[GDT] YYC Votes 2025

[fotze2]

She should have banned Amazon.

[LanceUppercut]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Question:

When petrosexual conservatives make their entire personality and public image how much they love oil and how much they hate both Trudeaus, is that also "virtue signaling" (albeit to a different audience), and if so, is it to be looked down on equally?

It is, and I look down on them as much.

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Nenshi was a performer too, but very smart, and could push agendas forward. So voters stuck to him. Gondek always had that lack of skill and depth. Leading to very few ready to get off the couch and spend 30 mins to vote for her.

Naheed Nenshi tries to run his 2010 campaign today and he likely finishes 4th.

Nobody likes to read "politics in complete sentences" any more, sadly. Performance and sound bites matter.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Bag Ban

But ya sure if you say so.

The bag ban was passed in large part because Waste and Recycling Services said how much landfill space it would reduce. Not even that they were advocating for or against it, just them pointing out that single use items are a big part of waste that goes into the landfills. The environmental argument was more of a sidenote at that point.


It was basically data driven policy that was so widely hated they repealed it. But to call it virtue-signalling or finger-pointing and isn't about results is simply wrong. People just like single-use items more than they care about landfill space and potential issues with it in the future.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You know it passed with a 10-4 majority, of which Gondek was only one vote, right? And I'm pretty sure city administration worked on the details.

She also, on January 30 2024, voted against a motion to consider a repeal of the single use bylaw (this motion passed 10-5.)

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

The bag ban was passed in large part because Waste and Recycling Services said how much landfill space it would reduce. Not even that they were advocating for or against it, just them pointing out that single use items are a big part of waste that goes into the landfills. The environmental argument was more of a sidenote at that point.


It was basically data driven policy that was so widely hated they repealed it. But to call it virtue-signalling or finger-pointing and isn't about results is simply wrong. People just like single-use items more than they care about landfill space and potential issues with it in the future.

I think it was partially data driven. The data on how many of those "re-usable" bags ended up getting bought/thrown away/littered wasn't considered.

I'm basically a frigging hippie, but environmental policies that piss everyone off and don't actually meaningfully help the environment move the entire cause backwards, and it had pretty good momentum for about a decade.

The energy intensity of producing a plastic bag is tiny compared to the "reusable" bags. I personally believe CO2 emissions are a far more critical issue than landfill space. If we bury a bunch of #### to be figured out later is a lot easier to solve than pumping a bunch of stuff in the air to be figured out later.

Other municipalities have done things like solar incentives. Maybe forcing establishments to offer a discount for bringing your own bag/cup would have been a better angle. The carrot often plays better than the stick on this stuff.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I think it was partially data driven. The data on how many of those "re-usable" bags ended up getting bought/thrown away/littered wasn't considered.

That’s the problem with a lot of these policies - they’re based on assumptions about how people ought to behave (ie everyone will have two or three reusable bags they carry everywhere) rather than how people are likely to behave (most people will accumulate 20+ reusable bags a year).

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I think it was partially data driven. The data on how many of those "re-usable" bags ended up getting bought/thrown away/littered wasn't considered.

I'm basically a frigging hippie, but environmental policies that piss everyone off and don't actually meaningfully help the environment move the entire cause backwards, and it had pretty good momentum for about a decade.

The energy intensity of producing a plastic bag is tiny compared to the "reusable" bags. I personally believe CO2 emissions are a far more critical issue than landfill space. If we bury a bunch of #### to be figured out later is a lot easier to solve than pumping a bunch of stuff in the air to be figured out later.

Other municipalities have done things like solar incentives. Maybe forcing establishments to offer a discount for bringing your own bag/cup would have been a better angle. The carrot often plays better than the stick on this stuff.

I was kidding partially about Amazon. I live near a recycling depot at that marda loop pool. The garbage truck comes and unloads the bins. Less than 24 hours later the cardboard bins are plum full and people just throw stuff near the bins. There should absolutely be a tax on cardboard. That massive box so you can get your dippity doo in 24 hours. Straws are such an obscure problem compared to a big one. We pay for people's Amazon crap. Roads are full of Amazon drivers. But you guys love it, so nothing will be done like any other addiction.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You know it passed with a 10-4 majority, of which Gondek was only one vote, right? And I'm pretty sure city administration worked on the details.

The one vote thing shouldn't be used as a defense or to dissolve someone of responsibility / dismiss said vote or policy. Gullfloss mentioned a coalition of councilors that would typically vote one way as a block, led by Gondek.

Gondek not only supported the single use bylaw and voted for it, she championed it. She continued to champion it even as the public backlash was clearly present. What is consistently missed from this one vote / majority defense is Gondek also voted against a hearing discussing potential repeal (she lost), and against multiple attempts to modify the bylaw. She even stubbornly voted against having a business case developed to support the bylaw as implemented.

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....s&lang=English

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...dek-wrong-side

When the backlash was so immense, she was forced to backtrack and finally conceded in May, but only during the public hearing that she protested against having to begin with after being backed against a wall and already outvoted against. This was a poorly thought policy directly impacting and inconveniencing Calgarians to absurd levels in the pocket at a time when cost of living was the biggest concern. The policy was mind-numbingly stupid and short sighted, and punitive.

Ironically, the initial 2022 study clearly heavily underestimated the risk assessment portion on a fee (which was really what was so incredibly hated).

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....umentId=221866

And as you said, she is only one vote, but she also happens to be on the side of some unpopular vote that occured and stubbornly held to opinions that the city just wasn't happy with.

What is interesting to me is how Sharp didn't get nearly the backlash that Gondek has had as mayor. Sharp voted for the climate change emergency, for the single use bylaw, for the Bill 21 Task Force. Not sure what happened where she became seen as a UCP sycophant especially here because her voting record until recently was quite contrary to typical UCP ideals. But ultimately the mayor is who is the main face of the city.

