2022 Ottawa Municipal Election

[Marshsparrow]

At this point a candidate who pushed de-amalgamation would probably win in a landslide... I am tired of the core, suburbs and rural division tactics - it's tiring and does not build community... both main candidates are playing a dangerous game - everything doesn't have to be this or that or one size fits all.

[Richard Eade]

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.

I agree completely. I, too, have not found a Mayoral candidate that is voicing any real positive change in the city’s direction.

The ‘radical’ idea of borrowing money to dramatically speed up construction of bike infrastructure is really nothing new. The bike lanes are already planned. It is simply changing the speed at which some of them will get built. We did the same thing for transit when we borrowed to extend the Confederation line (so that it, too, could become more useful). We could have built out one stop at a time, over many years, but the city chose to borrow money to extend it East, South, and West, all at once.

Unfortunately, borrowing so much to construct Stage 2 means that there is no capacity to do any other transit infrastructure projects for many years. Think of how the Baseline BRT has been pushed off for many years because of a lack of funds. This is likely to also happen with future bicycling infrastructure.

Yes, I know that most of the candidates have made many ‘promises’ during the campaign; and that accelerating the spending on bike lanes is only one. However, I’m having a hard time finding any solid planks in the platforms.

Statements like “I will end homelessness within the four-year term.” Or “I will go through the budget, line-by-line, and find ‘efficiencies.” are just not credible because they are so nebulous.

And then there is the question of whether the new Council will even allow the new Mayor to do the things that they would like to do.

At best, the ideas presented by the mayoral candidates simply give an indication of what is important to that person. Whether a person who comes across as believing that the city needs to go all-in to fight the ‘Climate Crisis’ as fast as possible, while being a ‘White Knight’ to the down-trodden, by spending everyone else’s money on them; or someone who believes that people working at and for city hall can just work a bit harder so that more can be done with less; is what it boils down to for me.

At this point, I still have not been convinced as to which will do the least damage to the city overall. Neither of the front runners has, in my opinion, a solid plan to actually set the city on a path of betterment.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Fading Isle

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.

Probably not much Arabic either.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Fading Isle

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.

Same. Thought it was a weird flex for a guy who I've never heard speaking French running in a Ward with very few francophones (though with a proportion in line with the City overall).

Here's the exact quote:

"“As the only candidate who is fluent in both official languages, I believe I am the best person to represent Ward 20. "

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...ard-20-osgoode

Originally Posted by Marshsparrow

At this point a candidate who pushed de-amalgamation would probably win in a landslide... I am tired of the core, suburbs and rural division tactics - it's tiring and does not build community... both main candidates are playing a dangerous game - everything doesn't have to be this or that or one size fits all.

Same. It's impossible to balance the wants and needs of such different communities. Everyone wants their "fair share", but I've yet to see an actual breakdown of where funds are spent vs where tax dollars are coming from, though no doubt some iterations exist. I' like the City to split into 6 distinct municipalities; inside the Greenbelt (Ottawa), Orleans, Barrhaven+Riverside South (Barrhaven), Kanata and the remaining rural areas would split down the Rideau River south of Barrhaven or the 416. They can battle over Manotick.

If we're keeping the status quo, Mayoral candidates should break down their promises by urban, suburban and rural priorities. Show that they have something for everyone.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I agree completely. I, too, have not found a Mayoral candidate that is voicing any real positive change in the city’s direction.

The ‘radical’ idea of borrowing money to dramatically speed up construction of bike infrastructure is really nothing new. The bike lanes are already planned. It is simply changing the speed at which some of them will get built. We did the same thing for transit when we borrowed to extend the Confederation line (so that it, too, could become more useful). We could have built out one stop at a time, over many years, but the city chose to borrow money to extend it East, South, and West, all at once.

Unfortunately, borrowing so much to construct Stage 2 means that there is no capacity to do any other transit infrastructure projects for many years. Think of how the Baseline BRT has been pushed off for many years because of a lack of funds. This is likely to also happen with future bicycling infrastructure.

Yes, I know that most of the candidates have made many ‘promises’ during the campaign; and that accelerating the spending on bike lanes is only one. However, I’m having a hard time finding any solid planks in the platforms.

Statements like “I will end homelessness within the four-year term.” Or “I will go through the budget, line-by-line, and find ‘efficiencies.” are just not credible because they are so nebulous.

