2022 Ottawa Municipal Election

[Ottawa Champ]

Originally Posted by bartlebooth

I really despise Sutcliffe's framing here. Allocating part of the city's budget to alternative modes of transportation is not a war on cars. That's absolutely absurd. When it comes to mobility, there's been a war on everything but cars for many decades in this city and serious work needs to be done to reverse this design decision. This article was enough for me to completely rule Sutcliffe out as an option for mayor.

Agreed, using a family in Stittsville going to hockey practice in February is a classic argument of the war on cars crowd. I don't see how modest investments in cycling infrastructure constitute a war on cars.

[Fading Isle]

Originally Posted by bartlebooth

I really despise Sutcliffe's framing here. Allocating part of the city's budget to alternative modes of transportation is not a war on cars. That's absolutely absurd. When it comes to mobility, there's been a war on everything but cars for many decades in this city and serious work needs to be done to reverse this design decision. This article was enough for me to completely rule Sutcliffe out as an option for mayor.

Just using the term "war on cars" is a dog whistle often used to legitimize a group of people hell-bent on hating any mode of transport that is not a car. It's really gross that Sutcliffe's using it. I find the whole concept disingenuous and counterproductive to harmonious city-building.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by bartlebooth

I really despise Sutcliffe's framing here. Allocating part of the city's budget to alternative modes of transportation is not a war on cars. That's absolutely absurd. When it comes to mobility, there's been a war on everything but cars for many decades in this city and serious work needs to be done to reverse this design decision. This article was enough for me to completely rule Sutcliffe out as an option for mayor.

I respectfully disagree. I don't see that there has "been a war on everything but cars". If that were true, there would be no sidewalks. Sidewalks were added to segregate pedestrians from the mud and dangers of interactions with other forms of transportation. Sidewalks have continued to be built for pedestrians.

Bike and Multi-Use Pathways and Bike Lanes have been being built (albeit, slowly and in piece-meal fashion) for many decades.

What needs to be realized is that, certainly since the end of WW2, the car has been the preferred method of transportation for the vast majority of people. It has only been right that the majority of funds has gone into supporting that. It is really only a recent thing that a (still small) portion of the public has been demanding change. Given that governments are harder to turn than the Queen Mary II, I think that there has been a remarkably fast switch to provide more infrastructure for alternative modes of transportation.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I respectfully disagree. I don't see that there has "been a war on everything but cars". If that were true, there would be no sidewalks. Sidewalks were added to segregate pedestrians from the mud and dangers of interactions with other forms of transportation. Sidewalks have continued to be built for pedestrians.

Bike and Multi-Use Pathways and Bike Lanes have been being built (albeit, slowly and in piece-meal fashion) for many decades.

What needs to be realized is that, certainly since the end of WW2, the car has been the preferred method of transportation for the vast majority of people. It has only been right that the majority of funds has gone into supporting that. It is really only a recent thing that a (still small) portion of the public has been demanding change. Given that governments are harder to turn than the Queen Mary II, I think that there has been a remarkably fast switch to provide more infrastructure for alternative modes of transportation.

I'm not sure that you can call the funding of car infrastructure "right". It's not coincidence that we put the vast majority of our infrastructure spending into cars and designed our cities around cars while underfunding other modes, and cars became the preferred means of transport. People don't really have other viable options.

Sure we have built sidewalks (usually), but how many cases are there where sidewalks along major roads are virtually unusable, lack any safe crossings for kilometres and stop without warning. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a road in Ottawa that stops suddenly and without warning, leaving cars to drive across a field to get to their destination. Happens all the time with other infrastructure.

In places with good transit, pedestrian and bike infrastructure, cars aren't automatically people's preferred choice.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by phil235

Sure we have built sidewalks (usually), but how many cases are there where sidewalks along major roads are virtually unusable, lack any safe crossings for kilometres and stop without warning. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a road in Ottawa that stops suddenly and without warning, leaving cars to drive across a field to get to their destination. Happens all the time with other infrastructure.

Right!?

Either that, or sidewalks on only one side of the street, or NO sidewalk (Blair Road overpass over the 174, for example), or ridiculously narrow, even Downtown. Ever been on Slater along the Bell Switching Building?

