Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[Ozy_Flame]

One thing about Farrell - even though she served for 20 years, the first word that comes to my mind with her is passionate - not urbanist, not flouride, not Peace Bridge ... Just passionate. And she dealt with crazy amounts of hate but was able to wipe it off. I definitely appreciate her service, and hope her Ward elects another passionate progressive who understands fiscal responsibility when it counts.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

One thing about Farrell - even though she served for 20 years, the first word that comes to my mind with her is passionate - not urbanist, not flouride, not Peace Bridge ... Just passionate. And she dealt with crazy amounts of hate but was able to wipe it off. I definitely appreciate her service, and hope her Ward elects another passionate progressive who understands fiscal responsibility when it counts.

how about passionate but misguided?

sorry. if nothing else, I can't overlook her leading the crusade against flouride in water.

[Ozy_Flame]

Sure, whatever floats your boat. It's politics.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

how about passionate but misguided?

sorry. if nothing else, I can't overlook her leading the crusade against fluoride in water.

It was maybe the most bizarre thing I have ever seen in city hall and that's saying something. The crusade of environmentalists to save the planet pales compared to Farrell's crusade against fluoride. It's like it was personal to her. I wouldn't be surprised if she was drinking strictly bottled water as it's like she was under the influence that consuming fluoridated water would bring imminent death.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

I think there will be a strong correlation between people who disagreed with DF and people who say she was arrogant and didn't listen to their concerns.
I think that's probably true of every elected official.

I think part of the reason you hear more people say she had bad dealings with her is partly because she did speak with more people, hence more opportunities for people to say, "I took a concern to her, and she did nothing". Elected officials can't do everything, and fix every problem, so the more people they speak to, the more people who will come away saying, "She didn't listen to me", when in reality, she did, she just disagreed, had other priorities, or couldn't do anything about it.

Meanwhile, you've got a guys like Chu and Farkas, and the criticism isn't "He didn't listen to me", it's "All they do is complain and vote no to everything"

I'd much rather vote for someone who actively works towards goals, even if I disagree, rather than just being against things.

[Roughneck]

The fluoride issue is one of these things, like the speed limits, where I think people have less of a grasp on the general feelings of the electorate than they think they do.



It took five plebiscites to get it added, only 55% voted to keep it in the sixth. Then a 10-3 council vote removed it over a decade later which is the most decisive anything about the issue has been. Of those 10, five were re-elected twice (Farrell, Carra, Demong, DCU, and Keating), and a sixth was re-elected once (Stevenson). Don't know of the other four yes votes, all I could see was Nenshi and Pincott were absent.



That's a broad mix of councilors and people who would support them. Farrell might be leading these charge, but it's not anywhere near as against the political grain as one might hope. Like the speed limit issue, there's a lot of people very passionate about it that drives councilor support, not the other way around. A plebiscite will be a lot closer to 50/50 than it should be.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I think there will be a strong correlation between people who disagreed with DF and people who say she was arrogant and didn't listen to their concerns.
I think that's probably true of every elected official.

I think part of the reason you hear more people say she had bad dealings with her is partly because she did speak with more people, hence more opportunities for people to say, "I took a concern to her, and she did nothing". Elected officials can't do everything, and fix every problem, so the more people they speak to, the more people who will come away saying, "She didn't listen to me", when in reality, she did, she just disagreed, had other priorities, or couldn't do anything about it.

Meanwhile, you've got a guys like Chu and Farkas, and the criticism isn't "He didn't listen to me", it's "All they do is complain and vote no to everything"

I'd much rather vote for someone who actively works towards goals, even if I disagree, rather than just being against things.

You really think that Farrell is special because she spoke with a lot of people? My aunt is in Farkas ward (where they absolutely love him) and I'm pretty sure she has him on speed dial lol. Hell even Magliocca was always on our community facebook page explaining any changes (new intersection signs, park changes, etc) and was always available as like I said before he had me duped until his scandal. I think you are a little out of touch with how many dealings all the councillors have with their constituents. Farrell certainly isn't special here.

[surferguy]

Is this anecdotal evidence or do you have some numbers to back it up? Unless you are privy to this information (and you may very well be) then your statement is just opinion like his.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

My point is that the criticism of the councilors is different, and it's probably reflective of how they act in council.

