HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Business, Politics & the Economy


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #301  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2010, 1:12 PM
DubberDom DubberDom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 201
I just got the construction figures for Rockland in today's community paper, Jan-Sept 2010 - 294 new homes, that equates to approx 400 new homes on annual basis, using a low avg of 3 people per home, that's 1200 new residents, assuming 1/3 commute into Ottawa, that's about 400 extra cars on 174 every morning and evening

That's a lot of ants in that molehill!!!

And according to the local board of trade: Why are people moving into Rockland??? PRICE!!!! ... and you suggest restricting more development in Ottawa, and further driving up the price in Ottawa... and you think it has no effect on bedroom communities growth??? Come on!!

Seriously, what young family can afford this?

http://orebweb2.oreb.ca/mlssearch/frm_SearchMlsDetails.asp?x_mls_num=772638

That's the price of a townhouse in Vanier... Pa-LEEESE!

Let's assume you are a first time home buyer or young family, assuming your have a $50k down payment, your monthly payments at 5%APR will be .... habg on..... $2776.80 per month!!!! Taxes will be $6k per year. The monthly cost of your home + utilities will be $2776+500(taxes)+200(hydro)+200(teleph, cable, internet)+100 (gas)+60 (water)= $3836.00!!!!!!!

Infill advocates are elitists, all that you are doing is making house prices higher, and creating a HUGE social problem for the 20% who live near the poverty line. Who will pay for their social housing??? Ah yes... ME!... and I'll have to pay $525k to live in a crappy townhouse in Crackville!?!? Gee Wiz, Limoges is looking better every day

Last edited by DubberDom; Oct 15, 2010 at 1:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #302  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2010, 3:02 PM
gjhall's Avatar
gjhall gjhall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubberDom View Post
I just got the construction figures for Rockland in today's community paper, Jan-Sept 2010 - 294 new homes, that equates to approx 400 new homes on annual basis, using a low avg of 3 people per home, that's 1200 new residents, assuming 1/3 commute into Ottawa, that's about 400 extra cars on 174 every morning and evening

That's a lot of ants in that molehill!!!

And according to the local board of trade: Why are people moving into Rockland??? PRICE!!!! ... and you suggest restricting more development in Ottawa, and further driving up the price in Ottawa... and you think it has no effect on bedroom communities growth??? Come on!!

Seriously, what young family can afford this?

http://orebweb2.oreb.ca/mlssearch/frm_SearchMlsDetails.asp?x_mls_num=772638

That's the price of a townhouse in Vanier... Pa-LEEESE!

Let's assume you are a first time home buyer or young family, assuming your have a $50k down payment, your monthly payments at 5%APR will be .... habg on..... $2776.80 per month!!!! Taxes will be $6k per year. The monthly cost of your home + utilities will be $2776+500(taxes)+200(hydro)+200(teleph, cable, internet)+100 (gas)+60 (water)= $3836.00!!!!!!!

Infill advocates are elitists, all that you are doing is making house prices higher, and creating a HUGE social problem for the 20% who live near the poverty line. Who will pay for their social housing??? Ah yes... ME!... and I'll have to pay $525k to live in a crappy townhouse in Crackville!?!? Gee Wiz, Limoges is looking better every day
Supply/Demand. The reason the prices are high is because there is more demand than supply. Your classic anti-urban argument that there are a select few who want to live in the core because prices are high is a total logic fail.

Prices are high because far more people want housing near services without muti-hour commutes. If everyone was wanting little boxes on the hillside, little boxes all the same THEY would be very expensive and townhouses in Ottawa would be very cheap. But that's not the case, to quote you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by DubberDom View Post
Why are people moving into Rockland??? PRICE!!!! ...
Price. Not desirability. Not quality of life, etc.

So what is the solution? Simply, allow more development in the core where demand is strongest. In the short run developers win as prices demanded will be higher than on the fringe where they are building now, and in the medium run everyone as commuting costs and new infrastructure costs will be lower, and in the long run also everyone as home prices in the core stabilize based on new SUPPLY to meet continued unmet DEMAND.

