Decision 2010: Calgary Municipal Election

[Corndogger]

^ You have a very skewed view of people, I have to wonder where you work and what your social circle is like to hold that view. Not saying that it is wrong to hold the positions that you do, just that to transpose them onto the majority of Calgarians is quite a stretch.

Huh? You're saying this based on my comments about user fees? I'm sure what I said about user fees is quite accurate.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[Corndogger]

Yup, its official, you make my shit list for stupidity. I've been here 15 years this summer, and I for one actually like the urban fabric of this city more now then I did back 10 years. I guess in your view I'm allowed to vote thought so hey.... that's good.

Perhaps you should revise your time frame out 20 years now, eh?

That's what I love about this forum. Someone says something that doesn't fit in with what you guys proclaim to be the gospel and they are labeled stupid. Maybe I should add you to my shit list for stupidity for thinking that the history of this city didn't start until the day you arrived. And it's too bad you didn't catch my smiley icon at the end.

[Bigtime]

I am born and raised here, 29 years as of Friday. I grew up in suburbia and over time my view has changed to a more urban lifestyle, so I don't count as a Calgarian now in your view? Ditto for my wife.

I'm not a hardcore everyone must live in the inner-city person either, I just want to make it more accessible and affordable for those that want to raise a family there.

[korzym]

"Real" or long-term Calgarians tend to be very against government intervention in their lives in terms of being told what to do and how to do it. The people pushing urbanism in this city are so prescriptive that they actually do come across as not being real Calgarians. Most people don't like to be told how they live and what they value is wrong. Especially when it most of it seems to be coming from people who have recently moved her and have no intentions of staying. Maybe it's time we only allow those that have lived here for at least 10 consecutive years to vote. :-)

Amen

[fusili]

I am born and raised here, 29 years as of Friday. I grew up in suburbia and over time my view has changed to a more urban lifestyle, so I don't count as a Calgarian now in your view? Ditto for my wife.

I'm not a hardcore everyone must live in the inner-city person either, I just want to make it more accessible and affordable for those that want to raise a family there.

26 years living in Calgary myself, apart from 7 months spent living abroad. I guess I qualify to vote, but my views for some reason are "anti-Calgarian." You are allowed to be proud of a city, but still be critical of it.

[korzym]

I am born and raised here, 29 years as of Friday. I grew up in suburbia and over time my view has changed to a more urban lifestyle, so I don't count as a Calgarian now in your view? Ditto for my wife.

I'm not a hardcore everyone must live in the inner-city person either, I just want to make it more accessible and affordable for those that want to raise a family there.
I hope by more affordable you mean the market will shake these issues out. Economies of scale are more powerful than the gov. Just wondering what you mean by make it affordable? No man has a right to another man's fruits of labour, i.e. I hope your not asking for a bail-out, tax dollars committed to make inner-city housing affordable..

[korzym]

That's what I love about this forum. Someone says something that doesn't fit in with what you guys proclaim to be the gospel and they are labeled stupid. Maybe I should add you to my shit list for stupidity for thinking that the history of this city didn't start until the day you arrived. And it's too bad you didn't catch my smiley icon at the end.

I don't think mooky should have taken your post personally. Corndogger, if they can't beat you on ideas, they get defensive and even pick fights. What can you do..

[Bigtime]

I hope by more affordable you mean the market will shake these issues out. Economies of scale are more powerful than the gov. Just wondering what you mean by make it affordable? No man has a right to another man's fruits of labour, i.e. I hope your not asking for a bail-out, tax dollars committed to make inner-city housing affordable..

Of course I mean the market will shake it out, but it is up to the city to make it possible for inner-city developers to make projects that include more then 2 bedrooms easier to get through approvals and development permit process'.

It's also up to them to make sure proper infrastructure and facilities are in place to help foster more than singles and D.I.N.K.'s in the inner-city, just look at the lack of greenspace in east Beltline.

No bailouts here, just streamlining the process so the economics are there for developers so that if you are looking for 3 bedrooms your starting price isn't near the million dollar mark.

[Corndogger]

No personal offense Corndogger, but Sir Humphrey Appleby has put so eloquently and simply what I think to myself almost every time (and there are a lot) you use the words "the majority of Calgarians." Everyone has a skewed view of people to some extent. I do, and so does everyone I know.

What is it that makes you think you somehow have your finger on the pulse of people so well as to confidently (and often) claim to know what people want?

No offense taken. I actually base my views on a large number of sources unlike some of you folks who seem to clearly just feed off of each other. I also seem to recall telling you guys awhile back that I'm involved in the "survey" industry so I do have some confidence in what I'm saying. I also seem to recall saying more than once that big changes were coming politically in 2010 and being told that I didn't know what I'm talking about. I'm really sensing that a number of you are going into panic mode over Bronco's announcement and what it means to projects and proposals that you hold dear. I'm just saying don't be too surprised if there is a backlash toward much of what has happened over the last few years and what has been proposed. We'll have to see who decides to run before we have a better idea of what might happen but I do find it interesting that so far (since the announcement) none of the Bronco supporters have made any comments to indicate that they are interested in running. Joe Connelly has clearly said today that he's heard people are not pleased with the current state of affairs which essentially matches what I've heard. If someone like Connelly or McIver can get those who didn't vote last time to vote in Oct. my sense is that there will be massive changes.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[jeffwhit]

That's what I love about this forum. Someone says something that doesn't fit in with what you guys proclaim to be the gospel and they are labeled stupid. Maybe I should add you to my shit list for stupidity for thinking that the history of this city didn't start until the day you arrived. And it's too bad you didn't catch my smiley icon at the end.

You're the one who thinks he gets to anoint who's a "real" Calgarian and who, despite being born, raised and educated in Calgary, isn't.

Also, you claim to use "a large number of sources" but never provide them, you just claim to have them. By the way, "some people say" isn't a source.

[korzym]

^oh boy..somebody put up that "i like where this thread is going" pic

[Corndogger]

I am born and raised here, 29 years as of Friday. I grew up in suburbia and over time my view has changed to a more urban lifestyle, so I don't count as a Calgarian now in your view? Ditto for my wife.

I'm not a hardcore everyone must live in the inner-city person either, I just want to make it more accessible and affordable for those that want to raise a family there.

I'm sensing you guys are going into attack mode again. I've clearly said in the past that there is a segment of the population that supports and wants an urban lifestyle and that the market will provide that to them. Also don't forget that I've said that I live in the inner city so I'm obviously not against an urban lifestyle. I just realize that for the vast majority of people it's something that they don't want for numerous reasons. If you and your wife are happy where you live that is great. The main thing is that you came to that decision on your own and that is what everyone deserves. It's part of the history of this city and something which I doubt many people would like to see change.

Don't take all of this political stuff personal. I'll be happy if we get a good slate of candidates that tell us what they want to accomplish over the next three years and who are willing to listen to the majority while respecting the rights of everyone.

[korzym]

Of course I mean the market will shake it out, but it is up to the city to make it possible for inner-city developers to make projects that include more then 2 bedrooms easier to get through approvals and development permit process'.

It's also up to them to make sure proper infrastructure and facilities are in place to help foster more than singles and D.I.N.K.'s in the inner-city, just look at the lack of greenspace in east Beltline.

No bailouts here, just streamlining the process so the economics are there for developers so that if you are looking for 3 bedrooms your starting price isn't near the million dollar mark.

10-4...red tape, too much gov isn't a good thing sometimes I suppose you might attest to. I never really considered the green space issue. Can't something be done along the elbow river? There's that baseball field, the transit bus garage..surely that underpass that will be built by your home will give access to the fort calgary greenspace..

[Corndogger]

26 years living in Calgary myself, apart from 7 months spent living abroad. I guess I qualify to vote, but my views for some reason are "anti-Calgarian." You are allowed to be proud of a city, but still be critical of it.

I guess you guys missed my smiley after the voting comment.

Of course you are allowed to be critical of the city. We'd never improve if everyone was complacent.

[Bigtime]

I'm sensing you guys are going into attack mode again. I've clearly said in the past that there is a segment of the population that supports and wants an urban lifestyle and that the market will provide that to them. Also don't forget that I've said that I live in the inner city so I'm obviously not against an urban lifestyle. I just realize that for the vast majority of people it's something that they don't want for numerous reasons. If you and your wife are happy where you live that is great. The main thing is that you came to that decision on your own and that is what everyone deserves. It's part of the history of this city and something which I doubt many people would like to see change.

Don't take all of this political stuff personal. I'll be happy if we get a good slate of candidates that tell us what they want to accomplish over the next three years and who are willing to listen to the majority while respecting the rights of everyone.

I agree with everything you have said here. I by no means want to force my views onto anyone else, my friends and every other Calgarian have the right to live where they want. However I don't think that everyone has that ability currently, I hope we can make all forms of housing more accessible in the future.

[Bigtime]

10-4...red tape, too much gov isn't a good thing sometimes I suppose you might attest to. I never really considered the green space issue. Can't something be done along the elbow river? There's that baseball field, the transit bus garage..surely that underpass that will be built by your home will give access to the fort calgary greenspace..

The baseball field is the closest big green space we have, unfortunately in the summer the Stampede marching band takes it over as their personal practice space (and I guess with it being on Stampede land we are SOL).

The Elbow river shoreline is pretty shoddy in this area, no real riverbank at all, usually just a steep drop to the river. I believe long term the east village riverwalk will be built up along this area also, improving it greatly.

