HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #261  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2014, 6:06 PM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 12,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternallyme View Post
That will get him MAYBE 1% of the vote. Sure in the rural areas those anti-gay views have significant support, but it won't get him anywhere in an urban ward, especially a downtown ward.
Not really. Support for gay rights is now the norm across basically all demographic spectra. Even white rural men over 65 have a majority against homophobia.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #262  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2014, 6:09 PM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 12,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighwayStar View Post
Well if it only costs $10... why not start 'er up again !!!
It's a little deeper than those 10 dollars. Biweekly pickup is part of a push to promote a higher waste diversion rate; ie to get people to recycle more and compost/green-bin more. Both to help the environment and to hopefully avoid the very high cost (several hundred million $) and great community acrimony of having to build another landfill when the current ones get full.

Ottawans have long been stubborn about waste diversion. Ottawa has one of the lowest diversion rates in the province... I believe that the diversion rate only just hit 50% a year or two ago. Very sad given that most other municipalities in the province are pushing above 65% with targets around 80%. In this case, Ottawans need a bit of a stick.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #263  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2014, 7:18 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,255
I don't think the government should be in the business of banning people from running for office over something they said. Let the voters decide.

In terms of "bad behaviour", the current laws ban people who are serving a sentence of imprisonment in a penal or correctional institution, or are serving a temporary bans for conflict of interest, corrupt practices, or not filing financial statements from the previous election.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #264  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2014, 7:34 PM
Urbanarchit Urbanarchit is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
I don't think the government should be in the business of banning people from running for office over something they said. Let the voters decide.

In terms of "bad behaviour", the current laws ban people who are serving a sentence of imprisonment in a penal or correctional institution, or are serving a temporary bans for conflict of interest, corrupt practices, or not filing financial statements from the previous election.
It's not a matter of "something they said" and letting voters decide, as the decision to utter homophobic, racist, sexist, etc. slurs indicates something worse about that person's character, and is not fit to lead. Allowing voters to decide on a candidate based on whether they support bike lanes or safe injection sites is one thing, but to decide based on whether you agree with their bigotry is another. Such hate speech is very damaging to those it targets, and has no place in society, least of all in city hall. Those who choose to engage in it does not deserve the right to hold office anywhere.

If there isn't anything already, there should be stipulations for people running that say, "You are instantly disqualified from running if you attack one of the groups listed below:". Minorities are protected under the Charter for Human Rights and Freedoms for a reason, and his behaviour should not be tolerated. If a Neo-Nazi were running, would you allow them to run in an election, even though there is a chance they could win? I'd hope not.

I keep editing this to add more.

The thing about DGO is that he didn't stand a chance of winning in his ward, and I imagine after this he certain won't. But a few decades ago, things were very different and people like him would have had a greater chance of being elected despite their bigotry. We saw in Ottawa gay people evicted from homes, fired from jobs, attacked just for being gay, and no one seemed to care. Public officials could have spouted off their anti-gay bigotry (or racism), and no one would have been scandalized, and that person wouldn't have jeopardized their career. We've come a long way, but it's not over. Our governments need to recognize that hate speech and discriminating against minorities is unacceptable and should disqualify people from positions of power and influence, even though that may be restricting people's freedoms, it's to protect minorities and those most vulnerable.

The absolute freedom that Americans think they have has caused huge damage to racial and — minorities, and is still wreaking havoc on those people, simply because of their "freedom of speech" to say whatever they want. We, fortunately, don't have that same right in Canada, and I believe that has allowed us to get to the place we are currently.

Last edited by Urbanarchit; Oct 16, 2014 at 8:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #265  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2014, 7:35 PM
HighwayStar's Avatar
HighwayStar HighwayStar is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1overcosc View Post
It's a little deeper than those 10 dollars.
Thanks for the details.... I fully agree with the premise and have no desire and/or need to return to weekly pick-up.

It just yanks my chain that a service can be removed with a small or non-existent savings... yet we have been warned that re-implementing the service will cost big $$$.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #266  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2014, 11:49 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by defishel View Post
It's not a matter of "something they said" and letting voters decide, as the decision to utter homophobic, racist, sexist, etc. slurs indicates something worse about that person's character, and is not fit to lead. Allowing voters to decide on a candidate based on whether they support bike lanes or safe injection sites is one thing, but to decide based on whether you agree with their bigotry is another. Such hate speech is very damaging to those it targets, and has no place in society, least of all in city hall. Those who choose to engage in it does not deserve the right to hold office anywhere.