It's a sad state of affairs when a new family feels that they need to commute from Rockland to afford a home, but the solution isn't to call core residents elitist, rather, we should simply be advocating more development within the urban boundary and identiftying anti-development groups as the real cause of unaffordability.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #303  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2010, 3:05 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
DubberDom, to expand your point on traffic counts, here are the other main routes at/near the city boundary (guesses for 2010 adjusted for recent trends):

417W at Kinburn Road - 17,000 (rises to 27,000 at March Road)
7 at Dwyer Hill Road - 20,000
416 at Dilworth Road - 23,000
417E at Rockdale Road - 31,000 (rises to 37,000 at Boundary Road)
174 at Canaan Road - 19,000

It is unlikely that much of the traffic on ANY of those routes are cross-through traffic (most are Ottawa-bound commuter traffic or commercial deliveries), making a distant ring road far less valuable. Toronto-Montreal truck traffic is unlikely to go through Ottawa unless it is making a local delivery (which a ring road has no benefit for).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #304  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2010, 4:16 PM
DubberDom DubberDom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by gjhall View Post
Price. Not desirability. Not quality of life, etc.
Well, my parents live in that Claridge infill project in Vanier, and I can tell you that it is neither desirable nor quality of life for families. There are needles in the kids sand playpark, multiple thefts and prostitutes at night. If that's quality of life and an environment where I want to raise my kids I would be plain nuts!

What you fail to understand is by restricting the SUPPLY OF LAND YOU ARE INCREASING THE VALUE OF THE LAND. I'm a homeowner with a relatively low mortgage/equity ratio, so I'm profiting as are other long-time homeowners in this city, but your policies are going to lead us over the affordability cliff.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #305  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2010, 4:52 PM
gjhall's Avatar
gjhall gjhall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubberDom View Post
Well, my parents live in that Claridge infill project in Vanier, and I can tell you that it is neither desirable nor quality of life for families. There are needles in the kids sand playpark, multiple thefts and prostitutes at night. If that's quality of life and an environment where I want to raise my kids I would be plain nuts!

What you fail to understand is by restricting the SUPPLY OF LAND YOU ARE INCREASING THE VALUE OF THE LAND. I'm a homeowner with a relatively low mortgage/equity ratio, so I'm profiting as are other long-time homeowners in this city, but your policies are going to lead us over the affordability cliff.
Re: needles in the park. Awful, obviously, but moving further away from it doesn't make it go away. And guess what! There is crime and prostitution and drug abuse in the suburbs too. Just ask guidance councillors at any suburban or rural high school. It's just less noticeable because it's less out in the open.

There is also a reasonable middle ground between moving into a rough part of Vanier and rural idyll. It's not an either/or decision for individuals or planners, there are vast shades of gray.

I'm a homeowner and real estate investor, and there is a lot more to home values than land value. The nature of a NIMBYfied public and councillors without vision for a bigger, better, more vibrant city that deny additional housing units push up values. Les Soeurs de la Visitation is a classic example. By forcing fewer units on that land they are driving up the cost of living in that neighbourhood in the medium term for everyone.

I live on a block with a mixed use 3 story building on the corner, then a 15-odd story apartment building, a four plex, my single family home, and a duplex next door. I have the means to afford that home, but I have the services of that neighbourhood only because of the density of that building and others like it on neighbouring streets. A process that allows local people to block newcomers to their neighbourhood push costs up for everyone and hurt the people that need a break the most: new families, students, people on low incomes, who need places to live and shouldn't have to drive hours every day on costly new highways just because a couple Chicken Littles in inner city neighbourhoods are afraid of buildings with elevators.

Every housing unit is a choice. For the occupier, the builder, the community and the city. The implications of where those units are have major implications, but building OUT will not solve the affordability problem anymore than building up. Everyone that matters is now recognixing this. HUD in the US is now taking transportation costs into account when they calculate affordability, for example.

Drive until you qualify drove an unsustainable real-estate bubble in the US and caused a global financial meltdown. Look at the places that faired the worst: Las Vegas, Phoenix, the Inland Empire, Central Florida, and the places that faired the best: Seattle, Chicago, Boston, Portland, San Francisco, New York. There's a pattern here. Where you build matters for the success of a place, and more and more it's clear that intensification leads to sustainable growth, and suburban sprawl just doesn't.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #306  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2010, 4:59 PM
Umpaidh Umpaidh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubberDom View Post
Well, my parents live in that Claridge infill project in Vanier, and I can tell you that it is neither desirable nor quality of life for families. There are needles in the kids sand playpark, multiple thefts and prostitutes at night. If that's quality of life and an environment where I want to raise my kids I would be plain nuts!

What you fail to understand is by restricting the SUPPLY OF LAND YOU ARE INCREASING THE VALUE OF THE LAND. I'm a homeowner with a relatively low mortgage/equity ratio, so I'm profiting as are other long-time homeowners in this city, but your policies are going to lead us over the affordability cliff.
We had a 23 year supply of land as it stood 2 years ago. With most of it held by a few companies, who are unwilling to resell the land (which they bought years ago at a lower rate per acre, say 25k than what they could sell it for now) to smaller developers who are ready to build now, it would appear to me that the restriction is being self imposed by these developers to increase price they can ask for a new home.