And then there is the question of whether the new Council will even allow the new Mayor to do the things that they would like to do.

At best, the ideas presented by the mayoral candidates simply give an indication of what is important to that person. Whether a person who comes across as believing that the city needs to go all-in to fight the ‘Climate Crisis’ as fast as possible, while being a ‘White Knight’ to the down-trodden, by spending everyone else’s money on them; or someone who believes that people working at and for city hall can just work a bit harder so that more can be done with less; is what it boils down to for me.

At this point, I still have not been convinced as to which will do the least damage to the city overall. Neither of the front runners has, in my opinion, a solid plan to actually set the city on a path of betterment.

Rather than finding a course of action which improves the city in the long-term, this is what I see as well. It is a sad statement, when we put it into terms of 'least damage'. Everything is about short-term thinking.

[YOWetal]

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?

I don't know what you deserve but you saved money because of the built form. I don't know anywhere in the world where you can live in a walkable bikeable accessible neighborhood affordable neighbourhoods. I prefer a European lifestyle but it doesn't allow the 3 bedrooms for everyone that you want/need.

It's cool to blame planners and evil developers but the building of tract housing on sprawled land is what allows this. In fact it's probably the break down of this system which has eroded our affordability. The cost of a building a 1400 sq foot condo with free land is now more expensive than even a 300 sq ft tract house if we approved it in the available land.

I'm making my kids share a bedroom and living downtown and arguing for the right to suburbs so the opposite of making others live like me.

[lrt's friend]

Same. Thought it was a weird flex for a guy who I've never heard speaking French running in a Ward with very few francophones (though with a proportion in line with the City overall).

Here's the exact quote:

"“As the only candidate who is fluent in both official languages, I believe I am the best person to represent Ward 20. "

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...ard-20-osgoode

This absolutely flies in the face of arguments supporting bilingualism over the decades. It was always claimed that the best qualified person should get the job. This should also apply in politics, but now a candidate argues differently.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Marshsparrow

At this point a candidate who pushed de-amalgamation would probably win in a landslide... I am tired of the core, suburbs and rural division tactics - it's tiring and does not build community... both main candidates are playing a dangerous game - everything doesn't have to be this or that or one size fits all.

The problem is downloading social services to municipalities make amalgamation necessary or the core would have to pay for it all causing wealth flight like in the United States as taxes soared.

I don't find either of them horribly devisive. We have different visions for the city and politics is the way we decide it. I think the strong mayor is actually great for that as we can have a real democratic outcome.

I'm really torn but my problem with both ironically is if anything they are being too compromising to the other side. Trying to do everything for everyone.

[Fading Isle]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I don't know what you deserve but you saved money because of the built form. I don't know anywhere in the world where you can live in a walkable bikeable accessible neighborhood affordable neighbourhoods. I prefer a European lifestyle but it doesn't allow the 3 bedrooms for everyone that you want/need.

It's cool to blame planners and evil developers but the building of tract housing on sprawled land is what allows this. In fact it's probably the break down of this system which has eroded our affordability. The cost of a building a 1400 sq foot condo with free land is now more expensive than even a 300 sq ft tract house if we approved it in the available land.

I'm making my kids share a bedroom and living downtown and arguing for the right to suburbs so the opposite of making others live like me.

I guess I wasn't clear. We certainly couldn't afford a two bedroom centrally either. Too bad for us I guess. Never going to live in the type of neighbourhood we'd like to live in because we were late to the housing party.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

And then there is the question of whether the new Council will even allow the new Mayor to do the things that they would like to do.

I agree that people put too much stock in the laundry-list of election promises. No one can entirely control the circumstances that allow or prevent projects. The one thing you can control, is how you go about whatever is in front of you.

In a candidate, I look for indications on their approach, their general guiding philosophies. Is this someone who cares about the issues, or their image? Is this someone with courage to make tough decisions, or a sycophant? Is this someone with the intellectual curiosity and humility to learn more about a problem and change their mind, or is this someone who panders to initial impressions?

And although I haven't always agreed with all of their policy positions, I've seen enough from McKenney to have a strong respect for them in this regard. Beyond the big ways of leading a clean and respectable campaign and their work during the convoy, it's really the small and unseen things. Theirs is an extremely responsive and empathetic office, and they always show up to a meeting very prepared and present. I have no doubt that regardless of what issues and opportunities spring up over the next years, McKenney will show up and confront it competently.