Even the big box stores along suburban stroads. Pedestrians have to walk hundreds of meters to get to the front door of the grocery store or Home Depot through the parking lots. Cyclists are left with nothing but the road gutter, inches from passing cars going 70 km/h. Sometimes, they get through that parking lot to the front door to find that no bike racks are provided. So hundreds of parking spots, not a single spot to lock your bike.

[J.OT13]

McKenney's plan is the only one that legitimately could give Ottawa residents options. We already have a robust road system that has very little congestion compared to other cities. Now we need to build up a proper cycling network that will get us where we need to go safely, beyond the existing NCC recreational pathways, and we need investment in higher bus frequencies, reliability as well as useful day to day routes (not just rush-hour O-Train connections). To do that, we need new funds, not just play around with the existing budget by moving a few lines around.

[Fading Isle]

I don't know if others have seen this, but Stephen Blais has been having an absolute meltdown on Twitter about people pointing out candidates (including himself) with close financial connections to developers. Some of his replies to people are starting to sound pretty... odd. Incredibly defensive and aggressive. https://twitter.com/StephenBlais/sta...42060856283138

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Fading Isle

I don't know if others have seen this, but Stephen Blais has been having an absolute meltdown on Twitter about people pointing out candidates (including himself) with close financial connections to developers. Some of his replies to people are starting to sound pretty... odd. Incredibly defensive and aggressive. https://twitter.com/StephenBlais/sta...42060856283138

The guy can dish it out, but he can't take it. Kind of like Watson, or Sutcliffe. Thin skinned like you wouldn't believe.

You don't see McKenney pushing back on Sutcliffe's attacks, or attacking at all for that matter. They lay down their platform and let the people judge for themselves.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Ottawa Champ

Agreed, using a family in Stittsville going to hockey practice in February is a classic argument of the war on cars crowd. I don't see how modest investments in cycling infrastructure constitute a war on cars.

You don't.

The car-lovers "see" it, though.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The guy can dish it out, but he can't take it. Kind of like Watson, or Sutcliffe. Thin skinned like you wouldn't believe.

You don't see McKenney pushing back on Sutcliffe's attacks, or attacking at all for that matter. They lay down their platform and let the people judge for themselves.

the third party advertiser that McKenney is involved with is the one making the accusations at everyone else including Blais which has led him to defend himself.

They've painted Sutcliffe as a developer plant since the start and paint other current councilors as such with a study that includes people like Daniel Alfredsson as a developer.

[JayBuoy]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I respectfully disagree. I don't see that there has "been a war on everything but cars". If that were true, there would be no sidewalks. Sidewalks were added to segregate pedestrians from the mud and dangers of interactions with other forms of transportation. Sidewalks have continued to be built for pedestrians.

Bike and Multi-Use Pathways and Bike Lanes have been being built (albeit, slowly and in piece-meal fashion) for many decades.

What needs to be realized is that, certainly since the end of WW2, the car has been the preferred method of transportation for the vast majority of people. It has only been right that the majority of funds has gone into supporting that. It is really only a recent thing that a (still small) portion of the public has been demanding change. Given that governments are harder to turn than the Queen Mary II, I think that there has been a remarkably fast switch to provide more infrastructure for alternative modes of transportation.

the car was subsidized by the government and sold to the general public. It was less organic and more public policy, and policy can and will change transportation again.

The complete transition to low carbon and low impact transportation needs to go much faster if we are serious about climate change Decarbonization policy that takes climate change seriously would mean a full scale "total war" economy on the scale of WWII. Anything short of that in my humble opinion is insufficient. So I do find this discourse about the war on the car to be funny. No one is waging such a war, but we ought to be and many more.

[rocketphish]

Ottawa mayoralty — Fresh faces? Experience? It's the practical ideas that will count
What we need, from new and old alike, is an understanding of Ottawa's problems and a set of credible, costed solutions.

Mohammed Adam, Ottawa Citizen
Sep 22, 2022 • 6 hours ago • 3 minute read



After a dominant 12-year spell, Mayor Jim Watson is not running again, leaving the city not only big shoes to fill, but the task of finding the right successor.