Also, it's not just the supply of land that is the issue, it's also what the market can bear. We live in a city with the second highest average family income (behind Calgary), so people on average have more money to throw at a home.

Finally, I love how you picked out one of the >$500k homes in Vanier and used it as an example of the price of an average townhome there. Here's a list of 3 bedroom homes available for under $275k inside the Greenbelt. Can you find some clunkers in the list? I'm sure you can. But my point is that the house you gave as an example is by no means an example of the cost of a home in the city.

In my opinion, we need to start working now on breaking down the Greenbelt, so that in 5-10 years, when the supply of vacant land decreases, we (or the NCC I guess) can start selling off that land to developers. Prime land, much easier to get services to as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #307  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2010, 6:22 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
The most prime line inside the Greenbelt (i.e. Hurdman lands) would be ideal for a very high-density residential development. Many will want to live in that and buy condos close to downtown at a transit junction. But certainly not everyone.

Also notice the highest densities often tend to be near the rivers - desirable viewpoints seem to go a long way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #308  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2010, 6:32 PM
gjhall's Avatar
gjhall gjhall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternallyme View Post
The most prime line inside the Greenbelt (i.e. Hurdman lands) would be ideal for a very high-density residential development. Many will want to live in that and buy condos close to downtown at a transit junction. But certainly not everyone.

Also notice the highest densities often tend to be near the rivers - desirable viewpoints seem to go a long way.
100% agree. A broader point there though is that the more availability there is of this type of development, the fewer people will live in housing that doesn't suit them, freeing up those units for those that need/want them.

I.e. more condos keeps condo prices down which encourages boomers living in houses too big for them to sell them and buy a condo, freeing up more 3+ bedroom houses for families, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #309  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2010, 9:36 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by gjhall View Post
100% agree. A broader point there though is that the more availability there is of this type of development, the fewer people will live in housing that doesn't suit them, freeing up those units for those that need/want them.

I.e. more condos keeps condo prices down which encourages boomers living in houses too big for them to sell them and buy a condo, freeing up more 3+ bedroom houses for families, etc.
The best plan is to have something for everyone. Use the brownfields for condos and high density development and the new areas for single family homes to accomodate growth. The extreme urbanists want to shut the door on the second option. Many people don't want to live packed like sardines. Likewise, many don't want a long commute or the excess space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #310  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2010, 10:50 PM
gjhall's Avatar
gjhall gjhall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternallyme View Post
The best plan is to have something for everyone. Use the brownfields for condos and high density development and the new areas for single family homes to accomodate growth. The extreme urbanists want to shut the door on the second option. Many people don't want to live packed like sardines. Likewise, many don't want a long commute or the excess space.
The trouble with that argument is that we have an oversupply of single family houses. With the number of those over 65 set to double from 12 to 24 percent, and young people delaying starting families, there will be significantly fewer people seeking the square footage of the single family home.

Have you ever wondered why 2 bedroom condos regularly sell for the same amount as 3+ bedroom houses much larger and with much more land? It's insane, and the result of a serious mismatch of supply of housing stock to the needs of the population ... the demographic changes underway will only aggravate that.

Thus, allow the existing stock of single family homes to be turned over to the next generation by meeting the unmet demand for condos until the prices fall back into a sensible hierarchy. Build extensive new single family communities at our peril.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #311  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2010, 2:44 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,759
I believe the free market will address the housing needs of our city. Everybody has different preferences as far as size of housing, location, type etc. There will not be an oversupply as developers will not build housing for which there is no demand. They will also not increase the supply if the result is lower prices and profits. We also have to understand that choice of housing is very complex. Location may be chosen because of employment, family roots, neighbourhood reputation or the type environment preferred, whether downtown, urban, suburban, rural or small town. Some want a decent size lot to putter in or for the kids or for a swimming pool while that is not a priority for others. These choices are all valid. Price will obviously be a factor but only one of many.

Although price is somewhat dependent on supply and demand, a bigger factor is property value. Property value more or less increases the closer you get to downtown. This is why you can buy a much bigger house in Rockland than a condo downtown for a particular price. I am sorry to shatter those who believe that this will change in the future. As the population ages and demand for condo living increases, this will continue to drive up the value of property and therefore the price of condos.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #312  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2010, 2:32 PM
DubberDom DubberDom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 201
LRT - Well said, but unfortunately, many people want to take away my choice of how I want to live. People on this board may loathe that I live in an estate area with a large acreage, and that's their opinion, and we can have our thoughts on that since we live in a free country. The problem lies with these people deciding on where and how I should live my life... that's the problem.