As for the Fort Calgary greenspace that would be the best, hopefully the EV will start to build out and we can get a concentration of people around to make the area safer for everyone.

Of course the family and I won't be in arriVa forever, we have been starting a pretty casual search of inner city neighbourhoods we'd move to with an eye towards 3 bedrooms. Ramsay, Bridgeland, Mission, Cliff Bungalow, Mount Royal, Erlton, Beltline and a few others are on that list.

[MalcolmTucker]

That a subset (or even most) of the population is pissy doesn't always cause change at the ballot box. See: Alberta Election, 2008. It would be interesting to see right track wrong track numbers for the city right now however.

The bigger problem is are there any issues to catalyze voters around that can turn the 20% pissed off population into lets say the minimum 35% of voters you need to win. Especially with the election financing rules (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Calgary+council+agrees+campaign+finance+reform/2290948/story.html) it is going to be hard. The bridge is a done deal, and a PlanIt roll back is not in the cards (nor does the UDI want that to happen). What is the lightening rod? An amorphous call for freedom?

If you can't make the populace angry enough you need to pull the positive platform thing. An interesting issue to play with would be selling Enmax for enough capital to pay a P3 for the SE LRT including a subway up to 16th Ave N. Could probably raise around $2.5 billion then get a big private contribution. Might raise enough to throw in the airport tunnel and the Crowchild freeway project as well. (covering off three quadrants)

[Corndogger]

Of course I mean the market will shake it out, but it is up to the city to make it possible for inner-city developers to make projects that include more then 2 bedrooms easier to get through approvals and development permit process'.

It's also up to them to make sure proper infrastructure and facilities are in place to help foster more than singles and D.I.N.K.'s in the inner-city, just look at the lack of greenspace in east Beltline.

No bailouts here, just streamlining the process so the economics are there for developers so that if you are looking for 3 bedrooms your starting price isn't near the million dollar mark.

I agree that the City has to do a better job with it's approvals and development permit process. The secondary suite issue is a joke. Such matters shouldn't be going to council for approval.

As for lack of greenspace I'd like to see a compromise. Let developers build more parking (preferrably underground) in exchange for them building more parks.

[Bigtime]

I agree that the City has to do a better job with it's approvals and development permit process. The secondary suite issue is a joke. Such matters shouldn't be going to council for approval.

As for lack of greenspace I'd like to see a compromise. Let developers build more parking (preferrably underground) in exchange for them building more parks.

I am all for the idea of underground parking with parkspace over top. I guess it was quite a battle for Union Square to get that done with their project and Haultain park overtop. I just wonder how much time and money the developer had to waste to ultimately make it work? I'm glad they saw it through, as the new Haultain park is an excellent addition to the Beltline parkspace.

[MalcolmTucker]

I agree that the City has to do a better job with it's approvals and development permit process. The secondary suite issue is a joke. Such matters shouldn't be going to council for approval.

As for lack of greenspace I'd like to see a compromise. Let developers build more parking (preferrably underground) in exchange for them building more parks.

Maybe a planner here can answer this, but aren't parking requirements outside of the commercial core minimums not maximums? A great way to let the market work would be to drop the minimums (or at least lower them according to a formula based on transit amenities and local employment) It would also help make housing more affordable and likely spur the construction of more rentals. As for removing the top end restrictions in the core, unfortunately that would result in market failure due to negative externalities due to congestion so they should stay.

As for Union Square, I don't think the time issue was due to wanting more parking, it was wanting to put more parking under public land. Sure, the park got an upgrade, but I don't think its footprint grew (correct me if I am wrong).

[Radley77]

That a subset (or even most) of the population is pissy doesn't always cause change at the ballot box. See: Alberta Election, 2008. It would be interesting to see right track wrong track numbers for the city right now however.

The bigger problem is are there any issues to catalyze voters around that can turn the 20% pissed off population into lets say the minimum 35% of voters you need to win. Especially with the election financing rules (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Calgary+council+agrees+campaign+finance+reform/2290948/story.html) it is going to be hard. The bridge is a done deal, and a PlanIt roll back is not in the cards (nor does the UDI want that to happen). What is the lightening rod? An amorphous call for freedom?

If you can't make the populace angry enough you need to pull the positive platform thing. An interesting issue to play with would be selling Enmax for enough capital to pay a P3 for the SE LRT including a subway up to 16th Ave N. Could probably raise around $2.5 billion then get a big private contribution. Might raise enough to throw in the airport tunnel and the Crowchild freeway project as well. (covering off three quadrants)

Good points. I think even McIver and Connelly are straddled with what is feasible to do from deviating from the 3 year budgets. For the last budget cycle, it ended up being a proposed 5% tax increase compared to 3% tax increase by McIver and 2.5% increase by Connely.

So, unless there is something outside the box like selling Enmax and building the SE LRT actually comes up there are going to be only minor differences between the candidates.

At least I think with Bronco stepping down, that it gives voters a chance to refocus on some of the bigger picture, bigger cost/benefit issues.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Corndogger, your comments about "the masses" in Calgary are irrelevant. "The masses" don't vote in municipal elections. You of all people should be aware of that.

No city should allow firepits. End of story. Ceci is awesome.

Anybody who can mobilize voters gets to be mayor. I'm behind Naheed if he throws his hat in the ring.

[jeffwhit]

Anybody who can mobilize voters gets to be mayor. I'm behind Naheed if he throws his hat in the ring.

I'm behind Bigtime, and I'm not even remotely kidding.

[Corndogger]

I agree with everything you have said here. I by no means want to force my views onto anyone else, my friends and every other Calgarian have the right to live where they want. However I don't think that everyone has that ability currently, I hope we can make all forms of housing more accessible in the future.

I think you're going to have to figure out how to make some big political changes. The City might be able to make inner city living more accessible but if the school boards keep closing schools in the area down that will force most young people who have kids or plan on having them to move to the burbs. And with the province having the final say on where schools will be built the situation will be even harder to change as they will build schools where the most votes are located. I would be in favor of going back to the old days where local education taxes stayed in the city and all decision-making stayed here as well. That way we could have better overall integrated planning which might give you what you want to achieve.

[Corndogger]

The baseball field is the closest big green space we have, unfortunately in the summer the Stampede marching band takes it over as their personal practice space (and I guess with it being on Stampede land we are SOL).

The Elbow river shoreline is pretty shoddy in this area, no real riverbank at all, usually just a steep drop to the river. I believe long term the east village riverwalk will be built up along this area also, improving it greatly.

As for the Fort Calgary greenspace that would be the best, hopefully the EV will start to build out and we can get a concentration of people around to make the area safer for everyone.

Of course the family and I won't be in arriVa forever, we have been starting a pretty casual search of inner city neighbourhoods we'd move to with an eye towards 3 bedrooms. Ramsay, Bridgeland, Mission, Cliff Bungalow, Mount Royal, Erlton, Beltline and a few others are on that list.

I thought they were getting ready to start building the Riverwalk project this year. Has that changed?

[mersar]

I thought they were getting ready to start building the Riverwalk project this year. Has that changed?

Phase one of the riverwalk is well underway and will likely be completed this year. Later phases which will bring it south along the Elbow River likely won't start for a while yet.

And on topic of the election, theres a facebook group (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Draft-Naheed-Nenshi-for-Mayor/321782638643?ref=nf) of people who want Naheed Nenshi to run. Which would be different then the usual candidates that have some name recognition from being either businessmen or current politicians.

[Ferreth]

Alnoor has said he's going to take another crack at the Mayor's seat:

CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/02/24/calgary-mayor-candidates-alnoor-kassam-mciver.html)

Here's a reminder why he didn't and, will never get my vote (http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=3e475b2b-d19a-49c2-b97e-db6e9836d9ab).

[fusili]

Corndogger and Korzym- the one thing you two have to realize is how anti-libertarian and anti-market current planning regulations are. If you truly are free-market supporters, and I gather from your posts that you are, you would probably actually be more "urban" in the sense that being free market, in this city at least, would mean more urban style developments, as they are currently very restricted.

Development is probably one of the most highly regulated markets in our economy and it works hand in hand with the most probably the most regulated market in our economy: transportation infrastructure (I am talking rights of way, not vehicles). If the "free market" did exist in development, we would not have height restrictions, size restrictions, use restrictions, set backs regulations, discretionary approvals, and so on and so on. So anybody, anywhere could build whatever they want. The reason we have so much single detached homes and single use commercial areas is because they are regulated to be so. In many areas, "urban" style development is illegal. And the new land use bylaw is not much of an improvement.

So yes, let the market reign free. No more parking requirements. No more height restrictions or use regulations in development. People can build and live anywhere they want to. But the whole thing grinds to a halt when it comes to transportation rights of way, because the question has to be asked, who owns and operates the roads? We could allow the free market to do it, but then the pricing mechanisms (not the prices, but the enforcement of prices) would be prohibitively expensive (at least with current technology) and multiple toll roads would decrease efficiencies across the board. So we end up in a quagmire where development can be completely free market, but transportation can't and the two influence each other considerably.

So, in short, I think the two of you have to realize that being libertarians probably means you are urbanists. Because as much as people want their ring roads and arterials, they don't want to pay for them. And that is what we call market distortion.

EDIT- Sorry for the rant, I have a bad habit of doing that.

