2022 Ottawa Municipal Election

[J.OT13]

Chiarelli saying he was "reasonably fluently bilingual" when he was mayor and was able to conduct French interviews, but lost it over the last 11 years as he was not using it. Can anyone back that up?

McKenney also saying the had "reached proficiency" twice, but lost it. They commit to re-learning French within 6 months of becoming mayor.

[rocketphish]

Ottawa Police Association releases statement slamming mayoral candidate Catherine McKenney
The police association called out McKenney for voting to divert some funding away from police and said the candidate had an “extensive history of using harmful and misleading rhetoric against police officers.”

Matthew Lapierre, Ottawa Citizen
Oct 19, 2022 • 1 hour ago • 3 minute read

Ottawa’s police union has released a statement slamming Catherine McKenney while refusing to endorse or single out any other mayoral candidate.

The Ottawa Police Association (OPA), which represents over 2,000 uniformed and civilian Ottawa Police Service employees, called out McKenney for voting to divert some funding away from police and said the candidate (who uses they/them pronouns) had an “extensive history of using harmful and misleading rhetoric against police officers.”

The statement, which was read aloud by interim OPA president Brian Samuel and published online to YouTube on Tuesday evening, said the association would not endorse a candidate.

But it did target McKenney, whom the OPA said had declined to answer a questionnaire it sent to all mayoral candidates seeking their stance on issues including the police budget and support for the police. Seven mayoral candidates answered the questionnaire; seven did not, Samuel said.

In addition to the statement, the OPA released a background document detailing “the history and record of Ottawa mayoral candidate Catherine McKenney,” which it qualified as “well-established and troubling.” The background document includes links to McKenney’s past advocacy for diverting increases to the police budget toward other city programs and their support for the Ottawa coalition for a people’s budget, a progressive redraft of the city budget that envisaged the divestment of $235 million away from the police.

“Catherine McKenney has supported incorrect statements and dangerous stereotypes about police,” Samuel said, referring to the Ottawa coalition for a people’s budget characterization of the OPS as having an “extensive history of violence.”

“Support of any attempts to characterize OPA members as abusive, racist and violent are not only wrong but do not align with the record of millions of calls for service over decades that have been handled with diligence and professionalism by our members.”

Despite their umbrage with McKenney, Samuel said the OPA would work as a “productive and willing member with whomever is elected mayor of Ottawa.”

“Our members respect the democratic process,” he said. “We trust Ottawa voters will vest their faith in a candidate whose motives and history reflect a commitment to keep you safe and to support our members doing their jobs.”

In an emailed statement, McKenney told this newspaper that they had seen the importance of having effective law enforcement during the “Freedom Convoy” occupation.

“Public trust in our police service needs to be restored,” they said. “As mayor, I will work collaboratively with the Ottawa Police Service to ensure that effective and evidence-based policing makes our city safer for all residents, including in times of crisis.”

McKenney did not say why they didn’t respond to the OPA’s questionnaire.

The release of the statement was an unusual foray into municipal politics for the OPA.

The union did endorse the Progressive Conservative party during the 2018 provincial election campaign. But, in 2006, the OPA backtracked on its a plan to endorse candidates at the municipal level after critics said the endorsements would have called into question the political independence of the police.

Mayoral candidate Mark Sutcliffe, who was not named in the OPA’s statement, said the union’s comments “speak for themselves.”

“I did complete the questionnaire,” Sutcliffe said. “What is clear is that Catherine McKenney has called for the defunding of our police services for some time. I have spoken to thousands of residents and they agree that having a properly resourced police service and improved community safety is a top priority.”

Sutcliffe, who has campaigned on a promise of making Ottawa a safer city, has pledged to increase police funding.

McKenney told The Ottawa Citizen’s editorial board earlier this month that they had never used the expression “defund the police.” McKenney clarified that they had been vocal about ensuring the city investments in upstream crime reduction, citing recreation, youth and victim services.

“Police respond to crime,” they said. “We’re always going to need police to respond to crime but they don’t prevent crime and that’s what we have to be thoughtful and intentional about whenever we set our budgets and invest in our city services.”

Samuel was not available to comment further on the OPA’s statement in time for publication.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...erine-mckenney

[Admiral Nelson]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

This logic is a bit skewed.

• The cycling infrastructure is being built no matter who wins the election, it’s in the transportation masterplan. It’s only a matter of whether to build now or over 25 years.