The three main candidates vying for the job — Bob Chiarelli, Catherine McKenney, and Mark Sutcliffe — come with different CVs, and voters will decide who fits what the city needs at this crucial moment. But what does the city need? Someone to give it a new direction or a fresh start? Perhaps, a fresh face altogether? Or an experienced hand from the past to manage tough times ahead? There are only four weeks left in the campaign, and voters must carefully weigh their choices.

A fresh face doesn’t necessarily mean a fresh start. You could opt for a fresh face and still be stuck with the status quo. And a fresh start doesn’t always translate into new ideas. In much the same way, a new direction could go wrong. Which is to say, labels in themselves offer little in the way of success. The challenge is to find the right people to fit the right direction. Still, there is no question that city government has been on the wrong track for some time, and a course correction is needed. Whoever voters believe to be best equipped to breathe new life into the city may well win on Oct. 24.

Of the three candidates, Bob Chiarelli cannot be mistaken for a fresh face. He has been mayor and regional chair. Indeed, what defines him in this election is his experience: been there, done that. And he has shown so far that he is not afraid to rock the boat — laying out bold, if controversial, plans. Still, for Chiarelli, his standing as a former mayor is the issue some voters worry about. Can a mayor from yesteryear deliver a new direction? There is also age, (which we’ll discuss next week). All this, therefore, is why a campaign matters, and voters will decide if they like what Chiarelli offers.

Catherine McKenney, (who uses the pronouns they/them) is a two-term councillor known for their advocacy of social causes, such as affordable housing, transit and climate change. Their Somerset ward was at the receiving end of the truck-convoy protest that shut down Ottawa for three weeks, and it helped raise their profile. They are certainly capable of taking the city in a new direction, but having been councillor for eight years, do they count as a fresh face?

Mark Sutcliffe, a broadcaster and entrepreneur, is certainly a fresh face, who can offer a new direction. But he is an unknown quantity who has never held political office and is therefore something of a gamble. His lack of political experience could free him to bring new perspectives and pursue new ideas. But political inexperience and lack of record can be a double-edged sword, as former mayor Larry O’Brien epitomized. O’Brien, an outsider, rode his business credentials and political inexperience to victory in 2006, only to implode in office and become a one-term wonder. Fresh faces come with their own risks.

All of which suggests that in this election, we should be wary of labels. A new face or an old face is not what matters. The election should not be a contest simply of newness or oldness. What we need from new and old alike, is the ability to understand the city’s problems and provide credible solutions — not pies in the sky. While the candidates have given us some statements of intent, we will not have the full measure of them until their platforms and the associated costing are released. With only four weeks to go, this must happen sooner rather than later to give residents time to discuss and understand each offering.

We do not want long, wordy platforms dumped on voters in the last days of the campaign, with little time to properly vet them. Citizens have a right to know what the candidates will actually do — and how — before they pick a mayor.

Mohammed Adam is an Ottawa journalist and commentator. Reach him at [email protected]

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/ad...hat-will-count

[rocketphish]

Mayoral candidate Bob Chiarelli wants feds to prioritize affordable housing at Tunney's Pasture, Confederation Heights
"They've got some land that's available that gives them the opportunity to move forward with one of the best affordable housing entities in the country"

Taylor Blewett, Ottawa Citizen
Sep 22, 2022 • 20 minutes ago • 4 minute read

The federal government will be redeveloping two large transit-adjacent parcels of publicly owned land at Tunney’s Pasture and Confederation Heights in the coming years, and mayoral candidate Bob Chiarelli wants to convince them to make affordable housing the development priority.

Government real-property manager Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) and real-estate development-focused Crown corporation the Canada Lands Company (CLC) are working together to plot the transformation of the public-service employment hubs into vibrant, mixed-use communities.

The Tunney’s site west of downtown covers 121 acres north of Scott Street and the light-rail transit station that shares its name, east of Parkdale Avenue and south of the Sir John A. Macdonald Parkway, while Confederation Heights, some five acres south of the city’s core, is a sprawling 465 acres sliced up by Heron Road, Riverside Drive and Bronson Avenue and home of the Mooney’s Bay LRT station — and both are “underused federal sites,” as their owners put it.

Political veteran Chiarelli is hopeful he can persuade the federal government “that this is a tremendous opportunity for more affordable housing,” and that they should provide a significant land contribution as well as federal funding for its development.