If there isn't anything already, there should be stipulations for people running that say, "You are instantly disqualified from running if you attack one of the groups listed below:". Minorities are protected under the Charter for Human Rights and Freedoms for a reason, and his behaviour should not be tolerated. If a Neo-Nazi were running, would you allow them to run in an election, even though there is a chance they could win? I'd hope not.

I keep editing this to add more.

The thing about DGO is that he didn't stand a chance of winning in his ward, and I imagine after this he certain won't. But a few decades ago, things were very different and people like him would have had a greater chance of being elected despite their bigotry. We saw in Ottawa gay people evicted from homes, fired from jobs, attacked just for being gay, and no one seemed to care. Public officials could have spouted off their anti-gay bigotry (or racism), and no one would have been scandalized, and that person wouldn't have jeopardized their career. We've come a long way, but it's not over. Our governments need to recognize that hate speech and discriminating against minorities is unacceptable and should disqualify people from positions of power and influence, even though that may be restricting people's freedoms, it's to protect minorities and those most vulnerable.

The absolute freedom that Americans think they have has caused huge damage to racial and — minorities, and is still wreaking havoc on those people, simply because of their "freedom of speech" to say whatever they want. We, fortunately, don't have that same right in Canada, and I believe that has allowed us to get to the place we are currently.
I don't think any law restricting council eligibility based just on what people said or wrote, without being convicted of a crime or civil offence, would survive a Charter challenge, especially without any kind of trial, conviction etc. Hate speech is no longer in the Canadian Human Rights Act, is very limited in the Ontario Human Rights Code, and I don't think an off-the-cuff offensive insult response to someone would qualify under the Criminal Code.

Even if they were charged and convicted under the Criminal Code for hate propaganda or inciting hatred against an identifiable group, this would be singling these crimes out over many others. You can be convicted of murder, drunk driving, theft, human trafficking, — etc and still run for office as long as you aren't in jail...

There are alleged Neo-Nazis and white supremacists running for election in Ontario right now
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07/29/...-running-for-office-in-ontario-township/
http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/we-interviewed-the-white-supremacist-running-for-mayor-of-toronto
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #267  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2014, 11:58 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 14,716
Half a light rail system is worse than none

Mark Sutcliffe, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: October 16, 2014, Last Updated: October 16, 2014 3:52 PM EDT


I was opposed to the first phase of light rail, but I’m in favour of stage two. Have I become a late convert to the benefits of Ottawa’s ambitious transit plan? No. The simple fact is that phase one is not good value for taxpayers’ money. But it’s an even bigger waste of resources if the second phase doesn’t go ahead.

This project is a bit like tearing down a pleasant bungalow to put up a modern, multi-floor dwelling in its place. You might have thought it a costly extravagance when proposed by the architect. But after you’re outvoted by the other members of your family and the first floor is built, you might as well go along with finishing the job. Half a light rail system is worse than none at all.

The problem with phase one is that Ottawa already has a good bus system that takes people downtown reasonably quickly. It will cost more than $2 billion to replace it with light rail but very few people will get to work any faster or more conveniently. The majority, in fact, will now have to transfer at Tunney’s Pasture and Blair Road. When they arrive downtown, many will be one or two blocks further north than they currently disembark, at stations that are spread further apart and are five or six floors below ground.

Even worse, light rail is arriving at a time when OC Transpo ridership is declining, mostly because federal government employment is decreasing, particularly in the downtown core. So there is less need for a downtown-based system and it’s less likely that transit ridership will suddenly increase when trains are introduced.

Another problem is that the city and province have been making improvements to local highways, meaning there will be less congestion in the east and west ends of the city. That’s welcome progress. But the result is that the cost of driving, in time and aggravation, will decline, and with it the incentive to switch to transit. To convert more people to transit, you don’t just need a fancy system. You need a strong disincentive to drive.

Therefore, while light rail is being touted by some politicians as though it’s a glorious new solution, there is no significant problem, nor will the first phase be an improvement of any kind other than the fact that buses will be replaced by trains. The first segment is really just the foundation of an entirely new system, not a result on its own.

Practically speaking, the decision to have a second stage was made when we went ahead with the first one. We’re a light rail city now, whether we like it or not. So talking about other options like an entirely separate commuter rail service in the morning and afternoon, as mayoral candidate Mike Maguire is proposing, will simply result in an even smaller return on the $2 billion investment we’ve made in the first project.