Someone like DF who actively works towards her stated goals, is more likely to get the kind of criticism that we are seeing from her, which is "She doesn't listen to people", because yeah, not everyone in her ward agrees with her.

Whereas guys like Chu, and Farkas, who's entire persona, and a large part of their campaign, is based on saying "No" to everything, aren't likely to get the same kind of criticism, because the main criticism directed towards them is based on the fact that they act like children in council, and don't actually have any goals other than grandstanding and voting no to everything.

Guys like Chu and Farkas are pretty alienating to anyone who has any sort of progressive ideas or goals, so I wouldn't think it so far out of the realm of possibility the people who disagree with them aren't likely to level the criticism that "They don't listen" because we know they don't. They criticism they get is "All they do is vote no to anything that costs money" and grandstand about bike lanes.

For example, I would venture a guess that people who are against bike lanes, are a lot more likely to speak to DF, than people who are for them are likely to speak to JF.
One of those people may come away saying "She didn't listen" the other is likely to say "He's just gonna vote no anyway".

[RoadGame]

You know who else is passionate and has goals?


.
.
.


Larry Heather.



I can distinguish between whether I agree/disagree with someone and whether the tone they strike in interactions I have with them or observe them having is arrogant (Naheed Nenshi comes to mind). I think any reasonably self-reflective person can too. If it takes dismissing the lived experience or intelligence of Farrell critics for some Farrell fans to feel better about her choice not to run again, well I suppose that is an understandably emotional response.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

You really think that Farrell is special because she spoke with a lot of people? My aunt is in Farkas ward (where they absolutely love him) and I'm pretty sure she has him on speed dial lol. Hell even Magliocca was always on our community facebook page explaining any changes (new intersection signs, park changes, etc) and was always available as like I said before he had me duped until his scandal. I think you are a little out of touch with how many dealings all the councillors have with their constituents. Farrell certainly isn't special here.

As someone in her ward for 12 years, here is Druh in a nutshell. She acts as a "visionary" and very seldom gets involved in the tactical issues that face her constituents.

Want to discuss bike lanes and how they changed Portland to be a more pedestrian friendly and vibrant city? Happy to chat!

However, is your street is flooded for 2 years due to a parks issue? Please let me take this to my lowest ranking staff member and lose your mind as they struggle to get nothing done. Oh and I will never respond, ever.

I am not a Farkas fan at all, but he is onto something. People want someone who listens and cares to things that actually impact them. Druh doesn't care or want to get involved at this level. She very much feels she needs to operate at the strategy level above such things. It gives an elitest vibe and is the reason many don't care for her in my area.

It has nothing to do with "not listening to me". The street is flooded and the city is ignoring people asking for help. Her job is to help people in her area. Its yucky and tactical but it means the world to have someone show they care. If they ignore you or delegate you off, why would you vote for them?

[getbak]

Oh yeah...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1364602375697096705

[Flames0910]

It's hard to be all things to all people, which is why we vote.

Happy with the status quo? Vote for the guy who says no to everything, that way you don't have to worry about the city coming in and ripping up your streets to add bike lanes.

Just want someone on your side? Vote for the scrappy (wo)man of the people who will fight your battles in city hall.

Dream of a better city? Vote for the latte-sipping progressive who's going to fight for a vision that you believe in.


You have to take the good with the bad. Despite what they say, no politician can make everything a priority. Their attention is limited. In this regard, Farrell's record over 20 years at city hall speaks for itself. Was she perfect? No, nobody is - but the projects she contributed to will effect the shape of our city for decades.

[RoadGame]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

However, is your street is flooded for 2 years due to a parks issue? Please let me take this to my lowest ranking staff member and lose your mind as they struggle to get nothing done. Oh and I will never respond, ever. [...] It gives an elitest vibe and is the reason many don't care for her in my area.

It has nothing to do with "not listening to me". The street is flooded and the city is ignoring people asking for help. Her job is to help people in her area. Its yucky and tactical but it means the world to have someone show they care. If they ignore you or delegate you off, why would you vote for them?