Units deemed affordable are already something the federal partners are planning for both sites. At Tunney’s, a June document on the project website says PSPC and CLC are committed to providing 20 per cent of residential units as affordable, with the definition of affordability and exact numbers yet to be decided. The website for Confederation Heights, which is in the earlier stages of the redevelopment planning process, says involved federal entities and the city will work together to figure out the affordable housing details.

“Priority development on those sites should go to affordable housing,” Chiarelli argued Thursday.

“If they look in the mirror, they want to create a lot of new housing everywhere across the country. They’re creating programmes, for it, et cetera,” he said, of the federal government. “Now they’ve got some land that’s available that gives them the opportunity to move forward with one of the best affordable housing entities in the country.”

While he’s proposing a partnership with Ottawa Community Housing to deliver affordable units on these federal sites, he wasn’t offering to bring any municipal investment to the table, in the traditional sense. The support he did commit to was a significant reduction in municipal fees for the development.

In response to a follow-up question on the details, Chiarelli said he has a philosophy “that works more often than not, and that’s getting the right people in the same room at the same time. And (if) they come to that table in good faith, we’ll get a very, very practical result coming out of it. And the result here on a large, large parcel of land in the city, which requires a lot of affordable housing — I think the outcome would be very positive.”

Chiarelli is proposing an array of housing initiatives as part of his mayoral campaign, which he read to this newspaper Thursday during a sit-down interview. The public release of his housing plan was expected imminently.

One proposition is a “use-it-or-lose-it” policy for developers with large tracts of land they haven’t developed, despite approval to do so, by getting provincial sign-off for much higher taxes for undeveloped land and an expiry date for approvals that haven’t been acted upon.

Chiarelli also wants to go back to the drawing board, with the Greater Ottawa Home Builders’ Association (a local development and residential construction industry association), to “negotiate” a new version of the high-performance development standards council approved in April, intended to make developments more sustainable and environmentally sensitive.

“They’re builders. They know how to build. They know how to build green. They know how to build environmentally, et cetera,” said Chiarelli. “I’m saying we get together and let them have their say, let them have their recommendations.”

One of Chiarelli’s housing pledges already hit the headlines, last week. His campaign released a letter from Chiarelli to Ontario’s municipal affairs minister, requesting he postpone approving the city’s official plan until the new council elected next month could give it another look.

One change Chiarelli would like to see made is pulling back the council-approved expansion of the urban boundary, except for lands on the edge of Kanata North that were excluded from the expansion, which he says can be developed relatively quickly. On Thursday, he raised the possibility of using a strong-mayor veto to make the urban boundary freeze happen, but quickly followed it up by saying that “it’s not something that I would give serious consideration to.”

Mayoral candidates Catherine McKenney and Mark Sutcliffe released their housing platforms last Wednesday and Friday, respectively.

During Thursday’s interview, this newspaper asked Chiarelli — a cabinet minister before his 2018 provincial election loss, and first mayor of the amalgamated City of Ottawa who will be 81 by election day — why he’s running for mayor, in what he noted Wednesday is his 12th election campaign (he won nine, lost two), between municipal and provincial races.

He pointed to his involvement in the community, his experience, and his belief that Ottawa is moving in the wrong direction, on many fronts.

“I’ve got a lot to offer. I’m offering all this stuff,” he said, gesturing to the campaign policy documents around him. “I can lose the election. That’s fine … That’s not going to kill me. But I’m bringing things to the table that other people wouldn’t bring to the table, moving forward. And I think that’s a contribution.”

-With Postmedia files

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...ration-heights

[rocketphish]

Mayoral candidate Catherine McKenney releases 'bold' climate action plan
"If we don’t take bolder climate action now, these intense weather events will be more common and worse.”

Gord Holder • Postmedia
Sep 22, 2022 • 50 minutes ago • 2 minute read

Mayoral candidate Catherine McKenney on Thursday released a multi-point climate strategy and touted it as a way “for Ottawa to become a climate leader.”

The plan includes creating the position of Chief Climate Officer, to be responsible for overseeing the implementation of Ottawa’s Climate Change Master Plan through all city operations and departments. It also includes a promise to seek to ensure partnerships with Indigenous peoples to build a more sustainable city and protect the environment.

