We're running out of time, so I'll cut to the chase:
No matter what your priorities are, it comes down to fiscal responsibility.
Agreed. However, fiscal responsibility means getting value for money, not simply not spending money at the expense of services that affect citizens' quality of life.
We all have a vision, we all have ideas for the future. Bottom line, they won't be realized unless our council is able to get a handle on THE bottom line. We're way over-budget, we spend money on the wrong things
(*cough* subsidizing suburban development *cough*), and we paid too much for them. Before you vote, understand where your candidate stands on fiscal responsibility
(agreed):
Nenshi:
http://www.nenshi.ca/new/2010/120
-Almost nothing here on fiscal responsibility, no clear picture.
That's because you're looking in the wrong place! This is his only his proposals for the auditor's office. Try this: http://www.nenshi.ca/new/2010/159.
-Nenshi does NOT state reducing taxes or getting in line with inflation as a Goal, let alone promise it. True, but to me solutions are more meaningful that potentially empty promises, or perhaps promises that will force candidates to make bad decisions once elected.
-His website criticizes past decisions, but also supports them. Ie., The airport tunnel. He is more eloquent, more charming, and stands for the exact same things as the previous council.
When has he not been in favor of the airport tunnel? City council completely dropped the airport tunnel, so how is he more of the same?
-One of his stated "Better Ideas" is to raise business taxes, to "help business". What?
http://www.nenshi.ca/new/2010/189 Unless I have myself made a huge mistake, THIS IS COMPLETELY WRONG. I'm assuming you are referring to "create a fair and equitable tax burden" and "investigating a non-residential commercial property tax". If Jon Lord is correct, then right now property taxes favor residential, so "create a fair and equitable tax burden" means REDUCE business taxes. The proposed "non-residential commercial property tax" is explained as follows: "Calgary is one of the few cities in which there is a separate business tax and business property tax. Merging these into a non residential property tax will result in significant administrative savings." In other words, it's a consolidation. One tax instead of two. And somehow you got "raise business taxes" out of this? That's not what it says at all.
[deleted McIver stuff - I don't like him either]
Barb Higgins:
http://barbhiggins.ca/issues/financi...nsibility.html
"My goal will be to do everything I can to return to the mantra of our past: to not raise taxes any higher than inflation."
"I would like to see business taxes reduced." Ric has not said this, while Nenshi wants to raise them
(NOT TRUE, see above - nevertheless I'm sure everyone wants to see business taxes reduced, as well as residential taxes reduced, as well as improved services. The devil is in the details.).
Implement a staffing freeze through to the end of the year which means implementing a hiring freeze, and no layoffs. Sensible. Nobody loses their job, but the budget is kept under control. Nenshi won't even comment on this, while Ric is rumored to support layoffs. Layoffs will of course make Ric's budget look better initially, but hurt the overall economy.
Great, except adminstrative costs are not why the budget is out of control. Explicitly, developer subsidies are. If new hires are needed, a staffing freeze can be harmful, or might simply be delaying the problem.
Barb's platform is less detailed than Ric's, but far more detailed than Nenshi's.
Disagree, Nenshi has plenty of detail.
It is the most Solution-Oriented platform of the three.
It lacks the EFFECTIVE solutions required to deal with unsustainable development, which is required to solve the city's financial crisis.
Instead of delaying decisions for 6 months, Barb wants to start on these decisions Earlier.
Yes, but if McIver, having been on city council for 9 years, thinks he needs 6 months to sort through the budget, then Higgins, having never been on council and very limited other experience, might need 12. She may be promising more than she can deliver. She'll be in tough to get up to speed before the budget even without advancing it's delivery.
She has a simple, tangible solution to audits, without the "fluff" words used by the other two candidates. Notice the refreshing lack of "more accountable", and "more efficient, more effective", and other nonsense fillers.
Higgins: "As Mayor, City Hall will be responsible, accountable, and transparent with how it spends Calgarians’ tax dollars." So your objection, then, is to the word 'more'?
Notice that everything in her platform deals with solutions. Compare this to Ric's platform, which has no solutions but instead ridicules the previous council. Or Nenshi's platform, which basically ridicules everyone but him.
Care to defend that outlandish statement? Just because you don't understand "non-residential commercial property tax" doesn't mean he's mocking you. Higgins is not above using jargon either. Her answer to one of the question at the U of C mayoral forums was "CPAG".
I go with Barb, because despite all the rampant rumors that she has no platform, she is the Only remaining candidate that has offered any tangible, attainable solutions to Calgary's budget crisis.
She's certainly not the only one with tangible solutions, she's not even the one with the best solutions. She's fairly strong on auditing (where I object is where you say Nenshi isn't) but auditing alone will only solve one small part of the budget crisis.
I do, of course agree with Nenshi's dialogue on urban sprawl. However, he's missed the boat on that. Construction is way down
(true, but subsidizing the growth that is still happen still hurts the city budget - and what about when the economy improves? I do agree that even a blanket memorandum on suburban development - which is not something I would advocate for - doesn't help with the backlog of infrastructure demands already accumulated, but we shouldn't add to those demands by building communities that can't or don't pay for the infrastructure they require), and all three candidates are against urban sprawl
(Higgin's development platform is incredibly weak - see my next post - and McIver's voting record suggest otherwise - I seriously have no idea who anyone can say that McIver is against urban sprawl). Only Nenshi has decided to turn a dead topic into a "hot topic", because it makes him look better.
Wrong, it's a hot topic because it's the root cause of the vast majority of elections issues - from the budget deficit to services affected by a lack of funds such as snow removal). No matter which of these three you vote for, they will be against urban sprawl (because they're not funded by the developers like Bronco was, and because of changes in housing demand).
LOL, have you looked at McIver's donations list (I haven't looked at Higgins, so I'm not commenting on it, but certainly of the three at least one is funded by the developers)? And again, what happens when housing demand goes back up?
When you vote, remember that all three of these candidates want good things for Calgary. The candidate which can manage the budget best is the one who will deliver the most to Calgary in the long term
(*cough* Nenshi *cough*).