Global reveals developer’s plan to control CGY city council

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Manning Centre has openly admitted (in the media) receiving the money and using it to finish their lavish offices.

Except that Manning Centre has hired a staff member - political operative Dimitri Pantazopoulos full time "on behalf of this group" who donated $100k each.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Except that Manning Centre has hired a staff member - political operative Dimitri Pantazopoulos full time "on behalf of this group" who donated $100k each.

lol "political operative" sounds so covert.


Admittedly, this aspect I'm not clear on. What election law does this violate?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by First Lady

lol "political operative" sounds so covert.

Stephen Carter is a political operative. Nuff said.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Admittedly, this aspect I'm not clear on. What election law does this violate?

The assertion is - that Manning is part charity, part tax exempt non-profit. As the Mayor explained, they can't be as such if their activities directly enrich the donors. So, if the homebuilders donate this money to "bring Preston on board" in the context of an election, and that organization has hired staff "on their behalf" to advance the donor's political agenda - that is not allowed.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Regulator75

Campaign contributions: How much developers donated to city council candidates.

http://globalnews.ca/news/504875/cam...il-candidates/

I love how Penn West and Enana gave money to all 3 mayoral candidates to hedge their bets.

Hahahaha.

[octothorp]

While this news isn't exactly surprising to me, what's depressing about it is it changes the dialogue in civic politics from 'what ideas do you have?' to 'who's side are you on?' And to me, that's a step backwards.
I would rather follow the candidates in my ward, think about who's ideas have the combination of vision and practicality that most appeals to me, and then vote for that person. But instead, now I'll probably end up voting based on which candidate has the recognition to get elected, and will support Nenshi on the more divisive issues. And that means I'll be voting for Druh, despite the fact that there will probably be other less-known candidates who I would rather vote for.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The assertion is - that Manning is part charity, part tax exempt non-profit. As the Mayor explained, they can't be as such if their activities directly enrich the donors. So, if the homebuilders donate this money to "bring Preston on board" in the context of an election, and that organization has hired staff "on their behalf" to advance the donor's political agenda - that is not allowed.

There are a lot of "if's" in there.

The Manning Centre is a non-profit corporation and there is no "part charity".

Donors contribute to further conservatism in Canada, the provinces and now locally at municipal level.

I'm not saying you're wrong; just saying it's a very grey area and I don't believe it's currently covered by any election laws.

Providing campaign guidance could be said of a number of agencies, as someone I think already mentioned - ToastMasters and the like.

Also I don't agree with those who are saying "they are swaying the candidates to be favorable to home builders". I think the candidates positions come first and they happen to align with the business community.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The Mayor in the eyeopener clip, posted above, gives a good summary of "what the big deal is".

Well, full disclosure, I'm a Nenshi supporter. That said, we're getting his spin here. He thinks that there is a violation of the electoral finance laws, and I'm just not sure that there are/were violations here. Add to that the fact that documents from 2010 were likely already destroyed and it turns into he said/she said pretty fast.

Originally Posted by First Lady

Welcome to the dark side... buahaha...

It's is disturbing how often we seem to agree lately! I chalk it up to the fact that you're smart and I'm right, so eventually you were bound to see it my way!

Originally Posted by First Lady

I have listened to it. And I think Nenshi is going off halfcocked like you are. Mind you he has good reason - he is starting to campaign.

Right now we don't have enough information. What if there was a fee charged for the trucks? Then it's an expense, not a gift in kind.

They talk about people building signs; those are volunteers, again not a gift in kind.

And again, Druh was supposedly aware of this. Why wasn't an investigation launched back in 2010?

Well there are a number of questions. Are developers donating to the Manning group (whatever its called) making campaign donations? That seems to be the tenuous link here. If those funds are merely funds donated to a non-profit then as shady and distasteful as people would like it to appear are just grasping at straw.

[Tinordi]

The issue is a candidate receiving the $5000 donation and then in addition receiving gifts in kind in the form of 4 trucks to distribute signs. That's a violation. If anything it makes the case that we need to have the rules strengthened and cleared up.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Slava

What am I missing here? Seems like a lot of posters that I generally like and agree with are on the complete opposite side of this one from me (or I'm on the opposite from them!). I just can't see what the big deal is here....a bunch of developers gave a bunch of cash to Preston Manning and are hoping to get candidates elected who support them. Its barely even newsworthy!

It seemed to go beyond simply supporting candidates that shared similar values.

