2022 Ottawa Municipal Election

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

What needs to be realized is that, certainly since the end of WW2, the car has been the preferred method of transportation for the vast majority of people. It has only been right that the majority of funds has gone into supporting that.

I would invite you to consider whether you're confusing cause and effect. Since WW2, the car has not been the preferred method, it's been the *only* method of transportation for the vast majority of people. The reason it's the only viable method of transportation is due to a series of policy and funding choices at the municipal, provincial and federal levels. When given a choice between driving and being immobile with no viable alternatives, it's not exactly shocking that people will "choose" the car.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Climate change is far from the top of my list of issues for a Ottawa election but I don't see anything bold in this. Their campaign seems like it's checking boxes.

I agree and to me, climate change is higher on the list. That said, the City has limited power when it comes to truly fighting climate change. That's more in the hands of Federal and Provincial Governments, both levels being disappointing on that front.

What McKenney listed, + garbage collection reform, electrify the the City's transportation fleet are as much as the City can do. Improving cycling and transit to give residents actual options to get around also helps a lot, even though that's not "officially" under the environmental plan.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Agree voting strictly on personal characteristics McKenney seems like a solid choice. Policy wise I personally prefer Chiarelli and I'm not sure I won't vote for him just because he's old and has no energy. I really don't need someone dynamic and cool as mayor. I think it's hard to argue that Sutcliffe isn't a developer candidate. That's not always a bad thing as most of us even those on the left here tend to be pro development but for many this is a deal breaker and rightly so.

Chiarelli was never my candidate, but to each their own. One thing I have to give him is the respect he has for other candidates. No dirty tricks, or lying about the other candidate's platforms. He even gives credit where credit is due (for example, during a debate, he mentioned the City rejecting Hydro Ottawa's help on the climate file, and after McKenney confirmed this, he thanked them for supporting his claim). McKenney I feel is similar, backing Chiarelli's letter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to reject Tewin in favour of Kanata North and West Carleton Lands that were removed.

Really seems like Sutcliffe, and certain third Party advertisers, are the only ones who utilize in dirty politics.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

I would invite you to consider whether you're confusing cause and effect. Since WW2, the car has not been the preferred method, it's been the *only* method of transportation for the vast majority of people. The reason it's the only viable method of transportation is due to a series of policy and funding choices at the municipal, provincial and federal levels. When given a choice between driving and being immobile with no viable alternatives, it's not exactly shocking that people will "choose" the car.

That is interesting. When I look at it, I see that people moved strongly towards choosing to have their own mobility. More and more people chose to buy cars, as soon as they were able to. This was the catalyst that prompted governments to prioritize spending on cars. ‘Give the people what they want.’ That ensures happy voters; and happy voters re-elect the incumbents.

Whatever the reason, People fell in love with the idea of being able to go anywhere they wanted, anytime. Maybe it was the slick ad campaigns of the automobile manufacturers. Maybe it was that people had been so restricted that they just wanted to be ‘free’. The reason doesn’t matter. Freedom meant owning a car.

And, as more and more people took to the roads, they demanded that their governments provide better, and less clogged, roads. Public transit became the mode of those who couldn’t afford a car – and because car ownership was such a cultivated ‘need’, there were fewer and fewer folks who couldn’t buy one. Although, that didn’t mean that they could actually ‘afford’ a car. It meant that the ‘psychological need’ to have one outweighed other factors. Young folks would join the licence line on the very day of their 16th birthday (14th in Alberta). Why, EVERYONE knew that you would never get a date if you didn’t have a car. Even one that you just borrowed from your parents. Afterall, the bus doesn’t go up to ‘Inspiration Point’.

I sincerely doubt that “a series of policy and funding choices at the municipal, provincial and federal levels” went against the wishes of the majority. I am not saying that prioritizing car spending to the deficit of other forms of transportation was the best policy, in the long run, but it was what people wanted back then. Politicians move in the direction that the political wind blows. If people back then had been clamoring for public transit and said “NO!” to roads, then we would see a very different landscape today. But that wasn’t the case – as we see around us.

