained.

Of course, the cuts this year were not really anticipated, but the city can always iron out year to year changes with debt.

Personally, it wouldn't have been my choice to cut if I was the minister, but I can understand that ignoring the large urban areas is sort of second nature for the people we have in government. Politically however, a $6 billion deficit doesn't hurt you in the polls any more than a $4 billion dollar one, so why risk the cuts?

The operational cuts will come, but in the mean time it is much better to fund capital projects that the province doesn't pay the ongoing costs of, rather than funding more things like hospitals (which they can't even staff the ones we have now, at the highest wages in the country).

[korzym]

A big solution would be if we stood up to being bullied by ontario and quebec. Too much of Alberta's money is sent to other provinces. The mayor and premier ought to take initiative and put an end to this. Politically it woud be savvy, and they'd get more funding. But first whatever the make up of the next city council, it has to solve its caveat of wasteful spending

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

Wasteful spending is thrown around a lot, but I know during the last election we (a certain well funded campaign for Mayor) spent a lot of time and money researching to try to find areas for significant cuts, and we found none. Calgary's operational budget is already significantly lower per capita than most other Canadian cities of comparable size.

The biggest places where the city could cut are police, fire, roads, and transit, which politically isn't a very good idea. After those three departments there city budget is pretty bare. What would you cut? A Library budget that hasn't increased since 1994? Or a recreation budget that already has the highest fee recovery level in the country?

Be sure, if there were easy areas not to fund, or to find efficiencies in our council today would be all over it.

Out of the municipal tax supported budget, what would you cut?

[frinkprof]

Just when you think they can't possibly try and promote the views of someone more ridiculous than that guy the home builders association brought in...
Lobbyist brings Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter to town
Conservative group builds war chest to ‘take back city hall’
Published June 11, 2009 by Jeremy Klaszus in News

Riley Brandt

Craig Chandler, head of a right-wing political lobby group, hopes to raise $1 million for candidates running in the 2010 municipal election
First George W. Bush came to town, then Condoleezza Rice. Now a local political lobby group is bringing more provocative U.S. conservatives, including commentators Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, to Calgary to raise $1 million for candidates running in the next civic election.

The goal, says Progressive Group for Independent Business (PGIB) executive director Craig Chandler, is to “get conservatives elected at city hall.” The first speaker in town is Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, who’ll be speaking at a $420-a-plate dinner in September. Coulter, author of How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), is booked for a March event, and talk radio host Limbaugh is slated to come to town in September, when the 2010 campaign is in full swing.

The PGIB hopes to back about six aldermanic candidates. The group has endorsed and supported candidates before, but Chandler says one thing will be different this time: cash, and lots of it. “We’re hoping to have, by the time Rush Limbaugh’s done, $3 million in our war chest,” says Chandler. “And I think a third of that could help take back city hall in Calgary.”

Chandler believes “the left” currently dominates Calgary’s city council and says his group wants “good government” run by conservatives.

“We want more Ric McIvers,” he says, referring to his former boss who’s now alderman for Ward 12. (Chandler managed McIver’s aldermanic campaign when he was first elected in 2001.) “If PGIB can fund more people that end up like Ric McIver, we’ve done our job.”

The PGIB describes itself as “a small c conservative organization that lobbies for less government, lower taxes and political accountability.” But Naheed Nenshi of the Better Calgary Campaign dismisses the PGIB as a fringe group that’s “totally irrelevant” to city politics. “I give them absolutely no credibility,” says Nenshi, an instructor at Mount Royal College’s Bissett School of Business.

Nenshi scoffs at the group’s fundraising goals, describing them as “hugely unrealistic.” He also points out that past PGIB efforts to get people elected at city hall have been unsuccessful. “The only person they’ve ever got elected is McIver.”

McIver, who was PGIB’s municipal chairman before he was elected, is widely rumoured to be seeking the mayor’s job. McIver won’t confirm if he’s running for the top spot — “I have no announcements to make today” — and says he’s unaware of Chandler’s war chest. “I hear things, but I’m not involved,” says McIver, adding he’s “separated” from the PGIB’s activities. McIver stepped down from the group’s executive in 2001 and says he hasn’t been a member for several years.

Asked what he did when he worked for the PGIB, McIver replies: “You know what? It’s so long ago I just don’t remember.”

Chandler says that while he doesn’t work on McIver’s campaigns anymore, the PGIB is keen on backing the popular alderman if he runs for mayor. “If Ric runs, we’ll support him in any way he wishes,” says Chandler. “He would win in a heartbeat. Even against [Mayor Dave] Bronconnier.”

So far, the PGIB is revealing only one of its endorsees: former Chandler campaign manager Harley Shouldice, who plans to run against Ald. Druh Farrell in Ward 7. “I think she might be surprised by the work ethic that I’m going to employ,” says Shouldice, adding that he wants to knock on every door in the ward twice before the election.

When Farrell was told about the Coulter and Limbaugh fundraisers, she was thrilled. “Maybe it’s good that it’s exposed that these guys are as radical right as they are,” she says of Chandler’s group. Farrell says she takes election competition seriously, but isn’t too worried about the group’s plans. “Calgarians have always rejected slates historically. I think they will in this case as well.”

Chandler says he likely won’t run, explaining that he’s still recovering after Premier Ed Stelmach stripped him of the Calgary-Egmont Conservative nomination he won before the 2008 provincial election. “I don’t think elections are in the cards for me in the future,” he says.

