How do you know Malcolm Dort didn't donate $25 10,000 times in a row?
Exact dollar amounts Is important, but more importantly, it does not give a Total. None of the candidates have disclosed a total.
...Because then Malmcolm Dort's name would be on the list 10,000 times and/or be in a higher bracket... furthermore, he'd be pretty well the only name on the list.
Please tell me why exact dollar amount is important. Nenshi's said he would give out that information if it was specifically asked for but anyone actually looking to use the data will find it more useful presented in this manner, so that's what he's decided to go with.
Total? he hasn't given a minute by minute update that I'm aware of but as of the 15th he was at approx. $300,000. Not accurate enough? Please tell me how reporting a total $298,176.88 would differ from $302,549.72 in any significant way for voters' issues.
Yes, I'm honestly not trying to trick anyone here. There are accepted standards which the candidates will have to disclose as of March 1st. They all will...After the election.
And yes, it's an artificial construct, unless you want to think that the Glenmore Dam evolved there.
77 years is a blink for nature? Huh? The fact that the Weaselhead area went from dry land to a thriving wetland in that time frame should tell you something.
Look, even if it was created as a result of the dam, it is a natural area because the water from the river is natural.. we just redirected it.
I'm not buying this 'artificial construct' argument. Sorry.
Quote:
The Alberta gov't going back guarantees a richer offer than the last for the Tsuu Tina.
See, if were the Tsuu Tina, I would've hired a few people to give me a number on how much it would cost for alternatives through their land. You're telling me that going through the Weaselhead is a no-go, so the only other real option is expropriation. So, let's find out how much that's going to cost. That number is what I would expect from the Alta gov't.
Uh, to build the ring road without going through the reserve, we would have to expropriate homes and go through the Weaslehead. Either that, or tunnel the whole thing, but that's insanely expensive (sorry Jon Lord, I don't buy your $450 mil estimate).
Quote:
Well then, let's not do anything there. That's fine with me too. But Nenshi seems to think otherwise.
Have you been paying attention?
Nenshi's stance on it is, IF the SWRR is going to be built, he would like to see it built through the TsuTina land. In any case, we look at other ideas, such as lane reversals on 14th Street and a dedicated direct-buses for the communities south of the reservoir.
It appears you were dazzled by some scientific-sounding language there: this blogger has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to polls and their methodology.
For one thing, he privileges relatively minor issues (sample adjustment) over very major ones (when the poll was taken) in order to suit his preferred narrative, which if you read his other posts is pretty clear. But for argument's sake, let's pretend he has a clue what he's talking about, and address his so-called "concerns" in turn:
1. The Leger poll was conducted over a long weekend: this is simply nonsense. Not only would it be nonsense even if it were true, it also isn't true. The Leger poll was conducted between October 6th and October 11th, which you'll note includes the Wednesday, Thursday and Friday before the long weekend had even started. Verdict? FAIL.
2. The Leger poll had too many respondents over 35: This is an even bigger FAIL. Leger, like every other pollster, adjusted their sample to reflect their demographic targets. Standard number-crunching done by every pollster that this blogger characterizes as "finessing the results," even though by doing so they probably reduced Nenshi's vote share by quite a lot. Verdict? DOUBLE-FACEPALM FAIL.
Worst of all, the blogger then concludes that the poll is "mischievous" because it will confuse the "ABM" crowd into voting for Nenshi.
Off camera, she made an off-handed comment to the artsvote kids who were asking ridicuous, ridiculous questions to begin with. I thought long and hard about this: It showed honesty and it was overblown because she was a woman. Both Nenshi and Ric have used the word "crap" at various times in their campaign and it drew no attention whatsoever. It was Highly overblown.
Kids?
Umm, you clearly don't know the demographic of the volunteers with ArtsVote. These aren't kids, these are voting citizens and young professionals tied to the arts. I've worked with many of the people in ArtsVote through my business and they were asking legitimate questions for a selection of this community.
It was not over blown, because she was a woman.
The outrage was because she disrespected voting citizens for asking legitimate questions relevant to what their interests are about. You may not agree with their questions, but they do concern a section of this population.