There was a very strong suggestion by Cal Wenzel that he thought he could control councillors and control voting outcomes.

These quotes are what I found really distasteful.

(Shane) Keating we have looked after, Diane (Colley-Urquhart) we looked after and Peter Demong,"

Bought and paid for is what comes to mind.

“One time where [Ward 6 councillor Richard] Pootmans was kind of guided as to vote for us"

As long as you have 8 votes you can control whatever happens.

It begs the question "Is he looking for a sympathetic ear, or is he looking for control?" Wenzel uses the word control.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by First Lady

And again, Druh was supposedly aware of this. Why wasn't an investigation launched back in 2010?

I love how you keep repeating this same line over and over.

It's as if you're suggesting not reporting campaign finance abuse is somehow worse that the abuse itself. Spin, spin, spin.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

I love how you keep repeating this same line over and over.

It's as if you're suggesting not reporting campaign finance abuse is somehow worse that the abuse itself. Spin, spin, spin.

No, not worse than. Just wondering why it wasn't addressed. No one seems to know or recall anything about this.

I am an ardent supporter of election laws and following them to a T.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Slava

What am I missing here? Seems like a lot of posters that I generally like and agree with are on the complete opposite side of this one from me (or I'm on the opposite from them!). I just can't see what the big deal is here....a bunch of developers gave a bunch of cash to Preston Manning and are hoping to get candidates elected who support them. Its barely even newsworthy!

For me, the issue is that people are generally apathetic about municipal elections and often the person with the biggest campaign budget (from contributions) gets their name and face out there the most and they often win elections because of that. Lobbyists and commercial interests fund them and give them support and even go as far as creating misleading websites and making erroneous statements designed to lead the public into voting in their best interests.

The contributions to the Manning Centre seem shady because they are designed to influence the next generation of politicians that may be trained or influenced by their municipal governance program (and think-tank research reports and articles) into voting for business interests rather than listening to their constituents.

Aldermen should be working for the interests of the public and for a healthy development plan for our city, not for commercial developers wanting to bulldoze as much prarie en masse and sprawl out the city ad infinitum.

What's clearly happening here is perfectly legal, but the result is aldermen than are influnced by developers to support their profitable causes which are not neccessarily those for the public good or future healthy design and growth of this city and it's services.

I've said this before in other threads but the more you stretch out the city, the more infrastructure you to need to build and support to bring services to those communities. The more developers seek to build single-standing homes outward and outward (cheaper than re-development, re-zoning, re-planning, urbanization, etc.), the more your tax dollars go into paying for services fewer and fewer people in the city actually use (ie: you get more and more roads that need to be plowed, etc. that fewer people use because of increased surface area with lower population density).

Unfortunately, it is the politicians who have the ultimate vote on how things are done and not the technocrats, urban planners, etc. who are actually experts in the field. When developers (or other commercial interests) can just buy their way into how the city is going to be mapped out, that hurts all of us because their motives are going to be driven by quantity of sales and profits first rather than effective city planning. Theoretically, it should be the people who drive the aldermen's votes and not one business interest or lobby group which has the time and resources to spend on pushing their agenda while regular people do not. It's a quibble but that's the biggest weakness of Western democracy everywhere.

This is a big deal because the design and planning of this city affects all of us here now, and for decades into the future in terms of both having a vibrant city and a sustainable service/infrastructure model. I don't want suburban developers buying their way into how that is going to end up looking without the public being aware.

[CaptainYooh]

People that are aggressively supporting one kind of politicians vs. another are akin to horses wearing blinders on a mill. It doesn't matter what kind! They are all bad and good at times. Common sense and balanced thinking are the key here.

I grew up in a crammed 250 sq.ft apartment in a densely populated city where single-family homes were at a huge premium. I gladly traded "the urban feeling of a vibrant city" for a freedom to live on the land. Those advocating for urban intensification usually think of Manhattan and Arbutus urban atmosphere, where couples stroll along flower shops and cafes holding hands. This is an utopia. Calgary is a working city with harsh environment. Street walking is not usually a favoured option but a necessity for most from October till May. Not gonna happen here. I'd rather work hard and go on holidays to Manhattan or Paris, if I can afford it. Politicians must provide the choice, not dictate the only option.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

City of Calgary over the past twenty years has become increasingly bureaucratic and unpredictable when it comes to rules and regulations related to land development. These rules are governed by land use by-law. When someone buys property for development, they expect to build it out in accordance with the existing rules. Right? Wrong. City can change these rules on a whim, if an alderman or a bureaucrat feels compelled to do so for any reason whatsoever.

