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

[SportsJunky]

Nenshi was at the Stamps/Lions game tonight. They flashed him on the jumbotron and there was very little reaction - a few boos maybe. Then they flashed up a shot of Connelly and the boos erupted in my section.

I was a little bummed when Nenshi walked right by me in the parking lot. I was looking forward to meeting him but he and his aide seemed like they were just hanging out instead of taking the opportunity to say hi to folks.

[frinkprof]

The first point that needs to be made is that Nenshi's question as to "why do X amount of cops cost Y amount of money?" was made in the context of it being an example of a question that wasn't asked when the police budget was pre-approved by the last council in June.

Now, to respond to parts of the posts themselves.

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

There are plenty of other departments to look at once in office.

I agree. However, I must ask why three current candidates for the mayor's position, including one which you have said you support didn't do so when they were in office and pre-approving the budget of the department in question.

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

It makes sense to find low hanging fruit to look fiscally prudent, but a quick comparison against our neighbour to the north would say our costs aren't completely out of line.

Again, I agree in my view from afar. It is council's job to affirm such information from the administration before approving budgets. They did not. That was Nenshi's point. He has said as much.

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

The department's budget was questioned and I thought the response was appropriate. At the same time though the Chief of Police shouldn't feel obliged to get into any extended back and forth with candidates.

Obliged or not, he did. He issued a press release responding directly to a single candidate for the mayor's seat. He then said he didn't want to enter into a debate when challenged on how he thought the figures were inaccurate. Too late. I don't mind Hanson in general (as I'll also say below), but he said one thing and then did the opposite on this one.

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I think it was a bad choice by Nenshi to go after the CPS.

He did not go after the CPS in the context of his comments. He went after the process that brought the last council to pre-approve the police budget without asking questions such as the example he gave. Without debate, without questioning, without scrutiny and without a piece of paper in front of them.

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Since Hanson took over he's added more beat cops and by most reports it's had the desired impact.

We can talk about long-term visions for the city and other things but one of the main things people care about is that their families are safe.

It's my belief that Hanson is one of the most, if not THE most respected public figure in this city.

I agree. In my estimation, Hanson has done a decent job excluding his public foray into the election. I say that without as full a picture as I'd like to be seeing though. I'd like to know that my elected officials would want to take a peek at the books and scrutinize them before approving budgets. Especially in the face of a budget shortfall where cuts have to be made somewhere. Wouldn't you?

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Does that mean his department is above questioning? Not at all. But it's the wrong battle for Nenshi to be picking.

Nenshi's battle is with the members of the last council, not the CPS, not their members, not their chief. He has said as much.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Does that mean his department is above questioning? Not at all. But it's the wrong battle for Nenshi to be picking.

By picking that battle he's getting his name out there in front of the voters. It was a brilliant move - he's showing that he is willing to take on the bureaucrats at City Hall, even the supposedly untouchable ones like Hanson.

It's especially effective because there is no credibility to a denial of Nenshi's figures in the absence of any evidence. If you're going to challenge what someone says, you need to do more than say "that's wrong, I know the truth but I won't tell it to you." Making a statement at all was a mistake on Hanson's part, now if he debates Nenshi's figures he's acknowledging that the figures are open to question, and if he stonewalls many people will figure there is something there to hide. Either way, Nenshi is further ahead.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by jammies

By picking that battle he's getting his name out there in front of the voters. It was a brilliant move - he's showing that he is willing to take on the bureaucrats at City Hall, even the supposedly untouchable ones like Hanson.

It's especially effective because there is no credibility to a denial of Nenshi's figures in the absence of any evidence. If you're going to challenge what someone says, you need to do more than say "that's wrong, I know the truth but I won't tell it to you." Making a statement at all was a mistake on Hanson's part, now if he debates Nenshi's figures he's acknowledging that the figures are open to question, and if he stonewalls many people will figure there is something there to hide. Either way, Nenshi is further ahead.

On this board he perhaps is but among older voters - I would suspect he damaged his chances.

It's anecdotal only but I've talked to a few people who were on the fence and now will not vote for Nenshi because of his comments about the police force.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Nenshi's battle is with the members of the last council, not the CPS, not their members, not their chief. He has said as much.

Perhaps but that's not what some people heard - if his approach was to go after the last council he picked the wrong specific issue to use as an example because now it's muddled his primary message.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

h.
I agree. In my estimation, Hanson has done a decent job excluding his public foray into the election. I say that without as full a picture as I'd like to be seeing though. I'd like to know that my elected officials would want to take a peek at the books and scrutinize them before approving budgets. Especially in the face of a budget shortfall where cuts have to be made somewhere. Wouldn't you?.

Yup but Nenshi isn't an elected official. Moreover, the community outcry while the police budget issue was being discussed seemed to suggest that most of Calgary did not want to see the CPS budget slashed.

If Nenshi's main goal was to point out flaws in the way the city manages it's money and the budget process itself that have at it - because I agree fully there appears to be some big flaws. But by using CPS as the example the issue has gone of course completely.

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

It's anecdotal only but I've talked to a few people who were on the fence and now will not vote for Nenshi because of his comments about the police force.

Maybe I'm missing something here but I thought Nenshi's comments weren't about the CPS. I thought his point was that council members asked the wrong questions of the CPS including why their budget increase didn't then reflect an increase in actual officers on the job. People seem to be making the mistake of thinking his comments were about the police force when they were actually about city council.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

Maybe I'm missing something here but I thought Nenshi's comments weren't about the CPS. I thought his point was that council members asked the wrong questions of the CPS including why their budget increase didn't then reflect an increase in actual officers on the job. People seem to be making the mistake of thinking his comments were about the police force when they were actually about city council.

