Mayoral Candidate mails out survey with question regarding the Arena.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Royle9

We're talking about Farkas guys, the guy is a nut job through and through.
His feelings are always hurt, and he's got that thing where he has to try and be the smartest man in the room all the time.
He's been against the arena since day one, and was openly adamant that Calgarians are getting fleeced and if he was mayor there would be no new arena.

Remember when he made up a bunch of rumors about things being discussed behind closed doors during council meetings that shouldn't be? And then when he was called on it, he sat puzzled and stared into the camera for almost 25 seconds in silence and couldn't name or list a single thing?
Or the time Nenshi also wanted him formally apologize to the entire group of councilors at one meeting for blasting them on his social media page(s) for views, to which he sat in silence for almost a minute and then candidly said that an apology wasn't going to be coming.

This sounds like it could have been a scene from Arrested Development.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by TOfan

10% built, if that.

Let me check the schedule. Hmmm 11.3% built.

Okay. The next milestone says reopen debate on funding strategy.

Maybe he is on to something.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Groot

Just because it's not technically inaccurate, it's extremely slanted and tries to take a multifaceted discussion and dumb it down to a question that is presented in such a simple manner as to elicit one response, anger.

The question basically says, do you support taking tax payer money and giving all.proceeds to billionaires. No logical person says yes to that. But that is such an insultingly dumb attempt to break down the arena discussion it should be derided as such, especially as the question serves no purpose than to rile up potential voters.

Stop the divisive nature of politics. Don't spend time bemoaning a deal that is already done as a means to garner support. Try spending time discussing what you will do in the future to better the City. Simple.

I’ll give you a different read on it. Tell me I’m totally out to lunch here:

The statement isn’t just technically accurate, it’s objectively and fully accurate. And the perception of its intent to anger is primarily felt by people who are angered by it, albeit for the opposite reason it’s supposed to make them angry.

It isn’t meant to be divisive, it’s just informing the campaign strategy. And yes, while that campaign will likely be future focused, you can’t “better” anything if you don’t acknowledge what needs to be bettered. If the responses show a lack of support for the deal, that’s an opportunity to frame what “better” looks like (and to use it against two other mayoral candidates in Gondek and Sharpe). If responses are more supportive, the campaign likely focuses a lot less on it.

In either case, I think the likelihood of him running on negotiating or cancelling the deal are virtually zero. Of course he could, but it’s political suicide, and if he’s learned anything he won’t. But it makes sense to take the temperature.

I think the deal was and remains terrible and don’t support it, but the question or statement didn’t anger me at all. Aren’t I the type of audience it’s supposed to rile up, if that’s the intent?

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Royle9

We're talking about Farkas guys, the guy is a nut job through and through.
His feelings are always hurt, and he's got that thing where he has to try and be the smartest man in the room all the time.
He's been against the arena since day one, and was openly adamant that Calgarians are getting fleeced and if he was mayor there would be no new arena.

Remember when he made up a bunch of rumors about things being discussed behind closed doors during council meetings that shouldn't be? And then when he was called on it, he sat puzzled and stared into the camera for almost 25 seconds in silence and couldn't name or list a single thing?
Or the time Nenshi also wanted him formally apologize to the entire group of councilors at one meeting for blasting them on his social media page(s) for views, to which he sat in silence for almost a minute and then candidly said that an apology wasn't going to be coming.

You know that him and Nenshi are good friends now right?

[Groot]

Why would the campaign focus on it all? So that Farkas can demonstrate his stance for the next time the City negotiates a multi billion dollar sports arena and district development? How many times will that come up over his term if elected? I'd wager never, but you never know I guess.

Nobody said that everybody that reads it that was against the arena will be riled up. But to pretend that your stance is what each and every person will respond with is naive.

The stance he supports is clear given the wording of the question, and as stated above its not a topic he will ever have to deal with, so I find it hard to believe it's to inform his campaign. So then what is it for?

[Shazam]

Well I for one hope the city gets fleeced by more billionaires.

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by Shazam

You know that him and Nenshi are good friends now right?

Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, dislike them both tbh

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

For what it's worth, Farkas identifies as Bisexual

I had this really senior old school manager in my office a few years and he has same last name as Farkas. Asked if he's related. He said no but he went on a rant how much he likes his policies and will vote for him.