Suttcliffe, I'm actively unimpressed with. He smacks of the same petty cliquiness that animated Watson. A man with a big ego and thin skin is a combo that we've seen before, and it wasn't pretty. I see someone who'll care about issues only insofar as there is either political gain or pain, and will boldly lead from behind once he sees where the wind is blowing. I've been looking for something to prove me wrong - an example of Sutcliffe taking a principled stand, changing his mind, anything - but his campaigning has sadly reinforced my assessment.


Beyond the promises and the bluster, when the attention fades and the hard unglamorous work starts, who's gonna show up - that's the bottom line for me. I know McKenney shows up for that shit cause we've seen it again and again. I may not always agree with the decisions that they make - that's an impossible expectation - but I they've proven that they'll put in the sweat and the smarts to make it. That's what I vote for.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Fading Isle

I guess I wasn't clear. We certainly couldn't afford a two bedroom centrally either. Too bad for us I guess. Never going to live in the type of neighbourhood we'd like to live in because we were late to the housing party and these days we're just too gosh darn poor to afford it (this is sarcasm- we are definitely not poor).

We don't give a darn about housing affordability, do we? We force everybody to live in rentals downtown, and the price will go sky-high, even higher than today, guaranteed. It is simply a matter of supply and demand. Demand goes up, and the prices goes up as well.

We don't get it. Suburbs are a necessity. It is the design of our suburbs that are in question. If we build for alternative transportation modes, we get a better end result.

We bring up the design of some northern city in Finland where everybody bikes in winter, but we are not prepared to design for that reality. We design only for cars. We have choices, but the planners don't allow for those choices.

Ottawa is no longer 150,000 as in 1940. It is now over 1,000,000. You can't have 1,000,000 people within that same footprint, without bulldozing everything and spending billions more on subways.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This absolutely flies in the face of arguments supporting bilingualism over the decades. It was always claimed that the best qualified person should get the job. This should also apply in politics, but now a candidate argues differently.

Not sure what you think Darouze is arguing, but no one in Ottawa politics thinks French is a prerequisite for being an elected public official these days.

It is a nice-to-have, under a best-case scenario only.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Fading Isle

I guess I wasn't clear. We certainly couldn't afford a two bedroom centrally either. Too bad for us I guess. Never going to live in the type of neighbourhood we'd like to live in because we were late to the housing party.

There are many centrally located two bedrooms for less than $400,000 in Ottawa. It's totally fine you want a different lifestyle. My point is the way we design our suburbs is what allows this. In European cities you end up anyway in 900 sq ft house with no yard. Dense enough to allow public transport. There are historic villages in Switzerland that have houses with main streets and trains into central Zurich but this was historic infrastructure and they are much much richer than us allowing such subsidies. I can't think if anywhere without a legacy trains being used that lets you have your suburban dream and good transit. The math just doesn't work.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not sure what you think Darouze is arguing, but no one in Ottawa politics thinks French is a prerequisite for being an elected public official these days.

It is a nice-to-have, under a best-case scenario only.

Some roles it certainly is. Mayor of Ottawa seems like it should be close.

[Fading Isle]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

There are many centrally located two bedrooms for less than $400,000 in Ottawa. It's totally fine you want a different lifestyle. My point is the way we design our suburbs is what allows this. In European cities you end up anyway in 900 sq ft house with no yard. Dense enough to allow public transport. There are historic villages in Switzerland that have houses with main streets and trains into central Zurich but this was historic infrastructure and they are much much richer than us allowing such subsidies. I can't think if anywhere without a legacy trains being used that lets you have your suburban dream and good transit. The math just doesn't work.

I really don’t want to have this kind of experience on this board and may need to step away for a while. Why the need to be so dismissive and condescending about someone telling you their experience with buying a home in Ottawa?

What part of we rented in central neighbourhoods for all our adult lives and couldn’t afford to buy in any of these neighbourhoods is confusing to you? We’re not the only first time homebuyers in the same situation, but okay we all just suddenly want that suburban lifestyle now despite never wanting it before. Looking past you assuming our price range, I have no idea where you found a two bedroom condo selling in a central neighbourhood for $400,000 in late 2021-early 2022 when we were looking for 6 month for something like that. Or are you quoting the listing price? Given most places listed in that price range have been selling for $100,000 over asking, i guess you also don’t have access you mls sales prices like we did.