As well, PGIB national president Steve Chapman, who ran in Ward 8 in 2007, hasn’t decided if he’ll run again. “I’m certainly keeping my options open at this point,” he says.

The PGIB’s lofty goals could run into a major hitch. The provincial government is currently looking at approving a new law regulating municipal campaign financing, and the law would cap individual municipal campaign donations at $5,000. “The provincial government is well aware that they need to get this done quickly,” says Nenshi.

If implemented, the law would limit the PGIB to giving $5,000 max to each candidate. Chandler says if that happens, his group will “adapt.” “We will not do anything that’s illegal,” he says. “We will follow the law to the T. But there’s always ways to do things, isn’t there?”Link (http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/news-views/news/conservative-group-brings-rush-limbaugh-ann-coulter-to-town-3928)

:haha: :( :yuck: :koko: :yes: :haha:
NOTE: Added link to source.

I honestly don't know how a slate would fair, but I doubt it would work. At worst, you'd probably get the current number of 4 or 5 conservative alderman that are currently banding together in this council. They'd just be more officially under the PGIB banner.

As for McIver's comments, I realize he's saying what he needs to at this point, but I can smell the BS from here. "It was so long ago I just don't remember?" Spare me.

[fusili]

NOTE: Added link to source.

I honestly don't know how a slate would fair, but I doubt it would work. At worst, you'd probably get the current number of 4 or 5 conservative alderman that are currently banding together in this council. They'd just be more officially under the PGIB banner.

As for McIver's comments, I realize he's saying what he needs to at this point, but I can smell the BS from here. "It was so long ago I just don't remember?" Spare me.

I really think the conservatives are shooting themselves in the foot. Moderate fiscal conservatives don't like being associated with people like Limbaugh and Coulter. And most of the conservative in this City is just that, fiscal. I am pretty fiscally conservative (depending on where you stand I guess), but I cannot begin to even stomach guys like Chandler. If I was a conservative candidate, I would distance myself from them as much as possible.

[korzym]

Rush Limbaugh?! Wow! I'd go see him with some friends!

_qtvtBGWgBc

[SmokWawelski]

If I was an alderman, regardless of what political stripe, I sure would not want to be associated with an idiot such as Limbaugh, no matter how much money they would be able to raise.

On another note, I hope the comb over Hodges retires sooner then later. I have talked to him on a number of occasions while the Rocky Ridge closure presentations were in full swing. Useless, nothing but useless....all he would say is that they are working with the province, fully knowing that it was a done deal.

Never got a call back why he was not present when the issue of the $3 parking fee was to be reopened...they justed needed one vote, HIS VOTE!!!!!

With regards to the $25 million dollar bridge/bridge design. Most Calgarians would not mind the bridges at the designated locations, it's the cost. I am sure that local competition among many architects here in Calgary would have designed something beautiful, if given a chance. Isn't it the way Calatrava(sp?) started??????

[mersar]

I personally doubt Hodges will run in 2010, if he does I'd suspect theres enough people who think he's done his time that he won't get back in.

[Bigtime]

With regards to the $25 million dollar bridge/bridge design. Most Calgarians would not mind the bridges at the designated locations, it's the cost. I am sure that local competition among many architects here in Calgary would have designed something beautiful, if given a chance. Isn't it the way Calatrava(sp?) started??????

They will be given their chance, as the 2nd bridge will be an open competition.

However this is a conversation for another thread.

[Rusty van Reddick]

On another note, I hope the comb over Hodges retires sooner then later.

WIN

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

^ With how close Banks came to Hodges last time, this time should finish the job.

[mersar]

Former car salesman's mayoral campaign fizzles

Last Updated: Friday, June 12, 2009 | 6:31 PM MT

CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/credit.html)


A former Ontario politician's run at the mayor's seat in Calgary lasted less than a week.
George Dadamo told the Calgary Herald on Friday he is pulling his name from the October 2010 contest.
Dadamo had to fire his executive assistant, Josh Bredo, after the newspaper revealed he was linked to several controversies in Calgary and Prince George, B.C.
Dadamo, 55, admitted he didn't do a background check or any research before hiring Bredo, and said he felt that misstep would overshadow his campaign.
The former NDP member of the Ontario legislature announced he was running to be Calgary mayor on Tuesday, but pulled the plug on Friday.
Bredo, and his aliases Joshua Baba and Josh Mitchell, are linked to several allegations of fraud, reported the Herald.
Current Calgary Mayor Dave Bronconnier has indicated he will likely run for a fourth term, and political watchers have speculated that Ald. Ric McIver may also jump into the mayoral race.
Dadamo, who quit his job as a salesman at Shaganappi Motors, said he will try to now find work in Calgary.

Source (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/06/12/dadamo-quits-calgary-mayor.html)

[Stang]

If I was an alderman, regardless of what political stripe, I sure would not want to be associated with an idiot such as Limbaugh, no matter how much money they would be able to raise.

These characters are so far off of the spectrum, I can't seem them being received well here at all. If they're considered to be on the extreme right in their own country, they're off the map here in Canada.

I do, however, think that given a few factors, the next city council will be more conservative than the current one. But bringing in pundits from the extremes of US politics will probably scare most moderate right-wingers and could do more harm than good.

