2013 Calgary Municipal Election Thread

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Really hoping Harper pulls it off!

Fingers crossed. I'm disappointed that it even came to this, and I'll concede that I'm not overly optimistic, but I guess that's the will of the people.

I was commenting on Facebook about the "grey haired vote" and how Sutherland successfully tapped into it, which is ironic because my hair lost its pigment years ago, and I'm "only" 34!

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

I don't know that I buy this as a win for Wenzel. I mean, Nenshi essentially made the developers, and sprawl vs. community development, the central issue of this whole election process. He did so pretty emphatically, really; there wasn't a lot of equivocation as to what he's for and who he's against on that point. Yet he was elected with about 75% of the vote. That seems to me to be a mandate in favour of his policy views on this particular issue.

There's no doubt the Mayor spent some of his political capital in doing so. As did the decision to keep tax room the last three years that led to the rather misleading indictments of wild spending increases of 30+%. The fact is that about half that increase in revenue went to build capital projects (central library, rec centres, library branches, transportation infrastructure and now flood recovery) that simply would not have happened without that tax room - not operating. Spending increases for operating were almost exactly in line with population increases + inflation. We don't have new grants from other levels of government and existing grants got clawed back. The federal government screwed us on the P3 deal. The choice was go back to building nothing like the 90s or take things a bit into our own hands and build. If the Province did not leave that tax room, the tax burden would have been exactly the same, it's just the City would not have that revenue, the Province would.

[Bunk]

On the crappy side of politics, said some very difficult goodbyes to Gael Macleod and her staff today. Lots of tears - it's tough to essentially be rejected out in the public eye and people (especially media) often forget that these are living breathing human beings. Sad to see Mar go too - I have nothing but respect and he showed his true character in his very gracious concession and congratulations to Woolley last night at his headquarters. A bitter pill to swallow.

[surferguy]

when do new members get sworn in? Do Macleod and Mar still have a few days before they have to vacate?

[Bigtime]

I may have had my differences with Mar over the years, but they way he conceded and went over to Woolley's yesterday was complete class all the way. Classiness truly deserving of his suits.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Bunk

There's no doubt the Mayor spent some of his political capital in doing so. As did the decision to keep tax room the last three years that led to the rather misleading indictments of wild spending increases of 30+%. The fact is that about half that increase in revenue went to build capital projects (central library, rec centres, library branches, transportation infrastructure and now flood recovery) that simply would not have happened without that tax room. We don't have new grants from other levels of government and existing grants got clawed back. The federal government screwed us on the P3 deal. The choice was go back to building nothing like the 90s or take things a bit into our own hands and build. If the Province did not leave that tax room, the tax burden would have been exactly the same, it's just the City would not have that revenue, the Province would.

I like the part where you talk about the value of the capital projects. If the debate was phrased that way then it might have been better recieved in my opinion (Afterall was it not ~60% of respondents to the $52 million question imply support for some kind of spending?).

I don't like the way you in the last paragraph and Nenshi over the course of the campaign phrased the tax room grab. As voters in this election we were evaluating only the municipal level of politicians and the government they oversee. Therefore the fact that the province taxed us less in exactly the same proportion that the city taxed us more should be disregarded when evaluating only the local government's performance. The only thing that matters when voting for municipal politicians is to only look at the amount that they alone are responsible for.

If taken a step further hypothetically let's say the Federal government cut income taxes by 10%, but the province jacked up income taxes 10% at the same time. Would it be more reflective of the province's fiscal performance to say that they jacked up taxes by 10% or to net the two numbers and pretend that there wasn't a provincial tax increase at all because the net between the two is 0%?

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by surferguy

when do new members get sworn in? Do Macleod and Mar still have a few days before they have to vacate?

Monday

[Bigtime]

Voter turnout was 38.43%. Coming in a lot higher than most thought.

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

This. It's one thing Sun readers don't understand about our current mayor - he doesn't create emotionally-charged platform objectives, it's what the city needs to tackle based on working with citizens and city planners.

Sun readers would love to have you think that Nenshi is going to build a huge mosque in downtown Calgary and implement Sharia law on the masses. They'd love to drop that golden nugget if they could.

Someone earned their irony badge today...

[Muta]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

Someone earned their irony badge today...

