[PGT] Calgary Civic Election Results Discussion

[OzSome]

I am just happy that McIver did not win period. As much as people are saying he is a Dr. No, he still serve with Bronco and I am pretty sure if he won the election, he will still use some of Bronco's policy.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

He doesn't actually take office till the 25h tho right?

Thats just a lame a$$ excuse, I see that global warming hasn't been solved, and he has some spare time. what's he been doin all day hanging around his house sucking on a bong and watching reruns of Dexter?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by OzSome

I am just happy that McIver did not win period. As much as people are saying he is a Dr. No, he still serve with Bronco and I am pretty sure if he won the election, he will still use some of Bronco's policy.

I'm not so sure of that. He positioned himself over the last 9 years as the anti-bronco.

[Tyler]

It's 16' out in mid-October.

Thanks Nenshi!

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Ok Nenshi

What have you done for me lately, its already 4:00 and the world hasn't changed yet.

Damn straight! I want my campaign donations back!

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Thats just a lame a$$ excuse, I see that global warming hasn't been solved, and he has some spare time. what's he been doin all day hanging around his house sucking on a bong and watching reruns of Dexter?

Personally I think he'd be more of a 'Battlestar Galactica' guy. I should ask him. He'd probably be all over the political stuff in the re-imagined series.

[shermanator]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Damn straight! I want my campaign donations back!



Personally I think he'd be more of a 'Battlestar Galactica' guy. I should ask him. He'd probably be all over the political stuff in the re-imagined series.

Judging on his campaign, I'm thinking he would be more of a Risk player.

[rururu]

Nenshi is a high risk high reward type of mayor. I don't think anyone knows at this point if he will be good or bad. I know people are passionate about this or that candidate but the reality is very different from everything the candidates have shown. I hope in these times of uncertainty Calgary made the right choice.

[Cawz]

Originally Posted by 4X4

That's a pretty narrow way of looking at it. It's not that there can be no suburbs, it's that they have to be planned better. A proper mix of commercial, single family, and multi family. It's pathetic to look at some of the communities that were built in the last decade. Some of them don't even have a 7/11, let alone a bus to take them to the closest community with a 7/11.
It's just so illogical. Mile after mile of single family home. It's impossible to live in one of these communities without having a car, and while that's the buyer's choice, what is going to happen in a few years when the kids are getting old enough to go have a social life? Then the question will be "where's the transit?".
How can you not see that the way things are being done right now is going to bite us in the ass HARD unless someone with a thimbleful of sense starts controlling the growth?

Well that’s all fine and good, but when he says he wants to stop subsidizing the developers, then the trickledown effect is that home buyers are the ones who are going to be footing the bill. That’s the point that I was referring to. The other poster said that people will move to outlying communities because of taxes, but the plan of making developing more expensive will drive up house prices and entice people to those outlying communities faster than any future potential tax increase.

Its kind of funny that I noticed driving today that the billboard of McIver on Barlow was changed to a sign advertising Langdon. If I was the MD’s or Airdrie or Langdon or Okotoks, I would be taking this opportunity to push for developers to develop out there. If the plan is to make it harder for developers to develop in Calgary, I’d be taking this opportunity to steal from their taxbase to increase my own.

[Torture]

Its kind of funny that I noticed driving today that the billboard of McIver on Barlow was changed to a sign advertising Langdon. If I was the MD’s or Airdrie or Langdon or Okotoks, I would be taking this opportunity to push for developers to develop out there. If the plan is to make it harder for developers to develop in Calgary, I’d be taking this opportunity to steal from their taxbase to increase my own.

Difficult with Okotoks though because it has a population cap.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Cawz

That’s the point that I was referring to. The other poster said that people will move to outlying communities because of taxes, but the plan of making developing more expensive will drive up house prices and entice people to those outlying communities faster than any future potential tax

It would be unfortunate if that were the case and that's certainly what developers would claim. But it completely ignores the fact that real estate is a free market system. Housing prices are dictated not by the cost that goes into the house, but by the market demand for houses, especially given that new suburban developments are only one of many housing options available to purchasers today. Only way that housing prices will increase is if developers actually decrease the number of houses they build, which is unlikely given that reducing their developments just doubly cuts into their profits. Development is ultimately a volume business.

