Calgary Civic Election Poll #3: The race heats up

[Bunk]

While I agree that sprawl is a bit issue and I'm a huge advocate of promoting better growth patterns (in fact my work relates directly to this), turning the issue into some sort of culture war between urbanites and suburbanites is not productive. Discussing actual solutions is productive. Many people choose living in new subdivisions for perfectly valid reasons. Given the choice, I'm sure many would prefer to live in better designed new communities that are more sustainable - that choice is very limited.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I feel like every single one of your posts has at least 1, if not 2 incorrect assumptions and or wrong facts.

Please quit debating on an issue you have zero understanding of

You could point them out for debate, but nice work ignoring the other part of that statement. I'll bow out now and leave it to all the social engineers on here. I'll be back in 4 weeks when you're all disappointed about the election result.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

The city is still sitting on a billion dollar rainy day fund. I'm sure a modest portion of that, along with provincial and federal funding could alleviate some of the issues. I believe the issue of sprawl is wildly overblown. We have nothing but land around us. The higher the density the worse the traffic, especially if people want to maintain our car based lifestyle. If the city used some foresight and built for projected population increases we might actually keep up.

And after we've blown our contingency fund, demanded more tax dollars from our higher levels of government (which they will still have to get from us), and have a city that is still expanding, what then? And if we're having trouble funding infrastructure for areas that haven't existed long enough to have paid any sizeable amount of taxes, how are we supposed to implement your traffic solution, which is to build infracture for growth before it happens? Density does create traffic, but our current growth patterns produce even more traffic. Just think about how many parking spaces a family in a Victoria Park condo has, compared to a family in Cranston.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by SebC

And after we've blown our contingency fund, demanded more tax dollars from our higher levels of government (which they will still have to get from us), and have a city that is still expanding, what then? And if we're having trouble funding infrastructure for areas that haven't existed long enough to have paid any sizeable amount of taxes, how are we supposed to implement your traffic solution, which is to build infracture for growth before it happens? Density does create traffic, but our current growth patterns produce even more traffic. Just think about how many parking spaces a family in a Victoria Park condo has, compared to a family in Cranston.

Like someone previously said, I agree with you, but to a point.

The "Victoria Park condo vs. house in Cranston" is a false dichotomy. It is used by both "sides" (I use that term lightly) of this debate (people don't want condos vs. condos have less impact than houses), and it discredits both. There are many other options that fall in the middle.

Further, where do "the suburbs" start? Where does "the inner city" end? Even if there were a magic line, there would be poor examples of land use and planning on both sides of it.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

If the city used some foresight and built for projected population increases we might actually keep up.

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Poor planning and the increased population. Our infrastructure on major roadways is still years behind.

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I'll bow out now and leave it to all the social engineers on here. I'll be back in 4 weeks when you're all disappointed about the election result.

Just so we're clear, are you advocating for city planning, or deriding it?

[MarchHare]

If the city used some foresight and built for projected population increases we might actually keep up.

So I take it you support the original version of Plan It and not the compromised, watered-down McIver-approved revision?

[MoneyGuy]

I just took a look at all of the candidates running in Calgary. If it's not a record number, it must be close. That's a lot of people. Anyone know if it is a record number? Fifteen for mayor - wow. Quite the logjam, also at some aldermanic positions. Victor has lots of competition for school trustee also but they're all newcomers so it up for grabs. LIkely the one who works the hardest will emerge victorious. Interesting times.

[Ducay]

Anyone with any highlights or comments from the Vibrant Calgary mayorality forum tonight?

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I just took a look at all of the candidates running in Calgary. If it's not a record number, it must be close. That's a lot of people. Anyone know if it is a record number? Fifteen for mayor - wow. Quite the logjam, also at some aldermanic positions. Victor has lots of competition for school trustee also but they're all newcomers so it up for grabs. LIkely the one who works the hardest will emerge victorious. Interesting times.

Not sure if it's a record, but there were lots of candidates back in 2001 as well. Over ten for sure, including quite a few fringe/single-issue candidates. Makes sense, since that was the last time there the incumbent wasn't running

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Dion

We can thank Al Duerr for putting us in this mess..... Bronco got handed a legacy he couldn't catch up on.