[J.OT13]

Who removed the streetcars? Did anyone ask that they be removed?

[SidetrackedSue]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Who removed the streetcars? Did anyone ask that they be removed?

That was my thought.

When we first moved to Ottawa, we were sort-of a dual car family most of the time (my dad would buy old VW Bugs, fix them up and sell them at a profit) but Dad took the bus to work.

In those days, the Queensway still wasn't complete, so commuting downtown was slower than it became in the mid 60s.

At some point he was given a parking spot behind the Parliament buildings (about a 6 block walk from his office) and he drove from then on. He must have got a raise or there was a shortage of Bugs because in 1967 we bought a permanent second car and from that point onwards, we never had only one car. When Place De Ville was built and his office moved there, he got a parking spot in that underground garage.

During the energy crisis in the early 70's he traded the 1965 Dodge Dart for a Toyota Corolla as his commuting car.

Had transit been the better option, I bet he'd have continued with it because he was where I learned my extreme frugality. So there was a change in attitude and I suspect free or cheap parking was part of it.

We recently parked for 6 hours at the World Exchange Plaza because the time available to take a bus didn't line up with a bus that would get us to our meeting on time. That cost almost $30 dollars so the price of parking is rising, making driving less attractive. At the time, I thought it would be about $15 and bus for the two of us would be about $14. Had I known it was going to be so much, I might have told the person we'd be 10 minutes late for the meeting.

That's just one way we can make transit more attractive, raising the cost of parking.

[waterloowarrior]

Advance polls are open...forum poll has been reset

[LeadingEdgeBoomer]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Who removed the streetcars? Did anyone ask that they be removed?

Wikipedia says it was done on the recomendation of a consulting firm.

By 1958 financial problems of the O.T.C. caused a study to be conducted by Urwick, Currie Ltd. In March 1958, they acknowledged the 96 aging cars and recommended diesel buses. The Ottawa Transportation Commission began implementing the plan and removed the cars; the last electric car ran on May 1, 1959 when the Britannia line was closed. A parade was held on May 4 celebrating an end to 68 years of tram service in Ottawa. The O.T.C. was succeeded by OC Transpo in 1973.

I rode those trams as a kid in the 1950's. They were old and the interiors were worn. They were--Quaint. I guess diesel was really cheap back then and nobody worried about Greenhouse Gases. People seemed to be happy to have all the overhead wires the trams used be gone. They were somewhat unsightly.
The steel rails embedded in the streets took longer to disappear. Motorists sometimes complained that they were slippery when they were wet, but I never heard of accidents being blamed on them.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by LeadingEdgeBoomer

Wikipedia says it was done on the recomendation of a consulting firm.

I rode those trams as a kid in the 1950's. They were old and the interiors were worn. They were--Quaint. I guess diesel was really cheap back then and nobody worried about Greenhouse Gases. People seemed to be happy to have all the overhead wires the trams used be gone. They were somewhat unsightly.
The steel rails embedded in the streets took longer to disappear. Motorists sometimes complained that they were slippery when they were wet, but I never heard of accidents being blamed on them.

Thanks for that. So it sounds like it wasn't requested by the public in favour of cars, but people were generally content to see them go.

Too bad we didn't go the Toronto route and invested in modernizing instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[lrt's friend]

The streetcar industry in North America died when the production of PCC streetcars ended in the early 50s. At that point, streetcar networks were inevitably going to close including Ottawa's network that was operating with pre-PCC rolling stock. It should be no surprise, that the network closed. The only decision was when and that turned out to be 1959. It was originally going to be a few years later, but closure was going to happen. No new streetcars were available. Toronto only maintained streetcars by buying up PCCs from several American cities that bridged their system through to the 1980s when new streetcars became available again.