All this BS about an oversupply of single homes is that --- total BS! Look at the people camping out for weeks to get first picks on lots when ever any new development opens up. What goes first??? the 50 foot corner lots!!

People these days want and expect more than their parents ever did. 3000sf homes are now very common place, with pools, great rooms, super ensuites, luxury kitchen, 2 story great rooms etc etc.

Builders respond to what the market demands, condos inside the Greenbelt (for DINKs and empty nesters), and single/townhomes outside greenbelt (Families). Single homes will always be built, even if there is a perception of oversupply, simply because the specifications of an older single home.

Same also applies to older condos, new condos are very nice, but older condos built 25 years ago are not so nice and desirable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #313  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2010, 2:52 PM
Cre47's Avatar
Cre47 Cre47 is offline
Awesome!
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Orleans, ON
Posts: 1,971
I guess the O'Brien critics can start tasting the champagne now. A 2.5-to-1 lead with a runner-up that continues to shoot himself in the foot.

Watson headed for mayor’s office: poll

Former Liberal cabinet minister has 28-point lead over incumbent Larry O’Brien.

By Mohammed Adam, The Ottawa Citizen October 15, 2010 Comments (37)


OTTAWA — Barring a monumental last-minute collapse, former Ontario cabinet minister Jim Watson is set to become the new mayor of Ottawa, a Citizen poll says.

With a little over a week to go in the race, Watson has a commanding 28-point lead over his nearest rival, incumbent Larry O’Brien.

According to a poll conducted by Ipsos Reid this week, Watson has the support of 48 per cent of decided voters who say they’re certain to vote, compared with 20 per cent for O’Brien. Former regional chair Andy Haydon commands the support of 11 per cent of residents, with Clive Doucet trailing at nine per cent. Thirteen per cent of respondents are undecided. Two per cent would vote for other mayoral candidates.

The poll contains no silver lining for O’Brien. Even when the numbers are broadened to include people who might actually not vote, Watson retains his 2-1 lead over O’Brien. Across the broad spectrum of voters, Watson has 44 per cent support, with O’Brien at 21 per cent.

Andy Haydon gets nine per cent and Clive Doucet seven per cent. The number of undecideds and those who don’t know rises to 17 per cent.

Pollster Mike Colledge said Thursday that O’Brien’s luck appears to have run out.

“It looks like we’ll get a change in mayor,” said Colledge, who is president of public affairs at Ipsos Reid and lives in Ottawa.

“With nine days left, it would have to be a calamity, a pretty significant gaffe, a pretty strange set of circumstances to see Jim Watson not become mayor at this point.”

Watson told the Citizen that his campaign has been sensing significant momentum in the last few weeks, but his job is not done.

“The numbers are encouraging, but I am taking nothing for granted. The biggest enemy of any campaign is complacency, and I tell my team day in day out to assume we are 20 points behind,” he said, noting he has about a dozen campaign events planned for today.

“It is not game over until the polls close on Oct. 25.”

The telephone survey of 400 Ottawa residents was conducted on Wednesday and Thursday, and is considered accurate within 4.9 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The result represents an extraordinary collapse in support for O’Brien, who won with 47 per cent of the vote in 2006. The numbers show that in the election campaign so far, support for the mayor has not grown beyond his hard-core backers. Four years ago, he won with the strong support of rural voters, as well as those in suburban areas in the east, west, south, and urban voters just outside the downtown core. This year, he seems to have lost most of them to Watson.

The former municipal-affairs minister’s support cuts across all neighbourhoods, communities and demographic lines, says Colledge. He is beating O’Brien in all age categories, winning younger voters 44 to 19, winning middle-aged voters by the same margin, and those aged 55 or more with 47 per cent to O’Brien’s 24 per cent.

“Jim (Watson) holds the same level of support whether you slice it by region, age or gender. It makes it pretty hard for O’Brien to come back,” Colledge said.

O’Brien campaign manager Robert Thompson was surprised at the Citizen poll, saying his reading of voters is completely different.

“We’ve been doing an extensive amount of outreach, particularly telephone work, and we have our own set of data. These numbers aren’t reflective of what we’re seeing or feeling,” said Thompson.

“We’re finding a huge undecided pool of about 30 per cent, which suggests to us this is, statistically, a race that can be won by O’Brien.”

Colledge, however, says that what’s remarkable about this election is that Watson’s high margins over O’Brien have remained steady throughout the campaign. A Citizen poll in June showed Watson with a 40-point lead over then-rival Alex Cullen, who later withdrew from the race. He led O’Brien, who had then not declared his candidacy, by 18 points. Colledge says that after about a month of vigorous campaigning Watson’s lead is still between 20 and 28 points, suggesting his support is very solid. Other polls have shown Watson with double-digit leads over O’Brien.

