Municipal Politics

[ByeByeBaby]

I've seen Jyoti speak once and she is smart as hell, outspoken, hilarious and really understands cities and how they work. I can't imagine how good Calgary could be with half a dozen of her on council.

[Rollerstud98]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

I've seen Jyoti speak once and she is smart as hell, outspoken, hilarious and really understands cities and how they work. I can't imagine how good Calgary could be with half a dozen of her on council.

If you have to eat the same meal 3 times a day every day, how long until you are sick of that meal? Need all kinds of ideas and opinions to form a good council.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Brian Pincott confirms he will not be running again

http://www.calgary.ca/citycouncil/wa...ouncement.aspx

It's unfortunate, he was quite thoughtful and really understood how things worked. He will be missed.

[Cage]

I suspect that Pincott will transition to the provincial government until 2019 when he will run for the AB NDP (again - he ran for the NDP in the early 2000s but can't remember if it was federal or AB).

Pincott is also closely associated with AskHer, I expect there will be strong female candidate for ward 11 that he will back. The question becomes, will this candidate be able to overcome the momentum from Jeromy Farkas? He has been campaigning for the past six months.

I will miss Pincott's viewpoints at SPC TnT. But there are better candidates in other wards to carry the "never met a secondary suite I didn't like" flag. The above mentioned Jyoti Gondek comes to mind.

The departure of Pincott also affirms my choice to actively campaign in Ward 4 to unseat Chu. Greg Miller has my support at the water cooler and on line forums. My main problem with Chu is that he is far to erratic in voting to discern a voting pattern on any issue. Colley Urquhart is on the bubble of coming to the same position as Chu.

I will still also support Sutherland, Magliocca, Jones, Chabot, Keating, Demong, Pootmans, and Nenshi. Woolley' pragmatism might get him put on the support list.

With the change to Ward boundaries, I can see Farrell better positioned to support the communities in the new Ward 7. My main problem with Farrell has always been that her views do not support her constituents in Dalhousie, Brentwood, Triwood, etc. With the more single family home communities moving to ward 4, my views of her will change.

I cannot support Carra for the same reason as Farrell in Dalhousie. I believe that in a nonpartisan democracy, the representative should vote according to the wishes of the constituents. Carra has on a few occasions said he prefers to vote his conscience, and if constituents don't like it they can vote him out at the next election.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Show me a ward where everyone agrees on an issue, and I would be tempted to agree. Until then, Councillors will use the time and resources afforded to them, combined with experience and character, to make decisions that they think is best for the area and the City.

When you have thousands of constituents, it's impossible to 'vote according to the wishes of the constituents', as it's rarely clear what those wishes are, and some will always say you should have done the opposite. At best Councillors have to decide who to listen to, and view decisions through a filter of their own experience (or conscience). Carra is right: If people don't like his choices, they should vote him out. Otherwise every decision should go to plebiscite and we eliminate council altogether (we should not do this).

Very well said.

I hope Cage's initial thinking about a strong AskHer candidate being ready for Ward 11 is true. I just don't see the play for Pincott to step down without someone else to challenge Farkas, who's online campaigning has been playing pretty fast and loose with the facts (and it is always fun to see a certain person on Facebook always fact check them on almost every post he does).

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Cage

I cannot support Carra for the same reason as Farrell in Dalhousie. I believe that in a nonpartisan democracy, the representative should vote according to the wishes of the constituents. Carra has on a few occasions said he prefers to vote his conscience, and if constituents don't like it they can vote him out at the next election.

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Show me a ward where everyone agrees on an issue, and I would be tempted to agree. Until then, Councillors will use the time and resources afforded to them, combined with experience and character, to make decisions that they think is best for the area and the City.

When you have thousands of constituents, it's impossible to 'vote according to the wishes of the constituents', as it's rarely clear what those wishes are, and some will always say you should have done the opposite. At best Councillors have to decide who to listen to, and view decisions through a filter of their own experience (or conscience). Carra is right: If people don't like his choices, they should vote him out. Otherwise every decision should go to plebiscite and we eliminate council altogether (we should not do this).

I agree with 5seconds. Voting "according to your constituents" means voting for the loudest voices, often the most negative ones, and those with the most resources to make themselves heard. I think what a councilor should do is clearly articulate their values and vision for the city, and act accordingly during their term on that vision.