[Corndogger]

That a subset (or even most) of the population is pissy doesn't always cause change at the ballot box. See: Alberta Election, 2008. It would be interesting to see right track wrong track numbers for the city right now however.

I don't think you can compare the 2008 provincial election with the upcoming civic election. In 2008 the polls did show that people were pissed off with the Conservatives but the alternatives were so bad that most people either decided to stay home or bit their lip and voted for Ed. Ed was also still new enough at the time that some people were willing to give him a chance at running the province for awhile longer. The upcoming civic election is different in that we have to choose a new mayor and possibly some new councilors. The default "do nothing" option isn't on the table and I believe a lot more people than usual will pay attention to see what the candidates have to offer. If Ed decides to attach Senate elections to the civic election that could help to increase voter turnout as well.

The bigger problem is are there any issues to catalyze voters around that can turn the 20% pissed off population into lets say the minimum 35% of voters you need to win. Especially with the election financing rules (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Calgary+council+agrees+campaign+finance+reform/2290948/story.html) it is going to be hard. The bridge is a done deal, and a PlanIt roll back is not in the cards (nor does the UDI want that to happen). What is the lightening rod? An amorphous call for freedom?

Like I said above, we do need to elect a new mayor and that alone will convince people that it's worth voting because the incumbent won't automatically win as is so often the case. I'm not saying we're going to have a huge turnout but if we have a Senate election at the same time I can us doing 50%+.

The bridge might be a done deal but I can see PlanIt facing some changes, especially the transportation component.

The lightening rod will probably end up being how much the City has been spending and the big increases in taxes. I can see this being pushed enough by certain groups that it will become an issue.

If you can't make the populace angry enough you need to pull the positive platform thing. An interesting issue to play with would be selling Enmax for enough capital to pay a P3 for the SE LRT including a subway up to 16th Ave N. Could probably raise around $2.5 billion then get a big private contribution. Might raise enough to throw in the airport tunnel and the Crowchild freeway project as well. (covering off three quadrants)

I'd love to see an election based on what the candidates plan on doing and I don't consider "I'll freeze taxes" to qualify as a complete platform. I hope like hell voters remember what happened with the no tax increases crap back in the 1990s.

Concerning Enmax, wasn't that settled during the last election campaign or the one before? It would never fly anyway.

[Corndogger]

I am all for the idea of underground parking with parkspace over top. I guess it was quite a battle for Union Square to get that done with their project and Haultain park overtop. I just wonder how much time and money the developer had to waste to ultimately make it work? I'm glad they saw it through, as the new Haultain park is an excellent addition to the Beltline parkspace.

If you can maximize the use of a given space I don't get why the City would be against it other than their disdain for cars and parking spaces.

[Corndogger]

Phase one of the riverwalk is well underway and will likely be completed this year. Later phases which will bring it south along the Elbow River likely won't start for a while yet.

And on topic of the election, theres a facebook group (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Draft-Naheed-Nenshi-for-Mayor/321782638643?ref=nf) of people who want Naheed Nenshi to run. Which would be different then the usual candidates that have some name recognition from being either businessmen or current politicians.

Let Nenshi run for mayor and be destroyed. The guy comes across as being unbelievably condescending, and despite what he teaches at MRU, he also comes across as anti-business.

[Ferreth]

As a born 'n bred Calgary (just so you know where I'm coming from) :cool: here's what I liked and what honked me off during Bronco's reign

Good
- Three interchanges funded right off the bat with loans, pushing the Feds and especially the province for more infrastructure $, on a predictable level. More big projects, including Glenmore/Elbow/5th, which have made a huge difference in my travels.
- Planit - it's at least an attempt to arrest sprawl. I'm not totally happy with it, but it's better than nothing.
- West LRT - building it all at once rather than in stages was the right move, even if it takes most of our Prov infrastructure $.
- Pushing for intensification around LRT stations. People living around areas within walking distance to good transit just makes good sense.
- East Village redevelopment gets going. This has been a quagmire since the '70's; finally someone got a plan going - time will tell if it works out well.
- The Bridges redevelopment; right sized for the area and at least far enough along now that it doesn't look like a big hole where the hospital used to be. Should have included a grocery store though.

Bad
-Stupid bylaws. Spitting comes to mind. I'm a Libertarian by nature and will only tolerate more laws when clear necessity dictates. I was not happy with how the smoking issue was handled either; although that goes back to do-nothing-Duer.
-LRT expansion. The current NE and NW expansion should have been on the back burner in preference to 4 car train platforms.
-Promoting growth. Calgary has (had?) a problem with growth, too much of it; but Bronco seemed unwilling to do anything that might curtail it, like raising taxes for new home builds to pay for infrastructure.
-Business park east of 96th and Deerfoot north - push through despite indications of significant Indian archeological potential. Must. Support. Growth.
-Pedestrian bridges over the Bow River; not the bridge per se, but the political handling. Bad timing could not be avoided but man, they didn't help themselves either. I'm suspecting Bronco already had a good idea he wasn't running again at this point and didn't give a crap about political fall out here.

Would I have voted for Bronco again? Over McIver, sure. But I'm open to better alternatives, for sure.

[freeweed]

I'm just gonna stay silent here, because clearly anyone who disagrees with me hasn't lived here long enough and therefore has an invalid opinion. I've been here 5 years now, so that means over 10% of Calgary is wrong compared to me. At least 90% agree with me, thankfully.

Seriously though, it's no wonder immigrants feel so marginalized even today, if people actually think that way. This reminds me of living in a small town, where if your family hadn't been there at least 3 generations, you were "new folk" and basically treated like second-class citizens. Intolerance for difference is a wonderful thing.

I do wonder, though, if all of Calgary's problems are due to newcomers, why haven't the real Calgarians elected politicians who ban immigration to the city? Seems like that would solve everything. Alternatively, we could have a political correctness test, whereby you're only allowed to move into the city if you agree with the prevailing opinions. Then again, Bronco was originally elected by people who have now been in Calgary for 9 years or more, so I guess all I can say is, you reap what you sew.

Is Nenshi the guy Global constantly has soundbytes from whenever discussing development in the city?

[Corndogger]

As a born 'n bred Calgary (just so you know where I'm coming from) :cool: here's what I liked and what honked me off during Bronco's reign

You make it seem like where you were raised doesn't have an impact on your values and how you view various issues.

Good
- Three interchanges funded right off the bat with loans, pushing the Feds and especially the province for more infrastructure $, on a predictable level. More big projects, including Glenmore/Elbow/5th, which have made a huge difference in my travels.
- Planit - it's at least an attempt to arrest sprawl. I'm not totally happy with it, but it's better than nothing.
- West LRT - building it all at once rather than in stages was the right move, even if it takes most of our Prov infrastructure $.
- Pushing for intensification around LRT stations. People living around areas within walking distance to good transit just makes good sense.
- East Village redevelopment gets going. This has been a quagmire since the '70's; finally someone got a plan going - time will tell if it works out well.
- The Bridges redevelopment; right sized for the area and at least far enough along now that it doesn't look like a big hole where the hospital used to be. Should have included a grocery store though.

For the most part Bronco did a great job with getting some infrastructure built in this city. The West LRT was not the right transit project to take on. Building a tunnel downtown is much more important. Speaking of the West LRT, I wonder if starting next year we're going to start hearing about big projects along the route where Bronco is involved. Could be one of the reasons he isn't running.

PlanIT--bad plan and even worse handling of it. The sprawl issue in this city is like the global warming issue. People in favor of densification are twisting the facts to justify getting what they want. This would be my number one issue for never voting for Naheed Nenshi. Simply put, the guy is unethical on this issue and if he runs he'll be called out on it.

LRT Station Densification--another badly handled issue. Instead of trying to sell the benefits to those who would be affected by such development our planning department decided it would be better to ignore concerns and/or ram things down people's throats. Yeah, I know some of you are having heart attacks right now but that is exactly what they did. Not to mention those stacked meetings. Hopefully our next council is a lot better at communicating with citizens and makes more public appearances because the administration are the last people you want dealing with the public.

East Village--good idea to want to develop the area but I think they are going for the wrong type of development. It will take a lot to convince people to live there given how bad the area's reputation is.

Bad
-Stupid bylaws. Spitting comes to mind. I'm a Libertarian by nature and will only tolerate more laws when clear necessity dictates. I was not happy with how the smoking issue was handled either; although that goes back to do-nothing-Duer.
-LRT expansion. The current NE and NW expansion should have been on the back burner in preference to 4 car train platforms.
-Promoting growth. Calgary has (had?) a problem with growth, too much of it; but Bronco seemed unwilling to do anything that might curtail it, like raising taxes for new home builds to pay for infrastructure.
-Business park east of 96th and Deerfoot north - push through despite indications of significant Indian archeological potential. Must. Support. Growth.
-Pedestrian bridges over the Bow River; not the bridge per se, but the political handling. Bad timing could not be avoided but man, they didn't help themselves either. I'm suspecting Bronco already had a good idea he wasn't running again at this point and didn't give a crap about political fall out here.

Bylaws--I wouldn't be shocked one bit if someone campaigned on the platform to get rid of half of the crazy bylaws we have and did extremely well based just on this issue. We're so over regulated that we've just about reached the point that no matter what you do it's bound to be against some bylaw.

Promoting Growth--Didn't Bronco on at least two occassions get the development industry to pay for considerably more of the infrastructure in the new and existing areas they were working in? Plus, politicians should never think they can control growth. Just look at the mess Ed created because he thought he could.

