Cal Wenzel suing Mayor Nenshi for $6M

[Flamenspiel]

What exactly did Nenshi say? all i can find on the web(from CBC) is "he insinuated that Wenzel heads a mafia-ike organization".What were the exact words?

Secondly, is it true?

[Addick]

Originally Posted by rotten42

If you think the home builders are bad do some digging into the type of lobbying the big developers do. It makes the home builders look like amateurs.

That's interesting. I've heard that the large developers are actually more open to change and are looking to try new things instead of resisting and defending the status quo.

[Bigtime]

Nenshi is going to give a statement at 1:10 today on this matter.

He has not been served yet.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Nenshi is going to give a statement at 1:10 today on this matter.

He has not been served yet.

So, his response is likely to be:

" I cannot respond until I've been served."

[Bigtime]

Well he actually said that not too long ago to the media, I'm guessing we get more than that at 1:10.

[nik-]

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by nik-

Haha!

Alternatively:

NSFW!

[Bigtime]

Statement being made right now, some tweets:

Nenshi on Wenzel lawsuit: calling CW "architect of his of own situation."

Nenshi: lawsuit is disappointing, "very dangerous" Chilling political discourse. Will vigorously defend himself.

Nenshi: I'm not a wealthy man.

Nenshi: we've never talked; Wenzel can call anytime, meet any place. Better than running away to courts.

@nenshi says suit is intended to scare him, Wenzel never asked for meeting and Mayor says he's still willing to meet with him

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I wonder when/if the Mayor parks his ego and apologizes to mitigate his damages.

...Annnnnnd No.

[CaptainYooh]

and Mayor says he's still willing to meet with him

Just wait.

[CaptainCrunch]

I guess I would need to ask on his quote about Wenzel never asking for a meeting. Why would he, Nenshi pretty much portrayed him as the enemy during the campaign. You could really portray Nenshi's use of Wenzel as the boogey man as fairly hostile. Neither sides were angels here obviously, but I can see why Wenzel wouldn't bother with a coffee with a man who made him look like an enemy of the city.

I have to admit that I'm intrigued by the merits of this case. I think that if there was a negative to the campaign that our mayor ran is that he effectively portrayed the builders as the enemy of anything good, and as anti-democratic demons.

Whether this gets in front of a judge or not remains to be seen.

I'm not clear on what Nenshi said that lead to the final straw I'm suing moment, but a lawsuit like this does open a dangerous precedence that's not covered when candidate A attacks candidate B. In this case it was Candidate A attacking outside of the election citizen.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I guess I would need to ask on his quote about Wenzel never asking for a meeting. Why would he, Nenshi pretty much portrayed him as the enemy during the campaign. You could really portray Nenshi's use of Wenzel as the boogey man as fairly hostile. Neither sides were angels here obviously, but I can see why Wenzel wouldn't bother with a coffee with a man who made him look like an enemy of the city.

Wenzel made himself look like an enemy of the general public by being and enemy of the general public (and getting caught). Nenshi just made the spotlight on him a little brighter.

We're talking about special interests who lobby for inefficient market subsidies, try to buy friendly governments by funding their campaigns, and try to do it without the public finding out (or mislead the public with spin and rhetoric). When those guys get their subsidies, it comes at a cost to taxpayers. There's no win-win here. Their gain is the city's loss... so in that sense, they are enemies, and thus portraying them as such is merely accurate. They're attacking our fiscal sustainability, environmental sustainability, and the integrity of our democracy.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by SebC

Wenzel made himself look like an enemy of the general public by being and enemy of the general public (and getting caught). Nenshi just made the spotlight on him a little brighter.

We're talking about special interests who lobby for inefficient market subsidies, try to buy friendly governments by funding their campaigns, and try to do it without the public finding out (or mislead the public with spin and rhetoric). When those guys get their subsidies, it comes at a cost to taxpayers. There's no win-win here. Their gain is the city's loss... so in that sense, they are enemies, and thus portraying them as such is merely accurate. They're attacking our fiscal sustainability, environmental sustainability, and the integrity of our democracy.

Well at least there's no hyperbole in this thread.

I will just note that business contributing to candidates they support isn't actually attacking the integrity of our democracy. People who do nothing, don't vote and have no idea about what is going on do far more to erode our democracy than a concerned businessman that you disagree with.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well at least there's no hyperbole in this thread.