So I says "you know he's gay?". He was adamant he was definitely not got all mad at me for saying that. I knew that would piss him off.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Groot

Why would the campaign focus on it all? So that Farkas can demonstrate his stance for the next time the City negotiates a multi billion dollar sports arena and district development? How many times will that come up over his term if elected? I'd wager never, but you never know I guess.

Nobody said that everybody that reads it that was against the arena will be riled up. But to pretend that your stance is what each and every person will respond with is naive.

The stance he supports is clear given the wording of the question, and as stated above its not a topic he will ever have to deal with, so I find it hard to believe it's to inform his campaign. So then what is it for?

You know that stuff City Council did that you didn’t like? Well I didn’t like it either. Which is why you need me in council - I’m different and I’ll change things.

It’s not a particularly elevated campaigning tactic. But it’s not at all uncommon either.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Groot

Why would the campaign focus on it all? So that Farkas can demonstrate his stance for the next time the City negotiates a multi billion dollar sports arena and district development? How many times will that come up over his term if elected? I'd wager never, but you never know I guess.

Nobody said that everybody that reads it that was against the arena will be riled up. But to pretend that your stance is what each and every person will respond with is naive.

The stance he supports is clear given the wording of the question, and as stated above its not a topic he will ever have to deal with, so I find it hard to believe it's to inform his campaign. So then what is it for?

Probably so that Farkas can demonstrate his approach next time the City negotiates other multi-million or billion dollar projects, of which, I dunno, happen literally all the time?

I don’t think you need to call me naive, we’re cool aren’t we? I don’t know why we’re pretending negotiating a new arena and district development are so unique we’ll never see anything like it for 30+ years.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Thanks, I am capable and interested, but I can’t see it, which is why I asked. I wouldn’t have asked if I could have.

I’m guessing the non-response means I’m correct in not seeing anything misleading or inaccurate (not including the name typo, obviously).

Well that's on you. But then again, you thought 'goalies are witches' is grammatically incorrect, so perhaps I give you too much credit.

[Groot]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Probably so that Farkas can demonstrate his approach next time the City negotiates other multi-million or billion dollar projects, of which, I dunno, happen literally all the time?

I don’t think you need to call me naive, we’re cool aren’t we? I don’t know why we’re pretending negotiating a new arena and district development are so unique we’ll never see anything like it for 30+ years.

Apologies, I didn't mean to call you naive or direct anything personally towards ya!. We can respectfully disagree. I do think that given the current climate where a lot of politics is based on finger pointing, a loaded question (IMO) would elicit some reaction in some readers. And like Cliff said, it's not uncommon especially nowadays, I just personally don't like such tactics and have grown very tired of that type of dialogue. I also think the arena deal is inherently unique and outside of smaller scale McMahon we won't see negotiations like it again. Until the next arena.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Well that's on you. But then again, you thought 'goalies are witches' is grammatically incorrect, so perhaps I give you too much credit.

I didn’t think it was grammatically incorrect, I correctly pointed out that the actual phrase is “goalies are voodoo” and not “goalies are witches” because someone was confused why you called a goalie a witch, where you then claimed a lot of people say “goalies are witches,” which I followed up by proving that you were actually responsible for 99% of the times someone uttered the phrase “goalies are witches” not just on CalgaryPuck, but on the internet in general.

One of our funnier exchanges. For me, at least.

I’m guessing your “misleading and inaccurate” comment was about as true. Didn’t mean to touch a nerve while you were busy storytelling, it was a genuine question. You could have just said you made it up.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Groot

Apologies, I didn't mean to call you naive or direct anything personally towards ya!. We can respectfully disagree. I do think that given the current climate where a lot of politics is based on finger pointing, a loaded question (IMO) would elicit some reaction in some readers. And like Cliff said, it's not uncommon especially nowadays, I just personally don't like such tactics and have grown very tired of that type of dialogue. I also think the arena deal is inherently unique and outside of smaller scale McMahon we won't see negotiations like it again. Until the next arena.

Which is totally understandable. I don’t see it that way, but I also don’t blame you or anyone for having a general heightened sensitivity to those kinds of tactics right now, especially considering we’re bombarded with it all. the. damn. time.

And as I said earlier, I also get that any arena discussion in politics is going to be a bit of a hot issue, especially here where we’ve all kind of discussed it to death.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I didn’t think it was grammatically incorrect, I correctly pointed out that the actual phrase is “goalies are voodoo” and not “goalies are witches” because someone was confused why you called a goalie a witch, where you then claimed a lot of people say “goalies are witches,” which I followed up by proving that you were actually responsible for 99% of the times someone uttered the phrase “goalies are witches” not just on CalgaryPuck, but on the internet in general.

