Decision 2010: Calgary Municipal Election

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

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]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

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]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

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 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]

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

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]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

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]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

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]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

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 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

Here's a reminder why he didn't and, will never get my vote.

[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]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

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.

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

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 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.

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

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]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

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]

Originally Posted by mersar

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 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) 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]

Originally Posted by Ferreth

As a born 'n bred Calgary (just so you know where I'm coming from) 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.

Originally Posted by Ferreth

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.

Originally Posted by Ferreth

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.

Originally Posted by Ferreth

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Ferreth

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

CBC

Here's a reminder why he didn't and, will never get my vote.

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]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

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...ng+done/2610027/story.html#ixzz0gZMESLBD


---

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