Should be interesting though...

[korzym]

Former car salesman's mayoral campaign fizzles

Source (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/06/12/dadamo-quits-calgary-mayor.html)

Good, I'm getting tired of people from the east coming here and telling us how to run the best city in Alberta. We need an Albertan, if not a born Calgarian, at the very least.

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

^ Wow. By chance are you a member of a party that amongst its slogans once included 'Alberta for Albertans'?

So you would reject someone whom you agreed with 100% on carpet bagger grounds? I hope you don't vote for Harper! (damn Ontarian ending the oilsands tax credit and income trusts. It is like he doesn't understand 'real' Albertans!)

[Bigtime]

We need an Albertan, if not a born Calgarian, at the very least.

Well I guess it is time I answered the call...

Bigtime 2010: Roll the Hard Six.

:cool:

[freeweed]

Xenophobia is xenophobia no matter what stripes you colour that particular tiger.

Alberta is an infinitely better place today than it was 30 years ago, and a lot of that has to do with changing attitudes as (gasp!) people from the east and BC taught Albertans a thing or three.

And the same goes for the rest of the country. We all learn from each other, we shouldn't be so myopic as to assume only our immediate neighbour/family member/churchgoer/guy with the same skin colour can possibly have any good ideas.

An accident of birth does not give you some magic insight or better personality or higher intelligence. Vote on issues and platforms, not genetic or regional heritage.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Alberta is an infinitely better place today than it was 30 years ago, and a lot of that has to do with changing attitudes as (gasp!) people from the east and BC taught Albertans a thing or three.

Immigrants too! :tup:

[Policy Wonk]

I don't think Alberta has changed much at all in the last 30 years,

I would say the "great leap forward" in Alberta began in the 1950's - the great influx of urban professionals from Eastern Canada and the United States to support the modern oil industry is what changed Alberta, it is this change that the angry farmers are still railing against in church basements around the province.

The change was made official by Peter Lougheed obliterating out Social Credit in 1971

[srperrycgy]

^ With how close Banks came to Hodges last time, this time should finish the job.

I was at the Crowfoot LRT opening today and honestly, Hodges did not look good. He had a hat on, so the combover was at rest. I would be very surprised if he ran again.

[Wooster]

That dinosaur needs to retire. Seriously, Hodges has been alderman almost as long as I've been alive. His ideas area also stuck about 25 years behind. Calgary is no longer a city of half a million.

I seem to remember liking Jennifer Banks', I wonder if she'll run again.

[SmokWawelski]

Alberta is an infinitely better place today than it was 30 years ago, and a lot of that has to do with changing attitudes as (gasp!) people from the east and BC taught Albertans a thing or three.


Or maybe the people from the east and BC realized that Alberta is not as red neck as the CBC National makes it to be :) :) :)

I'm a transplant from behind the former iron curtain, and I can tell you one certain thing. You don't vote you should shut the f*uck up!!!!!!! To live here is a privilege not a right, too many people here take this for granted at all levels of government. I take my 9 year old (current) to every election, municipal, provincial and federal, I make sure to tell her why it is important to vote. Otherwise you/we end up with no more than 30%(municipal) of the voting population casting their ballets, and part of the 30% is an organized group of special interest groups that represent only their narrow point of view. It's not good for for anyone when you have very few making decisions for the masses. My two cents.

Now when the time comes to voting get out there and be a :whip: :whip: :whip: :whip: :whip: :whip: :whip:
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

[freeweed]

Immigrants too! :tup:

They all come from places east of Alberta. :P

[Rusty van Reddick]

They all come from places east of Alberta. :P

South, too.

[wild wild west]

I must say, I am baffled that PGIB would actually think bringing polarizing ideologues like Rush Limbaugh to town would in any way help galvanize support for conservative candidates who associate themselves with this group...if anything you'd think it would do just the opposite. Time will tell I guess.

re: Hodges, thankfully he is just one vote on council but the guy is a dinosaur. He puts his full energies into obstructing, delaying, blocking and delaying progress in this city. I am hopeful that he will retire, but although his opponent last time around ran a great campaign and came surprisingly close, never underestimate the staying power of being the incumbent in getting the anti-progress vote out.

[fusili]

CALGARY - A group of business lobbyists have given half of city council a failing grade on a number of issues, ranging from property tax increases to closing Memorial Drive.

“We’re very concerned we’re not getting the leadership our city deserves,” Bill Partridge, executive vice-president of the Building Owner and Managers Association, said Monday. “This is intended to draw attention to how council performed for the people they purport to serve.”

Calling itself the Coalition for Tax Fairness, eight of the nine members are business lobby groups. The ninth is the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Grades for individual council members ranged from an A+ for Ald. Ric McIver and an A for Ald. Andre Chabot to Fs for Aldermen Druh Farrell and Linda Fox-Mellway. Mayor Dave Bronconnier and Ald. Gord Lowe, chairman of the finance committee, received Ds.

Other grades included: B+ for Diane Colley-Urquhart, B for Joe Connelly and Jim Stevenson, C for Ray Jones, C- for Dale Hodges, D+ for Bob Hawkesworth and John Mar, D for Joe Ceci, D- for Brian Pincott.

The groups chose a number of council votes over the first half of this term and then awarded points based on whether that vote was considered taxpayer friendly or unfriendly.

