Decision 2010: Calgary Municipal Election

[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]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Wooster

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]

Originally Posted by korzym

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

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]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

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]

Originally Posted by korzym

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]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

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]

Originally Posted by korzym

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]

Originally Posted by gantenbein

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]

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

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by fusili

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!!!!

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!!