HRM Municipal Election 2012

fenwick16 · #1 Posted: **Jan 15, 2012, 3:51 PM**

There are only about 9 months before the next HRM Municipal election. It will be interesting since the number of districts is being reduced from 23 to 16. Here are links of the new (draft) district map versus the old district maps.

Any predictions of which Councillors will be facing off? For example, for the new district 9 there is an overlap of Jennifer Watts current district 14 and Linda Mosher's current district 17. Linda Mosher seems to be more pro-development than Jennifer Watts (is this a correct assessment?) Based on halifax.ca votes, Linda Mosher voted for the Trillium and The Alexander. Opinions?

Councillor Sloane could possibly move to the new district 8, which includes part of her current district 12 and also Councillor Blumenthal's District 11. There have been rumours that Councillor Blumenthal plans to retire. Or Councillor Sloane could face off against Councillor Uteck in the new District 7.

I have a question - if Councillor Uteck decides to run for Mayor then would she also be eligible to run as the new District 7 Councillor?

I have had a chance to meet a few of the Councillors and correspond by email. I have a different view with regard to some opinions on this forum. For example, I have found Councillor Sloane to be fairly pro-development although she seems to be against tall buildings. She also seems to find time to correspond not only to people in her own district but also to ex-residents such as myself. She has also been pro-stadium.

I favour pro-development Councillors since I think the HRM needs to encourage progress and job development.

haligonia · #2 Posted: **Jan 15, 2012, 5:22 PM**

Jennifer Watts isn't the most pro-development councillor, but she is very progressive. She listens to her constituents, is respectable at council meetings and is quite intelligent. A personal favourite.

Keith P. · #3 Posted: **Jan 15, 2012, 5:57 PM**

Don't get me started on Sloane. She is first on the hit list of councilors who must go.

Watts is intelligent but takes a lot of very dumb positions. She is against all development and is an enviro-loon. "Progressive"? That is a word gaining favor these days, but it all just means lefty to me. Odds are she will get re-elected since that is the area that keeps voting for Epstein and she is his puppet, but that doesn't mean she is a member that should be returned to council.

Jonovision · #4 Posted: **Jan 20, 2012, 1:56 PM**

Fred Connors of FRED announces his intent for a run for mayor.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/5...-mayor-halifax

kph06 · #5 Posted: **Jan 20, 2012, 2:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonovision

Fred Connors of FRED announces his intent for a run for mayor.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/5...-mayor-halifax

My first impression when I read this last night was "well, Kelly just got re-elected." I think Fred will get a decent amount of votes, but unfortunatley, I bet the number of strong Kelly atlernatives will split the non-Kelly votes and Peter will scrape by. I think he's lost some of his regulars, but because Connors and Savage will probably have a stong campaign they will get a decent percentage each, but not enough to knock Peter off the chair. Too bad the competition can't hold some pre-election election, where only one wins and gets to run as Kelly's challenger.

Waye Mason · #6 Posted: **Jan 23, 2012, 1:16 AM**

Sloane lives in the new Peninsula North District on Creighton, and Watts lives on Duncan, so they get to face off.

Linda Mosher run unopposed by an incumbent, as will Sue Uteck.

I find it interesting that no one has talked about the suburban councillors. Walker, Dalrymple would be on my list to get rid of.

haligonia · #7 Posted: **Jan 23, 2012, 1:41 AM**

Barry Dalrymple is an absolute moron. Outhit has been pretty good, though. He should retain his district.

Halifax Hillbilly · #8 Posted: **Feb 9, 2012, 5:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Sloane lives in the new Peninsula North District on Creighton, and Watts lives on Duncan, so they get to face off.

Linda Mosher run unopposed by an incumbent, as will Sue Uteck.

I find it interesting that no one has talked about the suburban councillors. Walker, Dalrymple would be on my list to get rid of.