Thanks for telling me what I can afford and how I want to live. You have it all figured out better than I do. How wise.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Fading Isle

I really don’t want to have this kind of experience on this board and may need to step away for a while. Why the need to be so dismissive and condescending about someone telling you their experience with buying a home in Ottawa?

What part of we rented in central neighbourhoods for all our adult lives and couldn’t afford to buy in any of these neighbourhoods is confusing to you? We’re not the only first time homebuyers in the same situation, but okay we all just suddenly want that suburban lifestyle now despite never wanting it before. Looking past you assuming our price range, I have no idea where you found a two bedroom condo selling in a central neighbourhood for $400,000 in late 2021-early 2022 when we were looking for 6 month for something like that. Or are you quoting the listing price? Given most places listed in that price range have been selling for $100,000 over asking, i guess you also don’t have access you mls sales prices like we did.

Hey sorry if I sound condescending or dismissive. Buying at the peak must have sucked for sure. Adding condo fees of course also reduces affordability.

There isn't anytime though a townhouse in the suburbs has been cheaper than a two bedroom apartment and I just think it's important when we say affordability it's to get other things. Yard, parks, traffic free streets. etc. Things Canadians have decided kids can't live with out. My claim is if we have those things we can't have transit to the locations. Whoever we elect.

[rocketphish]

McKenney: Ottawa can be healthier, greener, better connected — and more affordable
"Voters deserve a mayor who will invest in, and not cut, the city services that you rely on."

Catherine McKenney
Oct 20, 2022 • 1 day ago • 3 minute read

The Citizen asked the leading mayoral contenders to explain why they deserve your vote:

I’m running for mayor to make Ottawa a world-class city. One that you can depend on. Because Ottawa can be healthier, greener, and better connected — and more affordable for you.

It will take experienced leadership and investment in the city services you rely on, such as transit, recreation and emergency responders. It will also take a bold vision to tackle the climate crisis, affordable housing and chronic homelessness.

This is what I offer the people of Ottawa.

I was first drawn to serve my community because I’ve lived in poverty and know the more difficult life of someone trying to work towards a better future. I began my path to build a better city, going to work for the city councillors for Kanata and Somerset wards. I then worked in a senior role at the city, dealing with everything from fire and paramedics, to waste management and public health.

I witnessed how cuts and austerity measures were weakening Ottawa’s public services, particularly OC Transpo, where bus routes were reduced in 2011 and again, when the LRT launched in 2019.

Did those cuts leave our city better? No. They made it harder for people to catch a bus in their neighbourhood and get to work on time. Trips that were once 20 minutes turned into 45 minutes.

In 2014, I decided to run for council to make sure Ottawans got the services they need. Over my eight years representing Somerset ward as councillor, I’ve fought to maintain services, while cuts were proposed in successive budgets that resulted in a further erosion of the services you depend on everyday.

That’s why I’m running for mayor now. Because the people that rely on our city services deserve so much better than cuts. We all deserve to live in a world-class city, and you deserve a mayor that will work towards building that city.
A city where buses take you where you need to go — on time — and are affordable and free for youth 17 and under, which will make life more affordable for families.

We deserve a city where your kids can bike to school or their friend’s house without you fearing for their safety. We deserve a city where we invest in creating safer and better roads for everyone.

We deserve a city where a family of six is not living in a motel room and cooking meals in a microwave because ending the housing and homelessness crisis has not been a priority.

And you deserve a mayor who will invest in, and not cut, the city services that you rely on. You deserve a mayor with a bold vision. With my experienced leadership, I’m ready to be your mayor, on day one. As Election Day approaches, I hope I can count on your vote on Oct 24.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/mc...ore-affordable

[rocketphish]

Sutcliffe: My plan for Ottawa builds on compassion and fiscal responsibility
"I want a city where everyone can afford to buy or rent a home, where it’s easy to get around, and where the best and brightest come and stay."

