Ottawa Municipal Election 2010

[c_speed3108]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

So wait, does this mean Katherine Hobbs did not get in?

No, she beat Leadman.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by Dado

Looks like you got your way on Bédard...

I know property owners in Bedards ward who would not even start infill projects if Bedard was re-elected...with a new guy they feel that they will get a better outlook on the project....

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Fleury is only 25 years old! Congrats.

You could run in the next election....Waterloo Warrior for Mayor has a good ring to it.

[Dado]

Since the turnover is so dramatic, here's a list of it all:

Key:
Defeated
Retired
Won

Mayor
Larry O'Brien
Jim Watson

Ward 7 - Bay
Alex Cullen
Mark Taylor

Ward 9 - Knoxdale-Merivale
Gord Hunter
Keith Egli

Ward 11 - Beacon Hill-Cyrville
Michel Bellemare
Tim Tierney

Ward 12 - Rideau-Vanier
Georges Bédard
Mathieu Fleury

Ward 13 - Rideau-Rockcliffe
Jacques Legendre
Peter Clark

Ward 15 - Kitchissippi
Christine Leadman
Katherine Hobbs

Ward 17 - Capital
Clive Doucet*
David Chernushenko

Ward 19 - Cumberland
Rob Jellet
Stephen Blais

Ward 21 – Rideau-Goulbourn
Glenn Brooks
Scott Moffatt

Ward 23 - Kanata South
Peggy Feltmate
Allan Hubley

*Ran for mayor

10 new councillors (4 by incumbent retirement, 6 by incumbent defeat), 1 new mayor by incumbent defeat: 11 of 24 council members are new.

[Ottawan]

What a great result! What we've lost in having such a bland mayor (due the the paucity of quality candidates) we've more than gained in some real good new blood on council. We have lost three of the worst councillor-incumbants (Leadman, Brooks and Jellet) to challengers, as well as three complacent political lifers (Cullen, Bédard and Bellemare). In open races such as Capital, the best seem to have won out (Chernushenko should prove to be a great asset).

Woohoo!

[adam-machiavelli]

Newer isn't always better. The better question is whether there's substance behind the fresh face.

- I'd hardly call Peter Clark "new"
- Anyone who's read Mathieu Fleury's campaign literature can easily see that the guy doesn't seem too concerned with the real issues facing his ward. All he talks about is childhood obesity and how everything can be solved if the kids were skinnier. While I acknowledge that it's an important issue in North America, it's not an important issue for that ward.
- Blais supports subsidizing Rockland commuters with Ottawans' taxes with an extension of the Queensway to Rocklanders' front steps
- Scott Moffatt's main campaign goal is to make Ottawa Myrtle Beach north by subsidizing tons of new golf courses and bringing in golfing events; hardly visionary thinking or good planning

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by c_speed3108

No, she beat Leadman.

Originally Posted by Ottawan

What a great result! What we've lost in having such a bland mayor (due the the paucity of quality candidates) we've more than gained in some real good new blood on council. We have lost three of the worst councillor-incumbants (Leadman, Brooks and Jellet) to challengers, as well as three complacent political lifers (Cullen, Bédard and Bellemare). In open races such as Capital, the best seem to have won out (Chernushenko should prove to be a great asset).

Woohoo!

Agreed. Let's hope we see more high-fiving and less facepalming when it comes to City Council and its decisions and actions.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

I know property owners in Bedards ward who would not even start infill projects if Bedard was re-elected...with a new guy they feel that they will get a better outlook on the project....

Georges Bédard is what happens to elected officials who don't deign to reply to their emails.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

I really don't get the euphoria about Leadman's defeat.

She replaced Shawn Little, if you recall. Now that was an embarrassment of a councillor. She won against perennial Westboro supernimby Gary Luddington and Hintonburg social activist Vicky Smallman in the 2006 election, both of whom would have been outright anti-development rather than supportive of development that conforms to the CDP as Leadman is. Leadman was the centre right candidate winning in a centre left ward.

As for Hobbs, she just seems painfully ill-prepared (she started off with the photo of the old city hall on her website) and ignorant of how basic institutions function (she claimed to be on the board of CfSC but in fact was just a member who had been made a representative on some advisory committee).

I don't see that her notion of trying to talk to all parties in development issues is going to pan out as a way to resolve these issues. Leadman already tried this - she had been the head of the Westboro BIA, after all -and looked how well that worked. Regardless of what Hobbs does, city planning staff will probably continue to recommend violations of their own secondary plans and the official plan in accordance with developer wishes. At that point she can either side with staff and developers against the community or she can side with the community and stand behind the CDP against the city's own planning staff. Either which way, any future development that violates the CDP is off to the OMB for final approval. So long as developers continue to propose developments that violate the CDP and so long as city staff continue to recommend approval of such violations, the acrimony that characterizes development issues in Kitchissippi will remain, regardless of who the councillor is. She's basically in for a very rude awakening the moment the first new rezoning proposal hits her desk.