Would it have been acceptable for Ric or Nenshi to ask a group of senior citizens "who added exlaxs to their cereal" if that same group of seniors had asked them questions they didn't like? And would it be okay for said candidates to berate them for their legitimate questioning?
If you're voting strategically, it's between those two. I like Nenshi, and I wish he had run for Alderman. He's not my favorite, and he's not a contender for mayor. Even if this late surge were accurate (and it's not), there was massive advanced polling this year and he just wasn't anywhere near contention when most of those votes were cast.
Nenshi aside, there are big differences between Ric and Barb. Neither is ideal. One has lots of Aldermanic experience and little to show for it. The other has no Aldermanic experience but exhibits people skills and solutions. Choose wisely...if you split the vote with Nenshi, you can't complain if your least favorite candidate gets in.
Well said, Mr. Hawkesworth.
Nothing in that article really suggests that Nenshi is not a contender. Phoning a bunch of land lines does not paint the whole picture of Calgary voters.
Your anti-Nenshi nonsense is getting tiresome. Quit spreading misinformation.
__________________
Last edited by Mathgod; 10-17-2010 at 06:46 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Mathgod For This Useful Post:
Well from what I can see it's pretty clear we should be thanking this man who clearly is not Higgins or Hawkesworth. Obviously we have all been duped. Didn't you know Nenshi is a marketing professor. Marketers hold superhuman power. They can persuade you without your knowledge both in your dreams and below the level of consciousness. This is what Inception warned us of n
Naheed Nenshi is clearly using social media as a medium to hack into our dreams and plant the idea of him as mayor as if it were our own.
We've been warned.
Edit: and the Toronto/Calgary swap. WE ARE DREAMING.
Last edited by Flames0910; 10-17-2010 at 06:50 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames0910 For This Useful Post:
It appears you were dazzled by some scientific-sounding language there: this blogger has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to polls and their methodology.
....
Seriously, dude. Critical reading skills. Acquire some.
I can see what you like Nenshi...you are both quick to criticize.
1. The ledger poll was conducted from Oct 6th - October 11th.
True or False: Was it conducted over a long weekend? Logic states yes. Aside from that, most people I knew where out of town by Thursday.
2. You mean Under 35. The rest of your arguement is as stated in the blog.
The Following User Says Thank You to jjgallow For This Useful Post:
1. The ledger poll was conducted from Oct 6th - October 11th.
True or False: Was it conducted over a long weekend? Logic states yes. Aside from that, most people I knew where out of town by Thursday.
2. You mean Under 35. The rest of your arguement is as stated in the blog.
OK, I'll take that as meaning that you've got nothing. Fair enough.
I will give you this: you've moved from confirmation bias to appeal to authority. If you keep going, you just might hit every logical fallacy in the book.
Also: interesting wiki entry. Of course, nothing in there at all about statistical analysis or anything like that. I can only assume you mean the fact that Mr. Climenhaga knows karate.
The Following User Says Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
See, thing is, valuations are not absolutes. Tweak a few numbers here and there, especially around rate of return, and the value of an asset will vary wildly.
Absolutely, but the only alternatives to Nenshi's position, (that he will sell it if the offer his high enough) are to sell it no matter what the valuation or to not sell it no matter what the valuation. Neither of those sound like a position I'd want any candidate to hold. Sure it's hard to beg down an exact value for the point at which selling Enmax makes sense, but there's got to be a price outside that range of error at which if an offer was made, the city should accept. If such an offer were made, I wouldn't want the mayor to be against sale because he made a stupid election promise to keep Enmax (no matter what).
OK, I'll take that as meaning that you've got nothing. Fair enough.
I will give you this: you've moved from confirmation bias to appeal to authority. If you keep going, you just might hit every logical fallacy in the book.
Also: interesting wiki entry. Of course, nothing in there at all about statistical analysis or anything like that. I can only assume you mean the fact that Mr. Climenhaga knows karate.
I thought that was quite a bit, disproving both of your only two points.
I thought that was quite a bit, disproving both of your only two points.
