2013 Calgary Municipal Election Thread

[Bigtime]

Keep in mind that Magliocca is the "Fiscally Conservative" candidate in that ward, he also proposed a flyover from Crowchild to Rocky Ridge.

[You Need a Thneed]

The cost benefit ratio for commuter rail would be awful. How many people would ride? You maybe could get one train every half an hour at the most. It would only go to downtown, and thus would serve only poeple in those communities that are going downtown, not really anyone else.

Freight trains could cause regular delays for the passenger trains, which would push ridership off to something that is more predictable. What would ridership from either Airdrie or Cochrane be, total? Probably only around 1000.

It's much more cost effective to save the hundreds of millions of dollars it would likely cost and put that towards the green line LRT, where you would have 100,000 riders a day.

[Bigtime]

Apparently Peter Demong has an announcement being released at 10am today.

Wonder if it will be cool, scandalous, awesome, or maybe all three?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Keep in mind that Magliocca is the "Fiscally Conservative" candidate in that ward, he also proposed a flyover from Crowchild to Rocky Ridge.

From looking at Magliocca's website the other day, it's clear he has no idea how city council works, what actual city issues are.

He suggests taking every major project to a city wide vote, which is pretty much the worst idea imaginable.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I've said this before already. No ward system removes the need for localized lobbying (in primitive terms: you vote for something in my ward and I will support a motion for something in yours). It also eliminates getting elected based on a single item platform. We are electing municipal government that will run the whole city. Ward system allows amoeba-like politicians like Linda Fox-Mellway, Craig Burrows, Barry Erskine and Patti Grier to get elected and re-elected many times despite their complete luck of issue comprehension. I can go on and on.

The argument of difficulties for candidates from "not too trendy areas" expressed by someone earlier is invalid. In reality, any large group - local or ethnic - can rally behind a candidate, trendy or not, if they really want him or her elected just like they would under the ward system.

Is localization really a bad thing though? The municipal government is the last level of government and the one that is closest to the people, does it not make sense to make it the most accessible?

While it does allow for the possibility of dysfunction at times when a holistic outlook is required, I think it is a preferable problem to the one created in systems that have macro-factions instead of micro-factions. The inner-city versus outer-city divide is starting to loom large, imagine what it would be like with the system you propose. How much attention would the little yet important local ward issues receive?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Apparently Peter Demong has an announcement being released at 10am today.

Wonder if it will be cool, scandalous, awesome, or maybe all three?

Well I know that I can't be the only one dying to hear what this is!

[surferguy]

For a 10 am release, there is nothing on his facebook, website or twitter about it as of noon

[CaptainCrunch]

Hopefully Demong won't be back, I think the guy is worthless. Unfortunately its a two man race in my zone with Demong and Shawn Kao.

I'm probably going to vote for Kao. Some of his ideas are pretty solid, though I like his smart card idea I don't think its going to gain traction.

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I've said this before already. No ward system removes the need for localized lobbying (in primitive terms: you vote for something in my ward and I will support a motion for something in yours). It also eliminates getting elected based on a single item platform. We are electing municipal government that will run the whole city. Ward system allows amoeba-like politicians like Linda Fox-Mellway, Craig Burrows, Barry Erskine and Patti Grier to get elected and re-elected many times despite their complete luck of issue comprehension. I can go on and on.

The argument of difficulties for candidates from "not too trendy areas" expressed by someone earlier is invalid. In reality, any large group - local or ethnic - can rally behind a candidate, trendy or not, if they really want him or her elected just like they would under the ward system.

No ward means that a candidate forum has to hear from EVERY candidate, that makes for a very long candidates forum when 45 people are running for 15 seats on council.

Through my day job, I experience the no ward setups in Cochrane, Chestermere and Airdrie. Especially in Airdrie, I have seen people slip through the cracks because the aldermen don't step forward readily to get involved in some issues.


I think the ward system is better for representing the resident.

With a ward system, someone is ultimately expected to make a call regarding my concern. The issue may not be dealt at the municipal level but I get to say <insert name> helped us/ wouldn't help us and go to the next step if necessary. In a no ward system, no one from Council has to step forward to respond to an issue.

[Table 5]

For most people, its hard enough to keep track of 2-3 candidates, never mind 40. It would be a ridiculous way to vote...and it would probably come down to whoever has the most signs or whoever has the funnest name to say (i mean who wouldn't vote for a name like Pootmans?).

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Table 5

For most people, its hard enough to keep track of 2-3 candidates, never mind 40. It would be a ridiculous way to vote...and it would probably come down to whoever has the most signs or whoever has the funnest name to say (i mean who wouldn't vote for a name like Pootmans?).

If Pootmans wants to win, he should to have to whip out the Hard Poo Man campaign again. #### defines politics, he'd be the most honest one out there.

[JonDuke]

For most people, its hard enough to keep track of 2-3 candidates, never mind 40. It would be a ridiculous way to vote...and it would probably come down to whoever has the most signs or whoever has the funnest name to say (i mean who wouldn't vote for a name like Pootmans?).

Based on name alone, it would be tough to choose between Pootmans and this guy:

Spoiler!

[Bigtime]

Sorry guys, the Demong announcement was a total snoozer. Some guy that ran against him in 2010 is endorsing him, that was the announcement.

