Calgary Civic Election: Mayoralty Poll #4 - The Heat is On

[Bill Bumface]

Regarding transportation, I get as pissed off as the next guy sitting in traffic on a Saturday trying to get across the city, but it seems just letting people suffer in traffic is the #1 way to win against sprawl. If you know you're signing up for an hour long commute that is just going to get worse, do you still want the giant house in the middle of nowhere?

Then do we have to worry about people jumping to Okotoks/Airdrie/Cochrane? I'd say you could discourage a lot of it just by making those commutes as hellish as they probably should be.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Regarding transportation, I get as pissed off as the next guy sitting in traffic on a Saturday trying to get across the city, but it seems just letting people suffer in traffic is the #1 way to win against sprawl. If you know you're signing up for an hour long commute that is just going to get worse, do you still want the giant house in the middle of nowhere?

I don't disagree with you, but the reverse must also happen, and the city needs to encourage and support the alternative of a more sustainable living environment. Not wanting to live in the suburbs is only one part of the equation.....being able to afford the inner-city when every developer is just catering to the rich 500k+ martini sippin' condo crowd is another. I'm sure more people would like to live closer to work, but they can't afford the higher taxes and all that comes with it. It's one thing to be sustainable, it also needs to be accessible.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Regarding transportation, I get as pissed off as the next guy sitting in traffic on a Saturday trying to get across the city, but it seems just letting people suffer in traffic is the #1 way to win against sprawl. If you know you're signing up for an hour long commute that is just going to get worse, do you still want the giant house in the middle of nowhere?

Then do we have to worry about people jumping to Okotoks/Airdrie/Cochrane? I'd say you could discourage a lot of it just by making those commutes as hellish as they probably should be.

That's exactly the philosophy of increasing density. By placing the car dead last in future infrastructure priority it overtime effectively makes your car commute impossible and thus you are forced to move close to a transit node or within walking distance of work.

It's a huge myth that 'smart growth' decreases car congestion on existing infrastructure. It doesn't, because when given a choice where commute timing are equal 9/10 people will choose to go to work in the comfort of their own cars versus sitting next to smelly people on the bus/train so much so that they will pay excess amounts over the train option to not take it.

So for every person that moves close enough to work to walk and takes their car off the road, it just enables another spot on the road for someone else to take their car. Also even if all population growth occurs in TOD developments and 'walkable' communities, it's not like every person wouldn't own a car. On a per capita basis car usage will go down, but on an overall basis it's naive to assume that that too would go down. It's just that in a 'smart gowth' scenario, the car slips in priority from #1 or #2 to dead last and it will be a challange to keep up roadway improvements.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I don't disagree with you, but the reverse must also happen, and the city needs to encourage and support the alternative of a more sustainable living environment. Not wanting to live in the suburbs is only one part of the equation.....being able to afford the inner-city when every developer is just catering to the rich 500k+ martini sippin' condo crowd is another. I'm sure more people would like to live closer to work, but they can't afford the higher taxes and all that comes with it. It's one thing to be sustainable, it also needs to be accessible.

That's just it. Sustainable growth means new communities pay for themselves which not only lowers the total tax burden shared by everyone, but it especially alleviates the disproportionate taxation of the inner city. On the supply side of things, removing the subsidies for low-density, infrastructure intensive communities puts inner city development back on an even footing, meaning supply will increase. Demand increases to, but the net effect of sustainable development is that the cost of living closer to work goes down. Economically sustainable growth is inherently linked to the accessibility you want. That's the beauty of it!

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by SebC

That's just it. Sustainable growth means new communities pay for themselves which not only lowers the total tax burden shared by everyone, but it especially alleviates the disproportionate taxation of the inner city. On the supply side of things, removing the subsidies for low-density, infrastructure intensive communities puts inner city development back on an even footing, meaning supply will increase. Demand increases to, but the net effect of sustainable development is that the cost of living closer to work goes down. Economically sustainable growth is inherently linked to accessibility. That's the beauty of it!

