Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[InglewoodFan]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I really hate how our city cuts the green cart at this time of year. Nov 1, it goes to every other week, of course no pickup for me this week. It doesn't help that 2 weeks ago they didn't get it, either, because there was snow in the alley(which is a pretty weak excuse considering it's winter). But anyway, about half the leaves in my yard don't fall until November. So the time of the year I need it most, I get collection on the 12th and 26th of November. All they have to do is extend it 2 more weeks.

Oh crap, I just filled my bin to the top with leaves instead of bagging them since Tuesday is always green bin day. Didn't even occur to me that the pickup was about to go biweekly. Not sure if I have room for the next week's worth of household green bin load.

[Minnie]

Farkas & Wenzel, not just pricks but the whole damn cactus.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Everyone should probably wake up to the fact guys like Farkas will bs their way to the mayor seat. There's too many people with no grasp how this stuff works and he will play on their preconceived notions about leftists taking over the city. We aren't immune to what's happening elsewhere.

If Farkas becomes mayor it's because the other candidates are terrible. What he's doing it pretty transparent but caters to the masses as I personally don't believe there's an appetite in this city to defund the police.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

If Farcas becomes mayor it's because the other candidates are terrible. What he's doing it pretty transparent but caters to the masses as I personally don't believe there's an appetite in this city to defund the police.

I don't think the vast majority of people [anywhere] understand what 'defund the police' means. Unfortunately, 'Reallocate police funds to other front-line social service workers' doesn't chant as well or fit on a protest sign.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I don't think the vast majority of people [anywhere] understand what 'defund the police' means. Unfortunately, 'Reallocate police funds to other front-line social service workers' doesn't chant as well or fit on a protest sign.

I don't think there's a big appetite to reallocate any police funds regardless and like it or not what he's doing it catering to his voting base. It's no different than when the Liberals start up the CP fearmongering before an election. We all know what they are doing but it's still very effective.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I don't think the vast majority of people [anywhere] understand what 'defund the police' means. Unfortunately, 'Reallocate police funds to other front-line social service workers' doesn't chant as well or fit on a protest sign.

It's still a reduction in police budget and, presumably, police presence in the community. Considering only 20 per cent of Black Americans want a reduced police presence in their communities, it's highly unlikely most Calgarians would be onboard.

[Ozy_Flame]

The "Defund the Police" message is having a serious lack of context provided to the public. Most people just associate "cut police budgets because police bad", but the messaging is critical here. It's really a re-allocation of funds to police, health or community social services instead of dispatching or using police resources for cases that don't require their specific skillset.

I think this is right thing to do (especially with the rise in endemic drug use and mental health issues in urban areas), but this process needs to explainable, easy to understand, and transparent.

I think what's needed is a well-crafted pilot project of sorts to trial a new model of community service and policing, working together to address these issues. Then see where the strengths and weaknesses may lay.

[PepsiFree]

Perhaps people should look at what is actually being discussed by Mark Neufeld, Nenshi, and others regarding what exactly they are thinking of doing.

The way they're currently talking about it, any reduction in police budget or police presence will likely be directly towards where CPS recognizes they are not the right responders. The issue is that they have become the defacto response for everything, when they simply don't need to be.

It's worth paying attention to the Calgary-specific conversations going on, not the blanket-generalized "defund the police" and applying that to Calgary without context.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Perhaps people should look at what is actually being discussed by Mark Neufeld, Nenshi, and others regarding what exactly they are thinking of doing.

The way they're currently talking about it, any reduction in police budget or police presence will likely be directly towards where CPS recognizes they are not the right responders. The issue is that they have become the defacto response for everything, when they simply don't need to be.

It's worth paying attention to the Calgary-specific conversations going on, not the blanket-generalized "defund the police" and applying that to Calgary without context.

Look at you so cute and doe-eyed, thinking the general populace will critically read and digest information.

[81MC]

Council agreed to remove minimum parking requirements for non-residential use.

So, where permit parking is needed, residents should pay, and you need to have onsite parking for a secondary suite.

But developers can offload the cost and burden of parking space entirely to the general public? I’m not sure I understand.

[InglewoodFan]

Watching some of the twitter commentary from today's council meeting. Davison brings up that while he supports lower residential speed limits, there isn't unanimous support from his constituents. And this to me is where I see a disconnect with democratic institutions. An elected official to my way of thinking can't always make the popular decision. If we only wanted our governments to act in the selfish interests of the majority, why even bother? Some things are better for the collective health of society but inconvenience individuals a little bit. Many years ago a did a bit of groundwork on making a run for council, and my campaign slogan was basically going to be "I'll make unpopular decisions." Which is why I am not a politician.

