Decision 2010: Calgary Municipal Election

[MalcolmTucker]

It might seem excessive when viewed from the outside, but in a short writ period, with limited funds, signs are pretty effective. Personally I would argue for fewer larger signs for public signs, since then it is easier to maintain - but the alternative of so many small signs that you don't need to really monitor likely works as well.

The placement wars for McIver vs Higgins are pretty pointless. Much easier to call in your opponent for using metal stakes on public land which is illegal, but many campaigns do it anyways.

But yeah, the signs are always there during an election.

[Stang]

I don't get annoyed with election signs until a week or so afterwards and they haven't been removed. In the lead-up to an election I'm indifferent. I realize their purpose and also lament what a terrible waste they are, but that's election time I guess.

[Wooster]

Signs on private properties have got to be far more persuasive than ones that are on public lands and are mixed amongst several dozen others from various rival candidates.

People look at signs on people's lawns and think, hey someone actually supports that candidate, rather than a campaign worker just plopping in on a boulevard because they can.

People love to jump on the bandwagon of who their neighbour supports.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by floobie

[Rant]Am I the only one completely irritated by the quantity of campaign signs polluting the streets?

I did a little count of Edgemont Blvd, from John Laurie to Edenwold Drive. I counted about 160 campaign signs along this road alone. I didn't count signs I saw off-shooting into other roads. 160. One hundred and sixty!!! On a stretch of road about 1.7km long. These weren't signs put up on people's lawns... there aren't any houses directly adjacent to the road. At least a quarter of these were for Higgins. And you could see little battles sign planters had with one another. Wherever there was a cluster of signs for McIver, the Higgins supporters put two signs in front of each McIver sign. (Nenshi, the forum favourite only had 3 signs on the entire stretch... one big one, and two small ones). A lot of them were also devoted to area aldermen, of course.

I'm all for campaign signs. They serve a purpose. And I fully support anyone who wants to put one on their lawn to support their candidate. Maybe this is par for the course, and I just never noticed it before. But, this really seems excessive to me.

[/Rant]

I agree. I would personally vote for someone who didn't put ANY signs out. They are wasteful and look like clutter. Half of them end up blowing all over the city after the election is over. This race for mayor seems to be a little bit immature...... the signs are just another side effect. Calgary needs to work together....not tear itself apart over a select group of peoples personal interests. These candidates are just hate mongering which is never healthy.

Another note:

It amazing the opinions you hear about the peace bridge when you stand by the information sign near eau claire people walk up and always make a snooty comment.....How did this beautiful bridge become the centre of the mayoral race debate? It seems like if it is not a road, stadium or something for families and kids it is called a waste of money.... well I have news for some citizens of Calgary.....it is not just families, sport-lovers and children living in Calgary (or any city for that matter)! Gawd, drop it already....... There are big plans for sunnyside and they need a new pedestrian bridge. The bridge should be looked at as a good thing and a celebration of the pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure in Calgary.

[gantenbein]

Originally Posted by kw5150

I agree. I would personally vote for someone who didn't put ANY signs out.

Yeah, but I think the sad fact is that the average voter will vote according to name recognition, even if this has only worked its way into their brains on a subliminal level. I would like to see less advertising for products in public spaces, I believe it has no (positive) effect on my choices, and yet companies believe it to be worthwhile.

Perhaps I'm being particularly cynical today, and I'd love to believe that more people do their research, but I suspect it's more like "Hey, I know that name!", and they mark their 'X' (assuming they vote in the first place).

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by kw5150

I agree. I would personally vote for someone who didn't put ANY signs out. They are wasteful and look like clutter. Half of them end up blowing all over the city after the election is over. This race for mayor seems to be a little bit immature...... the signs are just another side effect. Calgary needs to work together....not tear itself apart over a select group of peoples personal interests. These candidates are just hate mongering which is never healthy.

Another note:

It amazing the opinions you hear about the peace bridge when you stand by the information sign near eau claire people walk up and always make a snooty comment.....How did this beautiful bridge become the centre of the mayoral race debate? It seems like if it is not a road, stadium or something for families and kids it is called a waste of money.... well I have news for some citizens of Calgary.....it is not just families, sport-lovers and children living in Calgary (or any city for that matter)! Gawd, drop it already....... There are big plans for sunnyside and they need a new pedestrian bridge. The bridge should be looked at as a good thing and a celebration of the pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure in Calgary.

For many of us, the bridge is a symbol of how poorly this city is run. It has nothing to do with being anti-pedestrian or anti-cyclist. It's about being anti-wasteful spending. It's about a flawed process with no checks or balances that allows a single civil servent to order us up a bridge that isn't needed at that location.

