Decision 2010: Calgary Municipal Election

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by wild wild west

Bronco is still the least of all evils out of potential candidates so far, as far as I am concerned. He's driven/supported a few really bad decisions (LRT park & ride fees in particular) but overall he's done more good than bad - East Village TIF financing (even if it took too darn long to get going), was a big supporter of Plan|it|, WLRT (even though I still think SE would have been a better investment), securing a better deal from the development industry in terms of development fees, transit investment, securing more money from the province (he nagged incessantly but it paid off). Granted it takes a vote by Council, but as mayor he sets the tone and was a big driver of such things. I just can't see someone like McIver getting very much done - I don't consider a return to the Duerr years of no tax hikes but no infrastructure investment of any kind to be a positive step for a city that is evolving into a metropolis.

Bronco has done good things in his three terms but it's what he's done lately and how he's done it that I believe is annoying a lot of people. Standing up to the province was a very good thing but I can see some people saying that the municipal infrastructure money he secured was more about money falling out of the sky for the province and "paying" him off was easier than constantly fighting with him. Don't forget that they also bought peace with the teachers by promising them billions and that they could still change the terms of the deal with the city. Bronco still hasn't achieved the ultimate deal which would be to obtain a stable, adequate, inflation protected source of funding from the province on an ongoing basis.

Development of the East Village is not a priority for most Calgarians. We've seen way too many false starts in the past to ever believe that a sizeable number of people will want to live there. Allocating a couple of hundred million dollars to getting it ready for development will be used against Bronco next year if he runs. McIver was right when he said during the boom that if the area was so desireable that the development industry would have scooped up the land. Personally, I think the area has such a bad reputation that we need to consider other uses for the land such as making it a sports hub (football stadium, new arena, baseball, etc.) or an entertainment hub (large concert halls, etc.) or a combo of both. Even though there would still be some opposition I think there would be enough support to make a go of it.

Plan It Calgary is a prime example of where Bronco and most of council either are not reading public sentiment correctly or simply don't care. People are not going to change their lifestyles because a bunch of bureaucrats tell them that they are not being sustainable. Some of them might say they want to be sustainable but when it comes to actually changing they won't. The city knows this as well which is why Plan It will be like the Go Plan. Nothing will happen other than it will screw up actually implementing what people really want.

The West LRT is another example of where the city could have handled things a lot better. Sure they had 168 public meetings or whatever the number is they are using but they didn't listen to a lot of what people on the west side had to say. Giving people the impression that what they have to say doesn't matter is not the way to go about getting reelected.

Having said all that it's clear I will not be voting for Bronco next election. I did vote for him last time but only because he had no serious opposition. Kassan (?) had serious baggage attached to him and I wasn't about to vote for someone who was accused of fleeing another country with over $10 million that didn't belong to him. If McIver's main agenda is to keep taxes low just for the sake of keeping them low I won't vote for him either. I remember the Duerr years all to well and I know that by near the end of his second term a lot of people were demanding that the city start building infrastructure projects to catch up with the rapidly rising population. Those do nothing years caused us a lot of pain this decade and we wasted a lot of money building during boom times. Hopefully the next mayor and council will be disciplined enough to keep building what citizens want and need and be open-minded enough to consider the best way to deliver services. If that means privatizing services such as garbage pickup, etc. I'm all for it.

[freeweed]

A new football stadium in the east village would have been brilliant. Downtown is really the way to go with sports facilities.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Corndogger, this is going to sound like a back-handed compliment but believe me when I say that I mean it with utmost sincerity. Something's changed in your posting style and I actually rather enjoy reading your posts as of late. Whatever you've done, keep it up! I wish I could get away from the stupid bickering of the Internet, myself.

Anyway, who wants to get a pool going on the next election?

I don't think my posting style has changed. At least I haven't made any conscious efforts to change it. I agree that the mindless bickering can be a real PITA but I've grown to accept it since I spend a lot of time in Usenet newsgroups. Unless something is said about something I passionately believe in I usually just ignore things or have a good laugh over some of the crazy fights people have.