Where is your stance on the disproportionate taxation of Albertans within confederation? Consistant studies show that Albertans pay more than they recieve in services/transfers annually in the billions.

[Bunk]

Like this tweet from DJ Kelly:

djkelly Some political strategy. Vote for something no one likes, then base your campaign on fighting against it #yycvote http://yfrog.com/euw7ycj


So true. "let's scrap the fee I voted for!" yeehaw!

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Where is your stance on the disproportionate taxation of Albertans within confederation? Consistant studies show that Albertans pay more than they recieve in services/transfers annually in the billions.

Not a fan. As far as I know the transfer payments don't account for the higher cost of living in Alberta.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by SebC

Not a fan. As far as I know the transfer payments don't account for the higher cost of living in Alberta.

Fair enough, at least your consistent and are against progressive taxation in favor of user pay.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Fair enough, at least your consistent and are against progressive taxation in favor of user pay.

It's more than that though. I'm against taxing one person's lifestyle choice to subsidize another's (arguably, living in a province that's economically weak is a lifestyle choice). However, I'm not against using subsidies and taxes to ajust for economic externalities (costs and benefits that do not affect free-market economic decision making because they are borne by third parties). In fact I'm very much in favour of this.

Taxing cigarettes to subsidize milk is good. Taxing milk to subsidize cigarettes? Not so much.

[Bunk]

Tweet from Gord Gillies from Global:

Happy Tuesday! New poll numbers coming on the Mayor's race. We hear the top 3 are the same.. but it's tighter. details ahead! #yycvote #yyc

Apparently from Cameron research.

Should be interesting.

[SebC]

Does that mean the top 3 are in the same order? If so that's disappointing... Nenshi needs a poll that has him ahead of Higgins.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by SebC

Does that mean the top 3 are in the same order? If so that's disappointing... Nenshi needs a poll that has him ahead of Higgins.

Nah, he doesn't need to be ahead. Last poll had him 20 points back. If he's narrowed the gap significantly, he'll be viewed as the candidate with momentum and will surpass her shortly thereafter.

What I'm also interested to see is the % undecided and whether McIver's support is beginning to soften or not.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Nah, he doesn't need to be ahead. Last poll had him 20 points back. If he's narrowed the gap significantly, he'll be viewed as the candidate with momentum and will surpass her shortly thereafter.

What I'm also interested to see is the % undecided and whether McIver's support is beginning to soften or not.

The key to me is that McIvers support has to be softening. The last couple of polls had him around 40% + which has to drop in order to see a real race for the chair.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by SebC

Taxing cigarettes to subsidize milk is good. Taxing milk to subsidize cigarettes? Not so much.

How about artificially restricting permits to produce milk, thus raising its price and enriching those who hold existing permits?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

How about artificially restricting permits to produce milk, thus raising its price and enriching those who hold existing permits?

That seems like it would be against my principles. I'd appreciate it though if we could try to keep this about civic election issues.

[Bunk]

Cameron Mayor poll:

McIver 31%.
Higgins 28%
Nenshi 16%
everyone else 3% or less.
17% 'undecided'.

The results of the previous poll were:
McIver 43%
Higgins 28%
Nenshi 8%

[jdso]

Wow, wonder where the McIver support is going?

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by jdso

Wow, wonder where the McIver support is going?

I'd say a majority have shifted towards Nenshi as the previous poll was more name recognition. Maybe some of the more hardcore have shifted towards Wayne Stewart or Craig Burrows.

Looks like Nenshi has doubled, Mciver has dropped 12% and Barb is stagnant.

[CaptainCrunch]

But is it enough, I would expect the big push by all candidates and point shifts will be harder to come by.

I wouldn't mind Nenshi winning, but I still have worries about his ability to fix the financial problems and fix the auditable issues.

[Bunk]

Name recognition between the three will start to equalize as the coverage of the race intensifies. Considering Higgins and McIver both have enjoyed such a massive name recognition advantage, Nenshi will be the benificiary.

What Nenshi really needs is a televised debate between the three so that the average Calgarian can see how he stacks up.