It's about spending infrastructure money, which is traditionally used to create jobs at home, overseas.

It's about $750 million in cost overruns that no one seems to care about.

It's about our current mayor buying up property then selling it back to the city for the W-LRT construction.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Signs on private properties have got to be far more persuasive than ones that are on public lands and are mixed amongst several dozen others from various rival candidates.

People look at signs on people's lawns and think, hey someone actually supports that candidate, rather than a campaign worker just plopping in on a boulevard because they can.

People love to jump on the bandwagon of who their neighbour supports.

Public signs are reminders, private signs are convincers.

[nick.flood]

My car was keyed today, which I equate to my Nenshi for Mayor car magnets. So those out there who are sporting the same be careful.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

For many of us, the bridge is a symbol of how poorly this city is run. It has nothing to do with being anti-pedestrian or anti-cyclist. It's about being anti-wasteful spending. It's about a flawed process with no checks or balances that allows a single civil servent to order us up a bridge that isn't needed at that location.

It's about spending infrastructure money, which is traditionally used to create jobs at home, overseas.

It's about $750 million in cost overruns that no one seems to care about.

It's about our current mayor buying up property then selling it back to the city for the W-LRT construction.

Excellent points. Regarding the last one, I firmly believe that any public servant (especially politicians) should have to sell any property they own outside of their own residence. There are way too many conflicts of interest.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by kw5150

It amazing the opinions you hear about the peace bridge when you stand by the information sign near eau claire people walk up and always make a snooty comment.....How did this beautiful bridge become the centre of the mayoral race debate? It seems like if it is not a road, stadium or something for families and kids it is called a waste of money.... well I have news for some citizens of Calgary.....it is not just families, sport-lovers and children living in Calgary (or any city for that matter)! Gawd, drop it already....... There are big plans for sunnyside and they need a new pedestrian bridge. The bridge should be looked at as a good thing and a celebration of the pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure in Calgary.

My problem with that is that Hillhurst-Sunnyside is fighting density (i.e. Battistella's dev't on 9th). Why should we build a bridge based on the assumption that density will increase in Sunnyside if they are fighting it. Shouldn't it be- "if you build density, we will build you a bridge" rather than "we will build you a bridge, and you can still fight density." The approval for the bridge budget should have been somehow linked to approved density increases in those areas.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

For many of us, the bridge is a symbol of how poorly this city is run. It has nothing to do with being anti-pedestrian or anti-cyclist. It's about being anti-wasteful spending. It's about a flawed process with no checks or balances that allows a single civil servent to order us up a bridge that isn't needed at that location.

It's about spending infrastructure money, which is traditionally used to create jobs at home, overseas.

It's about $750 million in cost overruns that no one seems to care about.

It's about our current mayor buying up property then selling it back to the city for the W-LRT construction.

Ok, I see you are only focusing on the negative things city hall has done......and that is completely normal so dont worry. I suggest that you try to find a few GOOD things that City Hall has done in the last 10 years. Then maybe you will have a slightly different opinion? I try too keep an open mind in our city and see what the overall plan unfolds into.

I dont agree with the suburbs but I dont drag it on and on and on and ON and ON...... I just accept them for what they are. People choose to live like that and that is their choice.

When the planning for the new pedestrian bridge was put in place, it was the inner city's turn to spend a little bit of cash......it doesn't happen that often. We all got a new bridge and it is quite a marvel of engineering. It is a very long span with no middle supports and will last over 75 years.....and heaven forbid we sourced something from another country.... Maybe we will gain some international recognition from the (architecturally advanced) other side of the world?

The city of Winnipeg has built a MONUMENTAL, WIDE and expensive pedestrian bridge and they have a very small working budget. People use it like Crazy to get to the trendy area called "St Boniface". They even built a restaurant on the bridge...They were cheaper at the time because they were built before the height of the boom. Our bridge was built later and therefore was more expensive. It is also wider than winnipeg's and it reflects the size of our city and the amount of cyclists and pedestrian we have going through that area. Our current pedestrian bridges barely let 2 people pass.......I will be so glad when the blaming is done in this city. It is tearing us all apart.

On the other notes.....I personally think some of the overspending was put in place to keep people working during the recession......or did everyone forget about that? Our current administration got PLENTY of important work going and done. It will be easy for the new mayor. Everyone will praise him / her for how great the city is now. I cant wait to see all of the people forget who REALLY did all of the work. I will support WHOEVER gets into office.....but will have constructive conversations about what could be looked at differently.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by kw5150

To me...... re-buiilding a road into an intechange 2 years after it has all been re-done is a waste....focus on that! Building a road and then tearing it up to twin it 3 years later......waste of money.....focus on that! There is plenty to focus on. I will be so glad when the blaming is done in this city. It is tearing it apart. I personally think some of the overspending was put in place to keep people working......or did everyone forget about that?

