Decision 2010: Calgary Municipal Election

[korzym]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

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?

McIvor who's against these tax raises vs. bronconnier who's whining to the media that the increases are ok.

Secondly I don't know what I have to do with this. Many of you are now picking and choosing ridiculous items like this to lambaste me over, why don't you stick to the issues instead of saying shit like "yet you this or that"

[outoftheice]

I just find it funny that McIvor wrote a big "told ya so" op-ed piece in the Sun the other day talking about how all these lay-offs at City Hall could have been prevented had we only just listened to him last year. He then goes on to tell us to watch the up-coming budget debates closely to see that he's fighting for the tax-payers' interest and trying to bring some sense to 'Silly Hall'. But for some strange reason, what doesn't appear anywhere in the article is that one of the most expensive items that may be added to the budget this year is the money required to keep Race City operating for another few years... a project that was championed by Dr. No himself! And yet I haven't seen a single media outlet pick up on this fact. So what gives? Why does McIvor get a free pass and Bronconnier has every single decision he makes examined with a micro-scope. If McIvor wins the next election it will be because he can manipulate the media better than any other candidate... because if you look closely, his conservative principals are only really conservative when it makes for a juicy sound bite.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by korzym

McIvor who's against these tax raises vs. bronconnier who's whining to the media that the increases are ok.

Secondly I don't know what I have to do with this. Many of you are now picking and choosing ridiculous items like this to lambaste me over, why don't you stick to the issues instead of saying shit like "yet you this or that"

How do you expect to pay for the salaries of police and firemen if taxes don't go up? Are you going to break the union? Or lay off officers?

In Calgary if you don't raise taxes, the city's budget stays flat.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

How do you expect to pay for the salaries of police and firemen if taxes don't go up?

Police and fire services are classic socialism and should be done away with. Let the private sector keep my house from burning down.

Oh, would you mind somehow making sure YOURS doesn't burn down, too? That's a good neighbour. Oh, and the guy on the other side, too. In fact, it sure would be nice if there was a way to coerce both of you to purchase fire protection, so that my house is at much less risk. I wonder what we could come up with as a strategy there...

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by korzym

McIvor who's against these tax raises vs. bronconnier who's whining to the media that the increases are ok.

Secondly I don't know what I have to do with this. Many of you are now picking and choosing ridiculous items like this to lambaste me over, why don't you stick to the issues instead of saying shit like "yet you this or that"

McIver who is against them yet offers no alternative on how to provide revenue, or what services to cut. Bronconnier who is not whining, but simply trying to explain to the public the necessity of them.

I guess I am "singling" you out since you seem to be the only one really pushing for McIver for Mayor on here, I want to know why you support him so much? What do you think he is going to do that will be so different? If he is not going to raise taxes, what services do you want him to cut? What is it that Bronconnier is doing that is so wrong, other than spending a provincial grant on a capital project, that had to be spent on a capital project. Okay, maybe it shouldn't have been a designer bridge. What do you think it should have been?

It is not wanting to lambaste you. I am just trying to understand your position beyond the rhetoric of taxes are too high!

[outoftheice]

Finally, an article in the Herald that calls out the politicians on council. Hopefully we see more articles along these lines as the election approaches. I have no problem with fiscal conservatism.... just so long as the candidates actually practice what they preach.

City budget reveals lack of fiscal conservatives


By Naheed Nenshi, For The Calgary HeraldNovember 19, 2009

Pop some popcorn and slip on your comfy slippers --it's City Hall budget time again! Over the next week (or two, or three), we'll be treated to a lot of grandstanding, clumsy attempts at spin, a bunch of what-are-they-thinking moments, and, in the end, a budget increase that won't really affect most of us.

What we won't see is a thoughtful discussion on what services we need, what kind of a city we want, and how to address the systemic issues that prevent us from getting there.

Part of this is due to who we have on council.

First, it's clear to me that we don't actually have any fiscal conservatives on council. Or any effective ones, anyway.

Ald. Joe Connelly cried bitter figurative tears when council decided not to pursue an Expo bid it could not win--just pursuing would have cost $2 million, and the total loss on the event was estimated at over $1 billion. Connelly's argument? Forget the money, since we could convince the province and feds to pay. He seems to forget that it's all one taxpayer.

Ald. Diane Colley-Urquhart studiously refuses to support redevelopment in her ward that would increase the property base and has recently been crowing about the need to hire more inspectors to rip out stoves in people's perfectly safe secondary suites, thereby infringing on property owners' rights, increasing city costs, and increasing the price of housing. What part of that is conservative?