• McKenney’s plan builds an entire system for $250 million. Sutcliffe and others $15m/year status-quo plan would end up costing the city double or triple that cost for the same amount of infrastructure when you factor in inflation and other rising costs. A kilometre of bike lane construction in 2047 will be astronomically more than in 2022.

• Green Bonds are low interest and would not require the complete $15m x 25 years to repay. It would not cost $375m for a $250m project. However Sutcliffe’s 25 year plan would probably end up costing what? $600 million? $750 million? $1 billion?

• The labour in bike lane construction is a tiny fraction compared to road construction. To use labour shortages as an excuse not to build bike lanes is inane.

• Bike lane maintenance is very low considering thousands of suburban cowboys are not driving over them with 5000 lbs. Dodge Rams all day/every day.

• Cycling infrastructure is deemed a failure if not enough people use the fracture system, and a success if packed with cyclists. At the same time a road build for automobiles is a considered a success if found empty, and a failure if packed with cars. That argument used by the anti-bike lane wing is completely nonsensical.

• When we build new roads do we complain about how much the new snow clearing will cost? No. Yet we build dozens of new roads every year. But when it comes to bike lanes that are a fraction of the snow clearing costs, all of a sudden it’s an issue?

• Ottawa has grown into a big city. The 1970’s mentality of continuing to build sprawling car-centric suburbs is dead. But nobody is taking your car away, and most will continue to drive. But giving people options of cycling and proper public transit is the only way forward. Anyone who says otherwise either doesn’t understand how cities work or have their head in the sand.

Excellent comment. It's frustrating to no end that a proposal to significantly improve the viability of a non-automotive transportation option is being vilified by Sutcliffe campaign as a war on cars to scare up suburban votes. It's cynical in the extreme.

It's insane how no one blinks an eye at the eye-popping amounts we spend on roads and highways.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

This logic is a bit skewed.

• The cycling infrastructure is being built no matter who wins the election, it’s in the transportation masterplan. It’s only a matter of whether to build now or over 25 years.

• McKenney’s plan builds an entire system for $250 million. Sutcliffe and others $15m/year status-quo plan would end up costing the city double or triple that cost for the same amount of infrastructure when you factor in inflation and other rising costs. A kilometre of bike lane construction in 2047 will be astronomically more than in 2022.

• Green Bonds are low interest and would not require the complete $15m x 25 years to repay. It would not cost $375m for a $250m project. However Sutcliffe’s 25 year plan would probably end up costing what? $600 million? $750 million? $1 billion?

• The labour in bike lane construction is a tiny fraction compared to road construction. To use labour shortages as an excuse not to build bike lanes is inane.

• Bike lane maintenance is very low considering thousands of suburban cowboys are not driving over them with 5000 lbs. Dodge Rams all day/every day.

• Cycling infrastructure is deemed a failure if not enough people use the fracture system, and a success if packed with cyclists. At the same time a road build for automobiles is a considered a success if found empty, and a failure if packed with cars. That argument used by the anti-bike lane wing is completely nonsensical.

• When we build new roads do we complain about how much the new snow clearing will cost? No. Yet we build dozens of new roads every year. But when it comes to bike lanes that are a fraction of the snow clearing costs, all of a sudden it’s an issue?

• Ottawa has grown into a big city. The 1970’s mentality of continuing to build sprawling car-centric suburbs is dead. But nobody is taking your car away, and most will continue to drive. But giving people options of cycling and proper public transit is the only way forward. Anyone who says otherwise either doesn’t understand how cities work or have their head in the sand.

I’m glad that you have such strong faith in the TMP. From my experience, there are things in, and have been items that have appeared but then were removed from, the TMP that will not get implemented for many, many years, if ever.

IF the new Council goes along with the plan, I suggested that I don’t think that McKenney’s plan will build as many kilometres of bike lanes as they hope. At best, it will create several long, hopefully connected, corridors for safe cycling. Whether you consider that to be an entire system or not is up to you. At the least, it will provide SOME pathways that don’t just abandon the rider into the traffic stream.

I suspect that you are correct in that construction costs will not go down as time marches on. They haven’t in the past. Getting more built now(ish) rather than in many years will likely get more kilometres for the dollars. Building is always cheaper to do now, rather than later. My worry is that the big push for constructing bike lanes might come during a dearth of resources – which will increase the cost. If it turns out that the actual construction doesn’t start until the LRT construction is winding down, then it would be a good ‘bridge’ for construction resources until Stage 3 construction begins.

