Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I just pray that no other progressive candidates see this as an opportunity to jump in.

Ward 11 had 2 good progressive candidates, 2 medicore progressive candidates, and Farkas.

Guess who won with the split vote. Please don't let this be a repeat for mayor.

That's what I'm concerned with as well. Gondek having a progressive competitor will open up the path for Farkas. If it's primarily just Gondek vs. Farkas + other lame duck candidates, than Gondek has a real solid shot.

I hope Calgarians want to continue in having a mayor that does care about it's citizens, and want the city to keep growing and developing in a smart, and progressive manner.

[Bigtime]

New candidate for Ward 7:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1380199993043152896

[Joborule]

Seems like Andre Chabot is making a run to get back into council by casting his hat into the Ward 10 race.

His website though looks like he's still carrying the philosophy that the area should remain in the early 2000s...

https://www.andrechabot.ca/

I don't live in the ward anymore, but I hope they get a fresh new candidate with ideas more than safety/justice for the area. Those are an obvious focus there, but the ward has been neglected from any actually projects and vision for quite some time. It would be great if the ward could get a councilor who wants to look at improvements in the area such as along 36 Street & 32 Avenue corridor with the LRT, added greenways/parks, and getting an interchange at 68 St / 16 Ave NE.

[Mull]

Andre always seemed like an honest man. I don't know his current platform, assuming its fiscally conservative, but in general, would rather a councilor I disagree with over policy that is honest, then one who is... well Farkas for example.

Pretty much saying I think a Ward could do far worse than Andre.

[CPK80]

Andre Chabot was a good councilor, he had respect from almost everyone on council including Nenshi. They have both said good things about each other, even Andre mentions that in is recent tweets about Nenshi not running...

I can't remember the ward alignment but I do know he was a big part in bringing investments into places like Forest Lawn (The development of International Avenue).

While he would be right leaning... When ever I watched council it seemed like he made decisions based on facts, and what he thinks brings value to his ward and the City as a whole. An example of that he was in favor of the bike track system.

Originally Posted by Joborule

Seems like Andre Chabot is making a run to get back into council by casting his hat into the Ward 10 race.

His website though looks like he's still carrying the philosophy that the area should remain in the early 2000s...

https://www.andrechabot.ca/

I don't live in the ward anymore, but I hope they get a fresh new candidate with ideas more than safety/justice for the area. Those are an obvious focus there, but the ward has been neglected from any actually projects and vision for quite some time. It would be great if the ward could get a councilor who wants to look at improvements in the area such as along 36 Street & 32 Avenue corridor with the LRT, added greenways/parks, and getting an interchange at 68 St / 16 Ave NE.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Mull

Andre always seemed like an honest man. I don't know his current platform, assuming its fiscally conservative, but in general, would rather a councilor I disagree with over policy that is honest, then one who is... well Farkas for example.

Pretty much saying I think a Ward could do far worse than Andre.

True. I think as long as there's more ambition to have projects occur within the ward rather than with Jones who seem rather content with status quo, it would be bring a good boost of energy into that part of the city.

Originally Posted by CPK80

Andre Chabot was a good councilor, he had respect from almost everyone on council including Nenshi. They have both said good things about each other, even Andre mentions that in is recent tweets about Nenshi not running...

I can't remember the ward alignment but I do know he was a big part in bringing investments into places like Forest Lawn (The development of International Avenue).

While he would be right leaning... When ever I watched council it seemed like he made decisions based on facts, and what he thinks brings value to his ward and the City as a whole. An example of that he was in favor of the bike track system.

Stuff like that is what the new boundaries of Ward 10 needs. So if he brings that to the table, then he would be a good councilor for the ward. The NE needs to start having a vision of building urban realms that makes the quadrant more than the airport and big warehouses with simple suburban homes to the side. It's a unique part of the city with it's diversity. Tap into it's potential.

[TorqueDog]

The new municipal ward boundaries appear to have been designed by a crazy person.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

The new municipal ward boundaries appear to have been designed by a crazy person.

They look quite reasonable to me. What are your objections?

[timun]

They look way better than the old ones, to me. But then I live in Ward 11, which was almost certainly the most ####ed up ward. The boundaries bylaw specifically stated that wards must not be "pie-shaped", yet somehow Victoria Park, Mission and Erlton were lumped in with Cedarbrae, Braeside and Oakridge...