The 32 votes chosen included election donation reform, changing the curbside recycling program to allow for the inclusion of private collectors, pedestrian bridges over the Bow River, increasing tipping fees at the landfill, reducing the use of plastic shopping bags, closing Memorial Drive for a street party and last fall’s setting of the three-year budget.
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

link (http://www.calgaryherald.com/Technology/Half+Calgary+council+gets+failing+grade+lobby+groups+report+card/1698072/story.html)

[You Need A Thneed]

The actual scores:

Grades (Total score/grade)

McIver 95.6/A+
Chabot 87.9/A
Colley-Urquhart 76.5/B+
Connelly 68.3/B
Stevenson 65.4/B
Jones 49.7/C
Hodges 40.9/C
Hawkesworth 35.6/D+
Mar 35.1/D+
Lowe 28.7/D
Ceci 27.6/D
Bronconnier 26.7/D
Pincott 23.8/D
Fox-Mellway 19.7/F
Farrell 19.6/F

---------------------------------------------

Report card criteria:

Municipal Report Card - Score components

I. Taxpayer friendly voting record, 70 points

II. Management of Aldermanic office and travel budgets
- Within budget, 5 points
- Bonus points: Level of spending below average, 5 points

III. Policy making and governance
- Number of motions and taxpayer friendliness of motions, 10 points

IV. Responsiveness and proactive stakeholder engagement, 10 points


Total: 100

[The Chemist]

Farrell should consider it a badge of honour to get an F from a bunch of right-wing nuts like the PGIB - obviously she's doing all the right things if they're all riled up at her. :)

What did Fox-Mellway do to deserve the same honour?

[frinkprof]

What did Fox-Mellway do?Fixed that for you.

[wild wild west]

"The groups chose a number of council votes over the first half of this term and then awarded points based on whether that vote was considered taxpayer friendly or unfriendly.

The 32 votes chosen included election donation reform, changing the curbside recycling program to allow for the inclusion of private collectors, pedestrian bridges over the Bow River, increasing tipping fees at the landfill, reducing the use of plastic shopping bags, closing Memorial Drive for a street party and last fall’s setting of the three-year budget."

Interesting - no mention here of far more taxpayer-unfriendly decisions like the $80 million borrowing bylaw to extend roads and services to Skyview Ranch.

I'm all for a taxpayer watchdog - but only if they actually have a real eye for the big wastes of taxpayer dollars rather than flogging minor symbolic issues like closing Memorial Drive for one day to death, in the name of ideology. McIver and his ilk appear somewhat penny-wise and pound foolish.

Also, any "report card" that rates Hodges above 8 other Council members should be summarily ignored.

[fusili]

"The groups chose a number of council votes over the first half of this term and then awarded points based on whether that vote was considered taxpayer friendly or unfriendly.

The 32 votes chosen included election donation reform, changing the curbside recycling program to allow for the inclusion of private collectors, pedestrian bridges over the Bow River, increasing tipping fees at the landfill, reducing the use of plastic shopping bags, closing Memorial Drive for a street party and last fall’s setting of the three-year budget."

Interesting - no mention here of far more taxpayer-unfriendly decisions like the $80 million borrowing bylaw to extend roads and services to Skyview Ranch.

I'm all for a taxpayer watchdog - but only if they actually have a real eye for the big wastes of taxpayer dollars rather than flogging minor symbolic issues like closing Memorial Drive for one day to death, in the name of ideology. McIver and his ilk appear somewhat penny-wise and pound foolish.

Also, any "report card" that rates Hodges above 8 other Council members should be summarily ignored.

I question the whole thing. A vote on increasing tipping fees? Was the voting ranked as good if it was against tipping fees? or for them? If it was against tipping fees, I think that is fiscally irresponsible. People should pay for the waste they produce. And disincentives to using a landfill which costs lots of money is a good thing. Just my two cents.

[mersar]

The general methodology that they've said they used was anything that increased the cost to the tax payers to do something was a positive on their ranking if the person voted against it. So those who voted for raising the tipping fees would have gotten docked points for that vote.

[fusili]

The general methodology that they've said they used was anything that increased the cost to the tax payers to do something was a positive on their ranking if the person voted against it. So those who voted for raising the tipping fees would have gotten docked points for that vote.

And yet, increasing tipping fees is a fiscally responsible action. It reduces externalities caused by the disposal of waste. Land fills cost money. No wait, land fills cost lots of money. Increasing tipping fees discourages waste disposal, which in turn reduces the cost of land fill operations and land acquisition, which is good economically and reduces the overall burden on taxpayers.

The impression that I am getting from this report is "Anything that costs money is bad, we can't and shouldn't spend money on anything, but we still want to have a high level of service." It is like these people refuse to admit that things cost money. Perhaps someone should go explain to these people the concept of "there is no such thing as a free lunch."

And if you couldn't tell, I am just a little frustruated in this city.

[Stang]

<sarcasm>
You guys are all looking into this way too much. You're not supposed to ask questions like that. The lady on the news told me about the report card and she wouldn't lie or slant the facts. "D" for all of you for thinking independently. :whip:
</sarcasm>

[Riise]

<sarcasm>
You guys are all looking into this way too much. You're not supposed to ask questions like that. The lady on the news told me about the report card and she wouldn't lie or slant the facts. "D" for all of you for thinking independently. :whip:
</sarcasm>

This gives me an idea, maybe SSP Calgary should come up with our own satirical report card... Considering how the Sun is pretty much a joke, we'll be sure to get covered by at least one media outlet!

