Quote:
Originally Posted by bomber317
I don't understand your take on this.
1) the previous Mayor would round up his 7 votes, noting that these are typically the same 7 votes to push through his agenda.
2) There would be no point to meaningful discussion in the previous regime as the vote would already be decided before hand.
3) Now that Nenshi has not followed in this method, there is meaningful discussion that looks at the positives and negatives of each issue. Each voter can vote to what they believe is best for their ward and city.
4) But you see this as "he is genuinely liking the debate itself more than getting the stuff done"?
Doesn't that go hand in hand? Debating to get the best choice completed? Otherwise why even have a council then? Just have the Mayor make all of the decisions and be done with it.
|
Well, as much as I love musing about municipal politics
this is more of a questions & answers thread; we shouldn't hijack it by discussing side topics. I will respond to your post, but let's cut it out after that or move it to a different thread, if you wish to continue.
Yes, to your points 1, 2 & 4. See, I resent dealing with extreme views on any side of any issue. That is, if it's not 100% positive, it is 100% negative and so on. As I pointed out earlier, I genuinely disliked Bronco's way of ruling this City for the similar reasons you, probably, didn't like them; it was too authoritarian, clandestine and, possibly, corrupt. But he got the stuff he wanted done, done. Good or bad, he had it. On the contrary, Duerr was a "consensus seeker" on all issues and practically nothing got done in his days, because you can hardly get a solid consensus on all contentious issues. Duerr was not as vocal, as Nenshi is, so the impression conveyed from the City Hall in those days was total lack of leadership. Nenshi is vocal, so he is no Duerr. But is he a doer? So far, it only looks like a whole bunch of initiatives to me...
Regardless, my question to Bunk was not about some old beater house scheduled for demolition that is near and dear to the hearts of three grandmas leaving next to it. This was about a major re-development that had huge amount of controversy, serious red flags and unresolved issues. If the Mayor felt strongly about not letting it pass, he could have shown real leadership and stopped it by lobbying those Council members that were seemingly soft on it (Macleod, Pootmans, Pincott, Keating). He could have introduced and requested revisions that would have send the application back to address at least some of the community concerns. Instead, he just left it to a vote by Council that had already been skewed by heavy lobbying in favour of approval. You might say it would have been unfair and undemocratic. But so is legal lobbying, in general.