Decision 2010: Calgary Municipal Election

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

The other thing that may pop up is the PGIB/Craig Chandler slate that was being talked about a little while back.

Anyone associated with Craig Chandler is asking not to get elected. I'm all in favor of getting rid of the left-wing nutcases on council but I don't want them replaced with right-wing ones.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Anyone associated with Craig Chandler is asking not to get elected. I'm all in favor of getting rid of the left-wing nutcases on council but I don't want them replaced with right-wing ones.

You know Chandler's been involved with Ric McIver. They both originate from the PGIB. That said, if PGIB actually tries to run a slate of candidates, I wouldn't be surprised if they distanced each other for the mayoral run. Chandler's name is toxic.

[crooked rain]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Pincott isn't anywhere near close enough now but he seems to have managed to be one of the most progressive voices on city council without attracting the kind of vitriol that gets directed at Farrell. Another term as an Alderman and he might have a pretty decent shot.

As someone who is moderate, I thought Pincott might be a bit of a flakey alderman. He has actually impressed me quite a bit.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Maybe I should be more clear, I'm not saying Chandler will run, I don't know if he will or not. I'm saying there was talk that there would be a PGIB-backed slate, where by they would have candidates in most, if not all wards with the goal of bringing partisanship into City Council.

I really hope we don't get partisanship on council.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I'd throw Pincott and Lowe into the irresponsible column as well.

I find the timing of Bronco's announcement and the East Village folks asking for another $20 million interesting. Apparently now we're to the $250 million level in investment for the East Village with not much to show for it. The media might buy the line that this isn't costing taxpayers a penny but most citizens are a lot smarter than the media. That money has to be paid back with interest and if enough of a tax base isn't created in the area it only makes sense the rest of us will have to pay the bill.

While I have explained before how the TIF is not new money, and actually costs everyone the same amount as it not existing and just paying for the work in the EV, it is impossible for the TIF to fail because of the design of the TIF district. The district includes The Bow. That alone will pay off the TIF in incredibly short order.

As for average citizens knowing where money comes from, who is spending it, etc - don't hold your breath. If the media can't figure it out, people won't get the message. (not knocking individual people, but as a group issue attention is very very minimal)

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

While I have explained before how the TIF is not new money, and actually costs everyone the same amount as it not existing and just paying for the work in the EV, it is impossible for the TIF to fail because of the design of the TIF district. The district includes The Bow. That alone will pay off the TIF in incredibly short order.

As for average citizens knowing where money comes from, who is spending it, etc - don't hold your breath. If the media can't figure it out, people won't get the message. (not knocking individual people, but as a group issue attention is very very minimal)

Including the Bow in the TIF was a joke. The Bow would have been built without the improvements to East Village, which goes against the spirit of TIF. Calling it a TIF was an exercise in obfuscation. The City's balance sheet would be $100M stronger if the East Village had never proceeded. I'm not against redevelopment of East Village, just the mechanism and timing. It will likely be at least 10-20 years before anything substantial breaks ground in the area over which time the City will pay tens of millions in interest.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

You know Chandler's been involved with Ric McIver. They both originate from the PGIB. That said, if PGIB actually tries to run a slate of candidates, I wouldn't be surprised if they distanced each other for the mayoral run. Chandler's name is toxic.

But is he still involved with McIver now?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Really? Certainly there are many who are, but the general public as a group?

As time goes on the media is getting dumber and dumber. I don't know what is taught in journalism programs but it sure isn't an understanding of current events (at any level) or the ability to analyze complex topics. Regurgitating or just plain copying a wire story seems to be the extent of what most of these young media types can do. Once a story gets repeated enough they believe it even without evidence. Global warming/climate change is a perfect example.

I'll admit that there are a lot of clued-out people in the general public but in most cases it's because they are not interested in a given topic. But once they do get interested they do a much better job of the media at getting at the source of an issue. People have had enough of this council and they are quickly discovering that a lot of money has been wasted on projects that they don't support. They'll demand change and I highly doubt they'll buy the we know best line that some council members and the administration love to use.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

But is he still involved with McIver now?

From what I recall he's claiming to not be involved anymore, something along the lines of focusing on helping other candidates who need more help winning in the first place.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Ceci showed his true colors with that crazy "take back the streets comment" and going to such extremes to control fire pits.

Really? This is the first I've heard of any politician daring to take a stand on this issue. I've ranted and raved about that pollution since moving here and all I've ever gotten back was shrugs from people who figure there's no political will to do anything about it. Pretty much the identical reaction to anti-smoking laws 20 years ago. Why change anything, because if this was how things were when *I* grew up, it MUST be the best way to do it, right?