“The costs of climate inaction are too high,” McKenney (who uses they/them pronouns) said in a media release. “This summer’s severe storm damaged Ottawa’s tree canopy, homes and infrastructure. If we don’t take bolder climate action now, these intense weather events will be more common and worse.”

McKenney said their commitments are “consistent” with the council-approved climate change master plan and they said they would facilitate the investments needed to make them a reality. Based on city projections within the climate plan, the statement added, buildings and transportation will make up about 75 per cent of emissions reductions until 2050.

The list of commitments included:

• Greening buildings to reduce emissions and save on energy costs
• Working with the National Capital Commission to turn the greenbelt into a national urban park
• Protecting and increasing green space and the tree canopy
• Creating safe and walkable neighbourhoods including bike infrastructure and low-emission transit
• Designing a climate resiliency plan

One of the highest-profile candidates among the 14 who filed nominations for the mayoralty in this year’s election, McKenney added that the City of Ottawa “needs bold climate action, but we have been missing the political will to prioritize it. However, with the right leadership, we can live in an Ottawa replete with green, affordable buildings, safe walkable neighbourhoods and a tree canopy that helps cool our homes.”

One of McKenney’s opponents, Mark Sutcliffe, released his own campaign climate plan in August.

Sutcliffe set goals for installing 200 electric vehicle and 100 e-bike charging stations on a cost-recovery basis, retrofits to city buildings, planting one million trees within the next four-year term of council and technology-based waste-to-energy solutions instead of a new dump or expansion of the existing landfill.

Sutcliffe also promised, if elected, to transition Ottawa’s gas-powered fleet to fully electric or hybrid by 2030 and to cease city purchases of single-use plastics.

There were no cost estimates released with either the McKenney or Sutcliffe climate plans, though a follow-up statement from the McKenney campaign said a full financial plan, including Thursday’s climate proposals, would be released before voters went to the polls on Oct. 24.

Another opponent, Bob Chiarelli, has a section on environmental priorities on his campaign website acknowledging a climate crisis and saying “partnerships for change need to be formed.”

One example, the section reads, would involve the formation of a council committee to work with Hydro Ottawa as one step in developing climate change policies. It also refers to the fact that Ottawa’s municipal dump is nearing capacity, saying the community must reduce garbage and increase recycling.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...te-action-plan

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Mayoral candidate Catherine McKenney releases 'bold' climate action plan
"If we don’t take bolder climate action now, these intense weather events will be more common and worse.”

Gord Holder • Postmedia
Sep 22, 2022 • 50 minutes ago • 2 minute read

Mayoral candidate Catherine McKenney on Thursday released a multi-point climate strategy and touted it as a way “for Ottawa to become a climate leader.”

The plan includes creating the position of Chief Climate Officer, to be responsible for overseeing the implementation of Ottawa’s Climate Change Master Plan through all city operations and departments. It also includes a promise to seek to ensure partnerships with Indigenous peoples to build a more sustainable city and protect the environment.

“The costs of climate inaction are too high,” McKenney (who uses they/them pronouns) said in a media release. “This summer’s severe storm damaged Ottawa’s tree canopy, homes and infrastructure. If we don’t take bolder climate action now, these intense weather events will be more common and worse.”

McKenney said their commitments are “consistent” with the council-approved climate change master plan and they said they would facilitate the investments needed to make them a reality. Based on city projections within the climate plan, the statement added, buildings and transportation will make up about 75 per cent of emissions reductions until 2050.

The list of commitments included:

• Greening buildings to reduce emissions and save on energy costs
• Working with the National Capital Commission to turn the greenbelt into a national urban park
• Protecting and increasing green space and the tree canopy
• Creating safe and walkable neighbourhoods including bike infrastructure and low-emission transit
• Designing a climate resiliency plan

One of the highest-profile candidates among the 14 who filed nominations for the mayoralty in this year’s election, McKenney added that the City of Ottawa “needs bold climate action, but we have been missing the political will to prioritize it. However, with the right leadership, we can live in an Ottawa replete with green, affordable buildings, safe walkable neighbourhoods and a tree canopy that helps cool our homes.”

One of McKenney’s opponents, Mark Sutcliffe, released his own campaign climate plan in August.

Sutcliffe set goals for installing 200 electric vehicle and 100 e-bike charging stations on a cost-recovery basis, retrofits to city buildings, planting one million trees within the next four-year term of council and technology-based waste-to-energy solutions instead of a new dump or expansion of the existing landfill.