[Bigtime]

This gives me an idea, maybe SSP Calgary should come up with our own satirical report card... Considering how the Sun is pretty much a joke, we'll be sure to get covered by at least one media outlet!

Great idea! Here is my report card for them, I'm only filling in grades for the ones I am familiar with:

McIver: F
Chabot:
Colley-Urquhart: D
Connelly :
Stevenson:
Jones :
Hodges:
Hawkesworth:
Mar: C
Lowe: B
Ceci: B
Bronconnier: B
Pincott: B
Fox-Mellway: She's on council? :haha:
Farrell: B

[korzym]

McIver will win.
and note when you bash someone, its best to state reasons rather than express emotional angst, such as smok and www, there's more people that made similar posts, but too sensationalist and profane to mention them.

50% of people polled on the ctv website give council an F, which is a more diverse sample group. Do you think just a couple vocal liberals on ssp is reason for confidence in a bronconnier re-election? [this convo has been had before, and its agreed this place attracts younger people which tend to be liberals/socialists; voter turn out is stronger amongst elder people as well so think about it].

The role of a mayor isn't to fulfill an egotistical "vision" for a city. Your a manager, and you identify priorities and act on them. You don't see that in Bronconnier

[wild wild west]

Hmmm, being as objective as I can here, I actually consider McIver the best of his particular voting block...he at least has a brain, the rest of those guys (Chabot, Connelly, etc.) just go along with whatever he says. If any of you have had the chance to meet Ald. Chabot - well, let's just say he proves that you don't have to be smart to get elected.

Honestly I would give the vast majority of Council, at most, C's. Most of Council has either been pre-occupied with ideological battles, or not had a solid grasp of the bigger picture. Farrell's been great on downtown and urban design issues but doesn't show much of a grasp of other issues when, for example, she suggests putting the new Convention Centre by the airport. Others such as Hawkesworth, Fox-Mellway or Jones may (or may not?) do a great job for their constituents but seem to flip and flop at the city-wide level. Hodges is a dinosaur. Overall I would only give 3 of them better than a C: A couple of aldermen who I have been very impressed with in terms of their ability to articulate common-sense positions, Gord Lowe and Brian Pincott, and Joe Ceci who is an example of an alderman who works hard at the constituency level.

[korzym]

Hmmm, being as objective as I can here, I actually consider McIver the best of his particular voting block...he at least has a brain, the rest of those guys (Chabot, Connelly, etc.) just go along with whatever he says. If any of you have had the chance to meet Ald. Chabot - well, let's just say he proves that you don't have to be smart to get elected.

fail

[Wooster]

Korzym - I guess that is a far cry from the many mciver backers that call Druh Farrell "druh the shrew" or "duh" or the part of the "flaky four" or all the other insulting names they can think of.

Pot calling kettle black.

[freeweed]

I wouldn't say it's the younger demographic here that makes people liberal in their views.

I'd say more that we have a fairly high contingent of well-educated people, which does tend to correlate strongly with liberalism. Hell, we have university professors as forum regulars. Not exactly people who don't think about issues, unlike most of the folks who vote on web polls - they're trivially led by rephrasing the question to get an emotional response.

[wild wild west]

Korzym - how many of the current members of Council have you even met? I have met all of these people, and know some of them fairly well. Although I find it amusing that you would call me a "liberal", since my federal and provincial voting record would suggest otherwise. That people like me don't buy into the BS of the "fearless four" or whatever Rick Bell calls them suggests not everyone is buying into their message. Although being honest I would prefer if ideology were left out of municipal politics since it is used selectively to obscure and distort the issues.

[Wooster]

I prefer to identify myself and pragmatic, or probably more accurately a poly-partisan. I really don't like ideological grounds for any decision making, which unfortnately council seems to be heading toward. Ideology, truly does blind people to making the decision based on its true merit to practically solve a problem or improve people's quality of life. PGIB (McIver) and their ilk want to try and institutionalize this split on council and I really, really hate that idea. I find this 'we will fight for low taxes no matter what' mantra, while superficially attractive really bankrupt of any meaningful ideas or vision for how to actually advance Calgary as a big city, or improve its citizen's lives.

[wild wild west]

Agree fully, Wooster. What is most troubling with these same Aldermen who are allegedly fighting to keep taxes low is that these are the same guys who are relentlessly pushing for increased sprawl at the City's edge, which is far greater a contribution to the City's budget challenges than a bloody pedestrian bridge is.

Also, I find it bewildering that people get more upset over a $10 per month increase to their property tax bill of perhaps $1800 a year than they do over the fact that most of us pay tens of thousands of dollars in income taxes every year to higher levels of government. If there is any one level of government which I feel delivers real value for our tax dollars, it is municipal.

[freeweed]

I really don't like ideological grounds for any decision making, which unfortnately council seems to be heading toward. Ideology, truly does blind people to making the decision based on its true merit to practically solve a problem or improve people's quality of life.

Which is why I used a small "l" when saying liberal, as opposed to Liberal, the idealogical swear-word. Can't believe open-mindedness is considered a defect, but as you say, ideology (and tribalism) blinds people.


PGIB (McIver) and their ilk want to try and institutionalize this split on council and I really, really hate that idea.