You're right, developers can just go elsewhere. But there's a few issues with this: neighbouring MDs and towns must be willing to pay for the infrastructure development costs that Calgary isn't willing to pay. It will take decades for the tax revenue from these developments to cover the infrastructure costs (which is the main reason Calgary would not be heart-broken to see some of these go). If some developers shift their attention outward, it increases scarcity of housing in Calgary, driving prices up. Which makes those developers who continue to develop in Calgary able to turn a good profit, despite increased development costs.

[flames_1987]

Okotoks also had a strong election and elected a real good guy in Bill Robertson, for anyone in the Foothills.

[getbak]

Looking at the ward by ward votes for mayor, something interesting I noticed was the distribution of the votes.

Nenshi won 11 of the 14 wards. Among the three he lost were McIver's old ward 12, plus its neighbour ward 14. Strangely, though, Nenshi also lost ward 10, which contains the neighbourhood he grew up in, Marlborough.

Of the wards he won, the margin was less than 1000 votes in wards 5, 9, and 13.

Prior to the election, there was a lot of speculation that in order for Nenshi to win, he'd require a strong turn-out from the "ethnic north east", but that really wasn't where he was strongest. Nenshi has said that this shows that a kid growing up in a working-class, immigrant family, in a neighbourhood east of the Deerfoot can grow up to be the mayor. But, looking at the numbers, if he had to rely on the votes from the neighbourhoods east of the Deerfoot, he wouldn't have become mayor.

[Shazam]

Grok, just woke up.

[Cawz]

Originally Posted by octothorp

It would be unfortunate if that were the case and that's certainly what developers would claim. But it completely ignores the fact that real estate is a free market system. Housing prices are dictated not by the cost that goes into the house, but by the market demand for houses, especially given that new suburban developments are only one of many housing options available to purchasers today. Only way that housing prices will increase is if developers actually decrease the number of houses they build, which is unlikely given that reducing their developments just doubly cuts into their profits. Development is ultimately a volume business.

Yes, but its also a business. The new mayor has said that he will make it tougher and more expensive for developers to do business, and developers will factor that into their business decisions on weather to go ahead with projects or not.

Originally Posted by octothorp

You're right, developers can just go elsewhere. But there's a few issues with this: neighbouring MDs and towns must be willing to pay for the infrastructure development costs that Calgary isn't willing to pay. It will take decades for the tax revenue from these developments to cover the infrastructure costs (which is the main reason Calgary would not be heart-broken to see some of these go).

Its also cheaper to develop in the outlying communities. The development standards arent quite as high and the infrastructure requirements for smaller centers are not as large.

Originally Posted by octothorp

If some developers shift their attention outward, it increases scarcity of housing in Calgary, driving prices up. Which makes those developers who continue to develop in Calgary able to turn a good profit, despite increased development costs.

Yup, and home buyers foot the bill.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Cawz

Well that’s all fine and good, but when he says he wants to stop subsidizing the developers, then the trickledown effect is that home buyers are the ones who are going to be footing the bill. That’s the point that I was referring to. The other poster said that people will move to outlying communities because of taxes, but the plan of making developing more expensive will drive up house prices and entice people to those outlying communities faster than any future potential tax increase.

ultimately, that's the big question with sprawl: does the additional tax revenue actually pay for the infrastructure and maintenance to service those communities...

I wish that the City could raise additional taxes through a gas tax, where that money goes directly to the servicing/maintenance of our roads and those that use the roads most, pay for the road maintenance. Certainly, there will be exceptions for those whose business is dependent on the use of roads, but it is the fairest system: users pay.

[Cawz]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

ultimately, that's the big question with sprawl: does the additional tax revenue actually pay for the infrastructure and maintenance to service those communities...

I wish that the City could raise additional taxes through a gas tax, where that money goes directly to the servicing/maintenance of our roads and those that use the roads most, pay for the road maintenance. Certainly, there will be exceptions for those whose business is dependent on the use of roads, but it is the fairest system: users pay.

Well, I wouldnt have a problem with that, since I live and work downtown and usually have a tank of gas last me 2 weeks. Good luck to anyone trying to sell a "tax" to the people though.