Not really... he's not talking about his own platform objectives, which you seem to have missed.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

If taken a step further hypothetically let's say the Federal government cut income taxes by 10%, but the province jacked up income taxes 10% at the same time. Would it be more reflective of the province's fiscal performance to say that they jacked up taxes by 10% or to net the two numbers and pretend that there wasn't a provincial tax increase at all because the net between the two is 0%?

This is actually a very regular policy outcome. The Federal government has many times through the history of equalization transfered "tax points" to provinces as a way of giving jurisidictions more autonomy over spending.

I don't understand why this is a bad thing.

[Regulator75]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Voter turnout was 38.43%. Coming in a lot higher than most thought.

What was the last turnout percentage?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Regulator75

What was the last turnout percentage?

Turnout in 2010 was 53%, but that's an apples-to-oranges comparison as there was a very hotly-contested race for the mayor's seat.

Better comparisons are 2004 and 2007, when we had an incumbent mayor whose victory was assured (just like 2013). In those elections, voter turnout was 18% and 33%, respectively.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Voter turnout was 38.43%. Coming in a lot higher than most thought.

It's been estimated the overly mild weather helped bump up the numbers.

[Bigtime]

Being only 14% behind 2010 with a big mayoral race is pretty impressive in my books. Edmonton turnout yesterday was 34.5% and they had a mayoral race.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I like the part where you talk about the value of the capital projects. If the debate was phrased that way then it might have been better recieved in my opinion (Afterall was it not ~60% of respondents to the $52 million question imply support for some kind of spending?).

I don't like the way you in the last paragraph and Nenshi over the course of the campaign phrased the tax room grab. As voters in this election we were evaluating only the municipal level of politicians and the government they oversee. Therefore the fact that the province taxed us less in exactly the same proportion that the city taxed us more should be disregarded when evaluating only the local government's performance. The only thing that matters when voting for municipal politicians is to only look at the amount that they alone are responsible for.

If taken a step further hypothetically let's say the Federal government cut income taxes by 10%, but the province jacked up income taxes 10% at the same time. Would it be more reflective of the province's fiscal performance to say that they jacked up taxes by 10% or to net the two numbers and pretend that there wasn't a provincial tax increase at all because the net between the two is 0%?

Fair ball, but I'd point out the the relationship between municipalities and provinces bears little resemblance between the provinces and the federal level of government (particularly funding and fiscal capacity of the entities).

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It's been estimated the overly mild weather helped bump up the numbers.

I think the Mayor's relentless GOTV message as well as the exemplary job of the City's Returning Officer and Elections Office (advertising, info, vote bus etc) are factors worth acknowledging as well.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

This is actually a very regular policy outcome. The Federal government has many times through the history of equalization transfered "tax points" to provinces as a way of giving jurisidictions more autonomy over spending.

I don't understand why this is a bad thing.

Two different things. The example of ceding 'tax points' is when the feds are collecting taxes that get transfered back to the province for things that are of provincial responsibility anyway, so in any case we're talking about the same pool of money for the same spending priorities, just different wallet it gets collected in initially.

The tax room argument is different. It was initially collected for education that is provincial responsibility. Then when the room is left (Intended to be given back to the taxpayer as per the provincial goverment itself), the city then just grabbed it because they can to fund completely different priorities than why it was collected in the first place.

I understand why Nenshi supported taking it. He's addressed and pointed out many unfunded capital projects that he believes are important for the city. Great, just don't pretend that those funds aren't part of the civic tax increase becasuse they absolutely are.

I get it, there are a number of well-argued reasons why the city wants to raise taxes and get new forms of funding. Just don't piss in my ear and tell me its raining.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Fair ball, but I'd point out the the relationship between municipalities and provinces bears little resemblance between the provinces and the federal level of government (particularly funding and fiscal capacity of the entities).

Fully agree with that point. The province can put it's foot on the city's throat and not vice-versa. But once again this is something that needs to be explained as a rationale as to why there was such a big tax increase at the municipal level, not trying to pretend that somehow there wasn't a big tax increase specifically at the municipal level.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I understand why Nenshi supported taking it. He's addressed and pointed out many unfunded capital projects that he believes are important for the city. Great, just don't pretend that those funds aren't part of the civic tax increase becasuse they absolutely are.

He just took issue with people bluntly saying "your property tax bill went up 31%", well no it didn't - it went up 16.7% compounded over the three years.