Welcome to Bush's legacy. EVERYTHING is "us vs them", "you're with us or against us". We can't possibly have rational discourse, it's all about splitting people on emotional lines and forcing everyone to stand on one side or the other.

As is clearly evidenced by the combined epithet "liberal/socialist". Makes me wonder how many people are incapable of simply parroting some talking point they've heard from someone on "their side" - as opposed to actually understanding anything about what they're talking about.

Ah well, such is the current state of politic.

[Stang]

We can't possibly have rational discourse, it's all about splitting people on emotional lines and forcing everyone to stand on one side or the other.

This sums it up. The political spectrum is just that: a spectrum. It seems that anyone who even approaches the centre (or dips a toe on the "left" side) is immediately labelled a socialist, bleeding heart, communist, etc.

The whole report card, IMO, is simply short-sighted. The criteria was picked by several interest groups to reach a desired conclusion. The media picked it up just as they were supposed to and ran with it. As others have already mentioned, penalizing all spending without analyzing the related savings/benefits, both direct and indirect, is not telling the whole story.

That's not left, right, or centre. That's just looking past the headlines. And I'm quite moderate on the spectrum - whatever that means these days. :)

[Rusty van Reddick]

korzym- you're right, the electorate is packed with selfish, xenophobic short-sighted people with NIMBY suburban (in the worst sense) values. The fact that McIver panders to them and provides no vision of this city and no ideas aside from "give me MINE MINE MINE" and shits on anything urban or urbanist makes him a filthy politician. It makes him electable, you're right, a disgusting example of a populist POLITICIAN.

This doesn't make him a good alderman.

[fusili]

This sums it up. The political spectrum is just that: a spectrum. It seems that anyone who even approaches the centre (or dips a toe on the "left" side) is immediately labelled a socialist, bleeding heart, communist, etc.


I would respectfully disagree. I think the idea of a spectrum is antiquated. It is a simplification of a very complex set of ideas. While a simple left-right dichotomy is the worst possible interpretation of any value system (I guess a right-wrong dichotomy is worse), a spectrum isn't really much better. I believe issues are much too complex to be able to fit them on a spectrum. Grade 10 social studies this ain't.

My self personally, I would describe myself as someone who is a little bit of both. But not "in the middle." I am extremely leftist when it comes to some issues, or extremely right when it comes to others. On some social issues, I am pretty left, on others I am pretty right. On other issues I take positions that neither side really appears to have. In terms of economics, I both hate libertarians and adopt their position.

And this is why I hate politics and politicians (well, most of them). The idea that any decision can be boiled down to two camps is ridiculous.

[Ferreth]

I agree the idea of "left" and "right" is confusing, to say the least. I tend to only be concerned if society drifts far in either direction, as the extremes on either end definitely don't fit my views.

I kind of like the Pournelle chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pournelle_chart). You sit on a two dimensional spectrum of :

...........Reason
............../\
..............|
State is - - - - State
evil ........|....is great
..............|
..............\/
.........Irrational

Where "Reason" = society's problems can be solved with reason, and "Irrational" = We can't solve any of society's problems due to it being irrational. I tend to be high on reason, middle on State. I find that ijdits in web polls tend to be State evil / Irrational. :koko:

[Wentworth]

korzym- you're right, the electorate is packed with selfish, xenophobic short-sighted people with NIMBY suburban (in the worst sense) values. The fact that McIver panders to them and provides no vision of this city and no ideas aside from "give me MINE MINE MINE" and shits on anything urban or urbanist makes him a filthy politician. It makes him electable, you're right, a disgusting example of a populist POLITICIAN.

This doesn't make him a good alderman.

Meh. I'd say Hillhurst-Sunnyside is the biggest NIMBY community in the whole city. And Panorama is the most ethnically diverse (53% visible minorities versus 9.8% for, say, Sunnyside.)

[Stang]

I would respectfully disagree. I think the idea of a spectrum is antiquated. It is a simplification of a very complex set of ideas. While a simple left-right dichotomy is the worst possible interpretation of any value system (I guess a right-wrong dichotomy is worse), a spectrum isn't really much better. I believe issues are much too complex to be able to fit them on a spectrum. Grade 10 social studies this ain't.

I think that we're essentially arguing the same point, except you've articulated it better. The following will either clarify or further confuse my point. :)

By spectrum, and I'm sure that there are better models, etc., I simply mean that there's two extremes and an endless number of positions in between. I see it as more fluid and variable than perhaps others do. Certainly more than just left and right. I'll agree that it is a rigid, outdated way of describing political ideologies, and that's the problem. Being rigidly right-wing or left-wing is difficult, as with many people it will vary depending on the issue, etc. That's why I laugh when I hear these labels being thrown around instead of actually sitting back and having a look at the issues at hand and moving forward with some logic. Not "what should a liberal do" and "what should a conservative do".

Absolutely - it is an oversimplification of a complex concept, but an even greater oversimplification is believing that one position fits for all situations. And that's the tone that the civic election seems to be taking. Spending (even smart/necessary spending) = lefty = socialist = bad.

Which, in essence, is what the "report card" is doing - polarizing the issues into left vs. right, us vs. them, etc. and that will only make city council more dysfunctional than it already is. "That involves spending, so I must vote it down because I'm conservative." Even if the spending has benefits and might save the city money, resources, etc.