Be it on a bridge or an interchange, waste is waste. It seems like the only person making this into a urban vs suburban issue is you. Get over it.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by fusili

My problem with that is that Hillhurst-Sunnyside is fighting density (i.e. Battistella's dev't on 9th). Why should we build a bridge based on the assumption that density will increase in Sunnyside if they are fighting it. Shouldn't it be- "if you build density, we will build you a bridge" rather than "we will build you a bridge, and you can still fight density." The approval for the bridge budget should have been somehow linked to approved density increases in those areas.

The area is already busy and dense though. Have you ever crossed the bridge during rush hour. It is CRAZY. All you hear is ding - ding and everyone looks annoyed. The bridge will support additional inner city development whether or not it happen in sunnyside or montgomery or even further out. The BIG picture.....remember.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

Be it on a bridge or an interchange, waste is waste. It seems like the only person making this into a urban vs suburban issue is you. Get over it.

So is everything a waste of money then? Are we not willing to give any new ideas a try? Long live the inner city. I hate driving.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by fusili

Shouldn't it be- "if you build density, we will build you a bridge" rather than "we will build you a bridge, and you can still fight density."

Actually, to be a bit technical I think it should be:

"if you will add density, then we will build you a bridge"

Supporting infrastructure, especially for public and active transport, should be there from day one.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Riise

Actually, to be a bit technical I think it should be:

"if you will add density, then we will build you a bridge"

Supporting infrastructure, especially for public and active transport, should be there from day one.

That's what I meant. Thanks for phrasing it better. Infrastructure does need to be in place, but density needs to be possible with regards to the regulations.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by kw5150

So is everything a waste of money then? Are we not willing to give any new ideas a try? Long live the inner city. I hate driving.

Here's a new idea. Try taking your meds before you get on the internet.

[magnetite]

When it comes to elections, I'm never sure who to vote for. I wouldn't want to just vote because I have to (picking anyone without making an informed decision). Sometimes I'm afraid I'll make the wrong choice. Last time I voted was in 2001 I think.

[shogged]

Originally Posted by floobie

[Rant]Am I the only one completely irritated by the quantity of campaign signs polluting the streets?

I did a little count of Edgemont Blvd, from John Laurie to Edenwold Drive. I counted about 160 campaign signs along this road alone. I didn't count signs I saw off-shooting into other roads. 160. One hundred and sixty!!! On a stretch of road about 1.7km long. These weren't signs put up on people's lawns... there aren't any houses directly adjacent to the road. At least a quarter of these were for Higgins. And you could see little battles sign planters had with one another. Wherever there was a cluster of signs for McIver, the Higgins supporters put two signs in front of each McIver sign. (Nenshi, the forum favourite only had 3 signs on the entire stretch... one big one, and two small ones). A lot of them were also devoted to area aldermen, of course.

I'm all for campaign signs. They serve a purpose. And I fully support anyone who wants to put one on their lawn to support their candidate. Maybe this is par for the course, and I just never noticed it before. But, this really seems excessive to me.

[/Rant]

same issue every election. Unfortunately it's still the best way to campaign so they won't be going anywhere for a longgg time.

One day i'm sure social media will overtake it though, but the majority of voters aren't doing their campaign research on facebook and twitter just yet.

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by floobie

[Rant]Am I the only one completely irritated by the quantity of campaign signs polluting the streets?

I did a little count of Edgemont Blvd, from John Laurie to Edenwold Drive. I counted about 160 campaign signs along this road alone. I didn't count signs I saw off-shooting into other roads. 160. One hundred and sixty!!! On a stretch of road about 1.7km long. These weren't signs put up on people's lawns... there aren't any houses directly adjacent to the road. At least a quarter of these were for Higgins. And you could see little battles sign planters had with one another. Wherever there was a cluster of signs for McIver, the Higgins supporters put two signs in front of each McIver sign. (Nenshi, the forum favourite only had 3 signs on the entire stretch... one big one, and two small ones). A lot of them were also devoted to area aldermen, of course.

I'm all for campaign signs. They serve a purpose. And I fully support anyone who wants to put one on their lawn to support their candidate. Maybe this is par for the course, and I just never noticed it before. But, this really seems excessive to me.

[/Rant]

FWIW, I'm noticing less signs along Ogden Rd., east of the Bow River than normal. Perhaps the candidates have not gotten there yet. I'm noticing more billboard ads for Mayor in the industrial SE. Seems to be more money for those floating around with all the candidates this time I guess.