I didn’t suggest that bike lanes should not be built because of a limitation of resources, but I did suggest that it would cost more, leaving fewer kilometres of bike lanes for the expenditure.

I certainly do think that maintenance – including snow clearance – is taken into consideration when new road lanes are planned. However, we already have quite a large fleet of equipment that is used for clearing roads. Adding a few more kilometres might not be overly expensive. If we need to purchase special equipment and hire additional personnel to clear bike lanes the cost might be proportionately more – considering the number of people who use the facilities. However, if the bike lanes are not cleared during the winter, then the number of users will be considerably more limited.

Their cars might not be being taken away, but space on ‘THEIR’ roadway might be. If the road is narrowed from 4 to 2 car lanes, so that bike lanes can be added, that means that the car driver may get stuck in traffic more often. When the driver is sitting in a traffic jam, looking at one, single, bike ride by, they will likely feel hard-done-by.

New bicycle infrastructure is sorely needed. The city has been working on adding facilities in a piece-meal manner, and it has resulted in a fragmented network. It is little wonder to me that few cycle. There is a real need to improve, and make connections in the bike corridors so that there is a useful network of safe pathways.

[rocketphish]

Question mayoral campaign donations, but don't vilify everyone who's a 'developer'
There may well be perceived conflicts of interest for politicians, but calling developer donations inherently evil is lazy. We need to reset this relationship.

Toon Dreessen, Ottawa Citizen
Oct 19, 2022 • 5 hours ago • 3 minute read

Over the last few years, it has become clear that some members of city council have at least a perceived conflict of interest. While they have sworn that donations have no impact on their decision-making, that is hard to rationalize when the then-head of the planning committee received 95 per cent of their donations in the last election from developer-related contributions, or when a key member of the powerful finance and economic development committee, and several other city committees, was funded by the same kinds of contributors, to the tune of 99 per cent of their donations. There may not be any actual conflict of interest, but there is the appearance of one.

Conflict of interest, real or perceived, is about trust. We trust that elected officials will act in the public interest only until we find out their behaviour tells us otherwise. We ask people running for election to tell us who is funding them in order to prevent later disappointment.

This lack of trust shows up at the polls. Voter turnout is notoriously low at the municipal election, with 2018 seeing a measly 43 per cent of eligible voters cast ballots. This is especially important since municipal politics is the branch of government that has the biggest impact on our daily lives.

One of the major discussion points in Ottawa’s election has been around campaign financing. Some mayoral candidates have stated they won’t accept donations from developers. One held campaign events with $1,200 “suggested” donations in the homes of some of Ottawa’s business leaders. These people may not be developers, but there is a pecuniary interest presented that raises questions.

Though it makes sense to ask how decisions will be affected, calling developer donations inherently evil is lazy. We demonize developers for building housing while we ask for more housing to be built. We’ve leapt to the conclusion that developers are in the wrong, as if it’s accepted truth, and have started to question the broader industry of related parties. We need to reset this relationship.

It is the responsibility of our elected officials to manage the application of rules and ensure that there is no conflict of interest. Candidates for office must be clear on where they draw the line.

If a developer is someone who develops real estate, then the federal, provincial and municipal governments are developers, as are their Crown agencies, in addition to conventional for-profit developers.

Many of my clients are developers. Some are public sector levels of government and some are for-profit developers who have a goal of building a project, creating stores, offices and homes to meet the needs of our community.

If candidates refuse to accept donations from developers, does that include architects and engineers hired by them? Carpenters, plumbers, masons, painters and roofers also work for developers. Are they prohibited from donating to election campaigns? How about lawyers who deal with real estate closings or purchase and sale agreements?

Should there be a distinction between a developer and someone who invests in development projects? Is anyone connected with the design or construction industry prohibited from participating in democracy by funding or supporting a candidate?

The latest figures show that there are some 33,000 construction jobs in Ottawa. As of 2018, architecture, for example, directly and indirectly affects 14 per cent of the Ontario GDP, contributing $2.2 billion of economic activity. Should all those employed by this sector have no rights to donate to election campaigns?

Perhaps we should debate the merits of how elections are financed. Quebec’s model sets a maximum annual donation of $100 per person with government contributing an allowance to each candidate. We could also have clearer conflict of interest rules and enforce them vigorously.