Sutcliffe also promised, if elected, to transition Ottawa’s gas-powered fleet to fully electric or hybrid by 2030 and to cease city purchases of single-use plastics.

There were no cost estimates released with either the McKenney or Sutcliffe climate plans, though a follow-up statement from the McKenney campaign said a full financial plan, including Thursday’s climate proposals, would be released before voters went to the polls on Oct. 24.

Another opponent, Bob Chiarelli, has a section on environmental priorities on his campaign website acknowledging a climate crisis and saying “partnerships for change need to be formed.”

One example, the section reads, would involve the formation of a council committee to work with Hydro Ottawa as one step in developing climate change policies. It also refers to the fact that Ottawa’s municipal dump is nearing capacity, saying the community must reduce garbage and increase recycling.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...te-action-plan

Climate change is far from the top of my list of issues for a Ottawa election but I don't see anything bold in this. Their campaign seems like it's checking boxes.

[Nepean]

I agree with a lot of the views expressed on this forum. I consider myself a moderate voter and was pleased when Sutcliffe first announced he was running for Mayor. His campaign, however, has been a huge disappointment. His lack of vision and divisive politics (his cars vs bikes, rural vs urban, wedge tactics are gross) have convinced me that he would be a terrible Mayor.

Though I had no intention of voting for McKenney at the start of the campaign, I am now reconsidering, as McKenney is the only candidate to offer interesting policies to date. What I am 100% sure about is that I will not vote for the two vanilla candidates Sutcliffe and Chiarelli.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

the third party advertiser that McKenney is involved with is the one making the accusations at everyone else including Blais which has led him to defend himself.

They've painted Sutcliffe as a developer plant since the start and paint other current councilors as such with a study that includes people like Daniel Alfredsson as a developer.

You realize that McKenney and Horizon Ottawa aren't the same person right? This isn't a Clark Kent/Superman type of situation.

McKenney cannot control Horizon Ottawa.

That said, pointing out that Sutcliffe published an article criticizing the Ontario Liberals for hosting a cash-for-access event and then doing the same years later is just pointing out a fact. It's not a vicious attack. Publicizing how much candidates have received from developers is information.

For some people, that matters, for others, it doesn't. Personally, I'm concerned when a candidate gets more than a quarter of their donations from the development industry. Someone like Jan Harder who received nearly 100% from the development industry and chaired the Planning Committee was in my books a serious conflict of interest.

I'll give you this - I would like a list of those donors along with a title and reasoning as to why they are considered part of the industry. Alfredsson, I probably would not consider part of the development industry (though maybe there is a reasoning, I don't know). Jeff Hunt with close ties to OSEG, definitely part of the industry, despite what Sutcliffe says.

Here's another bone for you, I don't think Horizon Ottawa should have people going door to door promoting McKenney. That crosses a line beyond advertisement for or against a candidate BUT again, nothing McKenney can do about it. Maybe they could distance themselves or call them out, but it's not within their obligations.

[SidetrackedSue]

At the beginning McKenney was my choice, not because I supported even close to half of their positions I was aware of but because they were obviously hard working, had a ton of energy (as opposed to Chiarelli) and to me they really were committed to this city to make it better for residents, not for their own reputation.

Then Sutcliffe entered the race and, as a fiscal conservative myself, I thought I'd have to check out their platform because I might support more than half of their positions.

Uhhhm. Nope. It isn't just the positions, it is the tone.

McKenney remains the clear winner of my vote, for all the reasons I had to begin with. They could still disappoint me, and they will need a large number of councilors willing to work with them, but I trust my first impression that this is a good person who works well with others and leads by action and rolling up their sleeves.

I truly hope that they will inspire both city management and the new council to rise to the challenges we face as we come out of this pandemic severely beaten down by the isolation and events of the past 2.5 years.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by SidetrackedSue

At the beginning McKenney was my choice, not because I supported even close to half of their positions I was aware of but because they were obviously hard working, had a ton of energy (as opposed to Chiarelli) and to me they really were committed to this city to make it better for residents, not for their own reputation.

Then Sutcliffe entered the race and, as a fiscal conservative myself, I thought I'd have to check out their platform because I might support more than half of their positions.