As for a pool on the next election, as long as there's no money involved I might be interested. I think a pool on who *won't* run could be very interesting. I could see Hodges, Lowe and Hawkesworth all seriously considering packing it in.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by freeweed

A new football stadium in the east village would have been brilliant. Downtown is really the way to go with sports facilities.

It definitely is. The city needs to find a location to build a sports hub downtown tied in with a new convention center. Other cities have done this and it seems to be the way to go.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

I would be shocked if Hodges ran for yet another term. Lowe, maybe. Not sure about Hawkesworth. I could see Dianne Colley-Urquhart moving on to provincial politics. I don't know enough about Fox-Mellway or Ray Jones to say one way or the other. Everyone else I would expect to either run for their current seat, or the mayor's seat.

Lowe was nearly beaten the last time. If the same woman who nearly beat him runs again next year she'll have had three years to get better prepared so she'll have a much better chance of winning. I've heard Hawkesworth has said he thinks it might be time to say enough is enough which is probably true. For an admitted NDP member he has been very reasonable for the most part during his long time on city council. If Jones left I wouldn't be shocked as he seems to be getting tired of the job. I think I would actually be shocked if DCU left for provincial politics unless she plans on jumping ship to the WRA. The big question is would they give her a party job until the next provincial election and if she won would she expect to put in charge of healthcare?

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Who ran against Lowe last time I forget? Wiki has some guy with no policy on his website as the second place to Lowe. Are you sure you weren't thinking about Hodges v. Banks?

As for Hodges, if Hodges runs again or not ( with his health problems I doubt it) I think if Jennifer Banks runs again she will win. Was close last time out of no where (she did really pound the pavement!)

I think if Evonne Whelan chooses a Ward the suits her, or is the leading candidate against Mar she could win.

George Chahal I think is a shoe in as well, although that depends on the redistricting, and I haven't looked at the map too closely.

With just those three likely changes, the City could open up Plan-It and get high density targets back in, put a blanket redefinition of R-1 to allow secondary suites and anything up to 4 plexes without rezoning (of course still following all the other rules for frontage, parking etc.) to help the free market better meet the target.

And yeah Corndogger, your posting style has changed, more argumentative using a bit of facts and opinion instead of talking head style 'loudness' like on the crossfire political talk shows. I am glad you're back, makes things interesting.

[bob1954]

Canadian cities can learn from the screw-ups of US cities in that convention centers and sports stadiums ect., are far more siccessful in or near their downtowns rather than out in the "sticks". It's fiscally smartwe also.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

^ Who ran against Lowe last time I forget? Wiki has some guy with no policy on his website as the second place to Lowe. Are you sure you weren't thinking about Hodges v. Banks?

As for Hodges, if Hodges runs again or not ( with his health problems I doubt it) I think if Jennifer Banks runs again she will win. Was close last time out of no where (she did really pound the pavement!)

You're right. It was against Hodges. I remember the media saying her website went down in the last days of the campaign which didn't help but she did a great job for being a relative nobody. If she runs again she'll have a great chance of winning and I would assume will have more money behind her.

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

I think if Evonne Whelan chooses a Ward the suits her, or is the leading candidate against Mar she could win.

She needs to run in Ward 11 again so we can get rid of Pincott. I know he supports Plan It but the guy is a complete jerk and I don't think he has hope in hell of getting reelected regardless of who runs against him.

Getting rid of Mar would be good as well. As a resident of Ward 8 I can only hope that for once we get a better crop of candidates than we've had for about the last decade. It seems to be either one extreme or the other.

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

George Chahal I think is a shoe in as well, although that depends on the redistricting, and I haven't looked at the map too closely.

If Stevenson runs again in Ward 3 he'll win. He's done a lot and he's been involved in some high profile issues like the airport tunnel.

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

With just those three likely changes, the City could open up Plan-It and get high density targets back in, put a blanket redefinition of R-1 to allow secondary suites and anything up to 4 plexes without rezoning (of course still following all the other rules for frontage, parking etc.) to help the free market better meet the target.