From a community point of view - the unpredictability is even worse. Just look at the recent Shawnee Slopes fiasco. I've been at the public hearing, where the entire community, hundreds of people spoke against turning the 50-yr old golf course into a housing project making a couple of land speculators $20M richer. No matter. Nenshi, Farrell, Carra, Lowe gave all kind of rhetoric about intensification of Calgary suburbs and blatantly ignored the wishes of all of the people living there

Doesn't the latter story contradict the first? Was the City not protecting the developer's right to use the land according to the site's zoning?

Also, in its current form the LUB is basically designed to accommodate and promote the style of development used by firms like Shane Homes. It is based on a type of zoning that demands one type of development and excludes/precludes most other forms.

Originally Posted by Slava

What am I missing here? Seems like a lot of posters that I generally like and agree with are on the complete opposite side of this one from me (or I'm on the opposite from them!).

In my case, my frustration stems from the fact that the agenda of local governments are quite often driven and dictated by the local development industry (i.e. The Growth Machine). Thankfully, the local status quo has been challenged and uprooted to an extent in recent times. Now, it seems that rather than trying to participate in the democratic process the development industry is simply trying to subvert the process.

It is naive to think that the developers are acting like concerned doctors and nurses who are fighting for their patients receiving substandard treatment or even the owners of sports teams who are using their influence that stems from their fan-base. Based on their operation manual, which has been used for decades, the development industry is, once again, trying to dictate the democratic process and gain control of Council.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by First Lady

There are a lot of "if's" in there.

The Manning Centre is a non-profit corporation and there is no "part charity".

There's Manning Foundation for Democratic Education (charity), and Manning Centre for Building Democracy (tax-exempt non-profit). As far as I understand, donations are made to Manning Foundation and the Foundation finances (some of) the activities of the Manning Centre.

Reminds me a bit of the Colbert Super-Pac - Americans for a better tomorrow, tomorrow.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Bunk

There's Manning Foundation for Democratic Education (charity), and Manning Centre for Building Democracy (tax-exempt non-profit). As far as I understand, donations are made to Manning Foundation and the Foundation finances the activities of the Manning Centre.

From their website:

MANNING CENTRE OR MANNING FOUNDATION?

The Manning Centre is a non-profit corporation that focuses on political, conservative-oriented activities. As such, it is not a registered charity and donations are not eligible for tax receipts.

Activities such as research and education, which are classified as charitable, are undertaken by the Manning Foundation – a registered charity.

I understand both accept donations. At this point I don't know if we know for sure which organization they contributed to. And what election laws if any, would apply. As I understand it municipal campaign finance doesn't cover third party involvement. Which is should IMHO.

Reminds me a bit of the Colbert Super-Pac - Americans for a better tomorrow, tomorrow.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I grew up in a crammed 250 sq.ft apartment in a densely populated city where single-family homes were at a huge premium. I gladly traded "the urban feeling of a vibrant city" for a freedom to live on the land.

False dichotomy. We do not have a choice between living in crammed 250 square foot apartments and living as Free Men on the Land.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by First Lady

From their website:



I understand both accept donations. At this point I don't know if we know for sure which organization they contributed to. And what election laws if any, would apply. As I understand it municipal campaign finance doesn't cover third party involvement. Which is should IMHO.

Yeah, it's all very complicated. The Mayor understands this stuff way better than almost anyone, since he taught non-profit management. I have a hard time wrapping my head around it, but trying to explain as best I can my understanding. In any event, it's raised red-flags for him. He's a stickler about this kind of stuff, which is why he's been pushing so aggressively (long before he was Mayor) about reform to the rules that govern campaign finance and disclosure. As you allude to, third party involvement is probably not very well defined or covered clearly under current legislation - and we certainly don't want to go down the path of US style political financing - PACs and Super PACs, which are expressly designed to circumvent 'normal' campaign finance rules. I think Colbert actually did an amazing thing satirizing the ridiculousness of the Super PAC system, with a Super PAC of his own.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by jammies

False dichotomy. We do not have a choice between living in crammed 250 square foot apartments and living as Free Men on the Land.

Well, not for now. But it might be a reality one day, if some politicians have their way all the way. PlanIt Calgary document calls for only a small proportion of new housing to be greenfield single-family in 50 years from now.