Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
Kent's a good candidate. I really like the guy, very personable, but he just doesn't quite seem to know what he is talking about with civic issues. His grasp just isn't quite there. Just a small example, he calls TOD (a major issue in the city with Plan It) Transportation-Orientated Design, or sometimes Transit-Orientated Design - in fact, what it really means is Transit-Oriented Development. This is basic stuff here, seems small but it gave me pause.
Nenshi clearly knows what he is talking about, he has been immersed in civic issues for a long, long time and seems to know the policies and actions on how to get things done, rather than simply stating what he wants to see happen. Any candidate can articulate what they want, it's how to get it done that really matters though.
So far, I think he's overcome well, the trap that most academics fall into and communicates extremely effectively understandable and sensible ideas.
Thanks for adding the poll. Just a note it's McIver, not McIvor. Not sure if it's possible to edit the poll now, but whatever not a big deal.
|
I understand what you mean. The thing is, that's not so much an issue for average voters, most of whom just want a candidate who can articulate and execute a simple and compelling vision for the city. I think Kent can do that, a few minor errors notwithstanding. I hope Naheed can as well--but what I really, really hope is that they don't split the vote and allow a candidate who is utterly without vision of any kind to come up the middle.
Of course, for all I know they may finish last and second-last and this will be a moot point.