We need to rethink the relationships between not just elected officials and developers but between those vying for office and those who have a clear vested interest in supporting positive change that our cities need.

Ottawa architect Toon Dreessen, OAA, FRAIC, AIA, LEED AP, is President of Architects DCA.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/dr...os-a-developer

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Chiarelli saying he was "reasonably fluently bilingual" when he was mayor and was able to conduct French interviews, but lost it over the last 11 years as he was not using it. Can anyone back that up?

McKenney also saying the had "reached proficiency" twice, but lost it. They commit to re-learning French within 6 months of becoming mayor.

Do not recall Chiarelli speaking in French, nor being a friend to francophones either.

Not sure why he and McKenney would not have learned French in their previous roles already.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Do not recall Chiarelli speaking in French, nor being a friend to francophones either.

Not sure why he and McKenney would not have learned French in their previous roles already.

I'm sure he had and the new candidates will learn enough to say part of their speeches in French. It's very unlikely they will actually learn much French though I guess harper did and I wouldn't be surprised if Simon does as well. It's a matter of motivation and time if almost every middle aged newly executive civil servant can do it.

[lrt's friend]

I am in a quandary on who to vote for in this election. I guess I am too idealistic. We get certain piecemeal ideas but no truly overall vision to make Ottawa a better place. Or, we just get very vague suggestions, with no specifics on what might make Ottawa better. I will 'fix' transit, which comes across with other aspects of the platform as, I will change transit but that involves further service cuts.

I live in the suburbs but inside the Greenbelt, but I still see suburbs being designed only for cars. It has not been getting better. The suburbs are our future and intensification cannot provide the full solution. So, we need better suburbs, but I listen to the crickets. We really offer nothing beyond car infrastructure. I look at how we build new subdivisions, and I cringe. Findlay Creek is south of me, and while the neighbourhood is not bad in itself, the connections to the city have not been significantly improved since the 1950s although the population is exploding.

We are improving the density of our newer suburbs, but all we have done is build for denser traffic at the same time. No decent alternatives for decades. Finally, we will get a poorly designed Trillium Line that is west of Findlay Creek, and not really within decent walking distance of anybody in Findlay Creek and a lousy bus connection. When the Findlay Creek subdivision was planned, the planners said that a 30 minute bus was all that was needed. A self-fulfilling prophesy of transit failure. In parts of Findlay Creek today, it is over 1 km walk to all day transit service. Guaranteed failure.

If we want better suburbs, we need rapid transit to be built to be competitive with car travel and much earlier instead of waiting for decades. We also need a safe cycling route into the city.

This is a major objection towards Tewin. We approve it without alternative transportation corridors and depend entirely on existing roads. No new suburb should be built without alternative transportation as part of the plan and it should be built early as a condition for approval. Otherwise, it is just the same old ideas again, perhaps worse.

I look at intensification proposals and worry. I am not opposed to intensification and there are many opportunities, but when we want widespread intensification, we can ruin some of our best neighbourhoods. I drove down Sherwood Drive yesterday, and loved the well treed and landscaped lots. What a shame if we pave this over. Sure, it is low density. We need to focus on derelict and empty properties away from our best neighbourhoods. There are plenty of opportunities.

Building a better Ottawa is what I want, including better suburbs, better transportation routes and intensification where it makes sense. Nobody really speaks to me about this.

Convince me otherwise.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am in a quandary on who to vote for in this election. I guess I am too idealistic. We get certain piecemeal ideas but no truly overall vision to make Ottawa a better place. Or, we just get very vague suggestions, with no specifics on what might make Ottawa better. I will 'fix' transit, which comes across with other aspects of the platform as, I will change transit but that involves further service cuts.

I live in the suburbs but inside the Greenbelt, but I still see suburbs being designed only for cars. It has not been getting better. The suburbs are our future and intensification cannot provide the full solution. So, we need better suburbs, but I listen to the crickets. We really offer nothing beyond car infrastructure. I look at how we build new subdivisions, and I cringe. Findlay Creek is south of me, and while the neighbourhood is not bad in itself, the connections to the city have not been significantly improved since the 1950s although the population is exploding.

We are improving the density of our newer suburbs, but all we have done is build for denser traffic at the same time. No decent alternatives for decades. Finally, we will get a poorly designed Trillium Line that is west of Findlay Creek, and not really within decent walking distance of anybody in Findlay Creek and a lousy bus connection. When the Findlay Creek subdivision was planned, the planners said that a 30 minute bus was all that was needed. A self-fulfilling prophesy of transit failure. In parts of Findlay Creek today, it is over 1 km walk to all day transit service. Guaranteed failure.