I also have a long standing gear grinder that our council seems to get paralyzed by indecision when the calendar turns to less than a year from their re-election. I can envision many of these items being referred to committee so they can keep kicking the can down the road until after the election.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by 81MC

Council agreed to remove minimum parking requirements for non-residential use.

So, where permit parking is needed, residents should pay, and you need to have onsite parking for a secondary suite.

But developers can offload the cost and burden of parking space entirely to the general public? I’m not sure I understand.

EDIT: Looks like I was mistaken about the whole thing.

Thought we were talking about street parking permits that is being explored. Not parking spot minimums. Yeah, not sure I agree with the decision. Some of the bigger developments on 16th ave have had the concern expressed that parking will be an issue and the developers and the city have said "there is parking spot minimums so don't worry about it" but wonder if that will still be true now.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by InglewoodFan

Watching some of the twitter commentary from today's council meeting. Davison brings up that while he supports lower residential speed limits, there isn't unanimous support from his constituents. And this to me is where I see a disconnect with democratic institutions. An elected official to my way of thinking can't always make the popular decision. If we only wanted our governments to act in the selfish interests of the majority, why even bother? Some things are better for the collective health of society but inconvenience individuals a little bit. Many years ago a did a bit of groundwork on making a run for council, and my campaign slogan was basically going to be "I'll make unpopular decisions." Which is why I am not a politician.

I also have a long standing gear grinder that our council seems to get paralyzed by indecision when the calendar turns to less than a year from their re-election. I can envision many of these items being referred to committee so they can keep kicking the can down the road until after the election.

Double edged sword.
You are elected by constituents to represent them, not rule over them. Acting on an “I know better” basis isn’t the role of a city councillor.

[habernac]

They pussied out and are going towards a plebiscite. Do your jobs you were elected to do.

[getbak]

Why would they even waste time with a plebiscite? The plebes aren't going to vote for it.

[Ozy_Flame]

Don't almost all plebiscites end in NO?

Useless exercise. The eight Councillors who voted yes to delaying this until February are wasting taxpayer money and time.

[MarchHare]

If anyone wants to see how your councillor voted:

VOTE to refer speed limit discussion to February and look at a plebiscite for neighbourhood speed limits CARRIED 8-6. #yyccc
Davison: Y
Demong: Y
Farkas: Y
Farrell: N
Gondek: N
Keating: N
Magliocca: Y
Sutherland: Y
Woolley: N
Carra: N
Chahal: Y
Chu: Y
Colley-Urquhart: Y
Nenshi: N

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by InglewoodFan

Watching some of the twitter commentary from today's council meeting. Davison brings up that while he supports lower residential speed limits, there isn't unanimous support from his constituents. And this to me is where I see a disconnect with democratic institutions. An elected official to my way of thinking can't always make the popular decision. If we only wanted our governments to act in the selfish interests of the majority, why even bother? Some things are better for the collective health of society but inconvenience individuals a little bit. Many years ago a did a bit of groundwork on making a run for council, and my campaign slogan was basically going to be "I'll make unpopular decisions." Which is why I am not a politician.

I also have a long standing gear grinder that our council seems to get paralyzed by indecision when the calendar turns to less than a year from their re-election. I can envision many of these items being referred to committee so they can keep kicking the can down the road until after the election.

Davison's ward is full of suburbs with long, dense collector roads (with driveways) leading to pockets with multi-million-dollar homes. Of course there are differing views.

It's still amazing to me how much of a #### show that whole thing became...a stunning example of the abilene paradox.

[Erick Estrada]

Is there really a decent sized portion of the populace that feels the need for lower residential speed limits? I haven't spoken to anyone that is for it. I'm sure there are some out there in certain areas with legitimate concerns but as a whole it's just not something that should have got this far in the first place as it's going to get shot down via plebiscite.

[TorqueDog]

My councillor voted no. Woolley can get bent.

Originally Posted by habernac

They pussied out and are going towards a plebiscite. Do your jobs you were elected to do.

Well, they weren't elected to go against the available data and put a useless and costly measure in place instead of using public funds to actually improve safety. Maybe the citizens can save city council from itself again (see the Olympic bid).