I wonder if Farkas will also be privy to the 1 vote defense luxury that has consistently being used to defend Gondek supported initiatives. Guess we will see

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Firebot

I wonder if Farkas will also be privy to the 1 vote defense luxury that has consistently being used to defend Gondek supported initiatives. Guess we will see

He's already being squarely blamed for the potential repeal of blanket re-zoning, if it actually happens, even though he is just a single vote on council.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by craigwd

Naheed Nenshi tries to run his 2010 campaign today and he likely finishes 4th.

Nobody likes to read "politics in complete sentences" any more, sadly. Performance and sound bites matter.

Soundbites don’t seem to be playing well for a certain CPC leader against a very “politics in full-sentences” PM.

People — at least, Canadians — are tired of catch-phrase clowns in office, they want an adult in the room.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Refusing to swear in Chu
Climate Emergency
Bag Ban

But ya sure if you say so.

Don't forget getting steamrolled by Murray Edwards on a second arena deal because the city process on the first one mandated solar panels and right-of-ways gave him an out.

Also how she handled the the water main crisis last year. Contrast her performance on that vs. Nenshi on the 2013 floods and you'll be reminded that the Mayor's job isn't only 'one vote on council' and advocating for the 'data driven' 'correct' policies' it's to actually represent the city intergovernmental and publicly on an external stage and to effectively communicate confidently to citizens on crisis management.

From an ideologically neutral perspective Gondek might be one of the worst 'leaders' or 'politicians' I have witnessed.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I think it was partially data driven. The data on how many of those "re-usable" bags ended up getting bought/thrown away/littered wasn't considered.

I'm basically a frigging hippie, but environmental policies that piss everyone off and don't actually meaningfully help the environment move the entire cause backwards, and it had pretty good momentum for about a decade.

The energy intensity of producing a plastic bag is tiny compared to the "reusable" bags. I personally believe CO2 emissions are a far more critical issue than landfill space. If we bury a bunch of #### to be figured out later is a lot easier to solve than pumping a bunch of stuff in the air to be figured out later.

Other municipalities have done things like solar incentives. Maybe forcing establishments to offer a discount for bringing your own bag/cup would have been a better angle. The carrot often plays better than the stick on this stuff.

That's OK if it were the reality. I personally feel environmental pollutants are a bigger threat than climate change, but we can all have our hills. The problem is a lot of single use plastics end up as litter and eventually microplastics. Unfortunately reusable bags are typically just thicker plastics or woven polyester which is just as big a problem. Essentially we are all ####ed in many ways at this point, so trading one for the other is all we are achieving.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Don't forget getting steamrolled by Murray Edwards on a second arena deal because the city process on the first one mandated solar panels and right-of-ways gave him an out.

They weren't given an out, they always had one. If it were about solar panels and right of ways, there wouldn't be solar panels or right of ways in the second deal. They didn't want to be on the hook for all the overages they agreed to in the first deal, so they took the last offramp they had, knowing they could get friendly councilors to continue to erode the city's position further and get a better deal yet again.


It was never about solar panels, it was about the nine-figure overages they were going to be on the hook for.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Don't forget getting steamrolled by Murray Edwards on a second arena deal because the city process on the first one mandated solar panels and right-of-ways gave him an out.

Also how she handled the the water main crisis last year. Contrast her performance on that vs. Nenshi on the 2013 floods and you'll be reminded that the Mayor's job isn't only 'one vote on council' and advocating for the 'data driven' 'correct' policies' it's to actually represent the city intergovernmental and publicly on an external stage and to effectively communicate confidently to citizens on crisis management.

Neither of these things could in any way be fairly characterized as "ideological virtue signaling", which was what was being talked about.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Neither of these things could in any way be fairly characterized as "ideological virtue signaling", which was what was being talked about.

And his conclusion is nearly the exact opposite of what Old Dutch’s conclusion was but he thinks he was agreeing with him.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That’s the problem with a lot of these policies - they’re based on assumptions about how people ought to behave (ie everyone will have two or three reusable bags they carry everywhere) rather than how people are likely to behave (most people will accumulate 20+ reusable bags a year).

Never mind the fact that a cotton bag needs to be used 50-150 times to negate the impact of a single-use plastic bag. So if you're like me, and half the time you misplace or forget to bring a reusable bag and have to buy another one, that adds up. I've probably bought thousands of plastic bag equivalents.

It's always laudable to try to reduce needless waste where we can...but the whole bag and straw stuff has always just been performative climate theatre.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Never mind the fact that a cotton bag needs to be used 50-150 times to negate the impact of a single-use plastic bag. So if you're like me, and half the time you misplace or forget to bring a reusable bag and have to buy another one, that adds up. I've probably bought thousands of plastic bag equivalents.

It's always laudable to try to reduce needless waste where we can...but the whole bag and straw stuff has always just been performative climate theatre.

Most of those bags aren't cotton. Pretty much every one I've ever seen is made from forms of plastic.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Most of those bags aren't cotton. Pretty much every one I've ever seen is made from forms of plastic.

So replacing one oil-based thing with another oil-based thing that I probably won't re-use enough times either? Still not seeing the benefit here...especially since I was one of those people who re-used those single plastic bags (for litter box, trash bin, etc), I now also have to buy additional plastic bags for those uses.

The vast majority (ie like 80%+) of the plastic in our oceans comes from 10 rivers in Asia and Africa. If we really want to make the most impact, we should spend our resources on helping to clean up those rivers with easy gains, instead of trying to squeeze out incremental changes here.

[PepsiFree]

The best way to save the environment aside, how have y’all not figured out re-useable bags by now.