Uhhhm. Nope. It isn't just the positions, it is the tone.

McKenney remains the clear winner of my vote, for all the reasons I had to begin with. They could still disappoint me, and they will need a large number of councilors willing to work with them, but I trust my first impression that this is a good person who works well with others and leads by action and rolling up their sleeves.

I truly hope that they will inspire both city management and the new council to rise to the challenges we face as we come out of this pandemic severely beaten down by the isolation and events of the past 2.5 years.

Agree voting strictly on personal characteristics McKenney seems like a solid choice. Policy wise I personally prefer Chiarelli and I'm not sure I won't vote for him just because he's old and has no energy. I really don't need someone dynamic and cool as mayor. I think it's hard to argue that Sutcliffe isn't a developer candidate. That's not always a bad thing as most of us even those on the left here tend to be pro development but for many this is a deal breaker and rightly so.

[Richard Eade]

There are platform elements that I would like to see implemented from several of the candidates for Mayor. There is not a single person running who I completely agree with. Many have items on their list that I am completely against. My goal is to vote for a person who I think has the moral fiber to try to do what is best for the city, as a whole – and then hope that the policies that I don’t like get quashed by the collective wisdom of the full Council.

For example, I think that it would be wise for the city to increase spending on cycling facilities – to ensure connectivity and safety. I do not think that EVERY road needs to be torn-up and reconstructed as a ‘Complete Street’. (Not that any candidate has stated that exact goal, but I exaggerate to make a point.) Because I don’t think that everything needs to be changed to the ‘perfect’ all at once, I think that an additional quarter Billion dollars over 4 years is too much to spend exclusively on cycling infrastructure. If that were over 10 years, I’d be fine with it. After all, that is in addition to what is currently being spent on building cycling infrastructure.

I would also agree that our roads are in a deplorable state. I just had to get a wheel alignment and replace a 2-year-old tire because of damaged caused when I hit a pothole. When I got to the service centre, the mechanic knew exactly what had happened. He opined that more than half of his business was because of the bad road conditions.

Way back when O’Brien got elected, he was amazed to find out the extent of the city’s ‘infrastructure deficit’. He added a 2.5% sur-tax devoted to repairing the city’s neglected facilities. This added about the same amount, annually, as Sutcliffe is proposing. Back in O’Brien’s day, it was estimated that having the sur-tax for three years would only cover a portion of what was needed. Since Watson was very reluctant to put any money into repairing anything, things are much worse now. Chiarelli is right; money must be put into repairing the roads – and lots of it.

I know that funding roads is fundamentally against the principles of many on this forum, but it is needed. I expect that more than 90% of all transportation that happens in this city occurs on roads. Even buses, bikes, and pedestrians use the roads. Like it or not, roads are the connections that allow this city to function. They need to be usable for everyone and every purpose. This is something that NEEDS increased funding, and a lot of it.

So, how about a compromise: Lets spend an additional $50M per year on rebuilding existing roads, and an additional $25M per year on both maintaining and increasing cycling infrastructure. This amounts to $300M over the 4-year term. At the end of that, let’s re-evaluate the needs to see if those levels of spending need to be continued, or have been sufficient to cover the worse needs. (Despite Chiarelli’s pledge to have city staff inventory the roads to prioritize repairs, I believe that such a list already exists.)

Other existing infrastructure is also in need of replacement, but costs for those are, generally, paid out of other revenue sources – like the water bill. However, since the city has now begun doing a much better job of coordinating the rebuilding of ALL infrastructure at once, increasing road rebuilding will, likely, lead to a corresponding increase in the water bill rate.

For public transit, I think that the city needs a fundamental shift in its philosophy. This needs to be defined at the Transit Commission level, but must have the support of city Council.

It is easy for a candidate to say that they will increase the number of affordable houses by ‘X’, but it is really up to developers. Council can only improve the environment for building such accommodations. Whether increased units will help is questionable, though. It seems to me that there has always been more than 10,000 on the waiting list, and it takes about 5 years. If more units are added, I expect that more people will be added to the list. Applying for cheaper housing is kind of like congested roads: If the route becomes easier, more will take it.

Absolutely, there is a real need to help many in our community. I just find that the metrics that they are using to attack the problem might not be the most effective ones.