Colledge says Watson entered the race as a frontrunner and has run a calm, steady campaign that showed him to be competent and capable — which is what most voters want.

“Jim Watson comes with a pretty broad base built in, he comes with a name, and he has given people the confidence that he’ll make good decisions,” Colledge said. “People vote a lot on trust. They want someone whose judgment they can trust, and they liked Jim’s calm experience.”

Colledge said O’Brien needed Watson to make a fatal mistake during the campaign but he hasn’t. Basically, the mayor had too high a mountain to climb.

Even though pundits have slammed Watson for showing no vision, and both O’Brien and Doucet have been billing themselves as visionaries, 38 of the poll’s respondents said Watson has the best vision, compared with 19 per cent for O’Brien. Haydon and O’Brien trailed with eight per cent each.

On the question “who is best to manage taxpayers’ money,” Watson led 38 per cent to O’Brien’s 20. Asked who they “trust the most to make good decisions,” Watson again led 41 per cent to 17 per cent.

Haydon, who ran on his opposition to the $2.1-billion light-rail project, took some comfort in the numbers. Doucet could not be reached.

“I am improving. We’ve got a week to go and lots of things can be done in a week,” Haydon said. The poll did find that Haydon is the most popular second choice among voters, with 29 per cent of the respondents saying he’d be their pick if they had to choose again. Watson is next with 17 per cent.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #314  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2010, 3:03 PM
Cre47's Avatar
Cre47 Cre47 is offline
Awesome!
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Orleans, ON
Posts: 1,971
Sorry about the long article and the multiple posts, but I had to post this
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/14/a-depository-for-the-truly-mad/

Canada’s lousy mayors

When municipal politics matter more than ever, why do so many cities end up with bad mayors?
by Nancy Macdonald on Thursday, October 14, 2010 1:20pm


O’Brien, Ottawa; McCallion, Mississauga; Robertson, Vancouver; Sean Kilpatrick/CP/ Vince Talotta/Toronto Star/ Jonathan Hayward/CP



In a sign of the season, in Ottawa this week, incumbent Mayor Larry O’Brien apologized for his first two years in office—a “complete disaster,” the mayor bluntly admitted. “I probably made every single major political mistake that was possible—I even made quite a few mistakes that, quite frankly, were impossible to replicate,” he continued. O’Brien couldn’t say whether he was Ottawa’s worst-ever mayor because, as he explained, he doesn’t know all of them. But the gaffe-prone mayor did want Ottawans to know how “sincerely sorry” he was for the way he’d run city hall.

What was remarkable was that this was not an exit speech, but a campaign speech. A year ago, the pugnacious ex-businessman was unsure voters would ever forgive him his bribery and influence-peddling charges. O’Brien was found not guilty, but the legal sideshow nevertheless garnered embarrassing headlines all over the country. Now, here he was again, having launched a re-election bid last month, complete with a recycled promise not to increase taxes. This notwithstanding the fact that taxes have jumped fully 14 per cent since he took office on a “zero-means-zero” tax increase pledge in 2006.

O’Brien does have competition. A record 20 Ottawans have paid $200 to run for mayor on Oct. 25, including O’Brien’s main contender: ex-MPP Jim Watson. But Watson, a former Ottawa mayor himself, has failed to excite Ottawans; although he’s leading in the polls, the race is such a dog’s breakfast that a disgraced mayor no one thought would show his face now stands a fighting chance come Oct. 25.

It’s a similarly uninspiring race in Calgary, where the city heads to the polls on Oct. 18. The mysterious businessman who fled Kenya to avoid corruption charges has dropped out, true, as has the urban chicken advocate. That leaves 15 candidates, including Ric McIver, the front-runner, and a fiscal hawk and self-described “economic refugee” from David Peterson’s Ontario in the ’80s. Those who know McIver know he has his own eccentricities: dubbed “Calgary’s Rob Ford,” he once refused to support a motion to open a line of credit, putting the city close to bankruptcy; outgoing Mayor Dave Bronconnier called him “Dr. No.”
The real Rob Ford, of course, gunning for the mayorship of Toronto on Oct. 25, has dominated the conversation in that city’s campaign: his decade-old DUI, his views on same-sex marriage and “Orientals,” a dismissed domestic-assault charge, an ejection from a Leafs’ game for public drunkenness: the list goes on, eclipsing serious debate on the future direction of the city, which is deeply in deficit.

