Decision 2010: Calgary Municipal Election

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by fusili

Exactly. And the only opinions that really count are people that vote. So just cater to the elderly, the chronically unemployed and the obsessive compulsives and you just won an election.

Despite the impression given from the Sun's comment board, the unemployed (like other marginalized groups) tend not to vote.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by charper

There are a few cities which have a mix of Ward Alderman (Councillors) and Councillors at Large. I think it's an interesting way to keep things balanced especially when dealing with issues where what's best for the City conflicts with what's best for a ward.

Though, from an election perspective it might make running for office all the more inaccessible for quality candidates. Mayoral campaigns are expensive because they have to target a larger audience than an Aldermanic. Running for Alderman at Large would likely require similar resources to a Mayoral Campaign.

Just some of my thoughts!

Is there any precedent for ways to consider those who don't get in as mayor to be considered as alderman at large? I suppose it would be a really difficult environment to work in, but on the other hand, I feel bad for the folks who choose to go for mayor and lose when they could have gotten in as alderman. Perhaps the alderman at large spots could be a second phase of voting, where those who lost out for mayor could try their luck.

Is there any precedent elsewhere to get those runner ups into alderman positions?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by charper

There are a few cities which have a mix of Ward Alderman (Councillors) and Councillors at Large. I think it's an interesting way to keep things balanced especially when dealing with issues where what's best for the City conflicts with what's best for a ward.

Though, from an election perspective it might make running for office all the more inaccessible for quality candidates. Mayoral campaigns are expensive because they have to target a larger audience than an Aldermanic. Running for Alderman at Large would likely require similar resources to a Mayoral Campaign.

Just some of my thoughts!

Those are great points to bring up, and things I have considered also. As well, councillors at large lend themselves to a party system, because any non-constituency based representation works better as a proportional representation system than as a first past the post system (at least in my opinion). But now we are getting into electoral politics and that gets complicated. Maybe our city council should use a mixed member proportional system (MMP- just like the German Bundestag). Question is whether city politics are appropriate for a party system. Thoughts?

[Wooster]

Read something interesting on the connect2edmonton website - it was a question and answer with WAP leader Danielle Smith.

Question - jstock
What is the WRA position on LRT expansion funding for Edmonton? We would like to have a NW line to St. Albert limits by 2019 and the west/southeast line done by 2016.

Answer - Danielle Smith
My answer on LRT expansion funding: Wildrose believes we need a new municipal financing model. The current model forces cities, towns, counties and MDs to go begging cap-in-hand to the province for key infrastructure projects in their communities. It pits one municipality against the other and causes the provincial government to make decisions on the basis of political lobbying and vote buying, rather than on priority. Provincial MLAs should not be picking and choosing among their favourite projects. The province should create a financing model that allows each municipality to keep more of the revenues generated in their communities so each municipality can fund their own priorities. A Wildrose government would look at doing this through such methods as allowing the municipality to keep all of the property tax revenue generated in their community for municipal purposes, looking at the AUMA model of shared funding on a predictable formula based of per capita and km of roads, or rebating back to each municipality a portion of the personal income tax revenue generated there. We would not continue to fund municipalities on the current tax-and-transfer model.

There are several major policy planks that I disagree strongly with the WAP, particularly on education and heathcare, but I find their position of municipal funding very interesting. Smith seems to be consistently pushing for the idea of a more autonomous Edmonton and Calgary, particularly from a financial standpoint. Personally, I'm liking what I'm hearing on this front, and I hope whoever is elected mayor continues to push the province no matter who is in power on this issue.

Thoughts?

[MalcolmTucker]

I don't give a hoot nor holler about the funding model - all that matters is the amount. No where in that answer do I see 'more'. Keeping all property taxes would be just fine, just MSI was specifically designed to transfer an equivalent amount of revenue back - is one better than the other? There is nothing to say the City would keep any 'tax room' in the future, since all it takes is a line in the budget to change everything back.

The answer she gave means nothing really, there is no reason that shuffling the deck chairs of where money comes will help at all here. Now ask if giving municipalities or regions the power to enact a local gas tax and she says yes (even if caveated by a plebiscite), then it would be time to play ball.

Would the region vote a 5 cent gas tax in exchange for $6 billion in spending on LRT and regional rail? I'd bet it would.

