Calgary Civic Election Poll #3: The race heats up

[Ozy_Flame]

McIver supports the perpetuation of sprawl and thinks the "bare minimum" is "good enough" for a world class city such as Calgary.

A city like ours, which is commonly ranked among the top cities in the world on numerous quality of life rankings, should be aiming for better.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by jdso

I'm not sure how Ric McIver has credibility being a "fiscal hawk".

- he's charged drycleaning to the City (small amount but shows poor judgement and little regard for being fiscally responsible to the City)
- he promotes zero-based budgeting but approves the police budget with little fight
- he's been on council for nine years and only now decides to deal with the poor controls and processes in place regarding how the city spends our money and tenders its contracts

I believe corporate governance, culture, and internal controls start with the tone at the top. If city council and city processes are broken, like a corporation, the mayor and the aldermen (CEO's VP's etc) are a large part of the problem. Like CaptainCrunch I'd like to see fresh people and ideas voted in.

This is key, as you mention (bolded). I can't envision McIver making any major changes and reform to the broken internal city processes whereas someone new will come in and evaluate everything with a fresh point of view and not give anything a free pass.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

McIver supports the perpetuation of sprawl and thinks the "bare minimum" is "good enough" for a world class city such as Calgary.

A city like ours, which is commonly ranked among the top cities in the world on numerous quality of life rankings, should be aiming for better.

Unfortunately this city is faced with a few years of the bare minimum due to the spending habits of the city council. However he does have to at least take partial blame for that due to his role on the audit committee.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by SebC

McIver rails against the $25 million dollar bridge, but supports the unsustainable, low density growth patterns that require new infrastructure that gets paid for by the city. If you want someone who will solve the spending issue, you need to look elsewhere.

At best thats a complicated issue most people don't understand an no one has successfully made 'real' yet because it's conceptual money in future.

If candidates think think this is about bridges and sprawl I think they are doomed to fail (at least this election). Bridges are a focal point. Monthly bills are what people care about. Solving for notional capital billions over decades doesn't do a darn thing about operational excess today.

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

This is key, as you mention (bolded). I can't envision McIver making any major changes and reform to the broken internal city processes whereas someone new will come in and evaluate everything with a fresh point of view and not give anything a free pass.

A new mayor with no experience in the inner workings at the city would have a pretty steep learning curve. It's not like they can come into the role and start making wholesale changes. Someone that understands the system the way it stands now would have much more opportunity to cut the fat. The city is very complex and not as easy to change as you might think when you take into account the union environment.

And I'm not trying to say that I'm voting for Ric here but I could easily see a candidate like Higgins get bogged down in the process and become irrelevant if in the mayors chair.

[OzSome]

I am still undecided. I am still not convinced that any of the candidates are good enough. I need to find out some more, I guess.

[topfiverecords]

Some good points Rhettzky. I don't believe any changes would happen overnight, but over the length of a term yes. Does McIver have any desire to change much if he's elected? I just don't see much in his (currently miniscule) platform to suggest so, other than when it comes to budgets.

Higgins I can definitely see being bogged down like you say, however someone as intelligent and skilled as Nenshi should be able to do so, and does appear to want to at least evaluate a large amount of city departments and services to find ways for improvement.

[jdso]

Kent Hehr appears to be dropping out per twitter.

[Ducay]

Looks like he's supporting Nenshi

[Bunk]

According to Twitter Kent Hehr has dropped out - "Impressed with Nenshi and not with McIver"

This will surely give a boost to Nenshi and probably to a lesser extent Higgins.

I'd expect Wayne Stewart and Joe Connelly to be next today.

[Bunk]

I wouldn't mind Kent run for Alberta Party leadership at some point. I think he's best suited to provincial politics.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by SebC

McIver rails against the $25 million dollar bridge, but supports the unsustainable, low density growth patterns that require new infrastructure that gets paid for by the city. If you want someone who will solve the spending issue, you need to look elsewhere.

Not really my views but I think that Calgarians that are in the McIver camp are not exactly looking for the cheapest total overall spending bill, but rather the cheapest overall spending bill that includes a large availability of 2000 Sq foot detached houses that cost less than $500,000. Sprawl isn't a concern for someone that wants their slice of paradise. What 'Bend It' was trying to communicate is that there are plenty of people who don't want to see Calgary turn into a higher density place. They want a quiet street for their kids to play street hockey on and a backyard for them to play in. They don't care if commutes are upwards of an hour each way, as long as they get their dreamhouse.

[Cscutch]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Not really my views but I think that Calgarians that are in the McIver camp are not exactly looking for the cheapest total overall spending bill, but rather the cheapest overall spending bill that includes a large availability of 2000 Sq foot detached houses that cost less than $500,000. Sprawl isn't a concern for someone that wants their slice of paradise. What 'Bend It' was trying to communicate is that there are plenty of people who don't want to see Calgary turn into a higher density place. They want a quiet street for their kids to play street hockey on and a backyard for them to play in. They don't care if commutes are upwards of an hour each way, as long as they get their dreamhouse.

Those same people should understand that there is a cost to that as well. No snow removal on their streets, 60min or longer commutes, and poor transit. And the problem is that no one educates them on the cost of suburbs. The Media focuses in on a 25 Million dollar bridge but every time a 150 Million dollar interchange is built nothing is says. Maybe if the papers ran a front page story on the cost of sprawl it would change peoples mind.

Also proper building doesn’t mean that you need to live in an apartment. How about living in a row house or smaller detached home, not 2800sq ft monster.

Chris

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Not really my views but I think that Calgarians that are in the McIver camp are not exactly looking for the cheapest total overall spending bill, but rather the cheapest overall spending bill that includes a large availability of 2000 Sq foot detached houses that cost less than $500,000. Sprawl isn't a concern for someone that wants their slice of paradise. What 'Bend It' was trying to communicate is that there are plenty of people who don't want to see Calgary turn into a higher density place. They want a quiet street for their kids to play street hockey on and a backyard for them to play in. They don't care if commutes are upwards of an hour each way, as long as they get their dreamhouse.

And therein lies the urban sprawl problem.

You don't necessarily have to keep expanding outwards in order to give people their 'dreamhouses'. Those can be devleoped within current city boundaries.

[Mango]

Barry Erskine has tossed his hat into the mayor's ring, apparently.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Muta

And therein lies the urban sprawl problem.

You don't necessarily have to keep expanding outwards in order to give people their 'dreamhouses'. Those can be devleoped within current city boundaries.

Sounds expensive. People want affordability, not a $700,000 infill 15 minutes from the core.

[Cscutch]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Sounds expensive. People want affordability, not a $700,000 infill 15 minutes from the core.

Supply and demand.... Build more inner city developments and the prices will come down.

Chris

[4X4]

The deadline to join the race is at noon. After that, can we have a new poll with the official candidate list?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Cscutch

Supply and demand.... Build more inner city developments and the prices will come down.

Chris

How do you figure? There is only so much land for single family dwellings. We dont have massive tracts of land in the middle of the city that can be developed. The only option is to build up, which is what many people don't want. High density properties are more expensive and less convenient for people who want to raise a family.

[Byrns]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

How do you figure? There is only so much land for single family dwellings. We dont have massive tracts of land in the middle of the city that can be developed. The only option is to build up, which is what many people don't want. High density properties are more expensive and less convenient for people who want to raise a family.

Thats ok, we'll just force those people out to Airdrie, Cochrane, etc. and they can just use the city services, including CT without paying towards the cost. Hey lets give them free park & ride too.