In suburban Mississauga, Ont., meanwhile, “Hurricane” Hazel McCallion, who last month announced her intention to seek a 12th term as mayor on Oct. 25, while calling for “change,” has stared down her own share of controversy this year, with allegations of conflict of interest stemming from a development deal involving her son Peter. McCallion, who turns 90 next year and once complained her local ER was “loaded with people in their native costumes,” has again refused to run a campaign: no platform, no literature, no signs, no apparent road map for what promises to be a challenging term in office. After 30 years of hurtling growth, Mississauga’s vaunted debt-free status could be ended by 2012, when the city expects to tip into the red. There is little available land left to turn into a mall or a new housing development, and much of the city’s infrastructure is in need of repair. “We’ve asked Hazel for a debate, but she’s refused,” says mayoral hopeful Ram Selvarajah.

Municipal politics in Canada, comedian Rick Mercer one said, is a “depository for the truly mad.” Silly season, it seems, is upon us once again, as a stable of irascible populists, blowhards and eccentrics vie this month for the keys to some of Canada’s biggest cities. Voters, meanwhile, swamped with candidate lists, unsure of who stands for what—let alone the ins and outs of every candidate’s stance on the issues—too often simply choose to tune out. Just 39 per cent of eligible voters cast a ballot in Toronto in 2006; in 2004, only 19.8 per cent of Calgarians bothered.

And who can blame voters? In London, Ont., incumbent Anne Marie DeCicco-Best—who once attempted to brand her city “All mixed up,” a slogan designed to showcase its cultural diversity—is again leading former MP Joe Fontana. After losing badly in the last election, Fontana said: “There is a benefit in not winning and that is because I am going to cancel my subscription to the London Free Press. I debated the Free Press more than the mayor.”

Or consider Amherstburg, Ont.’s mayor, Wayne Hurst. His re-election platform includes a pledge for a downtown public marina, but he refuses to divulge how it will be financed. “I don’t need to tell you how I’m going to pay for it,” says Hurst, who’s seeking a fourth term. “It’s my vision. I have a vision and I see it taking place in downtown Amherstburg.” A nice vision it may be, but it’s an odd one, considering Amherstburg couldn’t afford the marina it owned: months ago, it closed on the sale of the municipally owned Ranta Marina for $584,000, following years of controversy.

Against this backdrop of candidates—whose fitness for office you “really have scratch your head and wonder about,” says Myer Siemiatycki, an expert on municipal politics at Ryerson University—experts have begun quietly pushing for the introduction of political parties in Canada’s municipal arena, as in Vancouver. The deceptively simple reform could help voters determine who and what they are voting for; it would also go a long way to sidelining the inept, and injecting professionalism and organization into the unruly field. “The bottom line is parties are active gatekeepers in terms of who’s going to be able to get a nomination,” says Siemiatycki. Otherwise, the municipal arena has a tendency to turn into a free-for-all.

Rather than encouraging mature conversations and debates, crowded mayoral fields force candidates to out-shout their opponents, says Siemiatycki, noting Toronto mayoral candidate Rocco Rossi’s Mafia-themed campaign posters, designed to grab attention, he says, and little else. “When people walk into the ballot box they see nothing but a long list of names,” says Kennedy Stewart, a professor at Simon Fraser University’s school of public policy. Voters, he says, need help sorting through the “lists and lists and lists.” The party is a shorthand for the ideas and policies a candidate represents.

The problem is twofold, says Siemiatycki: “Because elections aren’t voter-friendly, we have very low voter turnout.” And even once the election is over, the system hardly encourages an effective or efficient council. It’s tricky to work out consistent alliances to push policies through council. Rather, says SFU municipal expert Patrick Smith, you have a “whole bunch of loose fish wandering around” cobbling together coalitions—or not. With a party system, mayors can whip their caucus into line, weakening narrow turf wars. Without it, that “how-does-this-affect-my-ward?” mindset, says Winnipeg councillor Jenny Gerbasi, can make it next to impossible to get mega-projects off the ground. “Council,” she says, “can lose sight of the bigger picture.”

Canada’s cities inherited the non-partisan civic tradition from 1890s America. The U.S. was then trying to eradicate corruption from local government. By the 1960s, many U.S. municipalities had abandoned the no-party model. Tokyo, Stockholm, Rome, Berlin and London, too, have parties. Canada, though, never bothered to revert back. The exceptions are Montreal and Vancouver. Both have party systems. In Vancouver’s last election in 2008, two bike-friendly local businessmen—one representing the Non-Partisan Association, the party on the centre-right, the other representing Vision Vancouver, the city’s centre-left choice—faced off. There were no cartoonish ad campaigns, no talk of strategic voting. Vancouver has no problem with entrenched incumbency: the city’s longest-serving councillor was first elected to the 10-person body eight years ago. Of Toronto’s 44 councillors, 14 have been there for 20 or more years. In Calgary, 86 per cent of incumbents were returned to office in the 2004 election, and 71 per cent in 2007.