The city has high density targets already. The new suburbs have them and they need to be stopped until the city addresses the safety issues that the fire department has brought up.

Changing the definitions of existing zones will never fly because it's unfair to those who bought expecting a certain type of neighborhood. They should look into relaxing the rules for secondary suites however as long as there are no parking issues or other concerns. In areas that are zoned for higher density the city needs to relax their own rules. If they are going to allow 20 story condo towers why not 50? I'm being serious. If more density can be achieved in some areas then that can compensate for areas where there is little density.

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

And yeah Corndogger, your posting style has changed, more argumentative using a bit of facts and opinion instead of talking head style 'loudness' like on the crossfire political talk shows. I am glad you're back, makes things interesting.

I used facts before but at times I expected others to have read/heard the same things I had. I'll try and present more facts/background info when I can. Sometimes a person reads too much and then forgets where they saw certain things so presenting links, etc. isn't always possible right away.

Thanks for saying you're glad to have me back. Differences in opinion are always interesting and makes people think through issues in more detail.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by bob1954

Canadian cities can learn from the screw-ups of US cities in that convention centers and sports stadiums ect., are far more siccessful in or near their downtowns rather than out in the "sticks". It's fiscally smartwe also.

Indianapolis is a great example of building such facilities downtown. They're new football stadium (Lukas Oil Stadium) is not only a great facility but looks very good. Such a complex would have been great in the East Village.

[Wooster]

There isn't much opportunity to move a major sports facility downtown. I don't think McMahon stadium is going anywhere anytime soon. The new Flames arena is a good opportunity to do some interesting things with a new sports facility.

I'm glad they're building out the east village the way they are planning. It will be unique to have a large scale medium-scale high density neighbourhood in our downtown as opposed to a podium-point tower configuration. Of the two, east village or west village, if there was a sports arena I would think West Village would be best suited.

As for Lucas Oil Stadium, I think it must be one of the most ridiculous and heinous looking football stadiums in all of the US. But that's just my opinion. I really dislike that style of architecture.

[earl69]

I wish I lived in Druh Farrell's ward... so I could vote against her.

Currently living in John Mar's ward, and really have nothing but good things to say about him. Bronco will never be getting another vote from me.

...off topic, but I saw John Mar driving around in a brand new Range Rover on 8th Ave. last week. Surprising to say the least when he exited the drivers seat

[Wooster]

Druh Farrell is not alway the most potitically deft alderman, but I really wonder what council's viewpoint would be on urbanism if she hadn't been there giving her point of view during debates over the past 8 years. I think we'd be pretty far behind where we are on city-building issues most people on this board care a lot about.

[fusili]

I think Druh has he heart in the right place. Sometimes I question her tactics, but I think I agree with her objectives.

[Wooster]

^Yeah, that's true. I just think that it's extremely valuable and important for Council to have someone that thinks through the lens of and sees the value in good urban planning, urban design and architecture. She's council's concience from this perspective.

[MalcolmTucker]

Race City lease in doubt after landfill work axed


CALGARY HERALDNOVEMBER 24, 2009 6:14 AMBE THE FIRST TO POST A COMMENT


City council has rejected paying $3.1 million for work on city-owned land necessary to extend the lease for Race City.

Ald. Ric McIver wanted his council colleagues to fund the work from a reserve fund, saying it would help "business not get out of business."

But in an 8-7 vote, council rejected the move.

A number of aldermen argued that paying for the work was essentially a subsidy for a private business.

"It's highly unusual to subsidize private business and ask Calgarians to pay for it," Ald. Druh Farrell said.

Race City owner Art MacKenzie said Monday's vote during budget discussions doesn't affect him.

"It doesn't make any difference to us," he said, adding Race City won't pay for the work. "We'll continue to negotiate the lease. If all else fails, there's legal action."

McIver, an ardent supporter of the speedway, which is in his ward, said he hoped it wouldn't come to that.