If we want better suburbs, we need rapid transit to be built to be competitive with car travel and much earlier instead of waiting for decades. We also need a safe cycling route into the city.

This is a major objection towards Tewin. We approve it without alternative transportation corridors and depend entirely on existing roads. No new suburb should be built without alternative transportation as part of the plan and it should be built early as a condition for approval. Otherwise, it is just the same old ideas again, perhaps worse.

I look at intensification proposals and worry. I am not opposed to intensification and there are many opportunities, but when we want widespread intensification, we can ruin some of our best neighbourhoods. I drove down Sherwood Drive yesterday, and loved the well treed and landscaped lots. What a shame if we pave this over. Sure, it is low density. We need to focus on derelict and empty properties away from our best neighbourhoods. There are plenty of opportunities.

Building a better Ottawa is what I want, including better suburbs, better transportation routes and intensification where it makes sense. Nobody really speaks to me about this.

Convince me otherwise.

Honestly I think you are completely unrealistic and contradictory. Why do you live in the suburbs? Our suburbs are designed to give people cheap space and some privacy from neighbours and cars. They are simply incompatible with mass transit. Personally I detest suburbs. I am happy to have no yard and apartments and other dense housing near me so I can walk. The fact is the vast majority of Ottawa prefers their own patch of grass and they will drive as far as they need to in order to get it. Now maybe some climate change imposed taxes will gradually change that but my money is if they ever became actually effective they would be cancelled.

McKenney is clearly most pro transit though she is more pro bike than transit. Probably because in one term $250 million will make a visible difference to biking in the city. $250 million wouldn't do much for our transit system.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Do not recall Chiarelli speaking in French, nor being a friend to francophones either.

Not sure why he and McKenney would not have learned French in their previous roles already.

Agreed. Why learn French now when they represented Somerset Ward for 8 years prior? If they were once proficient, seems picking it back up would not have been too much of a challenge. I can understand Chiarelli a bit more at his age.

In the Citizen profile of Osgood, Darouze is claiming to be the only candidate who is fluently bilingual. Again, don't remember him ever speaking French.

[J.OT13]

Most posts on here are about the Mayoral candidates, so I thought I would mix it up.

Incumbent Allan Hubley faces tough challenge in Kanata South

Blair Crawford, Ottawa Citizen
Oct 18, 2022

When first elected by voters in Kanata-South in 2010, Allan Hubley said he would serve two terms at most on city council.

Monday, he’s vying for term No. 4 representing the solidly suburban ward, where keeping taxes low, making sure the sewers work and that buses serve the community are top of mind for voters.

“Voters told me, ‘We want you to run again,” Hubley said. “I made an apology that I’d made that commitment and I’d only intended to go two terms. But if the residents like what I’m doing and they’re voting for me, then I’m happy to stay. I can’t get over how great this job is that you can help so many people.”

Hubley took a staggering 85 per cent of the vote in his second election in 2014, but by 2018 that had fallen to 45 per cent. That makes some believe the veteran councillor is vulnerable this time around. In an election where the city will elect a new mayor and 11 incumbents aren’t running for re-election, will Hubley be swept away in a sea of change, or will voters look for him as a steadying, experienced hand in the new council?

Hubley’s banking on the latter.

“I’m looking forward to working with a lot of new people and showing them what I’ve learned — how to get roads approved, how to get parks approved, that kind of stuff. These are things a lot of these rookie councillors won’t know how to do, so I’m looking forward to helping,” he says.

As chair of the Transit Commission, Hubley’s name has been associated with some of the failures of the LRT — a criticism he says isn’t fair.

“I know my opponents are making it look like I’m the one who didn’t tighten the screws on the train,” he says, while pointing to his successes like establishing the the 110 bus route that loops between Kanata South and the tech workplaces in Kanata North.

Count Erin Coffin, a federal public servant currently on leave, as one who thinks Hubley is vulnerable.

“I just felt it was time for a change,” says Coffin of her decision to run for council. “I just feel that there hasn’t been a lot of ambition for Kanata South over the years. You see building up in Stittsville and Kanata North and Barrhaven — I feel we need some of that ambition and hard work and a way to make this ward, Ward 23, thrive.”