[Wooster]

Good points. I think the fact that she wants greater municipal autonomy is the salient point. This should include much greater autonomy in how it raises revenues, not just simply a transferring of tax points. If we still have to rely fundamentally on property taxes, we're not much further ahead. The MGA is desperately in need of renewal in Alberta, I hope this is a big part of the conversation in Alberta Politics and that the new mayor pushes the issue ahead.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by Wooster

I think the fact that she wants greater municipal autonomy is the salient point.

It is very interesting how a rather conservative party is mentioning this concept, this local autonomy was also a major part of the urban platform for the Tories in the UK. However, in Alberta I'm convinced that an urban party needs to emerge in order to place the necessary pressure needed to get the proper focus on urban issues.

Getting back to local politics. This article really reveals the pettiness of the opposition to the Bow River Flow, ze Germans close down an entire motorway to party!

[bob1954]

Riise: Totally agree!

[charper]

Originally Posted by fusili

Those are great points to bring up, and things I have considered also. As well, councillors at large lend themselves to a party system, because any non-constituency based representation works better as a proportional representation system than as a first past the post system (at least in my opinion). But now we are getting into electoral politics and that gets complicated. Maybe our city council should use a mixed member proportional system (MMP- just like the German Bundestag). Question is whether city politics are appropriate for a party system. Thoughts?

Personally, I find the attractive part of local politics being the fact I can stand up for what's important to those who elected me. I don't have to tow a party line when it goes against what is best for ward and/or the City.

I think a good example of the appetite for this would be Diane Colley-Urquhart's run for MLA. Her answer basically indicated she would put the party first over constituents. She lost that election badly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7gbarIoJC4

So long as the needs of a party come before the needs of a community, I can't believe it would be serving the best interests of anyone other than the party faithful. In that case, I'd say not appropriate municipally, provincially, or federally.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by charper

So long as the needs of a party come before the needs of a community, I can't believe it would be serving the best interests of anyone other than the party faithful. In that case, I'd say not appropriate municipally, provincially, or federally.

It is all to a matter of degrees, the assumption is that the good of the party is for the good of the 'community' at large. Why is something good for a party? Because it is popular at large. We don't live in a kleptocracy where party members are on the take. Sometimes a local community is wrong. Glenmore is wrong in its opposition to connections to the future ring road for example. If the party faithful as you say are a majority, and their policies don't violate the Charter, aren't you arguing against democracy?

If one neighborhood in a ward is against something that will be great for every other community of the ward - don't you as a one ward alderman just become the party, casting aside those local 'needs' in the interest of all?

Leaving a party to defend the 'local community' is no worse or better than staying in the tent to keep fighting for your community.

In effect, with no parties at the municipal level, once elected you are members of 'the government party'. Because you don't get one decision in your favour are you going to vote against everything else forever in protest? No, you move on to fight another day.

[fusili]

Party systems work where constituency based issues are not as relevant as area-wide issues. National politics is a good example. How much does your MP represent issues in your local constituency compared to an alderman? Foreign affairs, national defence, trade, financial and monetary policies etc, are issues that do not have much to do where specifically you live, whereas transit spending, parks, police, fire and schools really does. Does an MP in any real way influence things on the ground in your community? Probably not. In that sense, federal and provincial politics are much more suited to a party system than municipal politics are. Municipal politics is really about services and infrastructure, which does not really lend itself to parties. I could be wrong though.

[MalcolmTucker]

I am not saying parties are better, just that the different levels aren't much different. Glass houses = no stones.

[charper]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

It is all to a matter of degrees, the assumption is that the good of the party is for the good of the 'community' at large. Why is something good for a party? Because it is popular at large. We don't live in a kleptocracy where party members are on the take. Sometimes a local community is wrong. Glenmore is wrong in its opposition to connections to the future ring road for example. If the party faithful as you say are a majority, and their policies don't violate the Charter, aren't you arguing against democracy?

If one neighborhood in a ward is against something that will be great for every other community of the ward - don't you as a one ward alderman just become the party, casting aside those local 'needs' in the interest of all?

Leaving a party to defend the 'local community' is no worse or better than staying in the tent to keep fighting for your community.

In effect, with no parties at the municipal level, once elected you are members of 'the government party'. Because you don't get one decision in your favour are you going to vote against everything else forever in protest? No, you move on to fight another day.