Pedestrian Bridge(s)--Some current council members might be asking themselves the day after the election why they ever supported this project. Of course the utter disdain for the electorate in how so much of this project was handled behind closed doors isn't going to help them either. If the next council and mayor are wise they'll be a lot more accountable and transparent.

Would I have voted for Bronco again? Over McIver, sure. But I'm open to better alternatives, for sure.

Without knowing what McIver plans to do that is a tough question. I will say that Bronco's three terms were considerably better than Duerr's and that he did a lot to make up ground for the "lost" Duerr years. Was Bronco better than Ralph? That would be an interesting comparison.

[Corndogger]

I'm just gonna stay silent here, because clearly anyone who disagrees with me hasn't lived here long enough and therefore has an invalid opinion. I've been here 5 years now, so that means over 10% of Calgary is wrong compared to me. At least 90% agree with me, thankfully.

Seriously though, it's no wonder immigrants feel so marginalized even today, if people actually think that way. This reminds me of living in a small town, where if your family hadn't been there at least 3 generations, you were "new folk" and basically treated like second-class citizens. Intolerance for difference is a wonderful thing.

I do wonder, though, if all of Calgary's problems are due to newcomers, why haven't the real Calgarians elected politicians who ban immigration to the city? Seems like that would solve everything. Alternatively, we could have a political correctness test, whereby you're only allowed to move into the city if you agree with the prevailing opinions. Then again, Bronco was originally elected by people who have now been in Calgary for 9 years or more, so I guess all I can say is, you reap what you sew.

Is Nenshi the guy Global constantly has soundbytes from whenever discussing development in the city?

Nenshi probably is the Global guy because he does op-ed pieces for the Herald.

Concerning immigrants, I'd like to see some stats, if they exist, on voting participation levels based on how long a person as lived in Calgary. I bet it's very low for people new to the City because they don't understand the issues and have other things to worry about such as getting established. But there is a small but very vocal minority of newcomers that believe they have to tell the rest of us how stupid we are, how bad things are, etc. It's those people that should be banned from voting until they've been here long enough to understand why things work the way they do. If they're still not happy after that they can run for office, etc. but they shouldn't expect most people to take kindly to their insults if they just strolled into town. And this just isn't a Calgary thing it's the same all over the world.

To help prove my point look at provincial politics in Alberta. When the PCs came to power in 1971 the population wasn't much more than 1.5 million compared to 3.7 million now. I've heard and read so many times over the years that as more immigrants come here that the Conservatives would be voted out of office because the existing population would be overrun. The people originally here would always say that newcomers would see why we are the way we are and that they would become just like us. And it's been like that for close to 40 years. Basically what I'm saying is that a lot of people come here with preconceived ideas about Albertans but once they've been here awhile (definitely less than 10 years and probably less than 5) they learn why we don't trust Ottawa, are more entrepreneurial, etc. When the Conservatives lose in 2012 (barring a major miracle) it'll be because of their own stupidity and not because of "immigrants."

So overall newcomers/immigrants are not a problem in the sense you mention.

[Corndogger]

Alnoor has said he's going to take another crack at the Mayor's seat:

CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/02/24/calgary-mayor-candidates-alnoor-kassam-mciver.html)

Here's a reminder why he didn't and, will never get my vote (http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=3e475b2b-d19a-49c2-b97e-db6e9836d9ab).

Exactly why I didn't vote for him. Yet he somehow managed to get 16% of the vote. The scary thing is that if he runs again he could win by just getting 16% if there are enough other candidates. We really need to have runoff elections to ensure the winner is supported by at least the majority of those casting votes. Wasn't it the last election or 2004 that one of the alderman got into office with only about 18% of the vote?

[mooky]

You make it seem like where you were raised doesn't have an impact on your values and how you view various issues.



For the most part Bronco did a great job with getting some infrastructure built in this city. The West LRT was not the right transit project to take on. Building a tunnel downtown is much more important. Speaking of the West LRT, I wonder if starting next year we're going to start hearing about big projects along the route where Bronco is involved. Could be one of the reasons he isn't running.

PlanIT--bad plan and even worse handling of it. The sprawl issue in this city is like the global warming issue. People in favor of densification are twisting the facts to justify getting what they want. This would be my number one issue for never voting for Naheed Nenshi. Simply put, the guy is unethical on this issue and if he runs he'll be called out on it.

LRT Station Densification--another badly handled issue. Instead of trying to sell the benefits to those who would be affected by such development our planning department decided it would be better to ignore concerns and/or ram things down people's throats. Yeah, I know some of you are having heart attacks right now but that is exactly what they did. Not to mention those stacked meetings. Hopefully our next council is a lot better at communicating with citizens and makes more public appearances because the administration are the last people you want dealing with the public.

East Village--good idea to want to develop the area but I think they are going for the wrong type of development. It will take a lot to convince people to live there given how bad the area's reputation is.



Bylaws--I wouldn't be shocked one bit if someone campaigned on the platform to get rid of half of the crazy bylaws we have and did extremely well based just on this issue. We're so over regulated that we've just about reached the point that no matter what you do it's bound to be against some bylaw.

Promoting Growth--Didn't Bronco on at least two occassions get the development industry to pay for considerably more of the infrastructure in the new and existing areas they were working in? Plus, politicians should never think they can control growth. Just look at the mess Ed created because he thought he could.

Pedestrian Bridge(s)--Some current council members might be asking themselves the day after the election why they ever supported this project. Of course the utter disdain for the electorate in how so much of this project was handled behind closed doors isn't going to help them either. If the next council and mayor are wise they'll be a lot more accountable and transparent.



Without knowing what McIver plans to do that is a tough question. I will say that Bronco's three terms were considerably better than Duerr's and that he did a lot to make up ground for the "lost" Duerr years. Was Bronco better than Ralph? That would be an interesting comparison.



All your suppositions are in the end, opinion, and yours. WLRT versus downtown tunnel - I'd say both are important, but it depends where I live how I decide which is more important. Personally I'd agree the downtown tunnel is more important, but people on the west end of town would beg to differ. The funny thing is, for thinking you have the pulse of the people, you talk like you want to get "consensus" and not "ram things down peoples throats."

Guess what? Change is scary, even good change, and some people will resist change until their last dying breath. Consensus is a nice ideal, but ultimately untenable in regards to moving a city of 1 million people forward in the best possible design for all citizens. Sometimes hard decisions have to be made by the people in the big chairs. We may have unlimited land around us to expand, but that land is amazing pasture and farm land; should we continue to use it unwisely? Generally most people would say no, not only does it eat away amazing farming land, it does create an expensive urban sprawl nightmare scenario. That means planning for smart growth in new areas, and redeveloping older areas in more dense options then previously considered. And what better places to rebuild then areas right around LRT stations; why not make use of a huge investment in infrastructure right there and ripe for the picking. Your ideas on how to plan and manage that growth differ, but between uninformed citizens, and a slanted playing field of developers who get off easy with new development levies that favor greenfield development over brownfield reclamation, something has to change to make things fair. Many in this forum have pointed out the fact that building in the brownfields is prohibitively costly in comparison which is why many urban developments target SINK's, DINK's and high end development and not more diverse types of citizens. I wont go rehashing that, and certainly none of us are suggesting biasing it the other way, but a fair level playing field would make the free market work it better.

[Wooster]

Bronco deserves thanks for getting job done

By Naheed Nenshi, For The Calgary Herald

After Mayor Dave Bronconnier's announcement that he will not be running for re-election, the natural impulse is to start the horse race coverage of who might replace him. There will be plenty of time for this discussion in the future, but it's now time to think about Bronconnier's legacy.

I returned home to Calgary in 2001, shortly before Bronconnier's first election victory, after seven years away. I was surprised at how much had changed, but also how little.

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Bronco+deserves+thanks+getting+done/2610027/story.html#ixzz0gZMESLBD


---

I wonder if Naheed Nenshi will run himself. He always seems very reasoned in his arguments.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ He ran in the past, placed 3rd or 4th. I wouldn't think so - he might be tempted to run for the 'Alberta Party' however.

[freeweed]

To help prove my point look at provincial politics in Alberta. When the PCs came to power in 1971 the population wasn't much more than 1.5 million compared to 3.7 million now. I've heard and read so many times over the years that as more immigrants come here that the Conservatives would be voted out of office because the existing population would be overrun. The people originally here would always say that newcomers would see why we are the way we are and that they would become just like us. And it's been like that for close to 40 years. Basically what I'm saying is that a lot of people come here with preconceived ideas about Albertans but once they've been here awhile (definitely less than 10 years and probably less than 5) they learn why we don't trust Ottawa, are more entrepreneurial, etc. When the Conservatives lose in 2012 (barring a major miracle) it'll be because of their own stupidity and not because of "immigrants."

So overall newcomers/immigrants are not a problem in the sense you mention.

I think you missed my entirely tongue-in-cheek post, but that's good because it's prompted you to post exactly what I say to everyone who is scared of immigrants. Whether it's at the municipal, provincial, or federal level. I continually hear people bemoaning how immigrants are going to "take over" and "change our way of life", and yet historically we see exactly what you describe above - people learn very quickly why we do things the way we do, and for the most part, embrace it.