Of course, the cost of maintaining streetcars was increasing not just because of the aging and unreplaceable rolling stock, but also because of the worn out infrastructure that was going to be too expensive to rebuild. This made diesel buses so attractive.

Many consider the end of World War II as a turning point. The post-war boom brought car ownership within the budget of the average Canadian. So why not. The railways who offered service to the hinterlands could not compete.

But the real seeds of the car takeover date back to the end of World War I when the auto clubs lobbied for road improvements and the end of toll roads and Henry Ford's assembly lines bringing car ownership costs down. When this happened, it was just a matter of time before alternative transportation could not compete. That daily train could never compete against this. What delayed it until the 1950s, was the Great Depression and World War II, which was also the reason why the streetcar network was so worn out. Little maintenance because of cost reductions during the Depression and because of limitations imposed by the war effort and overuse of the network during the war when the system was overtaxed because of gas rationing.

My older brother remembers riding Ottawa's streetcars, but I don't. All I remember was being fascinated with the all the wires hanging over Bank Street. I was very young. And I do remember a streetcar being used as a construction office somewhere in the city just after the streetcar era.

[originalmuffins]

We just need someone to have a coherent plan regarding the implementation LRT up to stage 3, create opportunity to densify and build around stations, and work on development plans to keep the city growing (ie. Lansdowne 2.0, Lebreton, Ottawa Airport routes/tourism, other districts, modernizing Ottawa etc). Personally, I don't care who it is exactly as long as we work on these things without wasting money (ie. giving up after doing multiple studies).

It's a big ask, and maybe improbable but just hope we get someone who is willing keep the ship on the right path as this is a huge defining era for us (Ottawa/Gatineau has the fastest growth out of all the major metros, we've grown a bit over 100k in 5 years 2016 to 2021... with forecasts of the NCR hitting close to 2 million around 2040).

[rocketphish]

Mayoral race sees pledges targeting municipal recreation, French-language services
Sutcliffe focused on municipal recreation and McKenney pledged improvements for French speakers.

Taylor Blewett, Ottawa Citizen
Sep 25, 2022 • 9 hours ago • 2 minute read

Mayoral candidates Mark Sutcliffe and Catherine McKenney both unveiled campaign promises Sunday that involved making sought-after city offerings easier to access for residents, with Sutcliffe focusing on municipal recreation and McKenney pledging improvements for French speakers.

In McKenney’s case, via an announcement marking Franco-Ontarian Day, the mayoral hopeful (who uses they/them pronouns) stated their commitment to improving access to municipal services in French if elected and initiating an evaluation of these services “to determine what needs the biggest improvements, while working closely with community organizations.”

Sutcliffe released a statement pledging to cut fees by 10 per cent for municipal recreational programming for children and youth, presenting this as a way to make them more accessible and save money for families at a time when cost of living is the top concern he hears about from residents, he said. He also promised to address the city’s “broken” online booking system for activities like skating and fitness.

“Signing your kids up for swimming lessons shouldn’t feel like the Hunger Games,” said Sutcliffe, via his campaign news release. “I’ve heard from too many parents who tell me that when it comes time to sign their kids up for activities, Ottawa’s online booking system crashes constantly, resulting in parents staying up until all hours of the morning, just to book swimming lessons or day camps for the summer. That’s not acceptable and we will fix it.”

He also committed to allowing residents to make reservations for drop-in recreational activities at any time in advance, saying that “whether it’s booking skating, swimming or fitness activities, the City of Ottawa’s booking restrictions simply don’t make sense.”

That change could mean a resident is able to book a public swim spot a month ahead of time, for example, campaign spokesperson Jake Enwright confirmed.

While Sutcliffe committed to ending the city’s “24-hour rule” for recreation bookings in his release, a scan of city facility pages shows that, currently, residents can book drop-in spots as of 6 p.m. for the two days following. Reservations are strongly encouraged, but walk-ins are accepted when space allows.

Sutcliffe also said he’s interested in increasing recreational programming, including swimming and day camps, and as mayor would make sure programming expands to meet the needs of Ottawans looking for French-language activities.

