Decision 2010: Calgary Municipal Election

[gantenbein]

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

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

[korzym]

Originally Posted by gantenbein

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

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

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

[Stang]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[gantenbein]

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

[korzym]

Originally Posted by Stang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by korzym

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

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

Ah, the debating style of the Internet.

[korzym]

Originally Posted by freeweed

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

Ah, the debating style of the Internet.

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

[mooky]

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

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.

[korzym]

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

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by korzym

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

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

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

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

[korzym]

Originally Posted by mooky

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

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

End the childish games of coercion.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by Stang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[Stang]

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.

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

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

[korzym]

Originally Posted by Wooster

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

yes

Originally Posted by Wooster

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

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

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

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

[korzym]

Originally Posted by Stang

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

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

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

[niwell]

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

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

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

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[korzym]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

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

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

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

[freeweed]

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

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

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

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