And then there's Ald. Ric McIver. While he often says the right things, it's telling that in his recent media musings, including a column in the Herald, he has so far been unable to come up with one example of a taxpayer-friendly policy he has actually implemented.

(And while it's nonproductive to belabour his long list of complaints against me personally, I did find it amusing that he seemed mostly upset that I lost an election five years ago, and that lots of folks ask me to run for something at some point in the future. McIver himself lost three times--two municipal elections and a provincial Conservative nomination-- before finally being voted in. McIver has apparently been transparently lusting for the mayor's chair for this entire term, but he refuses to publicly confirm this or announce his aspirations.)

Indeed, the single best recent money-saving idea --a drug court system that has saved taxpayers at least $9 million over the last four years--came from Ald. Druh Farrell, for whom the word "conservative" does not immediately come to mind.

But fun as this finger-pointing is, it masks the real problems in our system --council members who do not or cannot ask smart questions of administration (almost no questions were asked about the Park and Ride fee last year, for example, including whether it would be charged on nights and weekends), an antiquated system of budgeting (while zero-based budgeting likely would not work in such a complex system, there are many other systems which do not reward end-of-year spending binges and do not automatically confer budget increases), and a bias toward suburban development that, as one developer confided in me this week, could cost the city budget as much as $60 million per year in hidden costs.

The biggest problem, of course, is that the property tax is an antiquated way of funding municipalities and leads to these silly turf battles since it's not pegged to inflation.

Changing this will take a provincial political party to propose eliminating the property tax and sharing income tax revenues with cities instead. Any takers?

Naheed Nenshi Teaches At Mount Royal University's Bissett School Of Business

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

[Corndogger]

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.

I just noticed this forum and have been reading posts from the last few weeks or so. Korzym, I feel for ya! One would have to be blind not to realize that the city administration is engaging in social engineering to achieve what they want. Most of the posters here happen to agree with those goals so of course they think everything is fine. But that is not the case with the general public. Wasn't there a scientific poll from a month or so ago that showed Bronco's approval rating is *way* down? He and most people on council would not get reelected if the election were held now. Unless a miracle happens over the next 11 months they won't be reelected.

The comments being made about McIver being a single issue politician seem to conveniently leave out a lot of facts. McIver has supported a lot of projects that people here want so I'm not sure why they are so afraid of him. Trying to minimize tax increases doesn't have to mean we are going to receive less service or crappier service. We need to study how services are delivered and if there are more efficient ways of doing so we need to change delivery methods. Putting city council back in charge instead of the administration is another thing that most people would like to see. I could list a number of other reasons why big change is coming and you've touched on a number of them. People want bang for their tax bucks and that hasn't been happening this term.

[MalcolmTucker]

Could someone please post the poll? I don't remember there being one.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by freeweed

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.

Yes, it's true that Bronco didn't vote in the current parking policies. But nothing is stopping him and the current council from modifying them. People didn't riot in the past because parking rates were reasonable. But now the administration has gone crazy with their anti-car policies and people have had enough. The Calgary Parking Authority's last stunt (no doubt planned with the administration) is going to cause Bronco and company more headaches than they want at this time. Basing the budget on huge increases in fines and extending pay parking times is an excellent example of just how unethical these people have become and Bronco is just as bad because he knew about these plans. Now he has to figure out how to make up the shortfall and this will cause him more grief. McIver could probably win the next election by just promising to do whatever it takes to get rid of people like Dale Fraser, Bill Bruce and the senior planners in this city and replace them with people who are customer focused.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by korzym

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.

It's not exactly fun when big business has you by the balls.

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

It goes both ways though. Look at the trend in countries like Great Britain and the United States, they are suffering the consequences of almost entirely relying on the free-market and have started to move towards a more happy medium. Mooky (copied below) makes a great and rather important point.

Originally Posted by mooky

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.

[bookermorgan]

I'm just happy i dont live outside the city in black diamond, turner valley or nanton and have to pay +/- 8%

well actually as a renter, i pay no taxes. but i do pay recycling, water, and waste

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by bookermorgan

I'm just happy i dont live outside the city in black diamond, turner valley or nanton and have to pay +/- 8%

well actually as a renter, i pay no taxes. but i do pay recycling, water, and waste

As a renter, you pay taxes, they are just hidden. Saying renters don't pay taxes therefor shouldn't be consulted in city budget decisions is a tactic groups here in Toronto play that is pretty much class warfare. I haven't seen it much in Calgary, likely since Calgary's renters are much less visible.