Exactly. I had the opportunity to talk to Naheed Friday evening and this is exactly what happened. He didn't say anything about the police themselves and in fact just asked about the information. He asked why we have a budgetary increase of 23% and an increase in officers by 11%. That question is just a question! Elected officials at all levels should be asking questions and getting information. To me that is one of their primary roles.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

On this board he perhaps is but among older voters - I would suspect he damaged his chances.

It's anecdotal only but I've talked to a few people who were on the fence and now will not vote for Nenshi because of his comments about the police force.

Perhaps what matters isn't the age of the people you speak to but whether or not the people you talk to understand the question Neshi was posing.

[Southside]

There seems to be some Nenshi supporters here, so can anyone tell me where he stands on the ridiculous $3 park and ride fee? I know where Mcgyver stands and we all know Higgins doesn't have a stand on anything.

[1stLand]

wow, didn't realize the amount of support from developers - Ric McIver's campaign

I noticed a few companies donated numerous times (under different corporate names or versions of corporate names)

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Perhaps but that's not what some people heard - if his approach was to go after the last council he picked the wrong specific issue to use as an example because now it's muddled his primary message.

He picked a perfect example. The police budget that was pre-approved is over $300M and is the department which represents the largest proportion of the overall budget. It was pre-approved in the face of a budget shortfall where cuts have to be made somewhere. Because it was pre-approved, the necessary cuts have been shifted disproportionately to other departments. Now, that's all well and good in principle if council had done their diligence and then decided to not cut, but they didn't. The process was fumbled, horribly, and Nenshi called them on it. He did so at the time in June, and he did so again this past week.

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Yup but Nenshi isn't an elected official.

He is not, but he is running for the same position as people who were elected officials in the position to do something he says, correctly, that they failed to do. Should track records not be questioned? Should Nenshi, or anyone else, not be able to use an example to illustrate how he would have done things differently? That's what an election campaign is about.

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Moreover, the community outcry while the police budget issue was being discussed seemed to suggest that most of Calgary did not want to see the CPS budget slashed.

Cuts are tough to swallow, but they sometimes have to be made. During this budget process, this is the case due to the shortfall. Outcry is fine, but council still has to do their due dilligence before making a yay or nay call as to whether they should be made to each department. I would dare say that making no cuts while pre-approving the budget without scrutiny and debate is worse, in principle than debating it and then making a few cuts.

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

If Nenshi's main goal was to point out flaws in the way the city manages it's money and the budget process itself that have at it - because I agree fully there appears to be some big flaws.

He did exactly that.

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

But by using CPS as the example the issue has gone of course completely.

It couldn't be more on course. The process leading to the pre-approval of the police budget is up there with one of the worst examples of how this past council, and its members, failed this city horribly. It has to be fair game. Are you saying that the police budget is untouchable, just because? What about fire? Should their budget not have some questions asked of it? Are they too untouchable? Is calling for their budget to be scrutinized "off course?"

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Southside

There seems to be some Nenshi supporters here, so can anyone tell me where he stands on the ridiculous $3 park and ride fee?

Wants to get rid of it. I disagree with him.

Originally Posted by Southside

I know where Mcgyver stands

I'm not sure that we do for sure, actually. He voted for it at the time, but now he wants to get rid of it. What's preventing another flip-flop, given the track record?

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by Southside

There seems to be some Nenshi supporters here, so can anyone tell me where he stands on the ridiculous $3 park and ride fee? I know where Mcgyver stands and we all know Higgins doesn't have a stand on anything.

http://www.nenshi.ca/new/2010/232

From his web site

1. Revise parking policies
   • Reduce the cost of short-stay parking in the downtown core.
   • Eliminate the $3 park-n-ride fee.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Southside

I know where Mcgyver stands and we all know Higgins doesn't have a stand on anything.

McGyver? Solidly behind the Flames!

[frinkprof]

Another interesting entry from McIver's donor list:

#75 - The Calgary Sun.

http://www.ricmciver.ca/wp-content/u...24Sept2007.pdf

Now, they wouldn't possibly slant their content in an effort to protect their investment, would they?

[SebC]

#386 on McIver's list is one Joseph P. Connelly. Of course, that's from August 10, 2009. BTW, the Herald says it all adds up to $700,000.

[Muta]

What I'm scared of with McIver is the amount of companies that are donating to his campaign. This is a huge indication as to what types of companies will be getting what types of contracts should he become Mayor.

Instead of a transparent selection process, favourites will be played; even moreso than now. This is exactly what the people of Calgary have become angry with. It's too bad more people don't see this with McIver - he's in bed with businesses and will surely be repaying them in some way if he wins.

The fact that he's tied to so many businesses (and in specific, certain industries) suggests he's the least transparent candidate of them all.

Calgary deserves better than this. Much, much better.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Another interesting entry from McIver's donor list:

#75 - The Calgary Sun.

http://www.ricmciver.ca/wp-content/u...24Sept2007.pdf

Now, they wouldn't possibly slant their content in an effort to protect their investment, would they?

$200 doesn't buy a lot of influence, does it? Although, I agree the optics don't look good.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Muta

What I'm scared of with McIver is the amount of companies that are donating to his campaign. This is a huge indication as to what types of companies will be getting what types of contracts should he become Mayor.

Instead of a transparent selection process, favourites will be played; even moreso than now. This is exactly what the people of Calgary have become angry with. It's too bad more people don't see this with McIver - he's in bed with businesses and will surely be repaying them in some way if he wins.

The fact that he's tied to so many businesses (and in specific, certain industries) suggests he's the least transparent candidate of them all.

Calgary deserves better than this. Much, much better.

This is why I keep stating that I can't support any candidates that are on the current council. No matter what their message they're tied to something that to me smells as rotten as a three week old banana.