Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shazam
See, if were the Tsuu Tina, I would've hired a few people to give me a number on how much it would cost for alternatives through their land. You're telling me that going through the Weaselhead is a no-go, so the only other real option is expropriation. So, let's find out how much that's going to cost. That number is what I would expect from the Alta gov't.
Weren't they offered $500 Million, plus a land swap? I seem to recall the 37th street route costing less.
My issue with any candidate talking about re-opening dicsussions with the Tsuu Tina is that there is no indication of what that means. Is it one dinner meeting with the chief, or are we back to square one? So does it delay everything another 5 years?
While it was an artificially created environment, it contains real grass and real wildlife. Just because we gave it life doesn't mean we can take it away; it now has its own intrinsic value.
__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
- Roberta Brandes Gratz
The Following User Says Thank You to Addick For This Useful Post:
I am truly of the belief Barb Higgins has absolutely no clue what she is talking about. I think she is running for mayor, just so she can say she is mayor.
I cannot vote for Nenshi, because he simply does not seem like the type of guy I want running the city. Kinda seems like a smarmy condescending wimp to me. A guy with book smarts and no street smarts.
I guess that leaves me with Mciver. To me he is the least undesirable of the three to vote for, so I suppose I will have to go with him. At least he seems to be somewhat fiscally responsible. Its too bad, I was really hoping Kent Hehr would have got more support, he was the guy I wanted to throw my vote behind.
I cannot vote for Nenshi, because he simply does not seem like the type of guy I want running the city. Kinda seems like a smarmy condescending wimp to me. A guy with book smarts and no street smarts.
I know you're not going to change your mind, but you're going to get piled on here
The guy has big business experience though. (street smarts)
Well then, let's not do anything there. That's fine with me too. But Nenshi seems to think otherwise.
No he doesn't. He isn't campaigning on a platform of a SWRR through the reservation or bust.
When you actually listen to him speak about it, he openly admits that a ring road may or may not even be built. He has ideas, and good ones at that, about how to open the SW up with existing roadways and not just make a giant highway.
He is clear that he is against a Lakeview/Weaselhead ring road option, which makes sense to me - why you would want to divert traffic into 37th/Glenmore is beyond me, major interchange and all.
I guess that leaves me with Mciver. To me he is the least undesirable of the three to vote for, so I suppose I will have to go with him. At least he seems to be somewhat fiscally responsible.
Yes. McIVer is the fiscally responsible candidate.
Well, of course.... his TRACK record isn't fiscally responsible, but since he tells us that he now opposes everything he voted for when he was an Alderman, I think it makes sense to just trust that this new "fiscally conservative" McIver is the real one, and for the past few years he's had some sort of parasite attached to his brain stem that was controlling all of his actions.
McIver is about as fiscally conservative as Imelda Marcos. Don't be duped by the rhetoric--or the mustache. Don't listen to what politicians say. Observe what they do.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
I know you're not going to change your mind, but you're going to get piled on here
The guy has big business experience though. (street smarts)
Big business does not equate to street smarts.
There is a certain "swagger" that is required to be a leader typically. I'm sorry, the guy in my eyes just does not have it.
Nenshi has done a great job pandering to the masses and telling everyone what they want to hear, but I think he is writing cheques he won't be able to cash. Maybe the masses will determine that the best facebooker in the group should win, if that happens I will just have to live with it I guess. Can you honestly see the guy handling a major crisis or emergency in the city? Is his first instinct going to update his FB status? I just can't see this guy as someone I want being the face of Calgary.
What I do like about McIver is he is willing to say no, and he is willing to have unpopular elements in his platform without making excuses for it. A lot like Ralph Klein in certain respects. There was a lot of things Klein did for this city and province that were unpopular, and I did disagree with but he never made excuses for it. Say what you will about him, but he was the best leader this province and city has ever had.
What I guess is bugging me about this whole campaign, is there is not one candidate in the final three I really like. So in reality my vote for McIver is simply a vote against Nenshi and Higgins.
Maybe the masses will determine that the best facebooker in the group should win, if that happens I will just have to live with it I guess. Can you honestly see the guy handling a major crisis or emergency in the city? Is his first instinct going to update his FB status? I just can't see this guy as someone I want being the face of Calgary.
Honestly? Yes. Absolutely. In fact, I wouldn't want anyone else.
I think he does have the swagger that you spoke of and we've seen glimpses of it in some of the forums where he has done something unexpected or against the grain - for example with the race city question @ UofC.
You seem very jaded against Nenshi's campaign having been built using a large social media component. I'm not sure what to say to that. I mean, we're not talking about emo's blogging on MySpace here. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, iPhone apps, etc...these are real tools in the world of marketing, communications and public relations.