Boooooooooooooooooooooooring.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Sorry guys, the Demong announcement was a total snoozer. Some guy that ran against him in 2010 is endorsing him, that was the announcement.

Boooooooooooooooooooooooring.

Well that's 3 hours of continually hitting F5 that I'll never get back!

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Addick

Is localization really a bad thing though? The municipal government is the last level of government and the one that is closest to the people, does it not make sense to make it the most accessible?

While it does allow for the possibility of dysfunction at times when a holistic outlook is required, I think it is a preferable problem to the one created in systems that have macro-factions instead of micro-factions. The inner-city versus outer-city divide is starting to loom large, imagine what it would be like with the system you propose. How much attention would the little yet important local ward issues receive?

I am not trying to design a new election system on the fly here. Just saying that the ward system, in my opinion, is flawed more than a no-ward system. It is funny how people are scared of the inconvenience of having to look at 40-50 resumes once every four years. What's a big deal if you care about who governs your city? Making the playing field even - also not impossible. Lawn signs - outlaw and get rid of them entirely; they are annoying and don't add any useful information. Political platform format can be standardized for all candidates, so that they can be evaluated online and compared apples to apples. Make candidates state their election promises in writing. Make them provide the budget breakdown as they want to see it on both cost and revenue sides. Require at least some level of post-secondary education and work experience to be eligible for a nomination etc. I mean, these are all reasonable suggestions.

Council's primary role is to hire a good city manager and approve the budget that benefits the entire city. Secondary role is to review ongoing city policies that, again, should benefit the entire city. Ward system stifles its ability to be effective in both of these roles.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I am not trying to design a new election system on the fly here. Just saying that the ward system, in my opinion, is flawed more than a no-ward system. It is funny how people are scared of the inconvenience of having to look at 40-50 resumes once every four years. What's a big deal if you care about who governs your city? Making the playing field even - also not impossible. Lawn signs - outlaw and get rid of them entirely; they are annoying and don't add any useful information. Political platform format can be standardized for all candidates, so that they can be evaluated online and compared apples to apples. Make candidates state their election promises in writing. Make them provide the budget breakdown as they want to see it on both cost and revenue sides. Require at least some level of post-secondary education and work experience to be eligible for a nomination etc. I mean, these are all reasonable suggestions.

Council's primary role is to hire a good city manager and approve the budget that benefits the entire city. Secondary role is to review ongoing city policies that, again, should benefit the entire city. Ward system stifles its ability to be effective in both of these roles.

Most voters are not nearly engaged enough to deal with this system. If you switch, you're guaranteed to get party slates and people voting the party line. Which is exactly what we don't need, imo.

I like wards, and think its reasonable that there's a specific elected representative that I can contact with local concerns.

I also think changing would mean most of the representatives would be from wealthier/more educated parts of town. Certain areas of the city already get lower quality infrastructure (ctrain at grade on 36th st) this would exacerbate that problem.

It would also make it easier for fringe/one issue candidates to muster enough support to have a few representative be single issue councillors.

[Bunk]

I think James Maxim in 11 jumped the shark last night at the forum. Decided to pitch going ahead borrowing $5 billion to start building the rest of the LRT system now. It's that easy!

Interesting fact about borrowing money - you need money to pay it back. It's a tough sell to get a mortgage without income. He suggests we somehow "create" the financial means to pay it back.

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/813...rt-system-now/

The path to building new LRT is a new long term, predictable, and adequate funding deal with the Province (rather than the current ad-hoc handouts and short term grants) and partnership with the Federal Government. If we knew we could count on a certain amount every year in perpetuity (or the Province gave the City their half of the property tax) then we could potentially take out that mortgage to get shovels in the ground.

[Bunk]

Joe Magliocca in 2 (Cal Wenzel's pal) also had a doozy - he pitch double decker commuter rail to Airdrie and Cochrane as a good idea to prioritize for transit. He'd tear down the parkade behind Gulf Canada Square and turn that into a rail terminal. He has no idea how much this would cost (a lot).

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...797/story.html

Why on earth would this be a priority for Calgary?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I think James Maxim in 11 jumped the shark last night at the forum. Decided to pitch going ahead borrowing $5 billion to start building the rest of the LRT system now. It's that easy!

Interesting fact about borrowing money - you need money to pay it back. It's a tough sell to get a mortgage without income. He suggests we somehow "create" the financial means to pay it back.

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/813...rt-system-now/

The path to building new LRT is a new long term, predictable, and adequate funding deal with the Province (rather than the current ad-hoc handouts and short term grants) and partnership with the Federal Government. If we knew we could count on a certain amount every year in perpetuity (or the Province gave the City their half of the property tax) then we could potentially take out that mortgage to get shovels in the ground.

I'm in no way saying Maxim is right, but the city has a tax income, so theoretically it has an income to be able to borrow. Maybe not $5B (I haven't looked), but they could borrow.

The one sensible part of borrowing today is that interest rates are so low, and for a capital project that will see decades of use you might as well pay for it over time as well.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

The one sensible part of borrowing today is that interest rates are so low, and for a capital project that will see decades of use you might as well pay for it over time as well.

That's true in the short term, but who knows what the interest rates will be before we finish paying off $5B.