2013 Calgary Municipal Election Thread

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by mariners_fever

I wouldn't call having a listenership of a quarter of the province 'zero clout'. If he hadn't given Danielle Smith interviews since day one of her leadership race, the Wildrose wouldn't have been as well known as they were going into the election. It isn't all attributable to him, but he certainly has helped foment discontent with the PCs since Ed was Premier.

That is not 'zero clout'.

I'm not sure he'd beat Nenshi, but if the entire federal CPC establishment backs him, as they did the Wildrose, I wouldn't say that he'd get completely wiped out either.

Well, I meant zero clout when it came to experience more so than any celebrity or notoriety. And things like this matter. A staffer or education board member might become an alderman, often it's a former alderman who moves up to mayor, and more often it's an incumbent who wins we he decides to run. That's what I meant.

Don't know if I agree with what your saying either. A quarter of the province as listeners? I doubt a quarter of the province even listens to radio, never mind, political talk radio.

Not to mention there is a great portion that would listen to the man, but only for a morbid curiosity. And lots of people that might listen to him, might even like him as a radio guy, but wouldn't take him seriously as a political candidate. Getting press for the Wildrose is fine, but it's very different than being a candidate.

Also, we're not talking about the province anyway, we are talking about Calgary. Who generally doesn't have the same values as farmers and sure as heck doesn't vote like them.

Nope, he'd get squished. Not even close. I'm not just saying this cause it's Rutherford, I'm mostly saying it because Nenshi is the most popular mayor we've had since Klein. But I do argue that Rutherford's 'celebrity and positioning and experience' would mean next to nothing anyway. As for the reasons stated above, which are many.

[4X4]

I agree with Daradon, and I've listened to Rutherford on and off for years. Let me put it this way... Just because he has lots of listeners, doesn't mean they would all vote for him. I know I wouldn't, and it's not because Nenshi is the incumbent.

His audience is province wide, and then some. I'm just guessing here, but I bet that more of his audience is outside the Calgary city limits than inside. Farmers and Edmontonians can't vote for mayor of Calgary.

And just to be clear, I agree with Rutherford more than I disagree with him, but when I disagree, I strongly disagree. He's the quintessential old white guy. For my tastes, he's way too conservative to be mayor of my city. I like him on the radio, though. I'd vote for him if he was running for a best talk show host race.

I hope he doesn't run. He'll get creamed. He's like your grandpa. Interesting to listen to, and quite often wise and right, but also so wrong so often.

[Bigtime]

Dales Hodges is retiring, Ward 1 will get a new Councillor.

I'm thinking the odds on favourite is Chris Harper, he also ran in 2010 in the ward.

[charper]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Dales Hodges is retiring, Ward 1 will get a new Councillor.

I'm thinking the odds on favourite is Chris Harper, he also ran in 2010 in the ward.

We've been working very hard since last October on the campaign. We have a great team, are nearing 10,000 doors, and we're not slowing down. While the retirement of Councillor Hodges adds clarity, it doesn't change my focus or desire to engage communities directly. For me, the campaign is only the warm up compared to the significant amount of work that Council and Calgary will demand of me.

This is what I have decided to commit myself to and I'm looking forward to fulfilling that commitment.

[Tyler]

Glad to see that the most controversial aspect of the upcoming election is councillors tweeting during meetings

[charper]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Glad to see that the most controversial aspect of the upcoming election is councillors tweeting during meetings

There will be others. This is the one the media chose to cover today.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by charper

There will be others. This is the one the media chose to cover today.

Got you on the front page so I guess you're not complaining (in a Rick Bell article no less.. blech)

What is your stance on the $52M question Chris?

[charper]

I'll respond in a bit when back at computer. Tough to type that out on the mobile device.

[Jarek Harper]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Dales Hodges is retiring, Ward 1 will get a new Councillor.

I'm thinking the odds on favourite is Chris Harper, he also ran in 2010 in the ward.

Judy Vandenbrink also ran in 2010 and is re-running in this years election again.
She's a former environmental consultant, and her website is here: www.vote4judi.com/

The other 2 candidates thus far for ward 1 are:

Ward Sutherland, former President of the Rocky Ridge/Royal Oak Community Association with a strong business past.
His website is here: www.ward4ward1.com

and

John Hilton-O'Brien, who just jumped into the race yesterday. He was the former campaign manager of Ward 2 candidate Joe Magliocca, as well as a founder and past President of Alberta`s Wildrose Party.
No website that I can see yet, but Twitter feed is here: www.twitter.com/hiltonjohn

I'm sure it's already posted here, but to be fair, Chris Harper is a senior business advisor and his website is www.chrisharper.ca

[charper]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Got you on the front page so I guess you're not complaining (in a Rick Bell article no less.. blech)

What is your stance on the $52M question Chris?

Originally, I was for putting the $52 million towards debt repayment. This would have reduced debt carrying costs on the operational expenditure side while also reducing our liabilities. Then, the issue began to come up on the doors steadily.

I began to rethink my opinion when consistently, people on the doors (unsolicited) kept asking why the City was keeping the money and that the money should be returned to them through a tax reduction. This is overwhelmingly what I hear on the doors. Like me, some are concerned that it isn't clear what the other levels of government will bring forward and we risk being given less if we move on the $52 million. Others are very concerned because they are on fixed incomes and $126 a year does mean something to them. After the flood, I have met folks who believe the $52 million is actually going towards flood relief of their homes (which is not at all the case). So there is a lot of confusion but most everyone believes that they should have been asked first whether they wanted the City to have the $52 million.