Kinda disappointed with Bronco not running. Whether I agree or disagree with every specific thing he's done, I have to give major credit to the guy for his optimism and his can-do attitude. At a time when the usual scaremongering media is howling for his head (yes, the average Calgarian sure is suffering these days, we might have to buy only 2 beamers next year), and the economy is in the dumps, he rightly points out that that's no excuse to just slam on the brakes. He knows full well that kind of short-term thinking will seriously fuck over this city and set us back 10 years, ie: right back to how things ran in the 90s when sweet diddly was done.

Calgary is right on the cusp of moving from a "largish Canadian city" to a "BIG Canadian city" and stopping everything is assinine. I've seen where that ends up (stagnating cities). Bronco at least has the vision, and more importantly the guts, to keep us moving forward.

I moved to Calgary because of attitudes like his, and in my incredibly short time here this city has improved immensely. If I just wanted to save $5 on next year's property taxes, and watch the city grind to a halt, I have plenty of options in the rest of the country, thanks very much.

I shudder to think who will replace him. All I see right now are the extremes - McIvers and Farrells. Yay, now we can watch nothing happen while both sides fight to the death over the buzzwords and the hot media topic of the day.

[niwell]

Wow, I can't believe Bronco isn't running. Though I haven't lived in the city for almost a decade now I have come back at least once or twice a year and can safely say it's improved FAR more than in the previous decade.

I have more than a cursory interest in local Calgary politics and am not sure any of the current crop of Aldermen should be mayor, though a few (such as Ceci) seem OK to me. Certainly could be wrong though. Are there any outsider contendors?

The parallels with Toronto's '10 election are actually quite interesting with a lefty incumbent retiring after the pass of a controversial budget. Thankfully our version of McIver isn't running... yet (Rob Ford). I'll be watching both and voting in one.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Really? This is the first I've heard of any politician daring to take a stand on this issue. I've ranted and raved about that pollution since moving here and all I've ever gotten back was shrugs from people who figure there's no political will to do anything about it. Pretty much the identical reaction to anti-smoking laws 20 years ago. Why change anything, because if this was how things were when *I* grew up, it MUST be the best way to do it, right?

Ceci has taken on the fire pit issue at least twice and still isn't finished as far as I can tell. There was considerably less than 500 complaints last year (I'm sure there were multiple complaints made by some people) and there are over 47,000 fire pits. In the overall scheme of things this is a very minor issue but I do realize that it's not for people with respiratory problems. But wanting to ban them or license them (typical administration response to make a buck) isn't the solution. This is a case where neighbors need to work things out between them and I'd say, based on the numbers, this is working. A few years ago the City did force people with fire pits to stop using by them 1 AM so these people have already had to give up some of their enjoyment.

Originally Posted by freeweed

Kinda disappointed with Bronco not running. Whether I agree or disagree with every specific thing he's done, I have to give major credit to the guy for his optimism and his can-do attitude. At a time when the usual scaremongering media is howling for his head (yes, the average Calgarian sure is suffering these days, we might have to buy only 2 beamers next year), and the economy is in the dumps, he rightly points out that that's no excuse to just slam on the brakes. He knows full well that kind of short-term thinking will seriously fuck over this city and set us back 10 years, ie: right back to how things ran in the 90s when sweet diddly was done.

I agree with you and I believe the majority of citizens do as well. It's the direction and projects he's supported the last few years that are turning off the masses. His determination to fight for funding for this city will be sorely missed. It's just too bad he didn't pay closer attention to what the majority want. I'm sure the media is going to push for huge constraint and I hope like hell they don't get their way. This city has a history of going in cycles where we do nothing for about 10 years followed by massive building for the next 10 years and we always get screwed by building in heated times. We're too big now to go an entire decade of doing next to nothing in terms of infrastructure.

Originally Posted by freeweed

Calgary is right on the cusp of moving from a "largish Canadian city" to a "BIG Canadian city" and stopping everything is assinine. I've seen where that ends up (stagnating cities). Bronco at least has the vision, and more importantly the guts, to keep us moving forward.

I moved to Calgary because of attitudes like his, and in my incredibly short time here this city has improved immensely. If I just wanted to save $5 on next year's property taxes, and watch the city grind to a halt, I have plenty of options in the rest of the country, thanks very much.

I shudder to think who will replace him. All I see right now are the extremes - McIvers and Farrells. Yay, now we can watch nothing happen while both sides fight to the death over the buzzwords and the hot media topic of the day.

The problem is Bronco's vision isn't what most people want. It definitely was in his first term but then he got brain-washed by the leftist on council to start supporting a lot of very un-Calgarian ideas. I'm sure some of you here will say out-dated ideas but I disagree. We need to do what's best for Calgary based on our circumstances not on what some 500+ year old European city does. And that's another thing people are sick and tired of--trying to make us into a European city. This is North America where we have tons of land, a relatively sparse population in most places in the west and people value their space. If a certain small segment of the population wants high density living they can have it and the market will provide it to them. The majority don't want it and they won't let it be forced down their throats.