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

^ Calgarians get pretty good services for the money. If there were efficiencies to be found, they would be implemented. Realistically, to save money, you have to cut stuff. I have yet to see any proposals from anyone on council to constrain our operational budget which is supported by property taxes. They claim there is all this waste and programs to cut, but never name them. Claim that zero based budgeting would lead to saving, but you only save money using zero base by identifying things to cut.

Calgary City services are pretty basic compared to most cities. Many operational services are pay for service on a cost recovery basis, unlike in many other cities (this is why Heritage Park for example costs $20 for an adult, much like the Zoo)

The biggest cost centres for the city are transit, roads, and emergency services. I don't believe any members of council really oppose funding those things. (Efforts to decrease the tax increase by fiscal conservatives in fact created the budget need for the dreaded park and ride fee, and other parking fee increases, but still there was no effort to cut the services this funding supported)

[SmokWawelski]

Sir. Humphrey.Appleby

I realize that we comperatively pay lower property taxes then people in other cities. However, my issue with regards to efficiencies is waste. Good example would be the work that was done on a stretch of Crowchild Trail between 53rd and Sarcee. It was done and redone about 5 times. That wonderful gauntlet of Shagannapie and Crowchild where you must go through 3 sets of lights which are not synchronized to move traffic quickly. I also am aware that our huge tax hike was do in large part to the Al do nothing Doer and his lack of leadership. This I think was the biggest failure of Calgary. At that time a lot of the projects we are now awaiting would have cost a lot less .

Is there a reason why the city can not issue municipal bonds in this low interest environment for large scale projects such as putting the LRT line underground? Are Calgary's hand tied when it comes to better or more innovative ways of financing? After all we all(or most of us) have borrowed for the next 25 or 30 years.....

[SmokWawelski]

Oh and some good news :):):) Global news was stating that the Crowfoot LRT project came in 20 million under budget....on a sour note, project was late by almost a year :):):)

[Bigtime]

and note when you bash someone, its best to state reasons rather than express emotional angst, such as smok and www, there's more people that made similar posts, but too sensationalist and profane to mention them.

Wow Korzym, you have the nerve to write this and then send that PM to SmokWawelski? Dissapointing is the only word that comes to mind...

Good on ya for sticking around with us SmokWawelski! :tup:

As for where I may fall on all this political spectrum talk. Despite other posters "theories" about all of us since we are on this forum I fall on the quite conservative side of things. Although like some others my recent voting history on the provincial side of things would not indicate that.

I see the need to invest money in areas and things that will better the quality of life in our city. Be that transit, parks, pathways, policing, and yes even pedestrian bridges and traffic overpasses. The fiscally conservative person in me also has no problem seeing parking fees implemented for the LRT lots.

I don't take an "us versus them" stand on pretty much every issue in the city. When a topic comes up at work or out and about with someone with a differing view I have no problem engaging them in a healthy dialogue about it. Usually over the course of this one discovers that a lot of the negative sentiment in this city (not all of it however) is nothing more than that negative viewpoint just rattling off the headlines from our media. Once you start to talk to them about more than that, and the actual meat of a subject you find that they may actually see more than what the Sun, Herald, Global, and CTV tell them.

We as citizens of Calgary are all in this together, there is no line in the sand here. Dare I say the majority of us love this city and want to see it become even better.

[wild wild west]

re: Government waste - I'd be all over this issue if the supposedly fearless four were actually able to find concrete examples of waste in municipal government. Last budget they kicked up a stink over (admittedly very large) tax hikes, even though they themselves had approved this spending, and Council sat down as a group and went through the budget, supposedly line-by-line. The result was that these same aldermen were reluctant to do much actual chopping, lest it impact their popularity. All they did was try to cast the blame on the Mayor, Gord Lowe and others while dodging any responsibility. Sound strategy from a political standpoint, but if you really look at it from a taxpayer point of view - the whole exercise was just a waste of time.

Even on the Park-and-ride fee, one of the issues I do agree with McIver and the gang on - they dropped the ball. Most of these guys voted in favour of it, then once it was implemented, realized how unpopular it was and only then tried to revisit the decision.

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

Sir. Humphrey.Appleby

I realize that we comperatively pay lower property taxes then people in other cities. However, my issue with regards to efficiencies is waste. Good example would be the work that was done on a stretch of Crowchild Trail between 53rd and Sarcee. It was done and redone about 5 times. That wonderful gauntlet of Shagannapie and Crowchild where you must go through 3 sets of lights which are not synchronized to move traffic quickly. I also am aware that our huge tax hike was do in large part to the Al do nothing Doer and his lack of leadership. This I think was the biggest failure of Calgary. At that time a lot of the projects we are now awaiting would have cost a lot less .

Is there a reason why the city can not issue municipal bonds in this low interest environment for large scale projects such as putting the LRT line underground? Are Calgary's hand tied when it comes to better or more innovative ways of financing? After all we all(or most of us) have borrowed for the next 25 or 30 years.....

Yes, the city can only borrow money through the province's Alberta Municipal Financing Corporation. It is also the law to only allow loan servicing costs comprise 25% of a municipal budget. Innovative financing still costs money, and remember, you are talking about the capital side while the operational side is almost exclusively the only impact on city taxes.