" If worst comes to worst, I hope Race City is successful in suing the city to get their lease reinstated," he told reporters.

Council had previously directed city staff to continue talking to MacKenzie about coming to terms on a new lease, which would allow the track to remain open until 2015.

However, the track staying open another five years requires additional work on that land, to accommodate an extension of the Shepard landfill if the city doesn't take back possession next year.

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Race+City+lease+doubt+after+landfill+work+axed/2259425/story.html

Calgary tax hike trimmed to 4.8%

Aldermen add funding to fight vandalism

BY KIM GUTTORMSON AND JASON MARKUSOFF, CALGARY HERALDNOVEMBER 24, 2009 6:14 AMBE THE FIRST TO POST A COMMENT


CALGARY - Next year's tax increase is 4.79 per cent, even though council boosted snow clearing and graffiti clean up, eliminated the park-and-ride fee at bus lots and cut $200,000 from its budget Monday.

Council made a number of modest changes to its final 2010 plan--paying for some of them out of reserve funds--but ultimately rejected all the bigger-ticket items raised, including a bid to hire 12 more transit security staff and to pay for work on the Race City site.

It also voted against pulling another $2.9 million out of its rainy day fund to bring the rate down to 4.5 per cent, saving the average homeowner $3 a year. More than $13 million was already used to bring the rate down to 4.8 per cent.

"Well, four sounds better than 4.5 and three sounds better and two sounds better and zero sounds better, until you look at the domino effect or the unintended consequences," Mayor Dave Bronconnier said. "And council, your long-term strategic plans are the right ones."

He called it a matter of leadership rather than salesmanship.

Council also killed a proposal to start charging for parking on Sundays or for longer hours, while referring contentious fine and impound fee increases back to the parking authority board.

At the same time, council approved reducing rates for shorter-term stays in the city core.

"It's a very fine balance for an economy that's transitioning from somewhere to something better," Ald. Gord Lowe, chairman of the finance committee, said of the 2010 budget.

A4.8 per cent tax increase would add just under $54 to the municipal portion of the average residential tax bill.

The only money actually removed from the budget was $200,000 from human resources, suggested by Ald. Andre Chabot, the equivalent of lowering the rate by 0.02 per cent.

After the budget passed, Ald. Ric McIver asked that city staff try to cut an additional one per cent from department budgets, and report back next spring.

Bronconnier called it cavalier and a waste of resources.

"There's more to get, and we're not doing our jobs well enough unless we keep asking until we get what there is to get," McIver said.

But his move to cut $2.8 million from the corporate services budget was rejected, with Ald. Diane Colley-Urquhart calling the attempt reckless when no one could determine what the potential impacts might be.

"You've got to do your homework on this," she said. "Just coming up with a carte-blanche amendment with no idea what it's going to do doesn't work."

Other major items that didn't make it into--or out of--the budget included$ 1.3 million to add more transit security officers, a recommendation from the transit safety audit.

An attempt to reduce the park and ride fees at LRT lots to $1 a day from $3--at a revenue hit of $4.5 million --was voted down.

However a move to eliminate the fee at three bus park-and-ride lots passed, with transit saying they could absorb the $100,000 loss within existing budgets.

Paying $3.1 million for work at the city-owned Race City site, which would allow the organization to continue operating for another five years, didn't pass.

Two tries to cut grants to civic partners-- one including the library, the other not--were also rejected.

As well, council agreed to fund $1 million in each of the next two years for a pilot project that would see small private contractors called in to deal with trouble spots during heavy snowfalls. The money will come from a reserve fund and doesn't affect the property tax increase, unless aldermen decide to continue it after 2011.

They also took $200,000 from the reserve to cover increased graffiti cleanup on private property.

Proposed increases to sewer and water rates were also reduced because of lower capital costs. The average metered bill will now increase by $3.04 a month instead of $4.06, while non-metered bills will go up by $3.61 rather than $4.82, on average.