The married mother of two says it’s frustrating that Kanata South has been so long overlooked with residents having to go outside their ward to shop — even to find a coffee shop.

“My local hangout within a 15-minute walk is a McCafé at the gas station. That’s a big day out!” she says.

“I feel I had the right experience and background to make a change and to bring my values and ethics to city hall,” Coffins says. “Some people are afraid of that change, but I think for Kanata South it’s a great opportunity.”

Rouba Fattal is another federal public servant on leave for the election. Fattal considered running for council in the past but decided to wait until her kids were older.

Keeping taxes low is a priority for her. While she opposes fare-free transit, she thinks the city needs to increase spending on police. She wants better roads, longer hours at community centres and better green bin service at restaurants and businesses to divert organics from the landfill.

Frustrated by her lengthy commute downtown, Fattal wants the city to support federal workers who want to work from home, bucking Mayor Jim Watson’s call for federal workers to return. Fattal has other ideas to keep the downtown vibrant, perhaps she says, by converting federal office space into housing.

Mike Dawson says his experience as a realtor and entrepreneur give him the tools he needs to be a councillor. He says his back to basics campaign will hold down taxes while ensuring city services work.

“I’m just trying to get back to core services. I want a transit system that works. I want buses going where people need to go,” says Dawson, a married father of two young children.

“I’ve been watching our community erode. Our roads are eroding. Our parks are eroding. I hear a lot of complaints about snow removal. Being an entrepreneur, I know what hard work is all about and I know what affordability is all about. I know you can’t live on your credit cards.”

Bina Shah is a queer woman of colour, who says “Positivity is my north star.”


Article content
A high school science and math teacher, Shah applied to fill the Kanata North seat left vacant by Jenna Sudds’ federal election win, receiving two votes from councillors. It was enough to whet her appetite for more.

“I’m a woman of colour and I’ve yet to see someone on council that looks like me,” Shah says.

“The last term really got me thinking about what’s happening in our community. I’m a woman of action,” she says.

She notes that 25 years ago, when she was a student at Carleton University, it took her two hours to get to campus by OC Transpo.

“And it still takes that long,” she says. “You know, we should have had that problem solved by now.”

The municipal election is on Oct. 24.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...n-kanata-south

Hubley and Darouze are the two incumbents I absolutely want to see voted out. Not a fan of Menard, but his opponent is terrible. I dislike Curry and would prefer she not get elected as she still doesn't seem to grasp how City Hall works, and she has an unfair advantage by being an appointee.

Otherwise, I mostly fine with the other incumbents. My feeling vary from neutral (ex. Dudas, Tierney) to admiration for their work and dedication (ex. Gower, Leiper).

[rocketphish]

Lansdowne 2.0, Salvation Army shelter: Here's where the leading mayoral candidates stand

Taylor Blewett, Ottawa Citizen
Oct 20, 2022 • 50 minutes ago • 6 minute read

Bob Chiarelli says there’s value in what you contribute to the debate, even if you don’t win the mayoral race. And while he’s polling far behind the two frontrunner candidates, he has pushed thorny issues into the campaign conversation that his competitors hadn’t been discussing a whole lot.

This week, it was the Lansdowne 2.0 redevelopment and Salvation Army’s planned project on Montreal Road, long decried as a “mega-shelter.”

In a news release, Chiarelli said he opposes funding the shelter, which has been presented as the next front in the longstanding battle against the project. The Salvation Army has already received the political approvals it needs for construction, despite opposition from the area’s MP, MPP and local councillor. The proposal for the project has evolved over time but it hasn’t been enough to calm concerns, which range from the appropriateness of the model for its future clients to the impact on the surrounding community and other local service providers.

Chiarelli called money for the project “counterproductive,” stating that “the homeless deserve smaller settings with a full range of services.”

The release included a statement from Ottawa–Vanier Liberal MPP Lucille Collard, saying she fully agrees with Chiarelli’s position on the matter and “will do all I can to stop the funding and reallocate it to smaller and more inclusive projects within the community.”

On Tuesday, outgoing Rideau-Vanier Coun. Mathieu Fleury praised Chiarelli for making “an important commitment to Ottawa,” and expressed his hope that mayoral frontrunners Catherine McKenney and Mark Sutcliffe would take a “clear position” on the issue.

“Invest in affordable housing,” Fleury tweeted. “Not outdated, ineffective and costly shelters.”