Parties encourage accountability. If voters don’t think they’re going in the right direction, they can throw the bums out—as Vancouver voters did in 2008, returning an almost entirely fresh slate: Mayor Gregor Robertson’s Vision team. On the nuts-and-bolts level, parties also provide organizational structure: maintaining membership lists, identifying the vote, canvassing, and getting out the vote on election day.

Siemiatycki says cities have grown “way too big,” and the issues “far too significant,” to be left to the vagaries of individual candidates running on their own reputation and name recognition. Canada is among the world’s most “hyper-urbanized” countries, he adds: some 80 per cent of us live in cities, and one in three live in the urban areas of Toronto-Montreal-Vancouver—well above the concentration of big cities in the U.S., China or Britain. The sheer concentration of people translates to huge sums of money. Ottawa’s operating budget is $2.5 billion. Toronto’s tips $9 billion. Some voters, says Smith, may want to cut it to $8 billion, and lower their taxes; others may want to increase it to $10 billion. These, he says, are “ordinary, mature debates that should go on in a democracy.”

Ottawa’s O’Brien has admitted to Maclean’s he should “probably have had five years’ experience in municipal government before running for mayor.” But O’Brien’s mistake wasn’t his alone. Supports available to federal and provincial politicians—party research staff, the organization of government, with allies lined up behind their leader—are unavailable to municipal politicians, putting neophytes like O’Brien at a real disadvantage. While we all enjoy the spectacle of Rosie the Clown taking the stage on election night—or “Bubbles,” the cat-loving candidate with Coke-bottle glasses and an iPod full of Rush tunes, who is currently running for mayor of Orillia, Ont.—in this global age of cities, and in this hyper-urban country, the joke’s on us.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #315  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2010, 4:40 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubberDom View Post
You are absolutely wrong. Come into Cumberland one morning and see the headlights lined up as far as the eye can see along 174. Where are they coming from??? Clarence-Rockland... where are they going to?? Ottawa.

Edit: From 2008 city data - RR174 2 lane section to Rockland "The traffic record indicates that the Average Daily Volume (AADT) is close to 19,000 vehicles"
19,000 vehicles in a day, or 8500 per direction.

I've been part of a traffic count. One of the most unexpected things is how much traffic there is moving around at times other than peak periods. Beats me where it's all coming from and where it's all going, but it's there. So of that 8500, ~3000 or so will be peak period commuters and the rest will be just other traffic during the rest of the day. 3000 is about what I would expect. It's certainly not 10,000.

It's a big number for the 174 and it sure looks impressive when there's a great long queue of cars trying to go through Cumberland, but in the grand scheme of the city's total traffic and population it matters not too much. It's a regionally small problem but is a locally significant problem.

Quote:
Get off the whole fake notion that gas prices will make this type of commute less common, the amount of time to travel from Rockland to Downtown Ottawa is 25 minutes (off peak). I live in Cumberland and it took me 14 minutes from my house to go to Ottawa U for my hockey game on Wednesday... 14 minutes!!!
So you maintained an average speed of about 110 km/h. Congratulations on blowing way past the speed limit on at least part of your journey.

And the notion isn't fake. Rising gas prices were probably one of the contributors and possibly even a catalyst for the 2008 economic downturn in the US. With rising gas prices, fuelling up oversized vehicles started to strain the finances of people who bought oversized houses far from their jobs on overextended cheap credit. After all, the fact of all these oversized houses being bought on overextended cheap credit wasn't the cause of the failure of the system in and of itself because so long as people could keep up the payments it would carry on indefinitely. But once something else impacted their finances, something over which they had no control, like fuel costs and more broadly energy costs, the gig was up. Once the defaults began, the entire sorry system collapsed and so did a lot of long distance commuting.

What we went through in 2008 was a harbinger of things to come. Oil prices approached US$150/barrel and they will get there again. We're still in economic doldrums and fuel prices are above a $1/L. Enjoy the lower prices while you can.

Quote:
With new vehicle efficiencies coming up, this will neutralize gas price increase effects.
Vehicle efficiencies are not going to be able to keep up with price effects because efficiency gains would be in single digit percentages whereas fuel prices can move in double digit percentages. Just this year gas prices have gone up at least 10% but somehow I doubt that the 2011 model year cars are 10% more efficient than the 2010 model year cars.

Quote:
And if you think people who work in this city actually live here, take a straw poll at your office.