They could also have only dug up the road once, but I am sure the people that used those lanes in the mean time appreciated the lanes being open. Paving is pretty cheap. Those lights are likely there to make sure the Shag interchange does not create a bottleneck by allowing to many cars onto the road.

[Brandon716]

Lets tame down the personal insults in here or the thread can be shut down.

[SmokWawelski]

Thanks for the info Appleby. Much appreciated...

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

Would comparing McIver to Duerr be a fair statement? Sure we'd save some money but pretty much nothing significant would be moving forward?

Edit: I guess we should move this talk to the election 2010 thread.
I think people forget how much was done during the Duerr days before the city had any capital funding at all from other levels of government. Today the city gets just over $600 million dollars a year in transfers from Federal Gas Tax, Provincial Gas Tax, MSI, and GST offseting.

Duerr secured a big win when he was able to get an agreement that was the first direct no strings transfer of money to a municipality. It set a huge precedent nation wide. On top of that, he was able to saddle the province with Deerfoot and the ring road, instead of just taking the money to implement ourselves.

During the later Duerr years we started to extend the LRT again, and build interchanges. The generational upgrade to the watertreatment system begun.

Duerr was at least honest about his positions, and didn't double talk. When he held taxes low, he actually held them low over the objections of the cities major departments: roads, emergency services and transit. He didn't try to fake it that we could have both low taxes and Cadillac services.

McIvor is like a fire wih all light and no heat. Not really useful except as a symbol.

[wild wild west]

One other positive about the Duerr years is that we seemed to be scoring a lot of corporate relocations from other provinces during that time. Not sure how much of that was due to Provincial vs. municipal incentives, or other factors entirely, but in general that is a front on which we seem to have lagged during the Bronco years IMO.

[MichaelS]

Didn't we get Imperial Oil under Bronconnier? Or was that just before he took office?

[wild wild west]

Yes, I think Imperial came under Bronco - although being that Calgary is the Oil & Gas centre of the country, that move was common sense.

I am thinking more about when I lived in Ontario, in the early to mid-90s, there were a number of companies lured to Calgary and there were complaints of Alberta and Calgary in particular "poaching" companies from other parts of the country - culminating in the move of CP Rail.

[DizzyEdge]

To me the question with McIvor is whether his seemingly 'the bottom line is the the only thing of importance' is more to get him the Mayor's job, and he will tone that down once he's achieved that, or if that's really just what he's all about.

[fusili]

Just so everyone knows, Plan-It is going to Council tomorrow. Big decision time.

[Wentworth]

Joe finally outlines his platform in detail! ;-)

Enjoy!

http://telljoe.ca/

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

With Joe is thinking of running for Mayor, this is exactly what he needs to be doing. To think that 2 years ago his arm needed to be twisted to run for Alderman!

[korzym]

Joe stands no chance, he's a nobody.

[Wentworth]

Joe's a shoe in. He stands for cowboy values and has many pictures of skyscrapers on his web page.

[devonb]

I liked his questions on his survey. He has forward thinking, or good marketing to make us think he does.

[korzym]

Why Bronconnier will lose:
-Pedestrian bridges
-Pedestrian bridges over budget

This is just the start

[Wooster]

Why Bronconnier will lose:
-Pedestrian bridges
-Pedestrian bridges over budget

This is just the start

Thanks Hank H. By the way, what if the pedestrian bridge comes in on budget by the proposed design changes?

[fusili]

Thanks Hank H. By the way, what if the pedestrian bridge comes in on budget by the proposed design changes?

Or if the majority of Calgarians (or actually, just a plurality remember) think that Bronconnier did a good job at things like the West LRT. Or his overall strategy for the City. Or numerous other issues that people consider when electing a mayor. Personally, I don't love Bronconnier, but I don't see anybody who would do a better job. Right now it looks like only Connelly is looking at making a run (speculation of course), but I would imagine McIver would as well. Nothing like good ol' vote splitting to ensure an incumbant wins. I would like to see Gord Lowe run, but that would take votes away from Bronco.

Maybe we can head hunt Richard Daley from Chicago. Thoughts?

[bob1954]

You guys would'nt like Daley because he never came off as very intelligent or a good speaker. Having said that, Daley knows the city better than anyone else in Chicago. Most important, he loves Chicago and is very passionate about the city. In the 21 years he's been in office the city made great strides in improving it's image as a "world class" city, (it allready had a pretty good start). Sorry, I know it's off topic

[freeweed]

Bronco will eventually lose or not run, and the idiots will proclaim how right they were in their predictions.

Similarly, I've been hearing for 25 years how the PC are going to be voted out of Edmonton "in the next election" due to issue A, B, C, D, E, F, G... you name it, it's been claimed. Yet here we are.

Bronco was supposed to be voted out in a landslide last election, for meaningless one-issue things like the pedestrian bridge. They were so insignificant that I can't even remember what they were last time, and neither could anyone else - because he won.

If you make constant "predictions" about something, eventually you'll be correct. Much as a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[frinkprof]

^You mean things are more complex than the election hinging on a couple of small and supposedly polarizing issues?

[freeweed]

^You mean things are more complex than the election hinging on a couple of small and supposedly polarizing issues?

Well, I do have misguided faith in the democratic process. :P

But yeah, if I had a nickel for every time I've heard people swear that person X will be voted out of power solely over issue Y, I'd be very, very rich.

[korzym]

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.