[SebC]

I see a lot of alderman bashing. If I may, I'd like to share with you the story of "Financing Municipal Infrastructure". It may give you some insight into what to expect from them. (I first looked this up for my own benefit, as I thought it would be a good way to see who's who on council - it's a lot of wading through documents, but knowing what to look for helps.)

"Financing Municipal Infrastructure" is the name of the report that recommends ways to make new developments pay for themselves. It's Report M2010-06 and the summary report is FCS2010-20.

Favorable to fiscally sustainable development in green (I'm sure you're all sick of purple, so I'm going with traffic light conventions), unfavorable in red. Nenshi will need alderman who vote green to turn his platform into legislation. Note that some aldermen flip between green and red. Strong or important positions (my opinion) will be bolded.

================================================

M2010-06 first came up in council July 5th. It didn't get very far. Colley-Urquhart moved, and McIver seconded, that the report be sent to committee. This motion passed 8-7 as follows:

For: Jones, McIver, Stevenson, Chabot, Colley-Urquhart, Connelly,
Fox-Mellway and Hawkesworth
Against: Lowe, Mar, Pincott, Ceci, Farrell, Hodges, Bronconnier

==================================================

In the July 7th meeting of the Standing Policy Committee on Finance and Corporate Servies, M2010-06 was back on the agenda.

Administration recommendations (in the summary report, but pertaining to the complete report) were as follows (paraphrased):

Recommendation 1: That council receive attachments 1 & 2 for information.

Recommendation 2: That council approve the principles and conclusions in attachment 3.

Recommendation 3a: That council direct administration, in cooperation with developers, to develop a plan to approach the provincial and federal governments to ask them to share with the city more revenue.

Recommendation 3b: That council direct administration, in cooperation with developers, to develop a plan to approach the provincial and federal governments to relax legislations that restrict he use of alternative funding options (e.g. allow the city to carry more debt, reduce restriction on area-specific taxes).

Recommendation 4: That council direct Administration to negotiate a new development agreement with industry and bring the associated offsite levy bylaws back to Council no later than January 2011.

The first proposed ammendment was to set a December 2010 deadline for Recommendations 3a and 3b. It was moved by Chabot, and it carried by anonymous vote.

The second proposed ammendment was to exempt the following from recommendation 3b (to discuss legislative changes with the provincial and federal goverments): "Additional sharing with other orders of government from existing taxes (fuel taxes, income taxes, GST, gaming revenue, resource revenue, alcohol and tobacco taxes). Additional funds for municipalities from new taxes (vehicle registration taxes, parking taxes, insurance premium taxes, property/land transfer taxes, amusement taxes)." It was moved by McIver. It lost. McIver then requested that the lost motion be forward to council's next meeting as an excerpt from the minutes.

For: Chabot, Connelly, Hodges, McIver
Against: Ceci, Farrell, Fox-Mellway, Hawkesworth, Pincott and Lowe

The third proposed admendment was recommendation 3b be changed to specify that the city will approach the province with regard to section 382 (which restricts "Special Tax Bylaws" the city can pass) and section 648 (which regulates municipal use the use of developer fees) of the Municipal Government Act. It was moved by Hawkesworth, and lost.

For: Ceci, Farrell, Hawkesworth
Against: Chabot, Connelly, Fox-Mellway, Hodges, McIver, Pincott, Lowe

The fourth and final proposed ammendment was that the report be sent back to council. Moved by Hawkesworth, carried by anonymous vote.

Next it was time to vote on the ammended recommendations. All motions were moved by Farrell and passed.

Recommendation 1 (that council receive two informative appendices) passed by anonymous vote.

Recommendation 2 was split. First, the committee voted on whether it would approve the principles in the report (basically, that developer contributions should match cost to the city but also that developer contributions not be used to pay for stuff for people outside the development). This carried by anonymous vote, but Hodges noted his opposition. Second, the committee voted on whether or not to approve the conclusions in the report (basically, that the current situation is problematic and new communities need to pay for themselves.

For: Ceci, Farrell, Fox-Mellway, Hawkesworth, Pincott and Lowe
Against: Chabot, Connelly, Hodges, and McIver

Recommendation 3a (ask federal and provincial governments for more money) passed by anonymous.

Recommendation 3b (propose legislative changes) was passed as follows.