I see this misconception most commonly on a federal level (we're all supposed to be worshiping Mohammed by now, according to some), but I notice it very strongly in Calgary at the city level, and when you make comments about "real Calgarians", that's how you sometimes come across, at least to some of us. I suspect you feel exactly the opposite from what you've just written. :tup:

[Wooster]

^ He ran in the past, placed 3rd or 4th. I wouldn't think so - he might be tempted to run for the 'Alberta Party' however.

Interesting. A reaction to the Alberta Liberals stubbornness and stagnancy?

[BFHeadstone]

I am placing my bid behind Bigtime as well :)

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[lubicon]

I am born and raised here, 29 years as of Friday. I grew up in suburbia and over time my view has changed to a more urban lifestyle, so I don't count as a Calgarian now in your view? Ditto for my wife.

I'm not a hardcore everyone must live in the inner-city person either, I just want to make it more accessible and affordable for those that want to raise a family there.

Thanks Bigtime. Now I feel old.:P

[DizzyEdge]

All I want from a new council is:

1 - progressive ideas so that Calgary's growth can be managed in a way that is cost effective and doesn't guarantee future gridlock or unnecessary infrastructure maintenance costs.
2 - some fiscal conservatism so that the priorities from "1" are the biggest wins for the bucks
3 - assuming every progressive idea is to solve a problem, or a future problem, some proper salesmanship of the ideas, vs 'we know best', followed by 'ok fine we're doing a study to show why our idea is good'... instead it should be 'hey Calgarians we know you dislike this problem' or 'hey you may not realize but this will be a problem down the road', followed by 'although this may rub some people the wrong way, we've determined this is the best way to deal with this, but we're open to better ideas'
4 - someone who can get govt money like Bronco did.

That's about it.

[Bigtime]

Thanks Bigtime. Now I feel old.:P

Don't worry, Vascilli makes me feel old!

[fusili]

It's those people that should be banned from voting until they've been here long enough to understand why things work the way they do.

As someone with democratic sensibilities, I am deeply offended by this comment. If you don't like the way people vote, move somewhere else. Everyone, regardless of how long they have lived somewhere, their grasp of issues or their ideologies, has an equal say in our society. It is called democracy and it is the system of government and society that we have had since the foundation of our country. Democracy is about accepting the fact that others won't think the same way you do. You should learn to deal others' ideology, because everyone else has to deal with yours. Welcome to Canada, we aren't oligarchs here, I thought you would understand this living here so long. I think immigrants have a better grasp on this concept than you seem to.

[Bassic Lab]

I think you missed my entirely tongue-in-cheek post, but that's good because it's prompted you to post exactly what I say to everyone who is scared of immigrants. Whether it's at the municipal, provincial, or federal level. I continually hear people bemoaning how immigrants are going to "take over" and "change our way of life", and yet historically we see exactly what you describe above - people learn very quickly why we do things the way we do, and for the most part, embrace it.

I see this misconception most commonly on a federal level (we're all supposed to be worshiping Mohammed by now, according to some), but I notice it very strongly in Calgary at the city level, and when you make comments about "real Calgarians", that's how you sometimes come across, at least to some of us. I suspect you feel exactly the opposite from what you've just written. :tup:

The amusing thing is that so many migrants to Calgary have traditionally come from small towns in Saskatchewan and the BC Interior. I'd lay good odds that as a group they're more likely to agree with Corndogger's vision for the city than younger born and bred Calgarians. Of course my views are un-Calgarian, despite being born at the Holy Cross with grand parents born in Alberta, so I don't count.

[jeffwhit]

^^^Yeah, go back to.... um....

[Ferreth]

You make it seem like where you were raised doesn't have an impact on your values and how you view various issues.

Actually, I was poking a bit of fun at your implication that where you live totally influences your values, which set off a storm of comments about what what "real or long-term Calgarians" think. I worked at Esso during their office move from Toronto to Calgary - talked to a lot of former Torontonians - let me tell you: we have a lot more in common with them than we'd like to admit.


Promoting Growth--Didn't Bronco on at least two occassions get the development industry to pay for considerably more of the infrastructure in the new and existing areas they were working in? Plus, politicians should never think they can control growth. Just look at the mess Ed created because he thought he could.


I seem to recall something similar. Like the interchange south of Heritage on Deerfoot, paid for by developers as a condition to develop the shopping area there. We need more of that - especially for new home development. I'd like to know what the full cost of new infrastructure required to service a new home costs - and pass most, if not all of it on to the home buyer. The flip side is that the city has to make it easier to build apartments that are affordable by the masses. I doubt any serious candidate is going to come even close to suggesting that because, as you said, most people want a nice house in the 'burbs, even if it is turning the city into a sprawling mess.



Without knowing what McIver plans to do that is a tough question. I will say that Bronco's three terms were considerably better than Duerr's and that he did a lot to make up ground for the "lost" Duerr years. Was Bronco better than Ralph? That would be an interesting comparison.

I base my opinion on McIver based on his past actions. I don't care what he says he's gonna do - like any politician he can promise anything, but what he can deliver on will be less.

Klein was better than Bronco. I never trusted Bronco for a second based on his closed-door style of administration. Klein had the balls to build the NE LRT line in the middle of a major recession; that was a lifeline to many in the construction industry, during a much darker period that we are experiencing now. '88 Olympics - huge success, definitely in part due to the City's support. Besides, if I ever wanted to bend Ralph's ear, I'd just have to head down to the Louie after work to give him a piece of my mind.
:cheers:

[Wooster]

I worked at Esso during their office move from Toronto to Calgary - talked to a lot of former Torontonians - let me tell you: we have a lot more in common with them than we'd like to admit.

I totally agree. Let's just say that Calgarians and Torontonians are a lot closer than say Calgarians are to those from Nanton in their actual opinion on issues. It's natural because people in big cities have face similar issues and have similar concerns - basically a very similar outlook on things (for those who don't know, I currently live in Toronto).

[freeweed]

Pfft, Calgarians have watched their hockey team make the playoffs in living memory, never mind that old Stanley Cup thing. I think I've met 3 living people who actually remember Toronto winning one.

Calgarians do have something in common with Torontonians though - plenty of people in both cities have come from somewhere else, especially other Canadian towns and cities, and for the most part will never leave. Transplanted folks in both cities are some of the strongest boosters of their respective new homes. "Born and bred" types in both cities tend to be a bit meh about the city and take a lot of what it offers for granted.

It reminds me of smokers - just as you'll never meet a stronger anti-smoking advocate than an ex-smoker, you'll never meet as strong a booster of Calgary/Toronto as someone who moved there as an adult.

[korzym]

As someone with democratic sensibilities, I am deeply offended by this comment. If you don't like the way people vote, move somewhere else. Everyone, regardless of how long they have lived somewhere, their grasp of issues or their ideologies, has an equal say in our society. It is called democracy and it is the system of government and society that we have had since the foundation of our country. Democracy is about accepting the fact that others won't think the same way you do. You should learn to deal others' ideology, because everyone else has to deal with yours. Welcome to Canada, we aren't oligarchs here, I thought you would understand this living here so long. I think immigrants have a better grasp on this concept than you seem to.

lynch mobs are democratic.

[korzym]

Pfft, Calgarians have watched their hockey team make the playoffs in living memory, never mind that old Stanley Cup thing. I think I've met 3 living people who actually remember Toronto winning one.

Calgarians do have something in common with Torontonians though - plenty of people in both cities have come from somewhere else, especially other Canadian towns and cities, and for the most part will never leave. Transplanted folks in both cities are some of the strongest boosters of their respective new homes. "Born and bred" types in both cities tend to be a bit meh about the city and take a lot of what it offers for granted.

It reminds me of smokers - just as you'll never meet a stronger anti-smoking advocate than an ex-smoker, you'll never meet as strong a booster of Calgary/Toronto as someone who moved there as an adult.

what survey did you find this in?

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[Corndogger]

As someone with democratic sensibilities, I am deeply offended by this comment. If you don't like the way people vote, move somewhere else. Everyone, regardless of how long they have lived somewhere, their grasp of issues or their ideologies, has an equal say in our society. It is called democracy and it is the system of government and society that we have had since the foundation of our country. Democracy is about accepting the fact that others won't think the same way you do. You should learn to deal others' ideology, because everyone else has to deal with yours. Welcome to Canada, we aren't oligarchs here, I thought you would understand this living here so long. I think immigrants have a better grasp on this concept than you seem to.

Don't lecture me about democracy and everyone having an equal say in our society, especially in this country. To be honest, I can't believe you actually wrote that. Do you actually believe the average person has the same say as someone with a lot of money or as someone involved in a politically active special interest group? Just because they have the same single vote as everyone else sure doesn't mean they have the same say. Often, they don't even have a chance to have their say.

I clearly shouldn't have used the charged wording I first used when I posted about voting but what I said that Freeweed replied to. I will stick to my guns when I say that I'm opposed to newcomers coming here and telling us how we should live and trying to implement their views on us through the back door. I have no problem with them criticizing the hell out of the way things are done here but the way they try to force change on people. And yes I'm well aware that city council makes the decisions but it's very hard to mount a last minute challenge successfully when these groups have been talking to council members and the administration for months with no other public input. If these people are so damn big on democracy then why don't they bring their concerns and plans out into the public first? By any chance is it because they only believe in democracy when it suits them? I'm the one who is a huge advocate of referundums and initiatives so don't tell me that I don't understand democracy or that I can't deal with other people's ideology.

[fusili]

http://www.nataliedee.com/102605/i-said-what.jpg

Yeah, where did that come from?