Here's mine: out of 12 people (Carling/Kirkwood area)
4 live within the urban boundary (only one is inside Greenbelt, 2 Kanata, one Orleans)
4 from Gatineau (2 Aylmer, 2 Gatineau)
2 Rockland
1 Carleton Place
1 Cumberland

None take public transit, Rockland duo car pool
I think you take your workplace and then somehow extrapolate it as being representative of the whole employment situation. Well it can't be. A third of you live outside the urban areas of Ottawa and Gatineau. Well that does not match the population distribution one bit since the population of such places represents no more than a tenth of the regional population. There's what, 500,000 living inside the Greenbelt, accounting for nearly half of the regional population yet such people represent just a twelfth of your workforce? It is statistically impossible for your workplace to be at all representative of the employment situation in Ottawa.

Simply put, your workplace is an outlier.

Quote:
O'Brien is correct is saying that we need to plan for a ring road... he's not advocating building it tomorrow, but if we don't have a plan today, then we'll be pooched in 20 years
Well unless someone is planning on building lots of stuff in the Greenbelt, there's not a lot to worry about. The only place where there's a bit of an issue is between Hwy 416 and Hwy 7/417, but so long as we're not stupid enough to follow O'Brien's plan to fill that area in with more sprawl, we'll be fine for getting a ring road in.

Besides that, the freeway builders at the MTO are going to initiate a ring road planning study anyway, so it's all pretty much a moot discussion.

What would be visionary, and something I would not expect to see happen, is for Ottawa, the Province and the NCC to initiate route planning for high speed rail, including station locations. That's far more important than a ring road.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #316  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2010, 2:27 PM
Suzie Suzie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post


That's nothing. Andy Haydon's self-immolation is now complete:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/munici...+Haydon+vision+Ottawa/3634256/story.html

... building a new dam across the Ottawa River at the Deschênes Rapids with the rock from his bus tunnel and running a road across it...
There are some good ideas in this. Although modelling would need to be done to confirm, I think that a route along the POW Bridge and the O-Train corridor with an interchange at the Queensway would do much better at diverting truck traffic from King Edward than the Kettle Island option. Personally, I would allocate the sections as follows:

• Between Montcalm and the Ottawa River Parkway to trucks and cars (with interchanges or intersections at Taché and the Parkway to allow cars to get on or off). In exchange, cars would be prohibited from using the Chaudiere Bridge. This Bridge would become a two-lane corridor, mainly for buses, and get a bike path.

• Between the Transitway and the Queensway to trucks and buses only.

• South of the Queensway, the O-Train corridor would be turned into a busway. This would greatly improve transit service to Carling, Carleton U and the South End.

On technical merits and assuming access to/from the Queensway could be built, it would be a very good option, especially with a downtown bus tunnel. There would be strong public opposition of course, but the section between Scott Street and the Queensway is not that long. Perhaps substantial portions of it could be covered to make the option more acceptable.

On a related issue, while browsing at the Main Library, I stumbled upon the executive summary of the Delcan Study from the late 1980s that recommended a downtown bus tunnel (actually two tunnels, one under Albert and another under Slater). It’s too bad this was not built. It had three downtown stations (Lyon, Bank and Metcalfe) and another at the Rideau Centre (under Daly Avenue). Each had 110m platforms. And it was only half as deep as the DOTT (20 metres vs. 40 metres). Much superior in my opinion to DOTT.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #317  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2010, 9:12 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Yes, let's divert development from the city to the fringe.
We're already doing that, so let's stop pretending.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #318  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2010, 9:15 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
The far bigger problem than occasional alleged NIMBYs objecting to exceeding height limits is the continuation of segregated land uses with their attendant seas of asphalt parking lots in new subdivisions.
And, relatedly, the laying out of "office parks" and residential subdivisions whose street layouts mean that, short of major natural disasters, nuclear conflagration, or mass expropriation, mean that such developments can not, and never will, evolve in terms of land-use mixture over time. They are frozen. That's dumb.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #319  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2010, 9:18 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternallyme View Post
Conventiently enough, three of the five main highways out of Ottawa (417W, 417E and 7) have a potential rail corridor available nearby, and a fourth (416) has two corridors in close range available, which allow for multimodal access.
Do those potential corridors include those which have been converted to precious, precious, "green space"?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #320  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2010, 7:22 PM
DubberDom DubberDom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
So you maintained an average speed of about 110 km/h. Congratulations on blowing way past the speed limit on at least part of your journey.
OMG!!! What a shock, people actually travel over the posted speed limit. I think I should go directly to jail!
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Business, Politics & the Economy
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:55 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.