Walker has been acclaimed several times. He also seems to be one of the worst examples of protecting his own turf and the status quo at the expense of the whole municipality. I think it's time for him to move on - I believe he's been four plus terms.

If anyone runs proposing term limits they'd get my attention. If you can't accomplish anything in two terms, you're not going to get any better.

RyeJay · #9 Posted: **Feb 9, 2012, 6:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halifax Hillbilly

Walker has been acclaimed several times. He also seems to be one of the worst examples of protecting his own turf and the status quo at the expense of the whole municipality. I think it's time for him to move on - I believe he's been four plus terms.

If anyone runs proposing term limits they'd get my attention. If you can't accomplish anything in two terms, you're not going to get any better.

A mandate for term limits is also to assume that voters are either too stupid or too apathetic to vote for someone else.
(Exhibit A: HRM?)

For any case in which either holds true, another case can be found in which a lack of term limits was extremely benefitical due to the councillor's reliably progressive decisions. To set a limit for this 'good find' of a councillor means that the voters are forced to find another councillor of similar intentions -- which is often very difficult, if not impossible, to find.

Halifax Hillbilly · #10 Posted: **Feb 10, 2012, 3:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RyeJay

A mandate for term limits is also to assume that voters are either too stupid or too apathetic to vote for someone else.
(Exhibit A: HRM?)

For any case in which either holds true, another case can be found in which a lack of term limits was extremely benefitical due to the councillor's reliably progressive decisions. To set a limit for this 'good find' of a councillor means that the voters are forced to find another councillor of similar intentions -- which is often very difficult, if not impossible, to find.

There would be that downside, obviously. I guess one of my main thoughts is with few exceptions politicians seem to become more entrenched in the system and less responsive to the needs of the communities they represent the longer they serve. It's like there is a little political bubble that 90% of them build and never pop. To my eyes many of the worst councillors today were decent councillors two terms ago. There is a certain amount of inertia and tone-deafness that seems inherent in politics - better to limit it if possible. You will kick some good people out along the way, but I bet in many cases a fresh face will be an improvement over someone who stopped caring two terms ago.

someone123 · #11 Posted: **Feb 9, 2012, 6:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halifax Hillbilly

Walker has been acclaimed several times. He also seems to be one of the worst examples of protecting his own turf and the status quo at the expense of the whole municipality. I think it's time for him to move on - I believe he's been four plus terms.

This is, I think, in large part a result of the small size and lack of importance of the HRM districts. These seats aren't competitive because nobody wants them.

The reduced council size should help a lot. At the very least we will have many cases where two old incumbents will be competing for the same seat. On top of that there is the upside of having a smaller group to make decisions -- we really do not need a procession of 23 people making 5 minute vanity speeches about every chicken or cat bylaw.

Halifax Hillbilly · #12 Posted: **Feb 10, 2012, 3:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

This is, I think, in large part a result of the small size and lack of importance of the HRM districts. These seats aren't competitive because nobody wants them.

The reduced council size should help a lot. At the very least we will have many cases where two old incumbents will be competing for the same seat. On top of that there is the upside of having a smaller group to make decisions -- we really do not need a procession of 23 people making 5 minute vanity speeches about every chicken or cat bylaw.

Another thing that hopefully comes out of larger districts is fewer councillors protecting their own turf instead of looking at the bigger picture. I've honestly heard of councillors passing the buck on problems (crappy streets, vandalized infrastructure, poor bus service, etc.) in the district next door, like it doesn't affect their constituents. Not my problem, talk to councillor X,Y or Z.

someone123 · #13 Posted: **Jan 20, 2012, 6:38 PM**

That's what I thought too.

The runoff system could be built into the process (i.e. you rank multiple candidates and if your top pick gets eliminated, your lower picks are used), but I doubt that will change anytime soon.