[fusili]

I will stick to my guns when I say that I'm opposed to newcomers coming here and telling us how we should live and trying to implement their views on us through the back door.

Ok, then stop having newcomers come here. So you want "newcomers" but only if they fit your provincial ideology and you don't want them to have any belief system or political viewpoint of their own? Good luck dude. I also wish I could control the universe, but sometimes it just ain't so.

Look, if you don't like or want immigrants, fine. But then you also have to deal with the massive labour shortage and inflation that will be a result of this. Look, either you can live in a stagnant economy with little immigration, or deal with the fact that for an economy to grow it needs new pools of labour, and until North Americans actually start having children, you are going to have to deal with immigrants. So if you don't want people to come here and "implement their views on us through the back door" then either deal with a stagnant economy, or have more kids who are willing to work low-income jobs. Welcome to the 21st century, it isn't 1946 anymore. Good luck adapting to our society with your viewpoint.

[Radley77]

The amusing thing is that so many migrants to Calgary have traditionally come from small towns in Saskatchewan and the BC Interior. I'd lay good odds that as a group they're more likely to agree with Corndogger's vision for the city than younger born and bred Calgarians. Of course my views are un-Calgarian, despite being born at the Holy Cross with grand parents born in Alberta, so I don't count.


I'm from a rural farm in small town Saskatchewan, so I just thought I'd provide a bit of perspective. I lived briefly in the United Kingdom in a smaller village as well. What I liked about living in some of these smaller communities, is that there is a close knit community and what worked about the layout of some of the smaller towns is that it remained convenient. Traffic congestion was not an issue because people are generally in close proximity to work. Calgary, on the other hand, commutes can be over an hour...

In fact, I know a fairly large number of people that grew up on farms that now live in downtown Calgary. I think the common thread that attracts some people from farm communities to centre city Calgary is the convenience of walkability to work. Other people that don't work downtown and come from smaller centres are'nt drawn downtown because they value things like rinks instead of museums.

I am reminded of the pioneering spirit of my grandfathers, who literally took a piece of sod and turned into it into roads, arable land, and communities from very little. In some cases, farmers would band together to build their own roads. I think it is this spirit that is needed to ask what we can do to make our communities better places to live.

I also think that peoples viewpoint on how Calgary should grow depend more on personality and less on where you come from. If you are really introverted, chances are you don't want Calgary to be more high density. If you are someone who gathers information from senses, than most likely you will form a decision based on previous experience instead of creative ideas. If someones really judgemental, instead of perceiving, it's likely they won't want to live in a multicultural environment.

I understand that people may have different perspectives about where they want to live and what type of housing they want to live. I think it is important that land use and mobility are linked, and that will lead to more affordable living.

[fusili]

lynch mobs are democratic.

And yeah ..... Lynch mobs are not democratic. Unless you believe democracy to be absolute rule of the majority (which it is not), then yes, lynch mobs would be democratic by your definition. But that is not a democracy that any one of us would ever want to live in. Democracy, at least in our country, also involves things like a "charter of rights and freedoms" and protection of individual rights and freedoms (what a crazy concept!). Maybe you have mistaken "democracy" with anarchy (which ultimately boils down to rule of the masses if anything else). Protection of rights and freedoms comes with one, and not with the other (I hope you understand which). Please do not try amateur arguments here, or one shall be, as we say, schooled (or maybe even ridiculed). Please understand these basic tenants of our society before you make ridiculous claims such as "lynch mobs are democratic," it makes you look silly and gives the impression that you are 12.

But damn, you have won. I just spent a paragraph arguing about the fundamentals of democracy and not talking about the election. Good play sir, good play.

[freeweed]

what survey did you find this in?

None. I wasn't aware this was a requirement.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Corndogger, at what point does somebody stop being a "newcomer?" Serious question.

BTW referenda are the ugliest side of "democracy." Very dangerous toy you're playing with there.

[wmp.dll]

i'm sorry, but that's just absurd.

Hey it doesn't have to make sense to you.

All I'm saying is that from my point of view Bronconnier spent more time white hatting people and giving him self a pay raise then tackling issues that faced the city.

[You Need A Thneed]

Corndogger, at what point does somebody stop being a "newcomer?" Serious question.


My thoughts, too.

Also, what makes a newcomer? If a person moving from India or China is a newcomer, than a person moving from Airdrie MUST be a newcomer too. Where do we draw the line?

[Stang]

Hey it doesn't have to make sense to you.

All I'm saying is that from my point of view Bronconnier spent more time white hatting people and giving him self a pay raise then tackling issues that faced the city.

City council's pay increase was based on a cost of living index, which essentially takes away the need and ability to vote themselves an arbitrary pay raise. They did not vote themselves a pay raise.

[Fiveway]

Hey it doesn't have to make sense to you.




Smartest internet argument ever. :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: Yes, four dancing bananas for that one.

[jeffwhit]

Corndogger, at what point does somebody stop being a "newcomer?" Serious question.

BTW referenda are the ugliest side of "democracy." Very dangerous toy you're playing with there.

I think "might equals right" is the expression.

[Corndogger]

Ok, then stop having newcomers come here. So you want "newcomers" but only if they fit your provincial ideology and you don't want them to have any belief system or political viewpoint of their own? Good luck dude. I also wish I could control the universe, but sometimes it just ain't so.

Look, if you don't like or want immigrants, fine. But then you also have to deal with the massive labour shortage and inflation that will be a result of this. Look, either you can live in a stagnant economy with little immigration, or deal with the fact that for an economy to grow it needs new pools of labour, and until North Americans actually start having children, you are going to have to deal with immigrants. So if you don't want people to come here and "implement their views on us through the back door" then either deal with a stagnant economy, or have more kids who are willing to work low-income jobs. Welcome to the 21st century, it isn't 1946 anymore. Good luck adapting to our society with your viewpoint.

Your getting very defensive and not reading what I said. I'm not opposed to newcomers and/or immigrants one bit and totally agree with you concerning the economic impacts. I was actually going to post the same thing last night but it was getting late. Believe it or not, I feel that we are grossly under populated and if had a much larger population it would solve a lot of the economic issues we have and make us a lot more self-sufficient.

Concerning me adapting to our society. Thanks for the laugh. I'm not really sure why you are so unconcerned about segments of certain groups or people (newcomers and/or immigrants) with agendas trying to change how we function here and make no efforts to conform to our societal norms. They are supposed to conform to how we live not the other way around. For example, why should I accept attempts to implement Sharia Law in Canada. It doesn't matter that it wouldn't impact me personally but it matters a lot in that certain immigrants would be hurt by such a policy. Once they are citizens they deserve to have the same legal benefits that the rest of us have and there should no opportunity for "community" (or whatever term you want to use for people who are "leaders" in ethnic communities) leaders or husbands, etc. to force a certain way of life on these people.

There is also (hopefully now ended or to be controlled much better) the problem of ethnic leaders telling people how to vote. The stories of immigrants who can't read English and are accompanied by someone from their ethnic group to the polling station under the pretext that they are only there to read the candidates names on the ballot are well documented. How is this democratic? It doesn't help the rest of us and it doesn't help those being taken advantage of. This is another reason why I believe that people need to understand how our society/community works before they vote. Once they understand it and if they disagree with how things are done let them use the democratic process to make changes. Just don't show up here and start dictating new terms to us.

As for the back door stuff, to make it clear to you I'm not in favor of anyone achieving their political aims this way. It's not transparent and it's not accountable to the general public. Our current council seems to do the majority of their business this way and I hope, no matter who gets elected, that this changes and that all city business is done in the open.

[Corndogger]

And yeah ..... Lynch mobs are not democratic. Unless you believe democracy to be absolute rule of the majority (which it is not), then yes, lynch mobs would be democratic by your definition. But that is not a democracy that any one of us would ever want to live in. Democracy, at least in our country, also involves things like a "charter of rights and freedoms" and protection of individual rights and freedoms (what a crazy concept!). Maybe you have mistaken "democracy" with anarchy (which ultimately boils down to rule of the masses if anything else). Protection of rights and freedoms comes with one, and not with the other (I hope you understand which). Please do not try amateur arguments here, or one shall be, as we say, schooled (or maybe even ridiculed). Please understand these basic tenants of our society before you make ridiculous claims such as "lynch mobs are democratic," it makes you look silly and gives the impression that you are 12.

But damn, you have won. I just spent a paragraph arguing about the fundamentals of democracy and not talking about the election. Good play sir, good play.

I think you've mistaken what korzym was getting at. He's saying that a number of you seem to believe that if you get together and shout someone down that that will verify your viewpoints while negating those of the person you are "attacking." So if I were you I wouldn't threaten to school anyone about democracy when you clearly seem to be implying that you want to ridicule them. It really weakens your points when you imply that those who disagree with you are acting like a lynch mob which what you wrote above comes across as saying.

[Corndogger]

Corndogger, at what point does somebody stop being a "newcomer?" Serious question.

BTW referenda are the ugliest side of "democracy." Very dangerous toy you're playing with there.

Serious answer is it depends on the person. For most I'd say very quickly. For a few maybe never. See my response to fuslii from about 30 minutes ago or so.

Why do you consider referendums to be dangerous? The Swiss even get to vote on legislation and they seem to be doing just fine. I'm sensing you don't trust the general public all that much.

[Corndogger]

My thoughts, too.