There are, as some have pointed out, obstacles to proceeding with phase two. For one, the National Capital Commission still hasn’t approved a western route travelling near the Sir John A. Macdonald Parkway. But a compromise is likely, particularly since the new CEO of the NCC, Mark Kristmanson, is open-minded, co-operative and has a background in urban planning.

More significant, the federal government still hasn’t committed its share of the funding for the next phase. Some commentators and candidates have speculated that it might be tough to get a cost-conscious Conservative government to support the expensive transit plans of a former Ontario Liberal cabinet minister.

But my guess is that if the city and voters indicate that light rail is Ottawa’s top infrastructure priority, it will be hard for anyone running for election next year to say no to the plan. Look what happened to Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak during the provincial campaign when he said there was no money for light rail in Ottawa. The federal government will not deny Ottawa its share of transit funding; it just means we won’t get money for other priorities.

Although the case for phase one has never been properly made, there’s even less logic to stopping there. It’s irresponsible for some candidates to suggest that a workable solution exists with only the first component of light rail in place. Halting construction after just one floor has been built on our expensive new three-storey home only turns a weak investment into a terrible one.

Twitter.com/_MarkSutcliffe

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/half-a-light-rail-system
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #268  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2014, 12:54 PM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 12,377
Just had a thought... next term of council, we're going to be going through a ward redistricting. A recent OMB ruling in Kingston regarding student voters may have relevance here.

Ward boundaries are traditionally drawn using census data. However, university students who go to school in another city and rent housing in their city of study are counted by the census as living with their parents, not at their student address. As such student housing is not reflected in census populations.

In Kingston, a redistricting process they did for this election caused a lot of acrimony when this issue was brought up. Because of the massive student population it was argued by downtown councillors that the city should draw wards based on census data adjusted to include out-of-town student renters. A resolution to do so failed to pass, being voted against 7-6, and the city made up new boundaries based on census data. Queen's students then appealed to the OMB, who ruled in their favour, and ordered Kingston to include out-of-town students in the numbers. As a result, the originally planned 2014 ward boundaries were changed to have the downtown area gain an additional council seat at the expense of the suburbs.

Based on this precedent, the City of Ottawa will likely have to factor in its out-of-town student renter population as well. This could potentially tip the scales and result in Rideau-Vanier & Capital wards being declared overpopulated leading to a need to shrink them down or plop another ward into the inner city. I wonder if student associations from U of O or Carleton will actively push the city on this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #269  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2014, 1:11 PM
c_speed3108 c_speed3108 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1overcosc View Post
Just had a thought... next term of council, we're going to be going through a ward redistricting. A recent OMB ruling in Kingston regarding student voters may have relevance here.

Ward boundaries are traditionally drawn using census data. However, university students who go to school in another city and rent housing in their city of study are counted by the census as living with their parents, not at their student address. As such student housing is not reflected in census populations.

In Kingston, a redistricting process they did for this election caused a lot of acrimony when this issue was brought up. Because of the massive student population it was argued by downtown councillors that the city should draw wards based on census data adjusted to include out-of-town student renters. A resolution to do so failed to pass, being voted against 7-6, and the city made up new boundaries based on census data. Queen's students then appealed to the OMB, who ruled in their favour, and ordered Kingston to include out-of-town students in the numbers. As a result, the originally planned 2014 ward boundaries were changed to have the downtown area gain an additional council seat at the expense of the suburbs.

Based on this precedent, the City of Ottawa will likely have to factor in its out-of-town student renter population as well. This could potentially tip the scales and result in Rideau-Vanier & Capital wards being declared overpopulated leading to a need to shrink them down or plop another ward into the inner city. I wonder if student associations from U of O or Carleton will actively push the city on this.
Rideau Vanier always came across as a weirdly shaped ward. Vanier never seemed to fit well. With Rideau Rockcliffe expaning (airbase), a Vanier-Overbrook ward might make more sense.

Capital is really weird in that it has that little strip along Riverside drive, and that area south of billings to a lesser degree.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #270  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2014, 3:36 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1overcosc View Post
Just had a thought... next term of council, we're going to be going through a ward redistricting. A recent OMB ruling in Kingston regarding student voters may have relevance here.