Can you refute my post next? I'm actually really curious to hear your comments on it. This post here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaneuf3
...Because then Malmcolm Dort's name would be on the list 10,000 times and/or be in a higher bracket... furthermore, he'd be pretty well the only name on the list.
Please tell me why exact dollar amount is important. Nenshi's said he would give out that information if it was specifically asked for but anyone actually looking to use the data will find it more useful presented in this manner, so that's what he's decided to go with.
Total? he hasn't given a minute by minute update that I'm aware of but as of the 15th he was at approx. $300,000. Not accurate enough? Please tell me how reporting a total $298,176.88 would differ from $302,549.72 in any significant way for voters' issues.
These things seemed really important to you a few minutes ago...
I'm sorry if this is piling on, but there's stuff here that must be addressed. My comments in purple (because I feel like it - but please read what I say because it's important that you don't vote based on erroneous interpretations of Nenshi's policy).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjgallow
We're running out of time, so I'll cut to the chase:
No matter what your priorities are, it comes down to fiscal responsibility. Agreed. However, fiscal responsibility means getting value for money, not simply not spending money at the expense of services that affect citizens' quality of life.
We all have a vision, we all have ideas for the future. Bottom line, they won't be realized unless our council is able to get a handle on THE bottom line. We're way over-budget, we spend money on the wrong things (*cough* subsidizing suburban development *cough*), and we paid too much for them. Before you vote, understand where your candidate stands on fiscal responsibility (agreed):
Nenshi: http://www.nenshi.ca/new/2010/120
-Almost nothing here on fiscal responsibility, no clear picture. That's because you're looking in the wrong place! This is his only his proposals for the auditor's office. Try this: http://www.nenshi.ca/new/2010/159. -Nenshi does NOT state reducing taxes or getting in line with inflation as a Goal, let alone promise it. True, but to me solutions are more meaningful that potentially empty promises, or perhaps promises that will force candidates to make bad decisions once elected.
-His website criticizes past decisions, but also supports them. Ie., The airport tunnel. He is more eloquent, more charming, and stands for the exact same things as the previous council. When has he not been in favor of the airport tunnel? City council completely dropped the airport tunnel, so how is he more of the same?
-One of his stated "Better Ideas" is to raise business taxes, to "help business". What? http://www.nenshi.ca/new/2010/189 Unless I have myself made a huge mistake, THIS IS COMPLETELY WRONG. I'm assuming you are referring to "create a fair and equitable tax burden" and "investigating a non-residential commercial property tax". If Jon Lord is correct, then right now property taxes favor residential, so "create a fair and equitable tax burden" means REDUCE business taxes. The proposed "non-residential commercial property tax" is explained as follows: "Calgary is one of the few cities in which there is a separate business tax and business property tax. Merging these into a non residential property tax will result in significant administrative savings." In other words, it's a consolidation. One tax instead of two. And somehow you got "raise business taxes" out of this? That's not what it says at all.
[deleted McIver stuff - I don't like him either]
Barb Higgins: http://barbhiggins.ca/issues/financi...nsibility.html "My goal will be to do everything I can to return to the mantra of our past: to not raise taxes any higher than inflation." "I would like to see business taxes reduced." Ric has not said this, while Nenshi wants to raise them (NOT TRUE, see above - nevertheless I'm sure everyone wants to see business taxes reduced, as well as residential taxes reduced, as well as improved services. The devil is in the details.).
Implement a staffing freeze through to the end of the year which means implementing a hiring freeze, and no layoffs. Sensible. Nobody loses their job, but the budget is kept under control. Nenshi won't even comment on this, while Ric is rumored to support layoffs. Layoffs will of course make Ric's budget look better initially, but hurt the overall economy. Great, except adminstrative costs are not why the budget is out of control. Explicitly, developer subsidies are. If new hires are needed, a staffing freeze can be harmful, or might simply be delaying the problem.
Barb's platform is less detailed than Ric's, but far more detailed than Nenshi's. Disagree, Nenshi has plenty of detail.