Also, what makes a newcomer? If a person moving from India or China is a newcomer, than a person moving from Airdrie MUST be a newcomer too. Where do we draw the line?

What line is there to draw? If you come from somewhere else you're a newcomer by definition. A person coming from Airdrie would be used to how things operate in Calgary within a few days if not immediately. Someone from China or India would take longer and it would depend on what they already know about how the city functions and how our society works.

Let me get your opinion on the following scenario. Let's say a certain ethnic group lobbyed the federal government to allow honor killings if a daugher in their community had sex before marriage. This would only apply to their ethnic group. Would you not be outraged by such an attempt?

If the above scenario is too wrapped up in individual rights then let's change the scenario to where an ethnic group asks the province to give them right to not educate their daughters because that's how their society works.

Hopefully you see where I'm coming from. There is value in having people understand our society and how we operate before giving them such a powerful right as the vote. I believe this part of the reason why if you move from one province to another that you have to have been a resident for a certain amount of time (6 months?) before you are eligible to vote.

[Corndogger]

I think "might equals right" is the expression.

I don't think anyone is ever going to advocate having referendums where individual rights can be taken away from certain groups so I think your fears are unfounded.

[You Need A Thneed]

What line is there to draw? If you come from somewhere else you're a newcomer by definition. A person coming from Airdrie would be used to how things operate in Calgary within a few days if not immediately. Someone from China or India would take longer and it would depend on what they already know about how the city functions and how our society works.

Let me get your opinion on the following scenario. Let's say a certain ethnic group lobbyed the federal government to allow honor killings if a daugher in their community had sex before marriage. This would only apply to their ethnic group. Would you not be outraged by such an attempt?

If the above scenario is too wrapped up in individual rights then let's change the scenario to where an ethnic group asks the province to give them right to not educate their daughters because that's how their society works.

Hopefully you see where I'm coming from. There is value in having people understand our society and how we operate before giving them such a powerful right as the vote. I believe this part of the reason why if you move from one province to another that you have to have been a resident for a certain amount of time (6 months?) before you are eligible to vote.

That's why we have laws that define what laws can be made, and what cannot. There are systems in place that prevent the thing you are talking about.

So, newcomers would have to take some kind of test to qualify to participate in elections and the like? How do we determine what "the way things work here" is? We have to determine what that is before we can test people to see whether they qualify. Plus, there is a huge difference between "how things operate", "how people think things operate", "how the majority of people want things to operate", and "how things should operate (in a perfect world)."

[Corndogger]

I seem to recall something similar. Like the interchange south of Heritage on Deerfoot, paid for by developers as a condition to develop the shopping area there. We need more of that - especially for new home development. I'd like to know what the full cost of new infrastructure required to service a new home costs - and pass most, if not all of it on to the home buyer. The flip side is that the city has to make it easier to build apartments that are affordable by the masses. I doubt any serious candidate is going to come even close to suggesting that because, as you said, most people want a nice house in the 'burbs, even if it is turning the city into a sprawling mess.

Knowing the full costs would be good. However, what would be included in infrastructure? Libraries, rec centers, etc.? How would you handle a case where a developer built a rec center for a new community? Would only those residents be able to use it? What would happen if someone from outside of the community used the facilities? Would that not mean the new community is subsidizing existing ones? Maybe every new community should become its own city and then we wouldn't have to worry about all of this subsidization talk.



Klein was better than Bronco. I never trusted Bronco for a second based on his closed-door style of administration. Klein had the balls to build the NE LRT line in the middle of a major recession; that was a lifeline to many in the construction industry, during a much darker period that we are experiencing now. '88 Olympics - huge success, definitely in part due to the City's support. Besides, if I ever wanted to bend Ralph's ear, I'd just have to head down to the Louie after work to give him a piece of my mind.
:cheers:

I totally agree with you about Bronco's closed-door method of running the city. I just hope we're not going to get any nasty shocks after he's left office.

[LFRENCH]

I don't think anyone is ever going to advocate having referendums where individual rights can be taken away from certain groups so I think your fears are unfounded.

no trying to sound rude but have you lived anywhere that has a form of direct democracy like that? I think Rusty has.....

I am very skeptical about the general public especially seeing what passes as journalism these days:rolleyes:

[mr.steevo]

I don't think anyone is ever going to advocate having referendums where individual rights can be taken away from certain groups so I think your fears are unfounded.

I immediately thought of same sex couples in California who lost their legal right to marriage based on a vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)).

s.

[Corndogger]

That's why we have laws that define what laws can be made, and what cannot. There are systems in place that prevent the thing you are talking about.

What makes you think that? Sharia law was nearly put into place in Ontario and it was only a huge public outcry that stopped it.

So, newcomers would have to take some kind of test to qualify to participate in elections and the like? How do we determine what "the way things work here" is? We have to determine what that is before we can test people to see whether they qualify. Plus, there is a huge difference between "how things operate", "how the majority of people want things to operate", and "how things should operate."

I love how you guys refuse to use common sense. Do you need to have every basic term defined to you in real life as well? There's no need for exact definitions and what the majority want or how things should operate are not part of the equation at this stage. Probably the best thing to do would to make newcomers from other places in Alberta take a short course (a few hours), and more intensive courses for other newcomers with people from outside of the country having to take the longest course. So basically no one would be denied the right to vote if they took the course(s) and passed. I'd also advocate high school students take civic classes or more intensive ones if they currently do. From there people could bitch and complain all they want and try to change the system as long as they do it openly and democratically.

[outoftheice]

"When will people learn?? Democracy DOESN'T work!!!" - Homer Simpson :)

[You Need A Thneed]

I love how you guys refuse to use common sense. Do you need to have every basic term defined to you in real life as well? There's no need for exact definitions and what the majority want or how things should operate are not part of the equation at this stage. Probably the best thing to do would to make newcomers from other places in Alberta take a short course (a few hours), and more intensive courses for other newcomers with people from outside of the country having to take the longest course. So basically no one would be denied the right to vote if they took the course(s) and passed. I'd also advocate high school students take civic classes or more intensive ones if they currently do. From there people could bitch and complain all they want and try to change the system as long as they do it openly and democratically.

So... you've come to a conclusion about "how things operate" here?

[Fiveway]

Taking a course to be able to vote is a pretty good idea. However, this is Alberta and judging from the sheer number of total retards who are able to pass a drivers license test, a voters test would do no good at all.

[Fiveway]

Anyway, it's seems very un-calgarian to not let people just do whatever the fuck they want. That includes voting.

[MalcolmTucker]

Taking a course to be able to vote is a pretty good idea. However, this is Alberta and judging from the sheer number of total retards who are able to pass a drivers license test, a voters test would do no good at all.

Many times voter tests have been thrown out in the USA as unconstitutional, I would bet the same would apply here. They are positively racist, and discriminate against the poor and elderly (in the court's view)

[You Need A Thneed]

Taking a course to be able to vote is a pretty good idea. However, this is Alberta and judging from the sheer number of total retards who are able to pass a drivers license test, a voters test would do no good at all.

I agree that learning how the system works is a good idea. Blind voting isn't a good idea. Corndogger I believe has been advocating that we shouldn't just teach them how the system works, but also the "correct" way to vote on issues.

[Corndogger]

I agree that learning how the system works is a good idea. Blind voting isn't a good idea. Corndogger I believe has been advocating that we shouldn't just teach them how the system works, but also the "correct" way to vote on issues.

I haven't once said we teach anyone the "correct" way to vote on issues. Just learn the system and then vote. Technically, immigrants are supposed to know all of this before they can become citizens but that clearly doesn't happen. Just like they are supposed to functional in either English or French, which clearly isn't the case either.

[Corndogger]

Many times voter tests have been thrown out in the USA as unconstitutional, I would bet the same would apply here. They are positively racist, and discriminate against the poor and elderly (in the court's view)

I'm definitely not advocating for any type of a system that would make it next impossible for certain groups to be able to cast a vote. I want people to participate as much as possible. I just don't want them trying to impose their old, 7th century views and laws on to us. Hopefully once they understand our system they'll either accept it or try to change it without completely destroying it. Just look at what is happening in Europe and you should understand that my concerns are legitimate. If you think we're completely safe you're being extremely naive.

[Corndogger]

So... you've come to a conclusion about "how things operate" here?

Ages ago if you mean this form. Eons ago if you mean the city/province/country--1933.

[jeffwhit]

What the hell does Sharia law have to do with a municipal election? What we don't need is ideals from the false-nostaligia crowd that wishes this city still had a population of 400000 defining the direction one of the fastest growing cities in NA is heading in.

[The Chemist]

Why do you consider referendums to be dangerous? The Swiss even get to vote on legislation and they seem to be doing just fine. I'm sensing you don't trust the general public all that much.

I don't think anyone is ever going to advocate having referendums where individual rights can be taken away from certain groups so I think your fears are unfounded.

I guess you missed where the Swiss took away the rights of a certain group (Muslims) to build buildings of worship as they see fit via a referendum. :rolleyes:

[jeffwhit]

Ages ago if you mean this form. Eons ago if you mean the city/province/country--1933.

You figured this out in 1933? You're from 1933? Things were how they were supposed to be in 1933?

Are you advocating abundant street cars and unpaved roads?
I'm so confused.

[Corndogger]

What the hell does Sharia law have to do with a municipal election? What we don't need is ideals from the false-nostaligia crowd that wishes this city still had a population of 400000 defining the direction one of the fastest growing cities in NA is heading in.