I will just note that business contributing to candidates they support isn't actually attacking the integrity of our democracy. People who do nothing, don't vote and have no idea about what is going on do far more to erode our democracy than a concerned businessman that you disagree with.

I rather not vote than to vote for someone being funded by the scumbag Cal Wenzel.

It's not rocket science. Nenshi has the city as his priority while Wenzel has Shane Homes and his personal bank account as his priority. If you're on Wenzel's side you're pretty much voting against democracy.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well at least there's no hyperbole in this thread.

I will just note that business contributing to candidates they support isn't actually attacking the integrity of our democracy. People who do nothing, don't vote and have no idea about what is going on do far more to erode our democracy than a concerned businessman that you disagree with.

If that concerned businessman actually makes his case with the public, or supports a candidate who is doing so, that's democratic. If he's doing his lobbying at private meetings, for things that candidates aren't willing to openly put into their platforms, that's anti-democratic. So I disagree. I much prefer apathy to actively circumventing the democratic process.

And no, there's no hyperbole. Sprawl does hurt our finances and it's bad for the environment. Backroom lobbying (and flat-out lying to the public, with regards to the "development freeze") is bad for democracy. Wenzel and his ilk are putting their own self-interest above those things. Which is certainly within his rights, but it's also not a "good" way to behave. It is, at best, morally neutral and I personally do not like what he has done.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well at least there's no hyperbole in this thread.

I will just note that business contributing to candidates they support isn't actually attacking the integrity of our democracy. People who do nothing, don't vote and have no idea about what is going on do far more to erode our democracy than a concerned businessman that you disagree with.

This is a great post, essentially, from my perspective, its not really clear what Wenzel has done wrong. If the mayor is correct, he will win the day.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well at least there's no hyperbole in this thread.

I will just note that business contributing to candidates they support isn't actually attacking the integrity of our democracy. People who do nothing, don't vote and have no idea about what is going on do far more to erode our democracy than a concerned businessman that you disagree with.

"Concerned businessman contributing to a campaign" and "special interest trying to buy government for personal gain" aren't the same thing. The leaked tape makes Wenzel appear to be the latter, not the former. Particularly given, as SebC notes, Wenzel, his cohorts and their supported candidates were not willing to be up front about their intentions. It was all done behind what they thought were closed doors. That is why the video was so damaging to Wenzel's reputation.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Statement being made right now, some tweets:

Nenshi on Wenzel lawsuit: calling CW "architect of his of own situation."

Nenshi: lawsuit is disappointing, "very dangerous" Chilling political discourse. Will vigorously defend himself.

Nenshi: I'm not a wealthy man.

Nenshi: we've never talked; Wenzel can call anytime, meet any place. Better than running away to courts.

@nenshi says suit is intended to scare him, Wenzel never asked for meeting and Mayor says he's still willing to meet with him

If he is acting within his capacity as mayor, shoudn't the city of calgary law department defend him at no cost to Nenshi? I have not read the pleadings so can't say if they are all "within the course/description of hois employment".

[Slava]

Originally Posted by SebC

If that concerned businessman actually makes his case with the public, or supports a candidate who is doing so, that's democratic. If he's doing his lobbying at private meetings, for things that candidates aren't willing to openly put into their platforms, that's anti-democratic. So I disagree. I much prefer apathy to actively circumventing the democratic process.

And no, there's no hyperbole. Sprawl does hurt our finances and it's bad for the environment. Backroom lobbying (and flat-out lying to the public, with regards to the "development freeze") is bad for democracy. Wenzel and his ilk are putting their own self-interest above those things. Which is certainly within his rights, but it's also not a "good" way to behave. It is, at best, morally neutral and I personally do not like what he has done.

It is hyperbole. Funding candidates you prefer, who are better for your personal business interests isn't an affront to democracy in any sense. Like I said before on this board, if the NDP were in favour of stock market abolition still (and they might still be), you can bet I would donate and fund candidates against them. If that somehow makes me a 'weasel' then so be it. I would work to protect my business interests and feel no shame about that.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Did I hear right that the city is looking at covering Nenshi's costs? I don't know if that was legal or damages.

I don't like either dog in this fight, but taxpayer money should not be involved to defend Nenshi's electioneering. If true.