Recreation also came up in McKenney’s release, which suggested it was an area where the city isn’t doing enough for francophone residents. “Francophone children should be able to take swimming lessons in their first language. I recognize that these services can be popular and can be difficult to book,” their statement noted.

And when it comes to the city’s 311 contact line, McKenney said they’ve heard from francophone friends and colleagues that the wait for support in French is sometimes longer than it is for assistance in English.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...-city-services

[J.OT13]

How the campaign's going today.

Sutcliffe interviewed on CTV Ottawa Morning complaining about trolls and bullies online, including people in elected office he will not name (maybe so people think he's talking about McKenney).

https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/i-m-not-so...olls-1.6085880

Chiarelli's response:

Graham Richardson
@grahamctv
.
@Bob_Chiarelli
on
@_MarkSutcliffe
claims of trolls and online attacks: “The only really mean social media I have seen in this campaign has come from the Sutcliffe Campaign and was aimed at Councillor McKenney” #ottnews #election #Ottawa

https://twitter.com/grahamctv/status...nh5YGnPfg&s=33

[Fading Isle]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

How the campaign's going today.

Sutcliffe interviewed on CTV Ottawa Morning complaining about trolls and bullies online, including people in elected office he will not name (maybe so people think he's talking about McKenney).

https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/i-m-not-so...olls-1.6085880

Chiarelli's response:


https://twitter.com/grahamctv/status...nh5YGnPfg&s=33

Who in elected office would he even be talking about? My sense is he's just saying it to make it seem like it's McKenney for those not paying attention, but clearly McKenney's done nothing of the sort. Is he trying to get around being accused of slander by not saying a name?

Calling people "trolls" and "bullies" when all I've seen is people asking pointed questions online is pretty insulting.

Weird campaign for Sutcliffe.

And this is the second time where Bob Chiarelli has given off a serious and unexpected nothing-to-lose/wildcard energy by just telling it like it is, even if it benefits McKenney. You have to respect that.

[J.OT13]

Almost feel like Chiarelli knows he's losing, but staying in to split the votes and give McKenney the win. He clearly dislikes Sutcliffe. Maybe it's a personal thing, maybe he doesn't like how he does politics (very Watson like, pretending like he's the nice guy but really he's the one throwing shade and using dirty tricks to try and win).

If anything, I have grown to respect Chiarelli more than ever. Still not voting for him because his policies don't speak to me, but for sure respect for being honest and not constantly attacking his opponents, and just calling out what needs to be called out.

[stolenottawa]

Originally Posted by Fading Isle

Who in elected office would he even be talking about? My sense is he's just saying it to make it seem like it's McKenney for those not paying attention, but clearly McKenney's done nothing of the sort. Is he trying to get around being accused of slander by not saying a name?

Calling people "trolls" and "bullies" when all I've seen is people asking pointed questions online is pretty insulting.

Weird campaign for Sutcliffe.

And this is the second time where Bob Chiarelli has given off a serious and unexpected nothing-to-lose/wildcard energy by just telling it like it is, even if it benefits McKenney. You have to respect that.

I'm pretty sure he's referring to Menard.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by stolenottawa

I'm pretty sure he's referring to Menard.

Probably. But leaving that ambiguity can give some ill-informed people the wrong idea.

[J.OT13]

Here's what Ottawa mayoral candidates said on the campaign trail today

Ted Raymond, CTV News Ottawa
Sept. 28, 2022

More transparency at city hall, making Ottawa a “music city,” and revisiting Ottawa’s environmental policy.

Those were the main promises that some Ottawa mayoral candidates promised on the campaign trail on Wednesday. Here’s a closer look at the details.

CATHERINE MCKENNEY
Coun. Catherine McKenney pledged Wednesday to bring more transparency at Ottawa City Hall and “end the influence of money in Ottawa city politics.”