For: Ceci, Chabot, Farrell, Fox-Mellway, Hawkesworth and Pincott
Against: Connelly, Hodges, McIver and Lowe

Recommendation 4 was also split. "Direct Administration to negotiate a new development agreement with industry" was carried by anonymous vote. "Direct Administration to bring the associated offsite levy bylaws (developer fees) back to Council no later than January 2011" was passed with the following vote:

For: Ceci, Farrell, Fox-Mellway, Hawkesworth, Hodges, Pincott and Lowe
Against: Chabot, Connelly and McIver

Recommendation 5 (to send the ammended report back to council) was passed by anonymous vote.

[SebC]

After this committee work, the report was on the agenda at council's July 19th meeting.

At this point, the recommendations were as follows:

Recommendation 1: That council receive attachments 1 & 2 for information.

Recommendation 2: That council approve the principles and conclusions in attachment 3.

Recommendation 3a: That council direct administration, in cooperation with developers, to develop a plan to approach the provincial and federal governments to ask them to share with the city more revenue by December 2010.

Recommendation 3b: That council direct administration, in cooperation with developers, to develop a plan to approach the provincial and federal governments to relax legislations that restrict he use of alternative funding options (e.g. allow the city to carry more debt, reduce restriction on area-specific taxes) by December 2010.

Recommendation 4: That council direct Administration to negotiate a new development agreement with industry and bring the associated offsite levy bylaws back to Council no later than January 2011.

The only council ammendment was to change recommendation 1 to give the whole report interim status! Moved by Colley-Urquhart, seconded by Connelly, and passed as follows:

For: Hawkesworth, Jones, Mar, McIver, Stevenson, Colley-Urquhart, Connelly and Bronconnier
Against: Farrell, Fox-Mellway, Hodges, Lowe, Pincott, Ceci and Chabot

Now, it was time for council to pass the recommendations. All motions were moved by Lowe and seconded by Pincott. All passed.

Recommendation 1 was passed by anonymous vote, but Ceci and Hodges chose to note their opposition.

Recommendation 2 was passed as follows:

For: Connelly, Farrell, Fox-Mellway, Hawkesworth, Jones, Lowe, Mar, Pincott, Stevenson, Ceci and Bronconnier
Against: Hodges, McIver, Chabot and Colley-Urquhart

Recommendation 3a was passed by anonymous vote.

Recommendation 3b was passed as follows:

For: Ceci, Chabot, Colley-Urquhart, Farrell, Fox-Mellway, Hawkesworth, Lowe, Mar, Pincott and Bronconnier
Against: Stevenson, Connelly, Hodges, Jones and McIver

Recommendation 4 was passed by anonymous vote.

================================================== ==

Colour tally! (Roll call votes only.) Sorted from green to red. Returning members in CAPS.

8-0 (100%) FARRELL
8-0 (100%) Ceci
7-1 (88%) PINCOTT
6-2 (75%) LOWE
6-2 (75%) Fox-Mellway
6-2 (75%) Hawkesworth
3-1 (75%) Bronconnier
3-1 (75%) MAR
3-5 (25%) CHABOT
1-3 (25%) JONES
1-3 (25%) STEVENSON
1-3 (25%) COLLEY-URQUHART
2-6 (25%) HODGES
1-7 (13%) Connelly
0-8 (0%) McIver

My point in all this is that Nenshi is going to need allies. He's going to find some amongst the new aldermen. But if we want to see Nenshi's platform implemented, then it might be a good thing that Farrell, Pincott, Lowe are back.

[octothorp]

Really interesting stuff, SebC.
Gael Macleod is an obvious pro-Plan-It, anti-sprawl ally, as is Gian-Carlo Carra. Demong and Keating are probably going to take the places of council of McIver and Connelly as strong conservative voices. I see Pootmans as being a new important swing vote.

However, some of those conservative voices are going to need to very carefully consider their positions going forward. Many of these voices are in neighbourhoods that voted heavily for Nenshi, and opposing his ideas will be a difficult political stand to make. In particular, Hodges, Stevenson, the afore-mentioned Pootmans and Mar (and to a lesser degree, Colley-Urquhart) will need to decide if they can afford to be seen as Nenshi's opponents.

[Jimmy Stang]

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Mayoral race aside, where was the change that Calgarians "demanded"? It would appear that the general public would rather complain about city hall instead of actually changing it.