Ward boundaries are traditionally drawn using census data. However, university students who go to school in another city and rent housing in their city of study are counted by the census as living with their parents, not at their student address. As such student housing is not reflected in census populations.

In Kingston, a redistricting process they did for this election caused a lot of acrimony when this issue was brought up. Because of the massive student population it was argued by downtown councillors that the city should draw wards based on census data adjusted to include out-of-town student renters. A resolution to do so failed to pass, being voted against 7-6, and the city made up new boundaries based on census data. Queen's students then appealed to the OMB, who ruled in their favour, and ordered Kingston to include out-of-town students in the numbers. As a result, the originally planned 2014 ward boundaries were changed to have the downtown area gain an additional council seat at the expense of the suburbs.
Frankly in Kingston they should just have added a wardless councillor-at-large seat to be elected by the student populations of Queen's, RMC and St. Lawrence College. Mind you there's probably some Ontario law out there preventing that kind of thing.

I remember a conversation I had with a municipal candidate in my second year at Queen's in which I said I wasn't going to vote as I didn't think it right for transients like me to be influencing electoral outcomes in Kingston and that I couldn't make a properly informed decision anyway.

Quote:
Based on this precedent, the City of Ottawa will likely have to factor in its out-of-town student renter population as well. This could potentially tip the scales and result in Rideau-Vanier & Capital wards being declared overpopulated leading to a need to shrink them down or plop another ward into the inner city. I wonder if student associations from U of O or Carleton will actively push the city on this.
In Ottawa you could do a neat trick and gerrymander a ward boundary to encompass both UoO and Carleton by making its boundaries run along the sides of the Rideau Canal between them. Whether that and the adjoining student areas would have enough population to warrant a ward in its own right though is a fair question given the extent of commuting students.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #271  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2014, 4:11 PM
S-Man S-Man is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
He's a part of the Property Owner's Slate, and apparently likes to talk about pot a lot. I don't know what rules or laws there are in municipal elections, but discriminatory slurs like that should be an automatic ban from the election, in my opinion. There's no place for them.
Ah, yes - the 'harmless hippie' thing. This moniker often turns out to not mirror real life.

That said, I'm loathe to ban people from entering into a race as an also-ran due to their views or words. In these cases the public (who aren't mindless idiots, for the most part) can see for themselves that the guy is a kook, and vote accordingly.

Or not vote, or spoil their ballot.

Also: Homophobia is not the sole property of rural folk, nor are concern for property rights. Give the identity politics a rest. Again.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #272  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2014, 5:20 PM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 12,377
^ Agreed for the most part. I don't think it's necessary to ban candidates on grounds of discriminatory speech if they're made an unelectable fringe candidates in the process like what happened here.

But in a case in which a candidate's discriminatory statements are actually agreed with by a large chunk of the electorate (like a homophobic comment would have been 20 years ago or a racist comment 50 years ago), then a ban would be necessary, IMO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #273  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2014, 5:24 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 14,716
The green bin is finally becoming habit. Don't kill it now

Agnes Cadieux, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: October 17, 2014, Last Updated: October 17, 2014 12:23 PM EDT


I live in a disposable society. Unfortunately, so do you.

In the fast-paced world of double incomes, extracurricular activities and suburban commutes, there is no time left to stop and do things “from scratch” anymore.

For the sake of our sanity we opt for individually wrapped snacks and ready-cut produce; single-use toiletries, cleaning products, and whatever other disposable you-name-its are out there to make our lives less hectic. But it all piles up and soon we find ourselves taking out the trash more often than before.

The industrial and commercial sector bears a large share of the blame. The planned expansion of the closed Carp Road landfill, for example, is expected to take the bulk of its waste from that sector.

Statistically speaking, people are trying.

Still, of the 860,000 tonnes of garbage generated by the Ottawa area, 30 to 40 per cent falls into the “residential.” category. Even though we would like to think that we are doing our part to reduce, reuse and recycle, Canada’s waste diversion efforts are abysmal. According to the Conference Board of Canada, in 2009 Canada ranked last out of 17 countries assessed for waste production, receiving an embarrassing “D” grade in municipal waste generation. We produced even more waste per capita than the United States and Switzerland, and twice as much trash as A-grade recipients Japan and Norway.

It’s bad.

But it doesn’t mean we’re a nation of litter bugs. Statistically speaking, people are trying.