Mark Sutcliffe
Oct 20, 2022 • 23 hours ago • 3 minute read

The Citizen asked the leading mayoral contenders to explain why they deserve your vote:

A few days ago, I knocked on a door in Alta Vista. I met a couple who were still undecided but told me they were leaning in my direction.

“We like your platform,” the woman said. “But it’s really about the approach we’re looking for. You seem like a mayor who will bring people together and focus on solving problems.”

That’s exactly what I hope to do if I get the chance to be your mayor.

I think it’s fair for you to ask what will be different if I’m elected, what I will bring to the job that others won’t. I think it comes down to a few simple but important things.

First, I’m a problem solver. Like you, I’m both excited and concerned about the future of our city. I’ve spoken with so many residents who are feeling anxious after the pandemic, the convoy, the issues with light rail, and rising inflation. And many of you are still struggling to find a family doctor.

The next mayor of Ottawa should be a problem solver who can bring people together to address these challenges. I have a track record of doing exactly that.

I’ve spent my whole life trying to make our city better. As a broadcaster and columnist, I’ve covered city politics since Marion Dewar was mayor (fun fact: I was also her paperboy). But I didn’t just write and talk about the city; I got involved. I volunteered thousands of hours with United Way, the Ottawa Food Bank, the Royal Ottawa Hospital, and a dozen other community organizations.

Second, I share your priorities.

Some people see Ottawa as a small, compact, urban community rather than the large, diverse city that it is. They have different, expensive priorities, such as bike lanes and more free transit. But I know Ottawa is and can be so much more than that.

I will work hard to recruit more family doctors, fix our unreliable transit system, revitalize downtown and the ByWard Market, address the affordability crisis, keep taxes low, and repair our terrible roads. And I will end the constant battles that pit one part of the city against each other. My plan is responsible and balanced, and it’s focused on every part of the city — rural, suburban, and urban — not just downtown.

And third, respect. I think it’s also time for a mayor who respects your investment in the city, by looking out carefully for every dollar that is spent. I absolutely will not cut any programs or services, but I won’t give up on finding savings and efficiencies in other areas, so we have more money to invest in our shared priorities. And I won’t raid or deplete the reserve funds that we have set aside for future emergencies. My plan builds on the values I have always brought to every role in the community: compassion and fiscal responsibility.

I want Ottawa to achieve its full potential, where everyone can afford to buy or rent a home, where it’s easy to get around, where the best and brightest come and stay because it’s a great place to live with great schools and hospitals, and vibrant culture, arts and sports.

If you share these priorities, and if you want a mayor who respects your money and will solve problems on your behalf, I’m ready to serve. Please make your choice clear by voting on Monday. Vote for change that works for you, and for everyone in Ottawa, no matter where you live.

The future is ours. We just have to choose it. Let’s start working together for the change we want.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/su...responsibility

[rocketphish]

Chiarelli: What Ottawa needs now is experience
The Citizen asked the leading mayoral contenders to explain why they deserve your vote. Bob Chiarelli says it's about who can control city spending.

Bob Chiarelli
Oct 20, 2022 • 15 hours ago • 3 minute read

The Citizen asked the leading mayoral contenders to explain why they deserve your vote:

This election campaign started for me more than a year ago — long before the official registration date in May.

It started with that very first meeting with a senior manager at the City of Ottawa who confided in me that the city was, in effect, broke, and it was all they could do just to keep the lights on.

I have talked to thousands of people over these many months in their living rooms, on their front steps, and in barns, coffee shops and grocery stores.

One story that sticks with me is the elderly couple who wrote to me terrified at the prospect of being forced into a retirement home because they could no longer afford to pay the property taxes on the home where they raised a family and had hoped to live out their golden years.

That’s why I’m running and that’s why I will fight to the last minute. You can vote for a candidate who can get city spending under control, so we can build and plan for the future, or you can cast a ballot for someone who will spend us into deeper debt and raise taxes. That’s the choice.

Accusations that my tax- and spending-freeze pledge is a gimmick are an insult to seniors fighting to stay in their empty nests, to those young couples saving for their first home and to countless others struggling to keep a roof over their heads.

I have promised a 100-day, line-by-line review of the city’s books by independent outside experts, something that hasn’t been done since 2003 in my last term as mayor.

Successive councils have let this city’s road infrastructure crumble to a state of disrepair never before seen. I will address this by putting a moratorium on building any new roads and divert those savings into fixing and repairing roads, sidewalks and multi-use pathways.