I can understand that disgusting feeling that comes from not liking any of the candidates. I've been in that situation with federal politics more often than not. My parents live in Okotoks and 90% of their candidates are complete wacko's.
Last edited by Flames0910; 10-17-2010 at 03:36 PM.
While it is technically true, it can be said that Nenshi knows how city council and the administration works better than even some members of the previous council themselves. He (and some others who don't happen to be running for office right now I might add) is basically a 15th member of council. He attends most of the meetings (or views the online stream), follows the motions made and the votes cast. He reads the reports that the aldermen are given to read (and many don't bother, believe it or not). Although he doesn't have a vote to cast, he will form an opinion on not only the high profile issues, but a lot of the more mundane stuff as well, which he then goes on to share how he would vote in his column or via social media.
He has worked with aldermen and the mayor as a member of the community on various initiatives. A couple of examples are him working with Alderman Stevenson on the airport tunnel motion as well as his own Alderman, Ray Jones on a playground and other initiatives in his community (he lives in Ward 5).
The guy knows how council works (or rather, how it should be working to be more effective). He knows the nuts and bolts of how to get things done in the system. In fact, he knows it so well, that he knows the issues with the system itself, and how to go about fixing them. There will be no learning on the job for this man, or leaning on staffers to brief him about every little thing.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to frinkprof For This Useful Post:
What has he done that was fiscally irresponsible? Asking for serious. I thought he was the one who forced them to go back and lower the tax increase a while back, but I could be wrong, my memory is fuzzy.
No--McIver voted for the 6.7% tax increase. He now promises to lower it to 4%, but won't say how. He also voted for the 3$ Park N' Ride fee, and now promises to lower it, but won't say how, and won't say why he supported it in the first place. Ditto a host of other things: one of the most surreal things about this election is that Ric McIver has really been running against the past incarnation of himself--which makes it little wonder that he's utterly failed to gain any traction, in spite of being the most well-funded candidate with the most experience.
But here's the real rub: there are two kinds of fiscal irresponsibility. One is overspending on unnecessary services. The other is pandering to the electorate by promising tax cuts that we can't afford. The current budget projects a 60 million dollar shortfall, and that's with the tax increase that McIver supported in the first place. The fact that he won't say how he can get to a 4% increase worries me: is he committing to tough cuts to programs (nothing in his record tells me that he's a guy willing to make tough decisions) or is he committing to years of deficit spending (this is far more likely)?
Not to mention the most damning fiscal irresponsibility, which is his pandering to developers, which is going to cost this city way more in the long run than an airport tunnel ever could. We need smart and conscientious urban planning in this city--we need a sustainable fiscal model, we need to control sprawl, etc. etc. The list of really important things that McIver just simply does not even address in his platform is shocking. Instead we get a species of the same rhetoric we get from every politician: I will take care of your money, but I can't tell you how. Just trust me, I root for the same hockey team that you do.
Promising lower taxes, preaching fiscal responsibility.... these are the definition of pandering, lowest-common-denominator politics. McIver had the opportunity to give us something more, but he's left us with a suitcase full of buzzwords and his track record--neither is very encouraging.
I actually still think he is the favourite to win to-morrow (though I hope to be proven wrong), but there is no doubt in my mind that he is the third-best choice among the remaining serious candidates.
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
The "midst" of the city? Well then, so be it, Cranston is inner city!
This is probably a touch too deep into semantics. I'm sure the poster meant that they are within or immediately adjacent to the city boundaries, and not that they are immediately close to what anyone might call "inner city."
We're running out of time, so I'll cut to the chase:
No matter what your priorities are, it comes down to fiscal responsibility.
We all have a vision, we all have ideas for the future. Bottom line, they won't be realized unless our council is able to get a handle on THE bottom line. We're way over-budget, we spend money on the wrong things, and we paid too much for them. Before you vote, understand where your candidate stands on fiscal responsibility:
Nenshi: http://www.nenshi.ca/new/2010/120
-Almost nothing here on fiscal responsibility, no clear picture. -Nenshi does NOT state reducing taxes or getting in line with inflation as a Goal, let alone promise it.
-His website criticizes past decisions, but also supports them. Ie., The airport tunnel. He is more eloquent, more charming, and stands for the exact same things as the previous council.
-One of his stated "Better Ideas" is to raise business taxes, to "help business". What? http://www.nenshi.ca/new/2010/189
Ric McIver: http://www.ricmciver.ca/taxes-and-the-november-budget/
Has the most tangible information of any candidate on the budget, although it lacks solutions.
On taxes: "The target will be to arrive at a level that is at or below the rate of inflation."
One concern: I see no actual plan to cut costs. He has suggested hiring consultants, and buying new technology. Neither of these things have any tangible connection to cost-cutting and historically result in higher costs.