It is the most Solution-Oriented platform of the three. It lacks the EFFECTIVE solutions required to deal with unsustainable development, which is required to solve the city's financial crisis.
Instead of delaying decisions for 6 months, Barb wants to start on these decisions Earlier. Yes, but if McIver, having been on city council for 9 years, thinks he needs 6 months to sort through the budget, then Higgins, having never been on council and very limited other experience, might need 12. She may be promising more than she can deliver. She'll be in tough to get up to speed before the budget even without advancing it's delivery.
She has a simple, tangible solution to audits, without the "fluff" words used by the other two candidates. Notice the refreshing lack of "more accountable", and "more efficient, more effective", and other nonsense fillers. Higgins: "As Mayor, City Hall will be responsible, accountable, and transparent with how it spends Calgarians’ tax dollars." So your objection, then, is to the word 'more'?
Notice that everything in her platform deals with solutions. Compare this to Ric's platform, which has no solutions but instead ridicules the previous council. Or Nenshi's platform, which basically ridicules everyone but him. Care to defend that outlandish statement? Just because you don't understand "non-residential commercial property tax" doesn't mean he's mocking you. Higgins is not above using jargon either. Her answer to one of the question at the U of C mayoral forums was "CPAG".
I go with Barb, because despite all the rampant rumors that she has no platform, she is the Only remaining candidate that has offered any tangible, attainable solutions to Calgary's budget crisis. She's certainly not the only one with tangible solutions, she's not even the one with the best solutions. She's fairly strong on auditing (where I object is where you say Nenshi isn't) but auditing alone will only solve one small part of the budget crisis.
I do, of course agree with Nenshi's dialogue on urban sprawl. However, he's missed the boat on that. Construction is way down (true, but subsidizing the growth that is still happen still hurts the city budget - and what about when the economy improves? I do agree that even a blanket memorandum on suburban development - which is not something I would advocate for - doesn't help with the backlog of infrastructure demands already accumulated, but we shouldn't add to those demands by building communities that can't or don't pay for the infrastructure they require), and all three candidates are against urban sprawl (Higgin's development platform is incredibly weak - see my next post - and McIver's voting record suggest otherwise - I seriously have no idea who anyone can say that McIver is against urban sprawl). Only Nenshi has decided to turn a dead topic into a "hot topic", because it makes him look better. Wrong, it's a hot topic because it's the root cause of the vast majority of elections issues - from the budget deficit to services affected by a lack of funds such as snow removal). No matter which of these three you vote for, they will be against urban sprawl (because they're not funded by the developers like Bronco was, and because of changes in housing demand). LOL, have you looked at McIver's donations list (I haven't looked at Higgins, so I'm not commenting on it, but certainly of the three at least one is funded by the developers)? And again, what happens when housing demand goes back up?
When you vote, remember that all three of these candidates want good things for Calgary. The candidate which can manage the budget best is the one who will deliver the most to Calgary in the long term (*cough* Nenshi *cough*).
Bottom line to me is that while Higgins and McIver are willing to keep our financial boat from sinking by jettisoning cargo and bailing water, Nenshi is the only one who realizes there is a hole, knows where it is, and knows how to fix it.
Last edited by SebC; 10-17-2010 at 09:47 PM.
Reason: LOL @ FlameOn and pepper24 who thanked this post long before I finished it
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SebC For This Useful Post:
So, I've waded through some of this thread since last posting.
At 24:33 or so of Nenshi's Paid-for Town Hall, he said that Urban Sprawl is unsustainable.
Naheed Nenshi
Quote:
People who live in existing communities explicitly subsidize new developments. We did that because we thought that helped housing affordability on the fringes. It is wrong. It has led to a 1.5 billion dollar debt just in water and sewer infrastructure.
What say you, McIver/Suburbanites?
Should "we" continue to shoulder the actual costs of suburban developers? I wonder why every big builder's truck I see has a "votecalgary.ca" bumper sticker on the tailgate.
Do developers just want to see social change? Do they want to make less money, if that's better for society? Or are they funding Ric because he'll keep them in business?
*Disclosure* I'm a Carpenter, and should hope for the developers to stay powerful.