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by SebC

They look quite reasonable to me. What are your objections?

Bridgeland and Belvedere (outside of the ring road) are supposed to be fairly represented by the same person.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by timun

wards must not be "pie-shaped", yet somehow Victoria Park, Mission and Erlton were lumped in with Cedarbrae, Braeside and Oakridge...

Ward 9 and 11 look like intentional efforts to dilute representation of the inner city.

[Mazrim]

I would love to see an average household income map overlaid with the ward boundaries. Ward 11 feels strange in that regard.

[vegasbound]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

The new municipal ward boundaries appear to have been designed by a crazy person.

Yeah, I agree. Douglasdale in Ward 11? Weird.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Ward 9 and 11 look like intentional efforts to dilute representation of the inner city.

In what way? I get that Belvedere (had to look up exactly which one that is) is way over on ass-end of the east side, and sharing a ward with Bridgeland, Inglewood, Ramsay, etc. seems asinine on the face of it, but Ward 9 previously had Riverbend, Acadia and such in it too. Somebody has to represent that community, and it makes more sense to me to lump it into the one that represents Penbrooke, Forest Lawn/Heights, Dover, etc. I guess the alternative was make it part of Ward 10 or 12? In the grand scheme of things I don't think this is all that egregious.

On the other hand I don't see how anyone doesn't see the new Ward 11 boundaries as an improvement. Palliser, Acadia, Southwood, etc. have a lot more in common with Douglasdale than they do Rideau Park, Roxboro, Park Hill, etc., which have been returned back to Ward 8. There is an argument to be made that the neighbourhoods north of Glenmore—Garrison Green, North Glenmore Park (half of it, anyway), Windsor Park, Meadowlark Park, Bel-Aire and Mayfair—are "inner city" and don't belong with the rest, but otherwise... it's a suburban ward, it pretty much always was prior to the last election's farcical boundaries. If anything the old boundaries did much more to "dilute representation of the inner city" by lumping Mission, Erlton and Vic Park in with Ward 11.

[You Need a Thneed]

Belvedere isn’t really a community yet, it’s showhomes and maybe a couple houses at this point.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by vegasbound

Yeah, I agree. Douglasdale in Ward 11? Weird.

I’m in Garrison Green, also a new Ward 11 member. It makes no sense, we share countless pieces of infrastructure with Lincoln Park, Currie, Altadore, etc. And for some stupid reason our neighbourhood (except for ATCO’s campus) got moved from Ward 8 to 11.

It’s as dumb as putting Douglasdale in Ward 11.

Population distribution as a goal for Ward rejigging is stupid if it ends up with sh-t like this.

[SebC]

Okay, so let's say there's an obvious solution (which to me would be define an area with the right population for three wards in the inner city, divide it in three, and then slice up the suburbs). Why didn't they do it, and aren't we a bit late having this discussion now?

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by timun

In what way? I get that Belvedere (had to look up exactly which one that is) is way over on ass-end of the east side, and sharing a ward with Bridgeland, Inglewood, Ramsay, etc. seems asinine on the face of it, but Ward 9 previously had Riverbend, Acadia and such in it too. Somebody has to represent that community, and it makes more sense to me to lump it into the one that represents Penbrooke, Forest Lawn/Heights, Dover, etc. I guess the alternative was make it part of Ward 10 or 12? In the grand scheme of things I don't think this is all that egregious.

I think that having a ward that goes from basically the city centre all the way to outside the ringroad is generally "pie shaped" in nature, and have been proven as a mechanism to dilute inner city votes.

An argument could be made that Forest Lawn, as with Bowness is a bit different as it's a "main street" oriented community that could have similar needs to Bridgeland/Inglewood etc.

My opinion is that in general, someone that chooses to live near the edge of the city has very different needs and priorities than someone who lives next to downtown.

It seems pretty hard on a representative to do a good job when their ward is going to be split on many of the major issues.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by SebC

Okay, so let's say there's an obvious solution (which to me would be define an area with the right population for three wards in the inner city, divide it in three, and then slice up the suburbs). Why didn't they do it, and aren't we a bit late having this discussion now?

Because I don’t recall us being consulted on Ward boundary changes and by the time I found out, it had already happened.

It being late to discuss does not have any bearing on how valid the complaint is.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

It being late to discuss does not have any bearing on how valid the complaint is.

It can be valid, but it's not actionable.