And under the present administration, OC Transpo, once the darling of transit companies across North America, now lies in tatters. The once vaunted LRT system and the bus fleet are unreliable and the transit company is projecting an $85-million deficit.

OC Transpo needs a top-to-bottom assessment and new management to steer it back to respectability. That will take leadership and experience in the mayor’s office, not pie-in-the-sky platitudes.

I have a record I can stand on. I brought 11 municipalities and the region together and delivered the most successful municipal amalgamation in the country.

To those who throw up their hands and say a tax freeze can’t be done, I did it six years in a row as regional chair and mayor.

With a nearly $4 billion debt and close to one-quarter billion dollars in annual interest payments, and $300 million in court cases pending, the city can’t afford Pollyanna promises that would drive us deeper into debt.

The size and scale of our city’s challenges are unprecedented and require someone with more than just a learner’s permit to drive the change we need at city hall.

To drive home that point, I’ll finish with a quote from the widely respected Prof. Ian Lee of the Sprott School of Business at Carleton University:

“Bob Chiarelli is a fiscal realist. He is the only person thus far speaking the truth. We are in a crisis and you don’t hear that from anyone else but Bob Chiarelli.

“Give him the credit to have the courage, the guts and the backbone to speak the truth to all of us. ‘No, it’s not the best of all worlds. We are facing a very real crisis.’ ”

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/ch...-is-experience

[rocketphish]

The people behind the people running for mayor
Some of the intriguing cast of behind-the-scenes players

Joanne Chianello · CBC News
Posted: Oct 21, 2022 7:16 AM ET | Last Updated: 9 minutes ago

What has shaped up to be the closest Ottawa mayoral race in 15 years has drawn an intriguing cast of behind-the-scenes players, from the candidates' closest confidantes to big-name federal and provincial players, including well-known figures in city politics and newcomers just dipping their toes into municipal waters for the first time.

The bevvy of advisors and organizers is one clear sign of how the campaigns of Mark Sutcliffe and Catherine McKenney, in particular, acknowledge the stakes are high and the competition is intense in the race to run the city.

Sutcliffe's team

Sutcliffe's campaign manager is Sabrina Grover, who has spent significant time in Calgary — perhaps surprisingly for the head of a team that boasts much local establishment talent. Grover attended university in Calgary, helped elect Calgary mayor Jyoti Gondek last October, and ran unsuccessfully in Calgary as a Liberal in the 2021 federal election.

Christine McMillan, who chairs Sutcliffe's election-day team, is also well-known in Liberal circles and was the party's provincial campaign manager from 2020 until this year's election.

But Sutcliffe's co-chair for fundraising, Michelle Coates Mather, is a second-generation Conservative power broker. She directed Jean Charest's failed bid for the federal party's leadership.

Adam Smith, CEO of government relations firm Rise Up Strategies and a former director of the Liberal Party of Canada more than a decade ago, is Sutcliffe's second fundraising co-chair.

Among the people working on his communications team are Jennifer Stewart, a founder of the public relations firm Syntax Strategic; William Bulmer, who used to work for Ottawa Centre MP Yasir Naqvi — back when he was Ontario's attorney general — and before that in Mayor Jim Watson's office.

Liam Roche, who used to work for Ottawa-Vanier Liberal MPP Lucille Collard, is another Sutcliffe media official.

He's relying on a whole slew of advisers, including Kate Harrison, a vice-president at consulting firm Summa Strategies, which describes her as "a long-time conservative activist."

Some of the most intriguing consultants backing Sutcliffe have no specific role but are helping his core team as "friends and supporters," according to a campaign worker.

"We have not been too fussed about titles — everyone is pitching in where they can," the worker told CBC.

Brendan McGuinty, whose brother MP David McGuinty is one of a long list of Sutcliffe endorsers, is another backer whose function isn't specified. McGuinty has deep roots at city hall, where he was chief of staff to Bob Chiarelli when he was mayor before becoming a land development consultant.

He was on Watson's transition team when he was first elected mayor in 2010, and did some consulting and volunteer work for him in the early years of his tenure.