McKenney voted against the Salvation Army shelter proposal at council, without success. In a Wednesday interview, McKenney said that although the Salvation Army could choose to construct and move into the new facility, and bring their existing funding with them, McKenney would not support any expansion of funding for that shelter if elected mayor.

“I believe quite firmly that shelters have got to work towards housing, they’ve got to work towards… removing people that they serve, putting them into supportive housing and having eventually their funding going towards housing,” said McKenney, pointing to work at the Shepherds of Good Hope, which they said is on the cusp of having more clients in housing than in shelter, as “the kind of model that we have to work towards.”

Sutcliffe said via email he believes the city “mishandled the file from the beginning, and it has led to considerable division,” while stating the city needs to both support shelter providers and do more to improve access to housing.

“Vanier residents are kind and generous, and they’ve raised some legitimate concerns about this proposal,” said Sutcliffe.

“If elected I commit to bringing fresh eyes to the matter and I will sit down with both sides and have an open and honest discussion to find common ground.”

Earlier in the week it was another controversial development that Chiarelli set his sights on, sharing in a news release his “deep concerns” about the project known as Lansdowne 2.0. Still, neither he nor the other leading candidates for mayor are proposing to scrap it.

In June, council voted to allocate $8 million for staff to keep working on the plan crafted with the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group for the redevelopment at the Glebe’s Lansdowne Park, to include a replacement arena, north-side stands, 1,200 additional residential units and new retail space.

While staff got the go-ahead to draft planning amendments, prepare a competition for residential development rights, continue design work and consult with the public, they’re to come back to the new council next year for a vote on whether to proceed with the $332.6-million project.

The redevelopment scheme has been crafted around a rule that it needs to pay for itself, with plans to cover city borrowing for the project through future property taxes from the site, revenue from event ticket surcharges and distributions from the city-OSEG Lansdowne agreement, with additional dollars coming from the sale of the residential development rights.

Chiarelli said Monday he’ll slow down the process “to allow for proper public consultation,” addressing a major complaint ahead of the recent council vote on Lansdowne 2.0.

“Lansdowne is part of the fabric of our city. But it has to be the right deal for taxpayers,” said Chiarelli, explaining that his buy-in as mayor would require green building standards and “some important people-centred amenities” in the residential component.

“It should be promoted as a modern urban design approach,” he said. “That would include, for example, provisions for the transition to work from home, a daycare, reduced parking spaces (perhaps up to 50%), parking spaces for car sharing vehicles, electric charging capability, and designs that are family-friendly, not just small studio and tiny one and two bedrooms, but also larger three bedrooms.”

At a Monday press conference on another matter, Sutcliffe said he believes Ottawa needs to continue investing in Lansdowne Park, which he described as a great destination used by people throughout the city.

“But I’ve also heard from a lot of people that they don’t like the current plan. So I’m ready to consult with the public on the design and the ideas behind it, get their input. And if the plan needs to be improved, then we’ll improve the plan.”

Asked about a column he penned in this newspaper in May, in which he argued Lansdowne 2.0 should be looked at as an investment rather than an as an expense that needs to wind up cost-neutral, Sutcliffe clarified that he thinks the city needs to recover as much revenue as it can.

“What I was writing about at that time, which I still believe in, is that I don’t think we should fall into the trap of always trying to make everything revenue neutral as a justification for something,” he said. “If there’s a good reason to invest in an area, we should invest in that area, and (Lansdowne) is an asset that belongs to the people of Ottawa. And I think in a lot of cases we have let our infrastructure dwindle without making the investments required.”

McKenney, whose vote was among the “nos” at the June council meeting on pushing ahead with work on Lansdowne 2.0, said it needs to pause for the thorough consultation process that people had been expecting.

“I don’t think it’s going to hold up the process for long, I just think that we’ll get something better in the end if we understand what it is that people need and that people want… it’s a lot of money and we want to get it right.”

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...ndidates-stand

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Agreed. Why learn French now when they represented Somerset Ward for 8 years prior? If they were once proficient, seems picking it back up would not have been too much of a challenge. I can understand Chiarelli a bit more at his age.

In the Citizen profile of Osgood, Darouze is claiming to be the only candidate who is fluently bilingual. Again, don't remember him ever speaking French.

George Darouze is a Lebanese Christian name, and almost everyone in that community speaks French. Darouze is likely trilingual: French, Arabic, English.