When the green bin program was rolled out in 2009, it was not welcomed with open arms by most residents, but suffering eventually turned into habit, and in 2010, the city diverted 53,000 tonnes of organic waste from the landfills.

Four years later, that number grew to 69,000 tonnes. If leaf and yard waste is included, that number jumps to 83,000 tonnes, surpassing the annual quota negotiated between the city and Orgaworld by 3,000 tonnes. And “regular” recycling is on the rise as well. In 2013, Ottawa collected more than 40,000 tonnes from residential black boxes and more than 18,000 tonnes from residential blue boxes.

It’s evident that the culture of the consumer is shifting. We are realizing that anything we throw out has to go somewhere. If we don’t do something about our waste practices now, it is going to catch up with us.

Even the City of Ottawa knows this. Since 2006 Ottawa’s projected waste diversion goals have been 60 per cent; we just recently passed the 50 per cent mark for residential garbage. But depending on the outcome of October’s municipal election, the city may choose to cut its 20-year contract with Orgaworld and re-classify all things compostable as “garbage” once again.

If the compost program stops, that’s tens of thousands of tonnes of waste heading back to the dump, at a cost of tens of millions of dollars in penalties for breaking the contract, and another $4 million to reinstate weekly garbage pickup – costs that will inevitably be passed on to the taxpayer.

People are finally beginning to turn these waste-reduction habits into a regular part of life, and instead of enforcing it, many candidates (including the “property owners slate”) are telling us that getting out of a flawed contract is far more important than finding ways to address the city’s diversion goal, which we haven’t yet met but now seems to be in grasp. Many people may not like the green bin, but people don’t like having a new landfill in their backyard, either.

Canada’s “D” grade was shaped by a team effort of short-term agendas and near-sighted tactics by municipalities and governments from coast to coast, and until those tactics are projected beyond the electoral term, a”D” is all we’re ever going to achieve.

Agnes Cadieux is an Ottawa writer and student in biological science at the University of Ottawa.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news...-finally-becoming-habit-dont-kill-it-now
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #274  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2014, 5:26 PM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 12,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Frankly in Kingston they should just have added a wardless councillor-at-large seat to be elected by the student populations of Queen's, RMC and St. Lawrence College. Mind you there's probably some Ontario law out there preventing that kind of thing.

I remember a conversation I had with a municipal candidate in my second year at Queen's in which I said I wasn't going to vote as I didn't think it right for transients like me to be influencing electoral outcomes in Kingston and that I couldn't make a properly informed decision anyway.
It's interesting note that when the issue was first brought up, it wasn't by students. It was by downtown councillors fearing a redistribution process that would give suburbs more seats at the expense of the core (like what happens in any city as the suburbs grow) using student numbers as a cheat to bolster the population figures of their own wards.

Nobody at Queen's, not even the student government types, really cared until council passed the 7-6 vote against factoring in student numbers. A small number who do follow local news made Facebook statuses complaining about disenfranchisement, and it went viral from there, so the student government appealed to the OMB, financially supported by downtown community associations. It was quite weird seeing the two groups support each other--it would be like seeing Action Sandy Hill team up with U of O student groups.

On the issue of an at-large student constituency, I believe the rules dictated by the OMB in the ruling stated that students have to be considered equivalent to permanent residents in every way for the sake of elections. That would obviously make a non-geographic student ward impossible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #275  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2014, 6:44 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
How I would draw the new boundaries?

* Increase City Council to 25 seats

* Fix the boundaries to federal boundaries, giving each riding 3 seats on Council (unlike in Toronto they would get different names though):

*Wards 1 to 3: Carleton

** Ward 1: Stittsville-Kanata West
** Ward 2: Rideau-Goulbourn
** Ward 3: Riverside South-Leitrim

*Wards 4 to 6: Kanata-Carleton

** Ward 4: West Carleton-March
** Ward 5: Kanata North
** Ward 6: Glen Cairn-Bridlewood

*Wards 7 to 9: Nepean

** Ward 7: Nepean Centre
** Ward 8: Fallowfield (old Barrhaven plus rural Nepean)
** Ward 9: Longfields-Jockvale

*Wards 10 to 12: Ottawa West-Nepean (similar to today, just realigned boundaries to match federal lines)