The discussion has expanded beyond civic politics. And give up on trying to paint me as someone who is nostalgic for the old days and learn to accept that our roots are going to play a part in defining us in the future no matter how large we become. Of course while you're trying to force people to live in small highrise boxes in order to achieve some density goal others will have forced Sharia law and worse on you and you'll have to learn to deal with 7th century ideals.

[Corndogger]

I guess you missed where the Swiss took away the rights of a certain group (Muslims) to build buildings of worship as they see fit via a referendum. :rolleyes:

And I guess you missed Muslim extremist groups trying to take over Europe. The Swiss just aren't bothering to wait until things get as bad for them as they are in France and the Netherlands, for example. When I brought up brain-washing in another post I knew my point would be quickly proven.

[Corndogger]

You figured this out in 1933? You're from 1933? Things were how they were supposed to be in 1933?

Are you advocating abundant street cars and unpaved roads?
I'm so confused.

Humor impaired as well.

[freeweed]

I immediately thought of same sex couples in California who lost their legal right to marriage based on a vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)).

s.

Many in Canada advocated for exactly this - a referendum on this issue. Which, at the time, would very likely have gone in favour of denying rights to a minority.

Of course, now that it's a dead issue, and most Canadians have noticed that the sky did in fact not fall and amazingly heterosexual marriages still exist... most Canadians polled seem to be OK with it.

Corndogger is mostly right though, by and large we're not going to see the general population vote down rights to a given minority. Could be trivially avoided by a stronger Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well.

[Corndogger]

Taking a course to be able to vote is a pretty good idea. However, this is Alberta and judging from the sheer number of total retards who are able to pass a drivers license test, a voters test would do no good at all.

There's talk of making voting mandatory in Alberta. You think what I'm advocating would be scary. Mandatory voting would be a disaster. I'm advocating to educate people so they can be more responsible in their voting. Since when did education become a bad thing? I still have to figure out who would develop the courses I'm proposing and would teach them. It sure in the hell wouldn't be our public school system if I have any say in the matter.

[freeweed]

I haven't once said we teach anyone the "correct" way to vote on issues. Just learn the system and then vote. Technically, immigrants are supposed to know all of this before they can become citizens but that clearly doesn't happen. Just like they are supposed to functional in either English or French, which clearly isn't the case either.

Technically, folks born in Canada are supposed to know all of this, and learn either English or French (generally both) before graduating school and being allowed to vote (age of majority generally coincides here). Clearly that does not always happen, for either issue. I know plenty of functional illiterates, and I'd say easily half of the general population has a terrible understanding of history and general civic issues. And no, I'm not trying to claim that two wrongs make a right.

As pointed out above, having a "test" of some sort to prove worthy to vote is a very dangerous path to go down. It's a slippery slope and just asking to be abused. Besides, when was the last time some tiny new minority actually did change the laws in such sweeping fashion that it was worth revamping our democratic processes? This whole nonsense about Ontario adopting Sharia law is a bunch of reactionary bullshit. Ontario was never "close" to doing anything of the sort. It was discussed, yes. Sometimes bad ideas do get considered, that's how we decide what is a good idea.

For the record, and I quote:

Ontario, the most populous province in Canada, has allowed Catholic and Jewish faith-based tribunals to settle family law matters such as divorce on a voluntary basis since 1991.

The practice got little attention until Muslim leaders demanded the same rights.

Officials had to decide whether to exclude one religion, or whether to scrap the religious family courts altogether.

McGuinty said such courts "threaten our common ground," and promised his Liberal government would introduce legislation as soon as possible to outlaw them in Ontario.

From here. (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1126472943217_26/?hub=TopStories)

This was NEVER about Sharia law being enforced in Ontario. This was about allowing ANY religious law. Ontario (rightly) realized that you can't allow Jewish law to override Canadian law, unless you do the same for Muslims - unless you want to start legislating "official" religions in this country. It's called hypocrisy otherwise, and against freedom of religion. Well, this decision was much broader than that - it said that NO religious law should EVER be above Canadian law.

Stop spreading lies.

[Corndogger]

Many in Canada advocated for exactly this - a referendum on this issue. Which, at the time, would very likely have gone in favour of denying rights to a minority.

Of course, now that it's a dead issue, and most Canadians have noticed that the sky did in fact not fall and amazingly heterosexual marriages still exist... most Canadians polled seem to be OK with it.

Corndogger is mostly right though, by and large we're not going to see the general population vote down rights to a given minority. Could be trivially avoided by a stronger Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well.

I think I might be more than mostly right. Many people would say the right to get married is not the same as the right to free speech, for example. They would also say that this violates their religious rights. In the US I believe CA and just one other state had gay marriage brought in by their legislatures while the other states that have gay marriage it is because of judicial decisions. Regardless, most states allow citizen referendums to amend the state constitution. This is a great thing people. It prevents legislatures from passing laws that the majority do not support.

To me the biggest problem gay marriage advocates have is educating people. When Florida voters accepted an amendement proposal that banned same-sex marriage in 2008 there was a study done that found for every one percentage point increase in the number of people with a bachelor of arts degree there was a similar drop in support for the amendment. I'm sure with time support will grow for same-sex marriage and it's proponents can seek to have constitution changed. The key thing is they have that right. We don't and it's something I'm sure many people would love to have.

[Corndogger]

Technically, folks born in Canada are supposed to know all of this, and learn either English or French (generally both) before graduating school and being allowed to vote (age of majority generally coincides here). Clearly that does not always happen, for either issue. I know plenty of functional illiterates, and I'd say easily half of the general population has a terrible understanding of history and general civic issues. And no, I'm not trying to claim that two wrongs make a right.

As pointed out above, having a "test" of some sort to prove worthy to vote is a very dangerous path to go down. It's a slippery slope and just asking to be abused. Besides, when was the last time some tiny new minority actually did change the laws in such sweeping fashion that it was worth revamping our democratic processes? This whole nonsense about Ontario adopting Sharia law is a bunch of reactionary bullshit. Ontario was never "close" to doing anything of the sort. It was discussed, yes. Sometimes bad ideas do get considered, that's how we decide what is a good idea.

For the record, and I quote:



From here. (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1126472943217_26/?hub=TopStories)

This was NEVER about Sharia law being enforced in Ontario. This was about allowing ANY religious law. Ontario (rightly) realized that you can't allow Jewish law to override Canadian law, unless you do the same for Muslims - unless you want to start legislating "official" religions in this country. It's called hypocrisy otherwise, and against freedom of religion. Well, this decision was much broader than that - it said that NO religious law should EVER be above Canadian law.

Stop spreading lies.

Don't take one media article as being representative of what happened in Ontario with Sharia law. What you quoted is the spin that it's supporters used. Do some more research and you'll find out how left-wing nutcases and Muslim groups tried to get this passed and how Muslim Women's groups fought back, brought this to the attention of the media and finally to the general public. McGuinty knew people were horrified about this possibility and used the Jewish law as a convenient scapegoat to not have to pass this legislation.

If you're going to accuse me of lying you'll need to a lot better job and actually find a case where I've lied. This isn't one of them.

[freeweed]

Don't take one media article as being representative of what happened in Ontario with Sharia law. What you quoted is the spin that it's supporters used. Do some more research and you'll find out how left-wing nutcases and Muslim groups tried to get this passed and how Muslim Women's groups fought back, brought this to the attention of the media and finally to the general public. McGuinty knew people were horrified about this possibility and used the Jewish law as a convenient scapegoat to not have to pass this legislation.

If you're going to accuse me of lying you'll need to a lot better job and actually find a case where I've lied. This isn't one of them.

Wow, I really can't help you if you insist on avoiding reality.

This (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/09/09/sharia-protests-20050909.html) wan't (http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/sharia-law-in-ontario/) just (http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2006/fidler270506.html) one (http://www.danielpipes.org/2989/enforce-islamic-law-in-canada) article. (http://www.womensradio.com/articles/Activists-Savor-Anti-Sharia-Victory-in-Ontario/292.html)

The Jewish (it was technically more than just Jewish) law wasn't a "convenient scapegoat", IT WAS THE ENTIRE REASON THIS WAS EVER CONSIDERED, PERIOD.

Some of the most ardent opponents to this even happening, incidentally, were Muslim feminists. ie: left-wingers. Muslim men trying to get this passed are just about the textbook definition of "right-wing". Stop getting caught up ideological labels that directly contradict what you're trying to state.

Yes, some Muslim extremists were trying to get this passed. No shit. There's always some extremist or another trying to pass some insane law - just look at all the "faith based" bullshit being attempted in the US right now, much of which is shot down for being unconstitutional. I see zero indication that anyone seriously considered this, and the public outcry was deafening. McGuinty, as expected, said "no". Regardless, even if this had passed, it was not an implementation of Sharia law. It was merely allowing Muslims to do exactly what Jews and Christians were allowed to do. It had no criminal justice influence, it was solely for matters of family law. It was disgusting (as was the existing Jewish/Christian version), don't get me wrong, but portraying this as if Sharia law was going to be in place is not only misleading, it's out-and-out lying.

Seems to me that the system worked as designed. There is no massive conspiracy to usurp your way of life. Hell, you just said it a couple of pages back - people move here, learn about our way of life, and generally end up voting in favour of it. Hence the Conservatives still in power in Alberta 4 decades later, with two million new immigrants.

Stop chasing shadows.