Though I doubt he practises the first much in Osgoode.

[Fading Isle]

Originally Posted by Acajack

George Darouze is a Lebanese Christian name, and almost everyone in that community speaks French. Darouze is likely trilingual: French, Arabic, English.

Though I doubt he practises the first much in Osgoode.

I was thinking the same thing. I don't expect there are many francophones in Osgoode or that voters in Osgoode would really care, but I could be wrong.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Honestly I think you are completely unrealistic and contradictory. Why do you live in the suburbs? Our suburbs are designed to give people cheap space and some privacy from neighbours and cars. They are simply incompatible with mass transit. Personally I detest suburbs. I am happy to have no yard and apartments and other dense housing near me so I can walk. The fact is the vast majority of Ottawa prefers their own patch of grass and they will drive as far as they need to in order to get it. Now maybe some climate change imposed taxes will gradually change that but my money is if they ever became actually effective they would be cancelled.

McKenney is clearly most pro transit though she is more pro bike than transit. Probably because in one term $250 million will make a visible difference to biking in the city. $250 million wouldn't do much for our transit system.

Do you really want to impose your lifestyle preferences on everybody? This is also not realistic. Diversity also makes for an interesting city.

Why do you live in the suburbs?

I am very connected to this neighbourhood. This is where my family and friends are from. I volunteer with community organizations.

Oddly enough, transit and cycling in this area were much better years ago and has become steadily worse, while the population has quadrupled over the same time frame. So much for the advantages of intensification. This neighbourhood is the post child for intensification and the results are not pretty.

We need to do better in every respect.

[Fading Isle]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Why do you live in the suburbs?

There are all sorts of reasons people may live in the suburbs. In my case, we rented centrally for over a decade and because of horrible circumstances could suddenly afford to own our own place instead of paying someone else's mortgage(s) for them. We wanted/needed three bedrooms and couldn't afford a centrally located condo with three bedrooms. We could afford a three bedroom condo in the suburbs. Do we not deserve to live in a walkable, bikeable, and accessible neighbourhood because we couldn't afford a more central location?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Fading Isle

There are all sorts of reasons people may live in the suburbs. In my case, we rented centrally for over a decade and because of horrible circumstances could suddenly afford to own our own place instead of paying someone else's mortgage(s) for them. We wanted/needed three bedrooms and couldn't afford a centrally located condo with three bedrooms. We could afford a three bedroom condo in the suburbs. Do we not deserve to live in a walkable, bikeable, and accessible neighbourhood because we couldn't afford a more central location?

Decades of awful planning has led us to poorly designed suburbs. It would not have costed a whole lot more to plan better cycling, walking and transit infrastructure if we had done it from the beginning. Trying to do this afterwards is much more costly. Our problem is that the planning experts assume that nobody wants safe cycling routes, good sidewalk access and efficient transit connections in the suburbs when they are first being planned. They claim that initial demand does not justify them. When they are not available, there is only one choice, to drive everywhere. I have commented time after time on this board of poor alternate transportation design. Nobody really cares.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If we want better suburbs, we need rapid transit to be built to be competitive with car travel and much earlier instead of waiting for decades. We also need a safe cycling route into the city.

I think the real key to better suburbs is to ruthlessly abolish the suburban street layout.

Everything else that sucks about suburbs, and makes them hard to desuck, stems from the loops and swirls and lollipops macro-design of the things. They are made to drive to and from AND within. Making them less auto-centric internally will drive making them less auto-centric externally.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

McKenney is clearly most pro transit though she is more pro bike than transit. Probably because in one term $250 million will make a visible difference to biking in the city. $250 million wouldn't do much for our transit system.

On paper they've been "pro-transit", but they've also let a lot of bad bus system things fester in Somerset Ward over the years.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I think the real key to better suburbs is to ruthlessly abolish the suburban street layout.

Everything else that sucks about suburbs, and makes them hard to desuck, stems from the loops and swirls and lollipops macro-design of the things. They are made to drive to and from AND within. Making them less auto-centric internally will drive making them less auto-centric externally.

I think there has been considerable effort to improve this. Cut through pedestrian accesses are now common. Street patterns are not as horrible as they were back in the 1960s.

Part of the problem is how we separate land use. There is a lack of local business within walking distance, however, our obsession with big box stores has made local businesses not viable. Part of this also traces back to the advent of Sunday shopping which killed a large portion of neighbourhood stores.