Just looking around Westboro, I would have thought Leadman would win on the basis of the sign count, so I figure Hobbs' support came from elsewhere in the ward. It is probably fair to say that Leadman's attention has been focused mainly on the Richmond/Wellington corridor due to all the activity there, possibly to the exclusion of the rest of the ward. Her plan to run LRT on Carling might also have not found favour amongst those living closer to Carling as well. One of the things that always struck me about the anti-Byron/Parkway LRT nimbys (of whom Leadman unfortunately indulged) is that they typically suggested Carling without considering that the people near Carling might have the same reaction (cue Stringer's bizarre proposal to suspend LRT over the Queensway - it's the one place next to no one would go nimby about).

I'm not sad per se to see Leadman go, but I'm not happy to see Hobbs come in. If someone of Leadman's background was overwhelmed, then so too will be Hobbs. There's absolutely nothing about Hobbs' background that would lead me to believe she's any better equipped than Leadman was four years ago, and certainly not today. In truth, I would have preferred a better choice than either.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I'm happy Leadman is out because it was impossible to tell what she actually stood for. It always felt as if one day she'd say that "there needs to be more conformance to the Master Plan and more intensification within the greenbelt", then turn around and say "oh, but not here in our perfect little village of Westboro!" She also came across as a bit of a waffler to me. It always seemed like you never knew exactly how she going to vote on something which confused and irritated the hell out of me.

[Kitchissippi]

Leadman, like Ducet, had a tendency to filibuster on the Transportation Plan just to get her opinion across on the matter (which IMO is a bit misguided), even though the basic elements are already contained within the plan. Instead of arguing to push the terminus of the LRT back to Bayview (to support her Carling idea) she should have fought to extend farther west to actually serve her ward in the first phase. She should quit pretending to be a transit expert.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

I'm happy Leadman is out because it was impossible to tell what she actually stood for. It always felt as if one day she'd say that "there needs to be more conformance to the Master Plan and more intensification within the greenbelt", then turn around and say "oh, but not here in our perfect little village of Westboro!" She also came across as a bit of a waffler to me. It always seemed like you never knew exactly how she going to vote on something which confused and irritated the hell out of me.

I agree on Leadman's waffling, and for that I'm not sad to see her go, though I doubt Hobbs will prove to be much different. Her platform is full of platitudes that are just rife for conversion to waffle. The article in the Citizen today makes it out that people were dissatisfied with Leadman's alleged excessive friendliness towards developers, and that Hobbs won by coming up the middle between Leadman and Stringer, who is basically a BANANA. If true, Hobbs is in for a seriously rough ride.

But on intensification, Leadman hasn't actually opposed a single development that conformed to the intensification-supporting plans that are in place. And there's a good reason for that: there have been precious few such developments to oppose. The only one I can think of in Westboro was the Amica development (5 storeys) next to the Maple Lawn and I'm pretty sure she didn't oppose that.

I do take issue with this SSP willingness to castigate anyone who opposes a particular intensification proposal as being opposed to intensification generally or being a hypocrite. Going from 0 or 1 storeys to 4 or 6 is still intensification, and there are plenty of people in Westboro who support that level of intensification. At the same time, there's nothing hypocritical about simultaneously supporting intensification but being opposed to a 9, 10 or 12 storey development and simply wishing to see the agreed-upon plans respected restricting heights to 4-to-6 storeys. And even there, the opposition to more height is fairly localized to Richmond Road itself - elsewhere where shadowing is less of an issue there is much less opposition to more height. For example, we're not hearing a lot of fuss about the McRae Ave redevelopment proposal, even though it calls for a 12-storey building across from Westboro Station (the real one, not the condo).


I agree with Kitchissippi on Leadman's position on transit. She basically fails to see rapid transit as a benefit to her ward and is overly frightened of the nimbys west of Westboro along the Parkway and Byron. But then Hobbs seems to think a line along the Richmond-Byron corridor would need to be buried and a road planted on top of it (yay, a widening of Richmond while we're at it), so her view of transit is not a lot more enlightened and it is hard to take her other positions on respecting the taxpayer and keeping costs down seriously when she's talking about tunnelling through the ward. Frankly, I think that because few of our candidates or councillors have seen light rail running elsewhere and fewer still have lived in neighbourhoods with it, they take the position - like many residents - that it's roughly like our busways and therefore something to be avoided (Cullen did the same thing with respect to Byron). Hence, websites like this:

http://savetheparkway.ca/

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Dado

But on intensification, Leadman hasn't actually opposed a single development that conformed to the intensification-supporting plans that are in place. And there's a good reason for that: there have been precious few such developments to oppose. The only one I can think of in Westboro was the Amica development (5 storeys) next to the Maple Lawn and I'm pretty sure she didn't oppose that.

This:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=178158&page=2

And this:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=178767

Immediately come to mind.

[Dado]

Ummm, my point stands...

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

This:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=178158&page=2

They want more than six storeys where the CDP calls for 4-6. It's non-conforming.

And this:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=178767

Immediately come to mind.

And this one requires:

Minor Zoning By-Law Amendment in order to permit an increase in building height from 34m to 76m

Ya... a doubling of height from ~8-9 storeys to ~19-20 isn't exactly conforming either.

Both of these are examples of the sort of problem we're having where developers just can't stick to what the plans in force allow.


Now, if you're going to try to counter my point, please find an example of a developer who has proposed a development that stays within the heights allowed AND which Leadman has opposed.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

You could run in the next election....Waterloo Warrior for Mayor has a good ring to it.

Campaign promises:
-decreased planning fees
-implement development permit system
-reduced # of copies of plans/studies required with applications
-putting CofA applications and decisions on the city's website

As you can see I will be promoting the issues that will really get people out to the polls...see you in 2014

[Davis137]

That'd be great, to have someone that knows a little bit about a lot of things going on in the NCR...

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Campaign promises:
-decreased planning fees
-implement development permit system
-reduced # of copies of plans/studies required with applications
-putting CofA applications and decisions on the city's website

As you can see I will be promoting the issues that will really get people out to the polls...see you in 2014

Could you add having clear directions given to applicants about submission requirements and that City staff will stop operating in knowledge silos...if so, you have my vote.

In terms of the reduced copies bit....most if not all of them can be filed electronically and only the printing companies in Ottawa will lose and the butternut trees of Ottawa will survive.

[Cre47]

Not a surprise that the only wards O'Brien won were mostly rural wards.

Not sure if the map is clear but the darker red areas are wards/areas won by Watson, the lighter area, hence the rural areas have being more dominated by O'Brien.



The second one might be clearer, the red areas won by Watson and blue ones by O'Brien

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Dado

Ummm, my point stands...



They want more than six storeys where the CDP calls for 4-6. It's non-conforming.



And this one requires:

Minor Zoning By-Law Amendment in order to permit an increase in building height from 34m to 76m

Ya... a doubling of height from ~8-9 storeys to ~19-20 isn't exactly conforming either.

Both of these are examples of the sort of problem we're having where developers just can't stick to what the plans in force allow.


Now, if you're going to try to counter my point, please find an example of a developer who has proposed a development that stays within the heights allowed AND which Leadman has opposed.

Yet look at the area surrounding the proposed development. It's not like it's the CN tower in the middle of Barrhaven. In fact, for the Soho Champagne proposal, they even showed the scaled down version which was an ugly, stumpy block. Forgive me if I find certain limitations to be stupid in this city.

I'm not sure if you've noticed this or not yet, but every developer goes over the height limit because this city is practically famous for appealing almost every decision and proposition to the OMB.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Yet look at the area surrounding the proposed development. It's not like it's the CN tower in the middle of Barrhaven. In fact, for the Soho Champagne proposal, they even showed the scaled down version which was an ugly, stumpy block. Forgive me if I find certain limitations to be stupid in this city.

Of course they created a stumpy block version for the scaled-down version. That's a deliberate ploy. They usually do that.

Whatever height the zoning allows, developers have an incentive to craft a stumpy version that conforms to the height limit as a form of aesthetic blackmail as a counterpoint to a much nicer looking taller building. So developers that are quite capable of creating attractive 8-storey buildings in a 4-storey zone create stumpy 8-storey buildings in 8-storey zones where they want 15 or 20 storeys.

I'm not sure if you've noticed this or not yet, but every developer goes over the height limit because this city is practically famous for appealing almost every decision and proposition to the OMB.

Umm, the City has never appealed anything on planning matters to the OMB (pre-amalgamation is another matter). Your statement doesn't even make any sense: developers [propose to?] go over the height limit because the City ... what? appeals its own decisions to the OMB?

The approval authority for planning matters is the City of Ottawa. It does not appeal its own decisions - it's the decisions of the City that are appealed by the applicant and/or a third party.

Decisions taken by the Committee of Adjustment can be appealed by the City as well the applicant and third parties, but for something to have been subject to approval only by the Committee of Adjustment it would have had to have been pretty minor - or should have been. Generally City appeals of CoA decisions are based on a claim that the variances were not minor and that a rezoning request was in order (hence beyond the jurisdiction of the CoA to approve), which would make the City the approval authority.

The Committee of Adjustment is supposed to be for genuinely minor things, particularly those that result from the existing historical built form deviating from what subsequent zoning permits, meaning that when someone attempts to alter or add to the building they can run afoul of the zoning because the existing building is already in contravention of the zoning. That's the sort of thing the CoA is around to sort out. But now the CoA is increasingly being treated as a means to attempt de facto rezonings through the back door rather than going by the proper route, which ultimately involves City Council.