ByeByeBaby
Active Member
He fully supports more greenfield development. Apparently, he used to work for a suburban developer as well. His answer on mixed land use was atrocious.
IMO I think Jan Damery is the best candidate and as a progressive voter, it's hard to make a case otherwise. Her views are very progressive and forward-thinking. For example, she acknowledges youth are leaving the city not only due to poor economic opportunities but due to other factors as well like lack of culture, vibrancy, etc. She's focused on building affordable housing in the inner city by providing the "missing middle" we always talk about this on the development forums. Another thing I got sold on was that she would push for a large tech hub downtown for students, helping to not only create vibrancy downtown but fixing the skills shortage limiting our tech growth. It's almost as if her policies are too good to be true. Gondek and Farkas have got way too much clout just because they're councilors. I really could care less about strategic voting. Let's just say Farkas does win, I highly doubt after his 4-year gong show people will want to elect someone like him ever again. A considerable amount of votes for Jan would likely encourage her to re-run in 2025. Just remember, Nenshi came out of the blue, strategic voting back then would have never allowed us to be rewarded with such a competent mayor. I'll take my chances this election.
You're factually wrong about Nenshi, he was statistically tied as one of the three top candidates in the poll closest to the election. Certainly, months before the election he was not well known, but by this point 11 years ago, he was well known and well supported. He was doing better in the polls at this time in 2010 than Jeff Davison, Brad Field, and Jan Damery are today, put together.
From discussions I've seen, I think there are two approaches to voting. One is the Tinder model, where you are searching for true love, and you need to hold out for someone that is going to fit your every need -- a vote is an expression of your purest desires. One is the Transit model, where you pick the candidate that has the best chance of getting you closer to where you want to go -- a vote is a practical choice that you use to maximize your power. And I'm certainly more on the utilitarian side; I want to vote in the way that will most likely result in the most acceptable outcome, but I recognize that there are different perspectives worthy of respect.
As a lesson that could be learned from 2010 mayoral elections, think of Rob Ford. He only served one term that is in the dictionary under "4-year gong show". When he was elected, the Sheppard East LRT project was fully funded from all three levels of government and was under construction; he cancelled it and it hasn't been touched in the eleven years since. Four more planned LRT lines would have been open today with the Transit City plan, that have not been built. If a Farkas-led council cancels the Green Line, it's not a four year delay. In 2025 if the next council is more favourable, they won't just write a check. The plans will be old and out of date, there will need to be politicking, there will need to be public engagement and vote wrangling and so on. Then after multiple rounds of revisions, updates, and so on, assuming that both the federal and provincial governments are in favour, it might get funded and could begin the RFP process; bottom line, it'll add a decade to completion. And that's the best case -- Seattle was on the verge of building a subway system in 1968, and it lost a vote and took 40 years for the city to start building rail.
But I'm shocked to hear anyone, posting in Alberta in September 2021, as the health care system collapses and people are dying for no good reason -- 79 in the past week, to say that it doesn't matter if your vote results in an incompetent right-wing ideologue having power for four years. What's the worst that can happen?