Every time a councilor votes "with their constituents" against what they campaigned on, they are voting against those who voted for their vision and values. In a democracy, every vote is equal, and we don't just listen those who have the time, money and energy to be heard outside of an election.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by fusili

I agree with 5seconds. Voting "according to your constituents" means voting for the loudest voices, often the most negative ones, and those with the most resources to make themselves heard. I think what a councilor should do is clearly articulate their values and vision for the city, and act accordingly during their term on that vision.

Every time a councilor votes "with their constituents" against what they campaigned on, they are voting against those who voted for their vision and values. In a democracy, every vote is equal, and we don't just listen those who have the time, money and energy to be heard outside of an election.

I agree with Fusili here. When we vote in people to a council or any level of government, we're choosing those people who can dig into information and make informed decisions based on knowledge and context that might not be available or consumable to the population at large. We can't be thinking of our elected officials as vote hounds and figure heads. They need to make some calls, but of course, that also reinforces the importance of voting in people who are capable.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Show me a ward where everyone agrees on an issue, and I would be tempted to agree. Until then, Councillors will use the time and resources afforded to them, combined with experience and character, to make decisions that they think is best for the area and the City.

When you have thousands of constituents, it's impossible to 'vote according to the wishes of the constituents', as it's rarely clear what those wishes are, and some will always say you should have done the opposite. At best Councillors have to decide who to listen to, and view decisions through a filter of their own experience (or conscience). Carra is right: If people don't like his choices, they should vote him out. Otherwise every decision should go to plebiscite and we eliminate council altogether (we should not do this).

December 5th Combined meeting of Council, agenda item 6.10. On the floor of council the applicant got up and requested that their R-C1s land use amendment be withdrawn. Carra led the charge that council should debate the merits of the land use amendment and proceed with the land use change as recommended by CPC. at the same time Pincott would not move or support the file and abandon motion and left the matter for another councillor (Chabot). Pincott and Carra even voted against the Pootmans compromise of tabling the CPC recommendation Sine Die, which would have allowed for more consultation between the applicant and neighbors.

Next week there will be 12 secondary suite applications from a single developer. There should be debate about the merits of a professional developer using (I would say abusing) a process the city set up primarily for individual landowners. Essentially the developer is building a multi million dollar business on the backs of the Calgary taxpayer and abusing the accelerated secondary suite approval process. This action is not allowed in other settings. A lawyer cannot go to Small Claims Court and expect the same relaxations regarding rules of court procedure as an individual can when the self represent. I am professional accountant with an income tax specialty., consequently CRA does not provide me with a large amount of leniency as is the case with a member of the general public.

My point: because Carra, Pincott, and Farrell have never seen a secondary suite application they disagreed with; they will vote in favour of all 12 applications. Despite objections from the associated community associations and neighbours.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I agree with Fusili here. When we vote in people to a council or any level of government, we're choosing those people who can dig into information and make informed decisions based on knowledge and context that might not be available or consumable to the population at large. We can't be thinking of our elected officials as vote hounds and figure heads. They need to make some calls, but of course, that also reinforces the importance of voting in people who are capable.

I like that term: vote hounds.

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

As a resident of Ward 11, I think Pincott did a good job, and I worry now about who will replace him.

Same here. My area is being transferred from Ward 8 to Ward 11, and there isn't enough people living here yet to counter any kind of suburban vote.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Same here. My area is being transferred from Ward 8 to Ward 11, and there isn't enough people living here yet to counter any kind of suburban vote.

But your area is being transitioned to 11 because of the sucess of densification and urbanization of the beltline and other areas of 8.

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by Cage

But your area is being transitioned to 11 because of the sucess of densification and urbanization of the beltline and other areas of 8.

But so what? It doesn't change the fact that it's just a sliver of urban population among a sea of suburbanites. I'm so very sure my next councillor will carefully balance the needs of a handful of downtown apartment dwellers against the needs of the Oakridge, Cedarbrae, and Haysboro.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

At most we can say that they were voting against the wishes of several local neighbours and against the Board of Directors of the Community Association, but I would caution against assuming that those groups accurately represents the entire Ward's constituents. (They may very well represent that, but I can't say it definitively.)

That's very polite and diplomatic

In my limited & indirect experience, the community association is driven by a very small number of (sometimes) motivated individuals. Usually very well-intentioned individuals! They are usually acclaimed, or if elected, are elected by an absurdly small quorum.