[DizzyEdge]

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.

Wouldn't any council which offloaded these costs on the suburban residents be considered the epitome of 'social engineering' and 'liberals' and be the focus of a giant revolt? I'm not disagreeing with the concept, but rage over a pedestrian bridge would be nothing compared to the anger over this.

[outoftheice]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I just noticed this forum and have been reading posts from the last few weeks or so. Korzym, I feel for ya! One would have to be blind not to realize that the city administration is engaging in social engineering to achieve what they want. Most of the posters here happen to agree with those goals so of course they think everything is fine. But that is not the case with the general public. Wasn't there a scientific poll from a month or so ago that showed Bronco's approval rating is *way* down? He and most people on council would not get reelected if the election were held now. Unless a miracle happens over the next 11 months they won't be reelected.

The comments being made about McIver being a single issue politician seem to conveniently leave out a lot of facts. McIver has supported a lot of projects that people here want so I'm not sure why they are so afraid of him. Trying to minimize tax increases doesn't have to mean we are going to receive less service or crappier service. We need to study how services are delivered and if there are more efficient ways of doing so we need to change delivery methods. Putting city council back in charge instead of the administration is another thing that most people would like to see. I could list a number of other reasons why big change is coming and you've touched on a number of them. People want bang for their tax bucks and that hasn't been happening this term.

I'm not afraid of McIver, I just think he's full of it. Personally, I like Bronconnier as mayor. He has a vision that he wants to see realized and he's not afraid to do what it takes to make it happen. Yes he has ruffled a few feathers lately and yes we have seen tax increases that were un-heard of back in the Duerr days, but we've also seen him be the driving force behind a lot of projects during his time in the mayor's chair.... alot of which probably never would have happened had we had a less take-charge person in the mayor's chair or one who was more worried about the bottom line. That being said, I'm not afraid of a fiscal conservative winning the mayoral race, even if that means that Bronconnier would be out as a result.

What I don't like are "sound bite" politicians like McIver. I don't think he's all that much of a fiscal conservative... he just likes the way it plays in the media. Look at the Race City issue.... it's going to cost Calgary tax-payers millions in additional funds over the next few years to keep it open.... and McIver was the one who pushed it through council. Yet he is first in line at the microphones to go on and on about the spending at the City of Calgary and how he's been the lone warrior fighting against property tax increase. Well maybe we shouldn't have to lay off city staff Ric, but how many of them would still have the jobs for the $600,000 that council now has to find to pay for Race City? "No this, no that" all the guy says is no to spending on any issue he thinks will play well in the media. Sorry Ric, it's easy to blast others for their ideas when you never actually present any of your own...

Call me old fashion, but I will vote for a candidate with real principals. Like I said, like him or hate him, everybody knows where Bronconnier stands on the issues and which direction he wants to see the city move. (fortunately for me, it's a direction that I agree on). If he's going to lose, he'll lose because people don't like who he is and what he stands for, and I'm okay with that. However, if McIver wins, he'll be winning because of how he's manipluated the media, and how he delivers his fiscally conservative sound-bites. He'll be winning because he seems to get a free pass on the issues where he isn't a fiscal conservative... where he's just as liberal as the rest of them. As Corndogger pointed out.... he's supported a lot of issues that people on here (in our crazy liberal ways) also support.... But why doesn't the average Calgarian know that? In short, if McIver wins he'll be winning because of who people think he is, not because of who he actually is. If Bronconnier loses, so be it. But I want him to lose to somebody who has the guts to make a stand for what they believe in and take the heat from the public when what they believe in doesn't exactly jive with public opinion. I have yet to see this from McIver in his time as alderman. All I've seen is grand-standing on certain key issues and a fairly liberal agenda when the cameras are focussed elsewhere. This next election should be one by the person with the best vision for the City.... not the person who managed to weasel their way to the top.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I just noticed this forum and have been reading posts from the last few weeks or so. Korzym, I feel for ya! One would have to be blind not to realize that the city administration is engaging in social engineering to achieve what they want. Most of the posters here happen to agree with those goals so of course they think everything is fine. But that is not the case with the general public. Wasn't there a scientific poll from a month or so ago that showed Bronco's approval rating is *way* down? He and most people on council would not get reelected if the election were held now. Unless a miracle happens over the next 11 months they won't be reelected.