Keith P. · #14 Posted: **Jan 20, 2012, 10:44 PM**

Fred is a fringe candidate at best. He may get some of the hipster vote but aside from the chicken lobby he cannot be considered as a serious candidate by most people.

kph06 · #15 Posted: **Jan 21, 2012, 12:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Fred is a fringe candidate at best. He may get some of the hipster vote but aside from the chicken lobby he cannot be considered as a serious candidate by most people.

I don't think he will do much off the peninsula, but where he seems to be "Halifamous", he might be getting people to vote who wouldn't normally.

spaustin · #16 Posted: **Jan 21, 2012, 12:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kph06

I don't think he will do much off the peninsula, but where he seems to be "Halifamous", he might be getting people to vote who wouldn't normally.

Yep. Municipal elections can be funny beasts. With turnout of only 36% last time, there is lots of room for new candidates to enter the race. If they can attract voters who didn't participate last time, having more than one won't necessarily hand things to Kelly.

Keith, why isn't Fred a "serious" candidate? He's a successful enterpreneur, a community activist and from the accounts I have heard, a thoughtful man. What would be your criteria for a serious candidate?

someone123 · #17 Posted: **Jan 22, 2012, 7:58 PM**

I don't think there's much point in sending letters to Gloria McCluskey. If you want to have an impact, send the letters to the media, post stuff on facebook, etc., and instead of focusing on McCluskey talk about why this was so bad and why it is in everybody's best interest to have more infill in areas like this.

Like I said before, I was under the impression that McCluskey won't be running in 2012, but I may be incorrect. I think a couple of other bad councillors will also be gone. However, there's no guarantee that they won't be replaced with new councillors who are also terrible. Jennifer Watts was new in 2008 and didn't she just try to pull a "Gloria" on that 8 storey proposal on Quinpool...?

Keith P. · #18 Posted: **Jan 22, 2012, 9:08 PM**

I believe that Blumenthal has said he is retiring. Bob Harvey possibly as well, which is too bad because he is on the right side of most things.

Watts and Barkhouse are the two NDP puppets on council. Both are intelligent people but their priorities are very skewed and they are anti-development. Jim Smith is an absolute moron and tends to be on the wrong side of many things and should go too.

Of the rest, Sloane and McCluskey obviously need to go. Mary Wile is an embarrassment and needs to be replaced. Reg Rankin seems to be suffering health woes and may not re-offer I suspect. Peter Lund is another weak councilor. Debbie Hum is erratic and sometimes takes odd positions.

That's 11 people out of a new council of 16 who should be replaced.

someone123 · #19 Posted: **Jan 22, 2012, 9:32 PM**

We'll see what happens but I don't really expect Sloane to be re-elected given the redrawn boundaries. I think the new South End/Downtown district 7 is far more likely to go to Sue Uteck, which would be an improvement. Maybe we will finally have a downtown councillor with an appreciation for the area as a business district. Sloane seems to treat it as a kind of outgrowth of her own Gottingen neighbourhood. I doubt that voters living in condos along Spring Garden or whatever are thrilled with her. She almost lost in 2008 and had only 1144 votes.

The new District 8 is only maybe 1/3 Sloane's old constituents. If Patrick Murphy were to re-offer he'd probably have a better chance to win. I don't remember a ton about him from 2004-2008, but the fact that he hasn't done anything horrible enough to be memorable places him in front of many other councillors.

I think it's pretty likely that the new council will be an improvement over the old one. The only big risk I see is more Watts/Barkhouse-style candidates -- so the equivalent of a Bev Miller getting one of the districts that's up for grabs. Not a pleasant thought!

Upwords · #20 Posted: **Jan 22, 2012, 9:54 PM**

Good stuff, KeithP and someone123. Excellent assessments on the quality of the councillors. Though pretty discouraging to think 11 of 16 must go. But we're making progress on the "HRM Pro-development Campaign 2012."

Do you think we should start a new thread? (I don't want to distract any further from the Prince Albert Rd. issue - I'm sure there's lots more to be said on that one and this is a broader topic ... and exploratory at best thus far.) I'm new to the forum - please advise.