Good points SHA.

Of course, only valid if a party faithful are the majority. With our First Past the Post System the person with the highest number of votes wins, not the majority. So in effect many elected individuals do not have the support of the majority.

I am not arguing against democracy. In my mind democracy is more than voting. It's a process of dialogue between the public and the representing body where policy and priorities are set based on that dialogue. There are places that vote but are still far from democracies.

I'm saying I can better serve the community when I'm not serving a party platform as well.

[suburb]

http://www.nenshi.ca/new/2010/139

Council must not flip-flop on police budget decision
Posted: Monday, July 19th, 2010 at 4:21 PM | By: Team Nenshi
police walking crop

The debate about pre-approving the police budget is a great example of so much that is wrong with our Council.

The budget process is broken; we all know that. However, we now have the spectacle of several aldermen attempting to circumvent the process and approve $300 million in spending without discussion, without debate, and without any paper.

I’m not suggesting that the police budget needs to be cut; instead, like the Chamber of Commerce and many others, I am suggesting that everything needs to be on the table, and that Council needs to have an honest discussion about all of its options. That honest discussion means that city managers in every department also need to be straightforward and professional about where cuts could be made.

Indeed, the conversation that was furthered by the ad in the newspaper last week is exactly the conversation we should be having, with advocates putting forth their point of view and Council making decisions based upon the best possible information. This is exactly the conversation that Ald. McIver, Ald. Connelly, and their allies are trying to prevent us from having.

Almost lost in this discussion are two important points: first, is it really true that they only way to cut spending in any department (including the Police) is to cut front-line services? For example, the CPS budget has increased by 23% over the last three years, but the number of staff has increased by only 11%. We also spend the second-most of any major city in budget per officer, $30,000 more than Montreal. It may be that this money is well-spent, maybe not, but Council is not actually asking.

Second, what poor budgeting caused this revenue shortfall in the first place? The economy is doing well right now, businesses are recovering, but the city is $60 million short, even with a 6% tax increase in a time when inflation is quite low. Part of this is poor forecasting of natural gas prices, but it also involves a shortfall in user fees and transit ridership. This last one is interesting. Ridership went down almost as soon as the new $3 park-and-ride fee was instituted, implying to me that the new fee actually cost the city money, as people abandoned the transit system. Maybe this isn’t the case, and something else was responsible, but again, Council isn’t asking.

At the end of the day, we need a new budgeting process. But we also need commitment to it. Ald. McIver, for example, cannot claim as the linchpin of his campaign a commitment to cost control, accountability, and transparency through a zero-based budgeting process, and also insist that the largest department is exempt from all three – it can raise costs as much as it wants, be accountable to no one, and have no transparent debate on its spending. If Ald. McIver can’t even stick to his guns during an election campaign, how can we expect him to do so if he were elected?

So I urge Ald. McIver, Ald. Connelly, MLA Hehr, and Mr. Stewart to come clean with Calgarians: are you really in favour of better budgeting and more effective spending, or will you continue to always abandon your principles for the sake of scoring a few cheap political points?

[suburb]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Br...330/story.html

Bridge, budget top issues so far in Calgary mayoral race

By Jason Markusoff, Calgary Herald July 21, 2010 11:00 AM

Here is a rundown of the major issues of the young campaign.
#
# Budget: One of the first duties of the next mayor and city council is to tackle city hall's own budgetary double-squeeze: a property-tax hike tabbed at 6.7 per cent for 2011, and an estimated $60 million in trims necessary to offset a revenue shortfall. If council tomorrow doesn't safeguard the police force from having to share in the austerity, it becomes a campaign issue tinged with crime and security concerns. Questionable priorities and "wasteful" spending will also

be on the lips of many challengers. Even though it's already approved and under construction, the Peace Bridge for downtown pedestrians and cyclists will remain the spending pariah in many corners.

"People are asking two questions: did you support the bridge, and did you support the police budget?" says mayoral candidate Ald. Joe Connelly.
#
# Audit and oversight: First the city auditor exposes widespread sloppiness in billions of dollars in contracts, forcing city brass to admit they need to improve. Then, a review exposes an underperforming city auditor's office, forcing city council

and the audit committee to admit they need a new watchdog. Although the current crowd says process improvements and a review of the audit system are underway, many election contenders say the damage has been done.