The comments being made about McIver being a single issue politician seem to conveniently leave out a lot of facts. McIver has supported a lot of projects that people here want so I'm not sure why they are so afraid of him. Trying to minimize tax increases doesn't have to mean we are going to receive less service or crappier service. We need to study how services are delivered and if there are more efficient ways of doing so we need to change delivery methods. Putting city council back in charge instead of the administration is another thing that most people would like to see. I could list a number of other reasons why big change is coming and you've touched on a number of them. People want bang for their tax bucks and that hasn't been happening this term.

I'm one who happens to agree with council's goals, but I think the delivery has been atrocious. I feel for people who feel that council as coerced them into following those plans, as I am of the opinion that council doesn't seem to have done what it needs to do to get public buy-in. One example is Plan It.

I do agree with the plan as a whole, for sure, but for example council only did the study that indicated it would save $11 billion over x number of years AFTER everyone was all up in arms. This seems backwards to me, all of these studies should be done and the evidence of 'this is a good idea' done BEFORE bring it to council. If people get pissed off about some policy and then you do the study to determine how great it will be then people are going to think that's a bit too convenient, and also wonder why these sort of proving studies weren't done before coming up with the plan. Instead of "here's a plan, and we're going to implement it", and then deal with the blowback, I'd like to see council indicate it's studying options to solve problems everyone acknowledges, and then come out with a plan they indicate will solve them, not come out with the plan then try to explain what it's supposed to achieve.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by outoftheice

I'm not afraid of McIver, I just think he's full of it. Personally, I like Bronconnier as mayor. He has a vision that he wants to see realized and he's not afraid to do what it takes to make it happen. Yes he has ruffled a few feathers lately and yes we have seen tax increases that were un-heard of back in the Duerr days, but we've also seen him be the driving force behind a lot of projects during his time in the mayor's chair.... alot of which probably never would have happened had we had a less take-charge person in the mayor's chair or one who was more worried about the bottom line. That being said, I'm not afraid of a fiscal conservative winning the mayoral race, even if that means that Bronconnier would be out as a result.

As far as I'm concerned, the media is mostly responsible for building up McIver's reputation as being against everything. His voting record definitely indicates otherwise. Too often the media seems to be taking his questioning of what the administration wants to do as being against something. Demanding transparency and accountability are good things and I believe most people want those two principles to be adhered to. A big knock against Bronco, Druh, etc. is that they honestly don't seem to care about what the majority wants and way too many decisions are now being made behind closed doors. Bronco in his first term and the first half of his second term seemed to be in touch with the needs and wants of citizens but that has completely ended this term. He's completely shifted his priorities and they do not match what the majority want. Did he actually change or did he grow tired of dealing with a completely out of touch administration and decide to give up because he doesn't care about a fourth term?

Originally Posted by outoftheice

What I don't like are "sound bite" politicians like McIver. I don't think he's all that much of a fiscal conservative... he just likes the way it plays in the media. Look at the Race City issue.... it's going to cost Calgary tax-payers millions in additional funds over the next few years to keep it open.... and McIver was the one who pushed it through council. Yet he is first in line at the microphones to go on and on about the spending at the City of Calgary and how he's been the lone warrior fighting against property tax increase. Well maybe we shouldn't have to lay off city staff Ric, but how many of them would still have the jobs for the $600,000 that council now has to find to pay for Race City? "No this, no that" all the guy says is no to spending on any issue he thinks will play well in the media. Sorry Ric, it's easy to blast others for their ideas when you never actually present any of your own...

People seem to be forgetting that the city had an agreement with Race City until 2015 and it wouldn't look good to break that deal. At least that's what McIver is saying along with concern about illegal street racing. Spending money on something with a limited life doesn't make sense but then neither does breaking agreements, especially based on some dubious and contradictory reasoning.

As for city jobs, the city never should have expanded so quickly and they definitely should not have done recruiting trips to the UK. If McIver pledges to put an end to such practices he'll have greatly increased his chances of getting my vote.