McKenney said they would make the language in the annual budget easier for the public to understand and start public consultations on the budget earlier. They also pledged to make all city committees balanced in terms of gender and geography, if elected.

“It’s time to get the influence of money out of City Hall. Our decisions should be influenced by people, not money,” said McKenney. “We deserve a City Hall we can trust. As Mayor, I’ll change the culture at City Hall to put people first and build a city that works for all of us.”

McKenney would also create a chief architect for the city of Ottawa.

MARK SUTCLIFFE
Mark Sutcliffe is promising to make Ottawa a “music city.”

He says this would be achieved by reviewing city bylaws to help support musicians, including buskers, and by creating a music office, which would serve as a single point of contact for musicians looking to perform in Ottawa.

“Residents are tired of searching for their favourite artist’s tour schedules, only to see Ottawa not make the list - and I’d like to see that change. To build a world-class city, we need a community that is safe, reliable, and affordable. But we also need to build a city that excites people and offers diverse cultural experiences. Making Ottawa a Music City is one way we can achieve that vision,” Sutcliffe said.

He added that the last concert he attended was Sum 41 and Alexisonfire at Bluesfest.

In 2020, the city launched three core music programs: Music on Hold, OC Transpo Busking Program and City Sounds. Music on Hold gives local musicians the opportunity to have their music featured when callers to city phone lines are on hold. The OC Transpo Busking Program was meant to allow buskers to perform at O-Train stations, but it has been on hold because of the COVID-19 pandemic. City Sounds City Sounds is an annual streamable playlist featuring local musicians.

MIKE MAGUIRE
Mike Maguire is pledging to review the city’s environmental policy, saying city council has “allowed environmental considerations to take priority over too many other aspects of running a city including, livability and affordability.”

Maguire is proposing that Ottawa revisit its Official Plan, which was approved by council last October but has yet to be approved by the provincial government. He is critical of a plan to add wind turbines to the electrical grid and wants to reconsider the rush to transition to electric vehicles, particularly on public transit.

Ottawa’s energy evolution plan includes building approximately 710 large scale wind turbines by 2050. OC Transpo is aiming to have a zero-emission bus fleet by 2036.

He also says he would work with the provincial government to have Ottawa’s electrical grid powered by nuclear energy.

Ontario has three nuclear power plants: the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station northwest of Kitchener, the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station in Pickering, and the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station outside of Oshawa.

https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/here-s-wha...oday-1.6087843

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Almost feel like Chiarelli knows he's losing, but staying in to split the votes and give McKenney the win. He clearly dislikes Sutcliffe. Maybe it's a personal thing, maybe he doesn't like how he does politics (very Watson like, pretending like he's the nice guy but really he's the one throwing shade and using dirty tricks to try and win).

If anything, I have grown to respect Chiarelli more than ever. Still not voting for him because his policies don't speak to me, but for sure respect for being honest and not constantly attacking his opponents, and just calling out what needs to be called out.

Agree on the vote splitting and that he has earned respect. I am actually leaning towards throwing away my vote for him. McKenny is the wrong kind of left and Sutcliffe the wrong kind of right for my tastes. I would like lower taxes less spending but more transit and spending on the extras. ( I realize this is inconsistent)

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Agree on the vote splitting and that he has earned respect. I am actually leaning towards throwing away my vote for him. McKenny is the wrong kind of left and Sutcliffe the wrong kind of right for my tastes. I would like lower taxes less spending but more transit and spending on the extras. ( I realize this is inconsistent)

But Chiarelli is explicitly for less transit.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

But Chiarelli is explicitly for less transit.

I don't think he's as explicitly pro automobile as Sutcliffe. I don't have a problem with cutting under used bus routes to save money. I understand that's because I don't need to use the bus. I want a mayor closes streets to cars. Ideally works towards a congestion charge. I guess McKenney is likeliest to do that in a second term and I get those that depend on transit or public services will vote for McKenny vs those who don't pay own multiple properties and pay more property tax than income tax.