McGuinty likes to stay behind the scenes, knows everyone in Ottawa, and has his finger in a lot of pies — he was even mentioned in passing in a lawsuit the late Eugene Melnyk launched against Trinity Group.

It's not clear how involved McGuinty is in the day-to-day campaign, but he was among those who convinced Sutcliffe to run and approached local politicians to formally endorse him.

Pollster David Coletto is CEO of Abacus Data, so it figures that he's doing some polling for the campaign and has been involved in some policy development. The two are close friends and Coletto says Sutcliffe has been a business and leadership coach to him for years.

It was Coletto, in the days after Sutcliffe announced he was running for office, who interviewed the candidate for Sutcliffe's own podcast, "Digging Deep." Interestingly, Abacus chair Bruce Anderson recently came out in favour of McKenney, another sign this mayoral race is splitting even close business associates.

Then there's Bob Plamondon, another close friend and running buddy of Sutcliffe. Among other credentials, Plamondon is an author, a former board member with the National Capital Commission, and an economist who sits on the Senate Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight.

Plamondon did some consulting work on the city budget for the city manager back when Larry O'Brien was mayor. He has provided some analysis on Sutcliffe's financial platform, but says he didn't help create it. Indeed, Sutcliffe won't attach any specific names to his fiscal plan, but says he speaks for it himself.

McKenney's team

Perhaps not unexpectedly, McKenney's campaign manager Samiha Rayeda has run a number of NDP election bids, including Ottawa Centre MPP Joel Harden's successful run earlier this year.

Rayeda unsuccessfully headed NDP candidate Angella MacEwen's campaign in last year's federal election.

That McKenney has support from New Democrats and other progressive activists was expected, considering their roots in the party, particularly in Ottawa Centre. So it's no surprise that Canadian Labour Congress executive and longtime local activist Vicky Smallman is one of the campaign's co-chairs.

Perhaps more surprising is that Tyler Meredith is the other. Meredith was an economic adviser in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's office for six years, and worked on federal budgets during that time under two finance ministers.

He worked on McKenney's financial plan with Neil Saravanamuttoo, former chief economist of the G20's Global Infrastructure Hub. Saravanamuttoo has spent hours talking with journalists throughout this campaign about McKenney's financial platform.

McKenney's plan to build 25 years' worth of cycling infrastructure in the next four years for $250 million is likely his idea.

McKenney also has an experienced communications team. It includes Kathryn LeBlanc, who's held several media roles for the NDP on Parliament Hill, and Heather Badenoch, a well-known local activist who's also provided communications strategies for health-care and non-profit organizations, including the Canadian Red Cross.

They're joined by Alexandra Seymour, who's on leave from her position in Coun. Rawlson King's office.

McKenney's team of advisers includes Carlene Variyan, former chief of staff to Liberal Minister Jim Carr and a spokesperson for the Liberal Party's national campaign for the last three federal elections, and Susan King, a communications consultant and seasoned political campaigner.

Liz Bernstein is also helping out. Bernstein is known around city hall for representing the Lowertown Community Association and being on the board for Ecology Ottawa. But she's also worked for the Nobel organization and was co-ordinator of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines.

Simone Thibaut, among other things a former executive director of the Centretown Community Health Centre, is advising McKenney in a number of areas, including French-language policy.

Taken together, the Sutcliffe and McKenney campaign contingents draw deeply from Ottawa's available pools of political and policy talent.

Municipal politics has a way of mixing up the partisan cliques that line up more neatly in the federal and political spheres.

When the city contest is this tight, and there's no obvious single front runner, everybody seems to want in.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...tion-1.6624071

[Fading Isle]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Hey sorry if I sound condescending or dismissive. Buying at the peak must have sucked for sure. Adding condo fees of course also reduces affordability.

There isn't anytime though a townhouse in the suburbs has been cheaper than a two bedroom apartment and I just think it's important when we say affordability it's to get other things. Yard, parks, traffic free streets. etc. Things Canadians have decided kids can't live with out. My claim is if we have those things we can't have transit to the locations. Whoever we elect.

Wait, so this will get transit, walkability, proper cycling infrastructure, and a pleasant urban form, but https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.4475614,-75.5959719,3a,75y,66.9h,79.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY4Qgxn2ISvEllrVpij1wJw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192]this can't possibly have those things:

I'm having a hard time not seeing that the main difference here is wealth.