So I am in favour of not having the City retain the $52 million in November. (sorry, was just distracted by a twitter chat while I typed this and it took a bit longer to finish)

I'll also add that this has nothing to do with this being the Mayor's idea etc. I do not base my support on who ideas come from or don't come from. I look at the merits of an idea and make my decisions based on that. My hope would be that every member of Council takes that approach.

[charper]

Originally Posted by fotze

Chris Harper is no Jane Greydanus.

For sure, not.

[Bunk]

Curious if you would have supported taking the $42 million tax room two years ago to build the 4 rec centres, 3 library branches, new central library and the lifecycle maintenance of various recreation facilities?

Originally Posted by charper

Originally, I was for putting the $52 million towards debt repayment. This would have reduced debt carrying costs on the operational expenditure side while also reducing our liabilities. Then, the issue began to come up on the doors steadily.

I began to rethink my opinion when consistently, people on the doors (unsolicited) kept asking why the City was keeping the money and that the money should be returned to them through a tax reduction. This is overwhelmingly what I hear on the doors. Like me, some are concerned that it isn't clear what the other levels of government will bring forward and we risk being given less if we move on the $52 million. Others are very concerned because they are on fixed incomes and $126 a year does mean something to them. After the flood, I have met folks who believe the $52 million is actually going towards flood relief of their homes (which is not at all the case). So there is a lot of confusion but most everyone believes that they should have been asked first whether they wanted the City to have the $52 million.

So I am in favour of not having the City retain the $52 million in November. (sorry, was just distracted by a twitter chat while I typed this and it took a bit longer to finish)

I'll also add that this has nothing to do with this being the Mayor's idea etc. I do not base my support on who ideas come from or don't come from. I look at the merits of an idea and make my decisions based on that. My hope would be that every member of Council takes that approach.

[charper]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Curious if you would have supported taking the $42 million tax room two years ago to build the 4 rec centres, 3 library branches, new central library and the lifecycle maintenance of various recreation facilities?

Well Josh, that would have depended on what my constituents felt. I changed my mind this time based on their (very) direct feedback. I listened.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by charper

Well Josh, that would have depended on what my constituents felt. I changed my mind this time based on their (very) direct feedback. I listened.

For sure - that's exactly why the extensive consultation was done this time. Unfortunately, many don't quite understand what tax room is actually derived from, that it's annual, that it's not a new thing, etc - a difficult concept to explain.

I'm guessing there's a lot of your potential future constituents that are very glad they're getting their NW rec centre finally.

Anyway, good luck! I respect your approach and love how engaged you have been over the past 3+ years. I'll see if my parents will take a lawn sign from you again in Silver Springs!

[charper]

More of them wondering what's taking so long. Funding was approved in part in 2007 when West LRT was given the treasury.

[charper]

Originally Posted by fotze

Is your fathers name Stephen?

Glenn.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by charper

More of them wondering what's taking so long. Funding was approved in part in 2007 when West LRT was given the treasury.

Are you referring to the NW LRT extension or rec centre? (which is CIF funded - or was some MSI money allocated in 07?). In any event, we found out it's impossible to rely on funding from other levels of government. *cough* Stephen Harper *cough*. Without the CIF - ($42million tax room funded) people would still be waiting a lot longer for that rec centre.

Similarly, the main reason why NWLRT to Tuscany has also taken so long is that the Province rolled out the actual MSI funding much slower than originally promised - which has meant a lot of short term borrowing debt related to construction.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by fotze

Chris Harper is no Jane Greydanus.

Hey I resemble that remark.

Originally Posted by charper

For sure, not.

Geez you say that like it's a bad thing.


Go Chris Go !!!

[charper]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Are you referring to the NW LRT extension or rec centre? (which is CIF funded - or was some MSI money allocated in 07?). In any event, we found out it's impossible to rely on funding from other levels of government. *cough* Stephen Harper *cough*. Without the CIF - ($42million tax room funded) people would still be waiting a lot longer for that rec centre.

Similarly, the main reason why NWLRT to Tuscany has also taken so long is that the Province rolled out the actual MSI funding much slower than originally promised - which has meant a lot of short term borrowing debt related to construction.

Nope, no concerns regarding the LRT. Progress looks to be good on that.

It was MSI ($70 million if I remember right) that was approved back then. About $13 million from the provincial tax overages was set aside for P3 costs originally (before rejection and on all four facilities). As I remember, after the P3 application rejection the funding gap was made up of the Community & Recreation Levy (which is developer funded through levies) and the GST rebate from the Federal Government (which goes to the CIF you mention).

I think it's important to note that the CIF and the Community & Recreation Levy are two different things. Also, I can't find more details than this as the meeting regarding the exact financing was in-camera (if you have them would love a link!).

[Bunk]

Yeah, there was some creative shuffling and swapping of funding all over the place given cash flows of different funding programs - including MSI/GreenTRIP and gas tax for Transportation projects and CIF, GST rebate and C & R Levy.

The point being that the rec centres, libraries (or at least most of them or at a much different scale) could not go forward without the tax room. $420 million over the next ten years the City did not have access to otherwise for this kind of community infrastructure.