100%. This is exactly the issue I have with her/her office's approach to the community-level stuff. Whatever the specific issue is won't matter to 99% of the city but it impacts my daily life and the daily life of my neighbours, and so we do care about it and how our elected representative engages with us on that.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

As someone in her ward for 12 years, here is Druh in a nutshell. She acts as a "visionary" and very seldom gets involved in the tactical issues that face her constituents.

Want to discuss bike lanes and how they changed Portland to be a more pedestrian friendly and vibrant city? Happy to chat!

However, is your street is flooded for 2 years due to a parks issue? Please let me take this to my lowest ranking staff member and lose your mind as they struggle to get nothing done. Oh and I will never respond, ever.

I am not a Farkas fan at all, but he is onto something. People want someone who listens and cares to things that actually impact them. Druh doesn't care or want to get involved at this level. She very much feels she needs to operate at the strategy level above such things. It gives an elitest vibe and is the reason many don't care for her in my area.

It has nothing to do with "not listening to me". The street is flooded and the city is ignoring people asking for help. Her job is to help people in her area. Its yucky and tactical but it means the world to have someone show they care. If they ignore you or delegate you off, why would you vote for them?

And this is where I would disagree with how what role councilors are supposed to fill.
To me, they shouldn't be spending time on things like "My street is flooded".
There are staff, and city departments that are in place for that. Sometimes it's frustrating dealing with getting a small issue fixed, but does that mean councilors should be spending time on fixing problems for individuals?

Councilors are administrators and executives, they should be dealing with big picture ways to make the city better. We don't elect councilors to work at a call center and get sidewalks fixed, we elect them to lead and to build a vision, and plan for the city as a whole.

Councilors like Farkas appeal to the people who think a councilors main role should be to help individuals fix their problems, and really annoy people who want to see someone who is working towards a vision and a plan to make the city better as a whole.

Councilors like Farrell do the opposite.
It may seem like they aren't listening because they pass you off to a staff member, or direct you to the right city department, but in reality, they are doing their job by sending you to the people who's job it is to fix your problems, while they focus on the larger picture.

To make a soundbite out of it, do you want a councilor who's priority is fixing/building a sidewalk, or a councilor who's priority is fixing/building a city?

[Flames0910]

Councilors are administrators and executives, they should be dealing with big picture ways to make the city better. We don't elect councilors to work at a call center and get sidewalks fixed, we elect them to lead and to build a vision, and plan for the city as a whole.

Couldn't agree more.

Councilors like Farkas appeal to the people who think a councilors main role should be to help individuals fix their problems, and really annoy people who want to see someone who is working towards a vision and a plan to make the city better as a whole.

This may out me as a bleeding heart liberal, but people like Farkas also appeal to the portion of the population that votes to keep things the way they are because the status quo is working just fine for them. Why mess with the formula when you're already coming out on top?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by getbak

Oh yeah...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1364602375697096705

Farkas' strategy (if you can even call it that) is very much just "scorched earth". Say no to everything, deny any investments, focus on tax cuts and tell the people how socialist City Hall is. Slash and burn the establishment, and avoid presenting any ideas to grow one of the best 1M+ cities in the world.

If people like that, vote for him. I'm sure the Save Calgary crew will pump his tires as the savior of City Hall.

Some people here should know - there is a very real chance Farkas is not part of council altogether in eight months. He's going all in on the mayorship, and that's a very risky move for such a polarizing figure who doesn't have city-wide appeal.

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Farkas' strategy (if you can even call it that) is very much just "scorched earth". Say no to everything, deny any investments, focus on tax cuts and tell the people how socialist City Hall is. Slash and burn the establishment, and avoid presenting any ideas to grow one of the best 1M+ cities in the world.

B-but his mailout says that he says "yes" to change (and everything else)

[RoadGame]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

To make a soundbite out of it, do you want a councilor who's priority is fixing/building a sidewalk, or a councilor who's priority is fixing/building a city?

I'd like one who can do at least a decent job of either one of those dimensions and spikes on the other. It wouldn't hurt if they were known to incorporate constituent feedback on the city-building stuff either, as opposed to planting their flag early and often.

Since we're on a hockey forum... DF is like an enigmatic forward who can't backcheck for ****.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

B-but his mailout says that he says "yes" to change (and everything else)

Politicians advertising about stuff is about as reliable as a housecat paying rent. They'll try to look cute while they destroy your assets and expect you to pay for it.