** Ward 10: Bayshore
** Ward 11: Kitchissippi
** Ward 12: College

*Wards 13 to 15: Ottawa South

**Ward 13: Riverside
**Ward 14: Blossom Park-Greenboro (Gloucester-Southgate)
**Ward 15: Alta Vista

*Wards 16 to 18: Ottawa Centre

**Ward 16: Westboro
**Ward 17: Centretown
**Ward 18: Canal-Lansdowne (for lack of a better name, as it would straddle the canal with Lansdowne as a focal point)

*Wards 19 to 21: Ottawa-Vanier

**Ward 19: Lowertown-Rockcliffe
**Ward 20: Sandy Hill-Vanier
**Ward 21: Beacon Hill-Cyrville

*Wards 22 to 24: Orleans

**Ward 22: Blackburn-Chapel Hill
**Ward 23: Orleans Centre
**Ward 24: Fallingbrook-Millennium

* The part of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell lying within the City of Ottawa forms an extra seat (Ward 25, Cumberland) for convenience.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #276  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2014, 6:55 PM
S-Man S-Man is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
But in a case in which a candidate's discriminatory statements are actually agreed with by a large chunk of the electorate (like a homophobic comment would have been 20 years ago or a racist comment 50 years ago), then a ban would be necessary, IMO.
You would ban a candidate because too many people agreed with him/her? I'll agree that homophobia is bad, and that hate speech laws exist that can be used, but banning someone you don't like from the electoral process because you feel they have a shot of getting elected simply does not fly with me.

That's getting creepy, but I'm not surprised by the statement. Many people I know in Ottawa these days would have it that their feelings and fears wrote laws.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #277  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2014, 10:43 PM
acottawa acottawa is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 18,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by defishel View Post

If there isn't anything already, there should be stipulations for people running that say, "You are instantly disqualified from running if you attack one of the groups listed below:". Minorities are protected under the Charter for Human Rights and Freedoms for a reason, and his behaviour should not be tolerated. If a Neo-Nazi were running, would you allow them to run in an election, even though there is a chance they could win? I'd hope not.


Neo Nazis run for office from time to time
http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=199564

The nuisance of letting the odd repugnant — run for office is better that having some government agency deciding who gets to run (Hong Kong has that system).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #278  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2014, 12:42 AM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,521
Restricting candidates on what are ultimately subjective grounds also sends a message that "the system" doesn't trust or have faith in the electorate. That would undermine the notion that government is by and for the people and is really not a road you want to start down.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #279  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2014, 1:37 AM
Buggys Buggys is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1overcosc View Post
Just had a thought... next term of council, we're going to be going through a ward redistricting. A recent OMB ruling in Kingston regarding student voters may have relevance here.

Ward boundaries are traditionally drawn using census data. However, university students who go to school in another city and rent housing in their city of study are counted by the census as living with their parents, not at their student address. As such student housing is not reflected in census populations.

In Kingston, a redistricting process they did for this election caused a lot of acrimony when this issue was brought up. Because of the massive student population it was argued by downtown councillors that the city should draw wards based on census data adjusted to include out-of-town student renters. A resolution to do so failed to pass, being voted against 7-6, and the city made up new boundaries based on census data. Queen's students then appealed to the OMB, who ruled in their favour, and ordered Kingston to include out-of-town students in the numbers. As a result, the originally planned 2014 ward boundaries were changed to have the downtown area gain an additional council seat at the expense of the suburbs.

Based on this precedent, the City of Ottawa will likely have to factor in its out-of-town student renter population as well. This could potentially tip the scales and result in Rideau-Vanier & Capital wards being declared overpopulated leading to a need to shrink them down or plop another ward into the inner city. I wonder if student associations from U of O or Carleton will actively push the city on this.
U of O.... Carleton U.... Don't forget Algonquin College!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #280  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2014, 5:24 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 14,716
More than 18,500 people voted on Saturday

Carys Mills, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: October 19, 2014, Last Updated: October 19, 2014 10:12 AM EDT


The last advance voting day was held on Saturday, with 18,575 Ottawa electors turning out to vote.

In total, the city held five days of advance voting this year, with a total of 47,019 people voting early.

There were three days of “anywhere” voting earlier this month, which were a pilot project. No matter where voters lived in Ottawa they could cast their ballot in one of three locations, including city hall.

In 2010, when the city held two traditional advance voting days, a total of 42,181 voters cast their ballots early.

Election day is Monday, Oct. 27.

[email protected]
twitter.com/CarysMills

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/more-than-18500-people-voted-on-saturday
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 4:13 PM.

     

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