You just be thankful that your parasitic community dwelling self doesn't pay for those roads.

[jdso]

Would appreciate anyone who was at the VibrantCalgary debate to share their thoughts.

Also, per VibrantCalgary's twitterfeed, the top four debaters by votes were Naheed 86, Barb 35, Wayne 15, Bob 14. Not sure of how this was done though.

Interesting to see Barb in 2nd and no mention of McIver.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I just took a look at all of the candidates running in Calgary. If it's not a record number, it must be close. That's a lot of people. Anyone know if it is a record number? Fifteen for mayor - wow. Quite the logjam, also at some aldermanic positions. Victor has lots of competition for school trustee also but they're all newcomers so it up for grabs. LIkely the one who works the hardest will emerge victorious. Interesting times.

I know that there was once 19 candidates, the election Duerr first won I believe. The dirty dozen and the magnificent seven is what they were called.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Yep, it's pretty simple....the smaller the area, the better the infrastructure in that area. Want better roads? Be anti-sprawl.

This. Look at Singapore and see how well they've done developing their tiny parcel of land into a modern, urban and sustainable community. That city is so far ahead of us here in terms of development and infrastructure upkeep it's ridiculous. While I realize there are many differences between Singapore and Calgary, they are a great example of developing up, not out. Just an impressive city all around.

[Reggie Dunlop]

I will pay good money if only Slava would smack Larry R. Heather in the back of the head at a candidates forum.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

I will pay good money if only Slava would smack Larry R. Heather in the back of the head at a candidates forum.

I don't want to campaign against people in a negative way, but I hope that people take a little bit of time to see what these people are saying. There are a few ladies that I know nothing about at all...and there are a few people running who I really donnot want to win.

I think that I will win, and have been getting good support, but with a large field you just never know. If it's not me there are a few that it just should not be though!

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by Muta

This. Look at Singapore and see how well they've done developing their tiny parcel of land into a modern, urban and sustainable community. That city is so far ahead of us here in terms of development and infrastructure upkeep it's ridiculous. While I realize there are many differences between Singapore and Calgary, they are a great example of developing up, not out. Just an impressive city all around.

They've also been around for over a hundred years longer than Calgary and have five times the amount of people paying taxes there. You can't really rip Calgary for the unprecedented growth (almost doubled our population) that we've experienced over the last twenty years. There is just no sustainable development plan for that level of growth.

[shermanator]

For anyone else living in Ward 8, I e-mailed both alderman candidates, Zak Pashak and John Mar to discuss some potential issues. Zak Pashak got back to me in 3 hours, Mar has yet to (although it was only yesterday)

Sounds like Pashak is for higher density around the Sunalta station, but limited to 6 or 7 story multi use buildings. He would also rather spend infrastructure money on transit then fix the Crow / Bow / Memorial mess, but does acknowledge its a problem.

[Bigtime]

Well Mar may not get back to you right away, but you can rest assured that when he does reply to you he will be in one of his finest 3 piece suits...

I like Pashak, the more I hear about him the more I like. He's pretty much a lock for my ward 8 vote at this point.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Bunk

While I agree that sprawl is a bit issue and I'm a huge advocate of promoting better growth patterns (in fact my work relates directly to this), turning the issue into some sort of culture war between urbanites and suburbanites is not productive. Discussing actual solutions is productive. Many people choose living in new subdivisions for perfectly valid reasons. Given the choice, I'm sure many would prefer to live in better designed new communities that are more sustainable - that choice is very limited.

Just to be clear when you talk and use the phrase 'sustainable,' you intend it to mean fiscally and socially stable from a community perspective as opposed to a 'The Car is evil and contributes to global warming perspective' right?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

They've also been around for over a hundred years longer than Calgary and have five times the amount of people paying taxes there. You can't really rip Calgary for the unprecedented growth (almost doubled our population) that we've experienced over the last twenty years. There is just no sustainable development plan for that level of growth.

Again, I'm not comparing the two. I'm responding to a comment made about developing existing infrastructure.