One of our funnier exchanges. For me, at least.

I’m guessing your “misleading and inaccurate” comment was about as true. Didn’t mean to touch a nerve while you were busy storytelling, it was a genuine question. You could have just said you made it up.

You actually did say that it was incorrect, or didn't make grammatical sense or whatever (which I only remember because it was sloppily inaccurate for you). And no, I didn't make it up - but I am old, and it could well have passed into antiquity, other than by me. But I do agree on one thing: it was a fun exchange!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You actually did say that it was incorrect, or didn't make grammatical sense or whatever (which I only remember because it was sloppily inaccurate for you). And no, I didn't make it up - but I am old, and it could well have passed into antiquity, other than by me. But I do agree on one thing: it was a fun exchange!

You are old, yes. That’s about the only thing you haven’t made up out of thin air.

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I think the deal was and remains terrible and don’t support it, but the question or statement didn’t anger me at all. Aren’t I the type of audience it’s supposed to rile up, if that’s the intent?

Once the province put capital in...the council had to change their votes. It was a "free" $100m for development, so I get it, but still feel similar to you.

...and to all the "they'll move the team" folks. Phoenix/SLC showed us that they won't just give a new market away for free, as new teams are rumored to be worth $2bn. Murray doesn't just get to pick up and go because he under invested here and a new town gives him an arena. He'd likely have to pony up a $1bn for relocation out of his pocket, or sell off a % of the team.

Frankly it's Flames fans best chance of getting an new ownership group...I say tank the arena deal and roll the dice.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Rutuu

Once the province put capital in...the council had to change their votes. It was a "free" $100m for development, so I get it, but still feel similar to you.

...and to all the "they'll move the team" folks. Phoenix/SLC showed us that they won't just give a new market away for free, as new teams are rumored to be worth $2bn. Murray doesn't just get to pick up and go because he under invested here and a new town gives him an arena. He'd likely have to pony up a $1bn for relocation out of his pocket, or sell off a % of the team.

Frankly it's Flames fans best chance of getting an new ownership group...I say tank the arena deal and roll the dice.

Why do you think a new ownership group would be positive, and who would it be?
You may not like Murray, but there is nothing wrong with the ownership group.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Rutuu

Once the province put capital in...the council had to change their votes. It was a "free" $100m for development, so I get it, but still feel similar to you.

...and to all the "they'll move the team" folks. Phoenix/SLC showed us that they won't just give a new market away for free, as new teams are rumored to be worth $2bn. Murray doesn't just get to pick up and go because he under invested here and a new town gives him an arena. He'd likely have to pony up a $1bn for relocation out of his pocket, or sell off a % of the team.

Frankly it's Flames fans best chance of getting an new ownership group...I say tank the arena deal and roll the dice.

Lol, best chance at what exactly? To replace the owner who spends to the cap, and got the Flames a new arena. I swear, sometimes people just get too used to having nice things and would rather not.

[Super-Rye]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

We hire politicians to make decisions. I think arguing against the decisions your opponents have made is how politics should be done. Incumbents run on their record and their opponents run on what they would/will do differently.

I'd way prefer that to innuendo about hypotheticals that might happen in the future.

I'm all for calling someone out on their bad decisions. If he wants to do that then do that, to her face, in the proper forum and give her a chance to defend the decision. Have a real debate about it for us all to see.

This isn't that. This is self serving nonsense that accomplishes nothing but stirring up peoples emotions.

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

And?

Almost everything you will criticize the government for is also a done deal. How is this any different? And yeah, I know this sounds like a conspiracy theory, but yeah he/she probably does want to criticize his mayoral opponent. But again, so?

If Nenshi brings up Smith's 280K carpet replacement are you going to call him out for bringing up past decisions a politician made? Or is this because you guys support the arena? Which ironically you just need to check that first box to let the candidate know.

I do not support the arena. I do not think tax dollar's should be used to subsidize a billionaire, let alone one who doesn't want to pay his taxes here. I disagree with everything about it but it is what it is at this point. Going backwards isn't going to make it better. Like I said above, there are ways to go about calling it out, I feel this is unproductive.

Also Nenshi better do a lot more than bring up the 280K carpet replacement. I can think of 100 Million things he can bring up.