Originally Posted by outoftheice

Call me old fashion, but I will vote for a candidate with real principals. Like I said, like him or hate him, everybody knows where Bronconnier stands on the issues and which direction he wants to see the city move. (fortunately for me, it's a direction that I agree on). If he's going to lose, he'll lose because people don't like who he is and what he stands for, and I'm okay with that. However, if McIver wins, he'll be winning because of how he's manipluated the media, and how he delivers his fiscally conservative sound-bites. He'll be winning because he seems to get a free pass on the issues where he isn't a fiscal conservative... where he's just as liberal as the rest of them. As Corndogger pointed out.... he's supported a lot of issues that people on here (in our crazy liberal ways) also support.... But why doesn't the average Calgarian know that? In short, if McIver wins he'll be winning because of who people think he is, not because of who he actually is. If Bronconnier loses, so be it. But I want him to lose to somebody who has the guts to make a stand for what they believe in and take the heat from the public when what they believe in doesn't exactly jive with public opinion. I have yet to see this from McIver in his time as alderman. All I've seen is grand-standing on certain key issues and a fairly liberal agenda when the cameras are focussed elsewhere. This next election should be one by the person with the best vision for the City.... not the person who managed to weasel their way to the top.

The problem is do most people know where Bronco stands on the issues? I really like how he fights to make sure Calgary gets funding from higher levels of government but I'm not a fan of what the money has been spent on lately. I'm quite sure that most people would agree with me. If Bronco would get back in touch with what the majority want and stop listening to the social engineers that make up the administration, he would win the next election easily. But since that doesn't seem to be happening (at least not fast enough) McIver will have a good chance of defeating him. Ric has close to a year to present us with his vision and if he presents something reasonable and promises to take back decision making from the administration and to make city council decision making transparent and accountable he'll more than likely win. Promising no or smaller tax increases will not do it for him. It's how the money is spent that is what most people are concerned about.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I'm one who happens to agree with council's goals, but I think the delivery has been atrocious. I feel for people who feel that council as coerced them into following those plans, as I am of the opinion that council doesn't seem to have done what it needs to do to get public buy-in. One example is Plan It.

I do agree with the plan as a whole, for sure, but for example council only did the study that indicated it would save $11 billion over x number of years AFTER everyone was all up in arms. This seems backwards to me, all of these studies should be done and the evidence of 'this is a good idea' done BEFORE bring it to council. If people get pissed off about some policy and then you do the study to determine how great it will be then people are going to think that's a bit too convenient, and also wonder why these sort of proving studies weren't done before coming up with the plan. Instead of "here's a plan, and we're going to implement it", and then deal with the blowback, I'd like to see council indicate it's studying options to solve problems everyone acknowledges, and then come out with a plan they indicate will solve them, not come out with the plan then try to explain what it's supposed to achieve.

Was it city council that asked for that study or the administration? I bet a lot of people don't believe results of that study at all. The number seems to be coming out of thin air, downplays the huge costs involved in (re)developing old land and over estimates the costs of suburban infrastructure and now doubt based such costs on road/interchange plans, etc. on plans that they would never consider. Plan It also revealed how the administration has been lying to us for years about certain items which also didn't please a lot of people.

The next city council has to take control back from the administration or else this city will never move forward in a meaningful way. Expecting citizens to never question decisions and to keep paying ever increasing costs for projects that the vast majority don't want is not going to last long. The current council is starting to see that but the administration sure isn't. It might be time to consider making the chief adminstrator's position an elected one along with Bill Bruce's decision. Don't laugh about the Bill Bruce suggestion, he probably has just as much impact on people's lives as does their council member and it's usually a negative impact.

[wild wild west]

Bronco is still the least of all evils out of potential candidates so far, as far as I am concerned. He's driven/supported a few really bad decisions (LRT park & ride fees in particular) but overall he's done more good than bad - East Village TIF financing (even if it took too darn long to get going), was a big supporter of Plan|it|, WLRT (even though I still think SE would have been a better investment), securing a better deal from the development industry in terms of development fees, transit investment, securing more money from the province (he nagged incessantly but it paid off). Granted it takes a vote by Council, but as mayor he sets the tone and was a big driver of such things. I just can't see someone like McIver getting very much done - I don't consider a return to the Duerr years of no tax hikes but no infrastructure investment of any kind to be a positive step for a city that is evolving into a metropolis.

[freeweed]

Corndogger, this is going to sound like a back-handed compliment but believe me when I say that I mean it with utmost sincerity. Something's changed in your posting style and I actually rather enjoy reading your posts as of late. Whatever you've done, keep it up! I wish I could get away from the stupid bickering of the Internet, myself.

Anyway, who wants to get a pool going on the next election?

[fusili]

I would disagree about McIver's voting record. I mean the guy votes against procedural motions. Things like updating text and spelling errors and crap like that. I do think he does have some good ideas, but he votes against things sometimes just for the sake of having an opposition.