Global reveals developer’s plan to control CGY city council

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

. This is totally tame compared to municipal politics in the US and elsewhere. It is because we do not have a slate or party system at the municipal level in this city (which we need).

Every sitting alderman is constantly in fund raising mode and looks to the development and home building industry for large annual donations.

So we're lucky that we don't have a U.S. style municipal government system...so let's go ahead and implement a U.S. style municipal government system.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

I did. There is nothing illegal or immoral regarding the conduct of the meeting. Global is trying to sensationalize a whole lot of nothing.

So where did the two Nenshi comments come from then?

I don't think Global (or anyone) said what they are doing is illegal but it's a fantastic piece of journalism because we never see this kind of shady back-room politicking in the open much if ever.

It's unfortunate that effectively trying to buy a city counsel is only shady and not illegal however.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by SebC

It's pretty clear what Nenshi stands for. He ran a policy-heavy campaign in a high-profile election that had a massive turnout. This, combined with his sky-high approval rating gives him a strong mandate. I do not need to spell out for you what his platform was, if you don't know you can look it up yourself.

For these Manning Centre candidates to have an equal strength of mandate, they must be explicit and vocal about their intent to maintain/increase new home subsidies. If they do not get that strength of mandate (and I expect they won't), then in voting for the developer's agenda over Nenshi's they would be subverting the expressed will of the voting public.

I voted for Nenshi, but his mandate isn't overwhelming. Its one vote, that's it. While things will be different this fall (by the looks of things) he didn't exactly destroy everyone else in the race either. It was a three way race. I don't even know, but did he get 50% of the vote?

Also, he did run a policy heavy campaign, and that's great. I know you love to hang your hat on the whole sprawl issue, but not all of us do. I supported him for entirely different reasons and if that kind of 'take it or leave it' attitude was ever brought forward by him, I would be less than thrilled.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Shhh.... they even say that on their website.

http://www.votecalgary.ca/vote-calgary-story/

I think votecalgary is a good initiative. It highlights, very transparently, what's important to this industry, discusses current issues at Council related to growth and development and tries to educate about often complex issues.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by SebC

It's pretty clear what Nenshi stands for. He ran a policy-heavy campaign in a high-profile election that had a massive turnout. This, combined with his sky-high approval rating gives him a strong mandate. I do not need to spell out for you what his platform was, if you don't know you can look it up yourself.

Yes, I'm familiar with his position (even agree with some of it); but his position as Mayor is not to implement his "agenda".

For these Manning Centre candidates to have an equal strength of mandate, they must be explicit and vocal about their intent to maintain/increase new home subsidies. If they do not get that strength of mandate (and I expect they won't), then in voting for the developer's agenda over Nenshi's they would be subverting the expressed will of the voting public.

The Manning Centre isn't "running" candidates; they are hosting training sessions geared to civic candidate hopefuls.

Obviously we all want candidates to be open about where they stand on issues. Unfortunately we see it time and time again people changing their stances on things. No party or municipality is immune from this. That's why people say "politicians are all the same, they all lie"

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

So we're lucky that we don't have a U.S. style municipal government system...so let's go ahead and implement a U.S. style municipal government system.

I totally disagree. A party system at the municipal level would be much more preferable than what we have now.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

So where did the two Nenshi comments come from then?

I don't think Global (or anyone) said what they are doing is illegal but it's a fantastic piece of journalism because we never see this kind of shady back-room politicking in the open much if ever.

It's unfortunate that effectively trying to buy a city counsel is only shady and not illegal however.

The implication is that there is some illegality or impropriety here - lead story, exclusive etc.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

The implication is that there is some illegaility or impropriety here - lead story, exclusive etc.

On Twitter they are saying they will post the entire video tomorrow "and then we'll see".... not sure what they mean.

One would think they've already played the key parts. If there was something so damning, why are they holding off?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

I did. There is nothing illegal or immoral regarding the conduct of the meeting. Global is trying to sensationalize a whole lot of nothing.

It's not illegal, but it's definitely newsworthy and opinions will vary on the morality of it.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Aw boo hoo Mayor Nenshi. So sorry this is how things work in the "big city".

Bronconnier had it right when he said the mayor is merely one vote, which carries no greater weight than any one alderman and under our system all that is required to pass council resolutions is 8 votes.

Nenshi is a whiner.

You realize the Mayor didn't record, concoct or decide to publish this video, don't you? He was simply shown the video (the whole video) by the journalist and asked for his reaction to it.

[Minnie]

They just played the video again. And I laughed my ass off again. At Wenzel et al. Losers.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Yes, I'm familiar with his position (even agree with some of it); but his position as Mayor is not to implement his "agenda".

His mandate to implement his agenda comes from clear campaigning and high popularity, not from extra weight on council. It is an ethics thing, not a legal thing.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by SebC

His mandate to implement his agenda comes from clear campaigning and high popularity, not from extra weight on council. It is an ethics thing, not a legal thing.

His mandate (being elected) gives him an avenue to "put forth" his agenda (ideas); there are no guarantees it will be implemented.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Minnie

They just played the video again. And I laughed my ass off again. At Wenzel et al. Losers.

Thanks for the update.

[Minnie]

I do what I can. Thanks for the thanks. Truly.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by First Lady

His mandate (being elected) gives him an avenue to "put forth" his agenda (ideas); there are no guarantees it will be implemented.

Nope, but popular support suggests it should be implemented. To prevent its implementation, without equal support based on equally clear information, subverts the will of the electorate and thus violates the spirit of democracy.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Bunk

You realize the Mayor didn't record, concoct or decide to publish this video, don't you? He was simply shown the video (the whole video) by the journalist and asked for his reaction to it.

True but he portrayed himself as the victim of some grand conspiracy to unseat him by some sort of secret society.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

I totally disagree. A party system at the municipal level would be much more preferable than what we have now.

No, no, no, no, no, NO!

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

True but he portrayed himself as the victim of some grand conspiracy to unseat him by some sort of secret society.

lol, no he didn't...

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

No, no, no, no, no, NO!

Seriously, why not? At the federal and provincial levels, I may not know the candidates by name, but at least in a general sense I know where they stand on most issues by party affiliation.