In his own ward, he has shown no fiscal restraint (ie., race city speedway). I see lots of "No's" in his record, but I do not actually see any solutions or cost-cutting in his on ward.
His platform lacks financial solutions, but rather it refers to a "6 month review period". This is disappointing that the most knowledgeable and experienced candidate still cannot see any solutions other than to delay decisions for as long as possible.
Off the record, his agenda is said to be layoffs, and privatization. Neither of these are good economic solutions, as we have witnessed in Alberta's health care sector.
McIvor also has the biggest donations, which means the biggest agenda. People are just starting to ask questions to explain where the $38 million loan he approved for Walton international has gone: https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B9d...OWFkN2Fk&hl=en
Barb Higgins: http://barbhiggins.ca/issues/financi...nsibility.html "My goal will be to do everything I can to return to the mantra of our past: to not raise taxes any higher than inflation." "I would like to see business taxes reduced." Ric has not said this, while Nenshi wants to raise them. Implement a staffing freeze through to the end of the year which means implementing a hiring freeze, and no layoffs. Sensible. Nobody loses their job, but the budget is kept under control. Nenshi won't even comment on this, while Ric is rumored to support layoffs. Layoffs will of course make Ric's budget look better initially, but hurt the overall economy.
Barb's platform is less detailed than Ric's, but far more detailed than Nenshi's.
It is the most Solution-Oriented platform of the three.
Instead of delaying decisions for 6 months, Barb wants to start on these decisions Earlier.
She has a simple, tangible solution to audits, without the "fluff" words used by the other two candidates. Notice the refreshing lack of "more accountable", and "more efficient, more effective", and other nonsense fillers.
Notice that everything in her platform deals with solutions. Compare this to Ric's platform, which has no solutions but instead ridicules the previous council. Or Nenshi's platform, which basically ridicules everyone but him.
I go with Barb, because despite all the rampant rumors that she has no platform, she is the Only remaining candidate that has offered any tangible, attainable solutions to Calgary's budget crisis.
I do, of course agree with Nenshi's dialogue on urban sprawl. However, he's missed the boat on that. Construction is way down, and all three candidates are against urban sprawl. Only Nenshi has decided to turn a dead topic into a "hot topic", because it makes him look better. No matter which of these three you vote for, they will be against urban sprawl (because they're not funded by the developers like Bronco was, and because of changes in housing demand).
When you vote, remember that all three of these candidates want good things for Calgary. The candidate which can manage the budget best is the one who will deliver the most to Calgary in the long term.
I do, of course agree with Nenshi's dialogue on urban sprawl. However, he's missed the boat on that. Construction is way down, and all three candidates are against urban sprawl. Only Nenshi has decided to turn a dead topic into a "hot topic", because it makes him look better. No matter which of these three you vote for, they will be against urban sprawl (because they're not funded by the developers like Bronco was, and because of changes in housing demand).
Degrees of BS are denoted by proportional size increases of original text.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to frinkprof For This Useful Post:
Honestly? Yes. Absolutely. In fact, I wouldn't want anyone else.
You seem very jaded against Nenshi's campaign having been built using a large social media component. I'm not sure what to say to that.
I can understand that disgusting feeling that comes from not liking any of the candidates. I've been in that situation with federal politics more often than not. My parents live in Okotoks and 90% of their candidates are complete wacko's.
All I can say is this, and then I am done with this thread.
Perhaps I am a little jaded that we are replacing what was an excellent leader of this city, with what looks like to me, will be one of the worst leaders in decades, regardless of which one gets voted in. And admittedly I am bias as well as the next paragraph will disclose.
This city is going to be sorely missing Bronconnier in a few years when this thing is all said and done. I know Dave and his family through business, and have bit my tongue about all of the corruption slander about him, and all the bone headed comments made about him over the years in this forum and particularly in this thread. It is so laughably wrong, and I personally think a big reason the has had enough.
He is probably one of the nicest, down to earth, sincere normal guys you could ever meet, and a man of his word. He promised myself and a co worker, 2 years ago a round of golf for all the help we have given him and his family over the last decade. The timing never seemed to line up and it kinda fell off the map, in fact I had even forgotten. This summer, two years almost to the day, the guy walks in to my office and pulls my battered business card out of his wallet with the word 'Golf' written on the front of it and says, "I promised you guys a round of golf, when can we get this done?" If he had ran in this election, he would have mopped the floor with this current crop. If you ever got to sit down with the guy in a candid social setting and got to know him as a normal everyday guy, as I have had a chance to, your opinions on him would be much different.
Make no mistake on one thing, this was Dave's job to give away, not Nenshi, McIver or Higgins to win.