I'm not sure taxes are as big of an issue as you think they are. The media seems to think they are but I bet it's "user" fees that are really pissing off people. I can see the recycling program being a big issue in the next election and I won't be surprised if the private sector doesn't end up back in the business in a big way.

As for Bronco's replacement, I think it's special interest groups that have been labeling McIver as an extremist. His record shows he's considerably more moderate than Druh and definitely more citizen friendly. Take the last few days where he's tried to improve things for bikers and transit users and he was shot down all of the time. Even his suggestion to spend $1.5 million to upgrade transit ticket machines so they could take credit cards was voted down. At least the guy is willing to throw ideas out there.

Whomever becomes the next mayor will have to be willing to fight the province and the feds for our share of infrastructure money to keep building the city so we can properly in the future. They'll also have to be willing to invest that money in projects that the majority want not special interest groups. I can't see Druh doing either one. I believe McIver can do the latter but I'm not sure if can actually get the money. If the rumors about Jim Dinning possibly running are true I'd say that would be a disaster as he would never fight to get us our fair share of money.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

While I have explained before how the TIF is not new money, and actually costs everyone the same amount as it not existing and just paying for the work in the EV, it is impossible for the TIF to fail because of the design of the TIF district. The district includes The Bow. That alone will pay off the TIF in incredibly short order.

As for average citizens knowing where money comes from, who is spending it, etc - don't hold your breath. If the media can't figure it out, people won't get the message. (not knocking individual people, but as a group issue attention is very very minimal)

But by including The Bow, which no one would ever consider to be part of the East Village, the City has essentially signaled to the market and citizens that they don't have much faith that the actual East Village will ever be successful.

[Bigtime]

Bronco's on QR77 right now and has said that his remaining campaign money will go to local charities.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by niwell

Wow, I can't believe Bronco isn't running. Though I haven't lived in the city for almost a decade now I have come back at least once or twice a year and can safely say it's improved FAR more than in the previous decade.

I have more than a cursory interest in local Calgary politics and am not sure any of the current crop of Aldermen should be mayor, though a few (such as Ceci) seem OK to me. Certainly could be wrong though. Are there any outsider contendors?

The parallels with Toronto's '10 election are actually quite interesting with a lefty incumbent retiring after the pass of a controversial budget. Thankfully our version of McIver isn't running... yet (Rob Ford). I'll be watching both and voting in one.

McIver is at least a sane human, unlike Ford who's a total lunatic.

The parallel's are similar. All the prospective candidates seem to be from the right, like McIver, Colley-Urquhart, Connelly but no one seemingly from centre of left.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

. It definitely was in his first term but then he got brain-washed by the leftist on council to start supporting a lot of very un-Calgarian ideas.

You sound like Sarah Palin. Are urbanists not 'real' Calgarians?

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Doug

Including the Bow in the TIF was a joke. The Bow would have been built without the improvements to East Village, which goes against the spirit of TIF. Calling it a TIF was an exercise in obfuscation. The City's balance sheet would be $100M stronger if the East Village had never proceeded. I'm not against redevelopment of East Village, just the mechanism and timing. It will likely be at least 10-20 years before anything substantial breaks ground in the area over which time the City will pay tens of millions in interest.

The spirit of TIF that you're referring to is something that is a myth. If you look at case studies at TIFs throughout North America, they ALWAYS include areas larger than the 'blighted' area in order to mitigate some of the risk and capture areas that are growing in the short term. In fact, it's the only way that banks will finance TIF. Also, I think you're overly pessimistic about East Village. The way I look at it, if the construction of one tower can unleash the potential of an entire district of downtown, that's not such a bad trade off for losing some short term property tax revenue. The long term tangible and intangible benefits of revitalizing the east village and downtown as a whole are worth it.

Also, I disagree about the timing. The infrastructure is being built for cheaper than it would have been during a boom. If say they had started two-three years prior during boom times, built the infrastructure at a much higher cost and then started to market just as the housing market tanked, that would have been a total disaster. As land is sold to developers over the next year or two, and marketed a year or two after that, the market is probably more likely to be on an upswing following 3 or so years of a down market.

[shogged]

bigtime said it best, FUCK!

i'm tempted to throw my name into the ring just so I know i did literally everything I could to try and avoid ric mcivor being elected.

Unfortunately though, he gets more media exposure than anyone else and his name will be the most familiar on the ballot. He's almost a shoe in =(

[Fiveway]

I guess I'm an un-calgarian calgarian.

On that note, I still don't understand why Calgarians are so opposed to user fees.