And most of the time, they do excellent & underappreciated work. But if something controversial comes up, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and those that squeak may not represent the entire community, but are simply very motivated individuals speaking strongly for their perception of their self-interests.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

(1) Those councillors ran on platforms that included broad support for densification and secondary suites, and were elected by the constituents of their Wards. If the polls are to be believed, those positions regarding secondary suites are also supported by the majority of Calgarians.

(2) I'll also say that having served on my own Community Association board, I have seen many decisions made by the Board in isolation without getting feedback from the community at large. These were decisions that were raised by individual members of the Board that were voted on at the same meeting in which they were raised, without putting the issue to the community, or seeking feedback. This isn't to dismiss community associations, not at all, but simply a request to view their statement in the broader context of the community at large and the City as a whole.

(3) This is a very roundabout way of saying that despite the example you gave, I see nothing that could definitively say that these councillors were not voting in accordance with the wishes of their constituents. At most we can say that they were voting against the wishes of several local neighbours and against the Board of Directors of the Community Association, but I would caution against assuming that those groups accurately represents the entire Ward's constituents. (They may very well represent that, but I can't say it definitively.)

(1) In any decision at the executive level, there are times when one has to break from principle and support the pragmatic solution. My beef with the three named councillors is not that they support densification and secondary suites, but rather that they do so in all instances.

On the support for secondary suites in Calgary. I find this large gap between the polling and actual experience. If support for secondary suites is so widespread, why do we see land use amendments come forward with one person in favour and 3-50 people against? At most in the lat six months, there was one R(C)-1s application with greater than 5 people in favour.

(2) It is ingrained in Calgary Neighbourhoods and other city processes that the Community Association speaks for the community. Same as the councillor represents their ward, the Mayor represents Calgary, the premier represents Alberta, and the PM represents Canada.

In the 2007 civic election Colley-Urqhuart was acclaimed for ward 13. She represented ward 13 with the same authority as the other councillors who faced challengers.

(3) Check the video for item 6.10, each of the three councillors said they could not support file and abandon under any circumstances. despite the wishes of the constituents. This was a pure principle matter.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Cage

On the support for secondary suites in Calgary. I find this large gap between the polling and actual experience. If support for secondary suites is so widespread, why do we see land use amendments come forward with one person in favour and 3-50 people against? At most in the lat six months, there was one R(C)-1s application with greater than 5 people in favour.

Because, by and large, those who turn up for these things are people who are against it. It is called negativity bias, and it isn't just found in municipal politics. How many people take the time to write a glowing review of a restaurant or a hotel? Far fewer than those who had a bad experience.

[DizzyEdge]

It's bizarre to me that the secondary suite thing is still an issue.

[You Need A Thneed]

The majority of secondary suite applications have 0 against. Larry Heather signing up to speak against each one doesn't count.

[Bigtime]

Why this city continues to waste so much time debating every single suite instead of just allowing them is just confusing to me. It's not like we are the first city to ever decide to make them legal all over, precedents have been set in lots of places and did not lead to the ruin of neighbourhoods "character", "property values", "safety", and all the other garbage reasons almost everyone that speaks against them trots out.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

It's bizarre to me that the secondary suite thing is still an issue.

It's a weird Calgary thing. Every city has some weird issue that they obsess over. With Edmonton it is infill houses. Lots of rural municipalities have issues with large garages and other accessory buildings. I have no idea why Calgary developed this issue, but it has.

[CalgaryAlex]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Why this city continues to waste so much time debating every single suite instead of just allowing them is just confusing to me. It's not like we are the first city to ever decide to make them legal all over, precedents have been set in lots of places and did not lead to the ruin of neighbourhoods "character", "property values", "safety", and all the other garbage reasons almost everyone that speaks against them trots out.

I think this is the crux of the matter. The above mentioned Councillors who approve the vast majority of secondary suites have clearly stated their opinions on the entire issue. They think the review process is a waste of time for them, and approve the applications because they have already been reviewed at another level.

Shit, council could be reviewing every application for replacing staircases in any redevelopment in the city. But they don't, because it would be a waste of time in city council - where many larger issues have to be dealt with. And if they did, I bet many Councillors would approve each application that came across their desk just so they could move onto a different file. It is 2017, which means this issue has been very visible for a very long time. History proves that secondary suites are not big ticket applications and they don't deserve to be handled as such. I applaud those Councillors who approve all applications to make a statement that they shouldn't even be looking at the paperwork in the first place.

This needs to be an election issue and it needs to be dealt with once and for all before the "new" city council has warmed up their seats. Find success stories from other North American cities, emulate to form a set of rules, and change the damn process.