"I do think it puts pressure on the incumbents, because a lot of it happened during their watch," says Shawn Kao, trying to unseat Ald. Linda Fox-Mellway in Ward 14. Adopting a provincial-style auditor general at city hall has become a

popular promise. But some candidates are unsure if this complex, tangled issue will remain fresh in voter minds by October.
#
# Transportation: Mayor Dave Bronconnier's legacy may be his road and transit expansions, and the future council must cope with the costs and the public's appetite for more. The southeast LRT, the ring road, the airport access tunnel and

West LRT construction pains are issues that transcend ward boundaries, while various improvements and better bus service will fire up various aldermanic races.
#
# Secondary suites: Relaxed zoning for basement and backyard dwelling units is a housing issue or a parking/nuisance issue, depending on who you ask in one of Calgary politics' most polarizing issues.
#
# Snow removal: If it snows before polls open Oct. 18, expect memories of last winter to flood back and candidates to make torrent of promises on better plowing. But how will that gel with the budget issue?

[Wooster]

^ Now predictably, the Fire Department wants the same treatment. Not the way to handle the budgeting process.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...976/story.html

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by suburb

# Audit and oversight: First the city auditor exposes widespread sloppiness in billions of dollars in contracts, forcing city brass to admit they need to improve. Then, a review exposes an underperforming city auditor's office, forcing city council

and the audit committee to admit they need a new watchdog. Although the current crowd says process improvements and a review of the audit system are underway, many election contenders say the damage has been done.

Why isn't this the voters number one concern? I'd like to know why we can't find 5 members of council that will vote to get the province to review this.

[Bigtime]

You have got to love social media and how it has caught some of the candidates right in the open. Check out this gem from Wayne Stewart, his tweet last week:

The current council needs to approve the 2011 police budget on Monday! http://bit.ly/cFw9xT #yycvote

and here is what he writes today:

The flawed budgeting process now affecting the Fire Dept, as Mayor I will make sure this is fixed http://bit.ly/bzGUes #yycvote

Say what? So first you are for passing the police budget, but now the very thing you advocated for is part of the "flawed" budgeting process you are against.

Hahahahahahahaha!

[devonb]

Time for Calgary Transit to find a new route: Nenshi

Candidate’s plan will make transit a preferred choice – not the last choice – for Calgarians.

While Calgary Transit has posted impressive ridership figures for downtown commuters, it remains a system that no Calgarian loves – too many see it as inconvenient, unreliable, and unsafe, especially for those traveling outside the core. Mayoral candidate Naheed Nenshi aims to change that.

“There are so many issues with Calgary Transit,” says Mayoral Candidate Naheed Nenshi. “All you have to do is try to use it and you will immediately see that it’s not about the passengers. From the machines that don’t give change, to the schedules that don’t allow for easy transfer, to the routes that go almost but quite where you need to, it makes me wonder if the Mayor, the current Aldermen or transit leadership ever use the system.”

Some solutions aren’t even that hard:

Remove the $3 park-and-ride charge
Add a Transit Riders Advisory Committee
Establish performance measures and consequences for Non-compliance
Add simple technologies like smart cards and GPS Next Bus/Train signs to make riding transit easier
And it is time to plan. Calgary’s transit plan is ad hoc and not aligned with the growth of the city – Council sneezes and the entire plan changes. We need a Calgary Transit City plan that includes:

Priorities after the SE LRT and the Stephen Avenue Tunnel, including a North-Central line that actually goes where people live
A root-and-branch reconsideration of bus routes, including more cross-town routes, better service to activity centres not on train lines, like Foothills Hospital and MRU, and much more Bus Rapid Transit, including dedicated bus lanes where appropriate.
“Transit is the solution to so many issues that we face,” adds Nenshi. “From congestion to air pollution to social inclusion, transit is the keystone of successful cities, and we need to start looking at it that way.”


From: http://www.nenshi.ca/new/2010/141

[suburb]

^^^ I like it

I've been on the Nenshi bandwagon from the start as he is trying to provide actual solutions and not just being critical for the sake of being critical. Almost every plan also proactively includes mechanisms for public engagement and dialogue.

I'm still not sure if he can get over the hump with the average joe voter. If you guys like him, start speaking him up elsewhere.