[email protected]

kguttormson@theherald. canwest.com

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Calgary+hike+trimmed/2259424/story.html

So it looks like Ric McIver tried to cut money from general administration to pay for work that would allow the city to renew Race City's lease. It is pretty irresponsible to encourage organizations to sue the city in any case.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by earl69

Currently living in John Mar's ward, and really have nothing but good things to say about him. Bronco will never be getting another vote from me.

...off topic, but I saw John Mar driving around in a brand new Range Rover on 8th Ave. last week. Surprising to say the least when he exited the drivers seat

I'm of the opposite view, Mar hasn't really done much of anything. He seems to be a master fence sitter. Constantly engaging in politic-speak and always very vague when answering questions.

I think the word was that Mar is just using this job as a stepping stone up to provincial politics.

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

So it looks like Ric McIver tried to cut money from general administration to pay for work that would allow the city to renew Race City's lease. It is pretty irresponsible to encourage organizations to sue the city in any case.

A very unusual slip-up by McIver on that point. What kind of person would encourage someone to sue the entity they work for? Especially if it comes to that I would expect the media to be all over the money that it is costing us to fight it. Perhaps he is losing his mind?

[wild wild west]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Bronco has done good things in his three terms but it's what he's done lately and how he's done it that I believe is annoying a lot of people. Standing up to the province was a very good thing but I can see some people saying that the municipal infrastructure money he secured was more about money falling out of the sky for the province and "paying" him off was easier than constantly fighting with him. Don't forget that they also bought peace with the teachers by promising them billions and that they could still change the terms of the deal with the city. Bronco still hasn't achieved the ultimate deal which would be to obtain a stable, adequate, inflation protected source of funding from the province on an ongoing basis.

Development of the East Village is not a priority for most Calgarians. We've seen way too many false starts in the past to ever believe that a sizeable number of people will want to live there. Allocating a couple of hundred million dollars to getting it ready for development will be used against Bronco next year if he runs. McIver was right when he said during the boom that if the area was so desireable that the development industry would have scooped up the land. Personally, I think the area has such a bad reputation that we need to consider other uses for the land such as making it a sports hub (football stadium, new arena, baseball, etc.) or an entertainment hub (large concert halls, etc.) or a combo of both. Even though there would still be some opposition I think there would be enough support to make a go of it.

Plan It Calgary is a prime example of where Bronco and most of council either are not reading public sentiment correctly or simply don't care. People are not going to change their lifestyles because a bunch of bureaucrats tell them that they are not being sustainable. Some of them might say they want to be sustainable but when it comes to actually changing they won't. The city knows this as well which is why Plan It will be like the Go Plan. Nothing will happen other than it will screw up actually implementing what people really want.

The West LRT is another example of where the city could have handled things a lot better. Sure they had 168 public meetings or whatever the number is they are using but they didn't listen to a lot of what people on the west side had to say. Giving people the impression that what they have to say doesn't matter is not the way to go about getting reelected.

Having said all that it's clear I will not be voting for Bronco next election. I did vote for him last time but only because he had no serious opposition. Kassan (?) had serious baggage attached to him and I wasn't about to vote for someone who was accused of fleeing another country with over $10 million that didn't belong to him. If McIver's main agenda is to keep taxes low just for the sake of keeping them low I won't vote for him either. I remember the Duerr years all to well and I know that by near the end of his second term a lot of people were demanding that the city start building infrastructure projects to catch up with the rapidly rising population. Those do nothing years caused us a lot of pain this decade and we wasted a lot of money building during boom times. Hopefully the next mayor and council will be disciplined enough to keep building what citizens want and need and be open-minded enough to consider the best way to deliver services. If that means privatizing services such as garbage pickup, etc. I'm all for it.

Well, some fair points there...I do agree about the sports/entertainment hub, most major cities in the US have successfully used stadium and arena development to stimulate downtown revitalization. With Calgary already probably having a larger downtown-area population (both living and working) than most major-league US cities, the opportunity to create something really dynamic is (or rather, was) there.

