[DowntownWpg]

I also don't like the idea of term limits. If someone is doing a fine job, wants to continue on, and gets the most votes, then why not? Having to be re-elected is good a enough way to be throw them out if they are no longer perceived to be up to the task.

Of course, Winnipeg pretty much always re-elects incumbents. Doesn't have to be this way, but it is the reality because unfortunately people just don't follow local politics all that closely. However, I would (like to) think that if there was a case of obvious corruption, etc, an incumbent would be defeated.

Anyway, I'm guessing that many here would agree that it was good for Winnipeg that Juba was Mayor for 20 years; rather than having to leave office after, say, eight years.

One main argument for term limits is that politics corrupts elected officials after some time. Maybe true, certainly so on the federal level (ie: Mulroney, Adscam, Harper using an obscene amount of tax dollars for advertising to score political points (what benefit is there in promoting the Economic Action Plan?... I digress)). However, in Winnipeg's case, I'd take a truly independent ethics commissioner (who publicly reports to council, not the CAO) who isn't appointed by the Mayor.

****

Of the current councilors, I think that Wyatt would have the best chance of defeating Katz. Seems to me that Wyatt has been gearing up for it with 'going maverick' and is testing the waters. Nonetheless, the safe money is on Katz; if only because, as I noted above, we usually always re-elect incumbents (mayor and councilors). It has been many decades since an incumbent mayor running for re-election lost.