Re: election - I think most of us would agree this was not Bronco's best term in office (actually his worst, IMO). I still can't wrap my head around the logic (or rather, lack of logic) of the Park & Ride fee. He mishandled a number of issues, even if he was right on some of them (tax hike). And he's a bit of a hypocrite for supporting Plan|it| while consistently voting against intensification in existign communities (particularly on the West side). Still, I am struggling to figure out in what ways the City would be better off under McIver...I consider myself a fiscal conservative - I have no problem with privatization if the private sector can do it better and cheaper, but I can't for the life of me understand why a supposed fiscal conservative would support the Race City bailout or the almost certain-to-fail Expo bid. Hmmm, maybe I'll spoil my ballot or vote for that whacko Oscar Fech (if he runs).

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I'm of the opposite view, Mar hasn't really done much of anything. He seems to be a master fence sitter. Constantly engaging in politic-speak and always very vague when answering questions.

I think the word was that Mar is just using this job as a stepping stone up to provincial politics.

Good assessment concerning Mar. I've gone to some city-related meetings/open houses where he's been at and it was impossible to get a straight answer out of him. I also sensed he was more concerned about how some of his colleagues would vote on certain issues than with what his constituents wanted.

Does he have ties to the provincial PCs?

Originally Posted by Bigtime

A very unusual slip-up by McIver on that point. What kind of person would encourage someone to sue the entity they work for? Especially if it comes to that I would expect the media to be all over the money that it is costing us to fight it. Perhaps he is losing his mind?

I think he wants the city to honor its agreements and be more business-friendly. What happened to private recyclers is probably still fresh in his mind as well as in the minds of a lot of citizens. A better option than encouraging a lawsuit would be to have the city work with Race City to find a new location and build a better facility. But something tells me there is a "cultural" component behind the city jerking these guys around.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by wild wild west

Well, some fair points there...I do agree about the sports/entertainment hub, most major cities in the US have successfully used stadium and arena development to stimulate downtown revitalization. With Calgary already probably having a larger downtown-area population (both living and working) than most major-league US cities, the opportunity to create something really dynamic is (or rather, was) there.

Re: election - I think most of us would agree this was not Bronco's best term in office (actually his worst, IMO). I still can't wrap my head around the logic (or rather, lack of logic) of the Park & Ride fee. He mishandled a number of issues, even if he was right on some of them (tax hike). And he's a bit of a hypocrite for supporting Plan|it| while consistently voting against intensification in existign communities (particularly on the West side). Still, I am struggling to figure out in what ways the City would be better off under McIver...I consider myself a fiscal conservative - I have no problem with privatization if the private sector can do it better and cheaper, but I can't for the life of me understand why a supposed fiscal conservative would support the Race City bailout or the almost certain-to-fail Expo bid. Hmmm, maybe I'll spoil my ballot or vote for that whacko Oscar Fech (if he runs).

Unfortunately most of our council are hypocrites and don't listen to what the public is telling them. I know a lot of these policies are coming from the administration but it is council's job to make sure that what they approve is in the best interests of the city; i.e., the general public.

Next years election will definitely be interesting. I keep hearing that there are supposed to be high profile people who are going to be running for council but when are these people going to step forward? Hopefully soon because I want as much time as possible to figure out if they have agendas that will not be the best for the city. McIver's call for all departments to chop another 1% out of their budgets as knocked him down a notch in my books. Such a call is clearly a cheap political stunt and only serves to say that he tried to lower our taxes. Ignoring the fact that some departments probably need more money and that others could be cut by more than 1% is not going to provide us with the best bang for our tax dollars.

The Expo bid antics by council just gives people another reason to not vote for any of them. It was clear from Day 1 that this would never fly and even if we won the bid, we would end up losing a lot of money. So McIver's support on this issue really is strange. But at the same time did Bronco, etc. have another agenda? He knew as well this would never fly but I'm sensing they went through the initial work to get a study done on the West Village area which would have been hard to justify with the public given that the East Village hasn't even started actual development.