Results stream in...

It's always interesting to watch the results come in on a municipal eleciton. And to compare those results with your predictions.

The results as of midnight are...

Mayor
Bertram, David 4,586
Bronconnier, David (incumbent) 105,066
Fielding, Elizabeth Kaur 3,274
Foster, Allan 5,393
Heck, Harry 3,236
Jenkins, Sandy 13,669
Kassam, Alnoor 29,156
Sunstrum, Jonathan Joseph 1,562
Zhao, Jeremy 7,097

Nice to see that Bronconnier got it - although I was quite surprised to see how far back Alnoor Kassam was, even for second place. Also of note, Jeremy Zhao hit in the middle of the pack with a respectable 7,097 votes.

WARD 1
Banks, Jennifer 8,447
Hodges, Dale (incumbent) 11,799
Perrault, Normand 844

Dale defends his title with a significant lead, followed by Jennifer Banks and then Norm Perrault.

Watching the individual polls on this one was quite interesting - those polls that overlapped with Calgary Bow - mostly in Bowness and Montgomery - showed a stronger presense for Jennifer Banks. Not surprising because Banks ran as an NDP candidate in the last provincial election and had greater name recognition in those areas.

WARD 2
Avramenko, Terry 2,102
Del Re, Daniel M. 301
Lowe, Gord (incumbent) 9,784
Magliocca, Biagio 3,791

A clear vicotry for God Lowe, with Biagio taking second place.

WARD 3
Chahal, George 3,597
Larocque, Helene (incumbent) 2,676
Stevenson, Jim 3,815

Helen Laroque is unseated by Jim Stevenson as I predicted. I expected a tight race - and it certainly was between Jim and George with 218 vote difference, this one might go for a recount.

WARD 4
Evans, Richard 1,518
Hawkesworth, Bob (incumbent) 5,566
Peterson, Alex 652

Bob takes it by a significant lead! (I'm pretty happy to see that Richard's state-style tactics didn't go very far with voters in Ward 4).

WARD 5
El-Rafih, Mohamed 1,665
Jones, Ray (incumbent) 7,186

Again, right on the money - Ray Jones with a significant margin.

WARD 6
Berglund, Rosemary 77
Burrows, Craig (incumbent) 2,672
Connelly, Joe 3,263
Istvanffy, James Donald 994
Kohut, James 359

Craig Burrows has lost his seat to Joe Connelly. For a while the polls were quite close, and then Joe pulled away. I thought this one would be a bit closer for Craig, but it's good to see that a fairly reasonable candidate pulled through. It is with a bit of humour that I note 77 people voted for Rosemary - even though she withdrew from the race (after deadline so her name was still on the ballot). James Istvanffy was much closer the last election - it looks like he lost significant ground this time around.

WARD 7
Aithal, Jag 455
Eldridge, Barry 1,939
Farrell, Druh (incumbent) 7,462
Terleski, Merle 1,106

Druh takes it with the clear victory that I expected to see. Barry did a bit better than I had expected.

WARD 8
Chapman, Steve 2,588
King, Madeleine (incumbent) 2,890
Luhnau, Lindsay 1,010
Mar, John 3,133

It is close, and John Mar did significantly better than I had expected, although Steve Chapman had a decent showing as well. This one could still go to a recount.

WARD 9
Ceci, Joe (incumbent) 6,938
Koenig, Al 4,825
Waciak, Stan 550

Joe takes it, and by a stronger margin than I was expecting. Al had a good run, but one platform for 'Rambo' was not good enough to unseat the voice of reason.

WARD 10
Chabot, Andre (incumbent) 7,984
Dossa, Nargis 1,014

I didn't expect Chabot to have much trouble holding onto his seat, and he pulled well ahead of the competition.

WARD 11
Matthews, Dave 787
Murray, James M. (Jim) 1,779
Pincott, Brian 2,821
Rockwell, Jim 689
Whelan, Evonne 1,912

As expected Pincott takes the seat by a strong margin.

WARD 12
Halfyard, Nick 1,157
McIver, Ric (incumbent) 11,162

And it's the Return of Ric, but I was happy to see that Halfyard took about ten percent of the votes - quite sigificant for a man who ran a secret campaign... so secret that he almost managed to keep his website hidden from me. (At least Ric wasn't acclaimed. I look at the votes for Nick as votes against Ric. I would love to know how many ballots in this riding were spoiled).

And that's a wrap, until the recount. The new counsellors step forward.

Playing Favourites?

It's one thing when a blogger uses the web to communicate their personal thoughts and feelings, but it's quite another when a public news source, such as the Calgary Herald uses their website to foist their own thoughts and opinions on the voters.

Now, I'm not talking about editorial columns or clearly marked opinion pieces, but I'm referring to a nice little election utility that they post - it's quite obvious that it is meant to be a basic non-partisan information piece. Only it's not. Take a look at it here. Isn't it a nice map showing the candidates running in each ward? Such a pity that they neglected to identify a number of candidate's websites (although they are identifying others). I guess they don't have the same resources such as google and Wikipedia that the rest of us are able to access. It's amazing to me that if I can locate a campaign website on the first screen of a google search that they are incapable of doing the same thing. After all, it is very difficult to find a website for Bob Hawkesworth - just type in the name "Hawkesworth" - it's the fourth entry down on Google, and if you supply a first name, i.e. "Bob Hawkesworth" it appears first.

But that's not what set me off. What really set me off was when I was idly clicking about. How nice, they list everyone in alphabetical order. And Linda and Diane who were acclaimed, they have noted this along with a photo. I thought this was a nice touch.

Then I clicked on ward 4. I was greeted by a huge photo of Ric McIver. Significantly larger than the photos of either Linda or Diane - and it actually made the name Nick Halfyard half fall off of my screen when I clicked on it. (Notable that they were unable to find Nicks' website - although I must admit that it was a bit difficult even for me to locate).

It is wrong when a news source presents information that is half-baked and incomplete; and it's worse when that information is presented in a manner that is deliberately in favour of a specific candidate.

If you're looking for some non-biased information on candidates, can I send you to Grant Neufeld's website; he does a great job of listing the options without bringing his opinion into play. (Although he does supply a bit of commentary if you go looking under the tab marked "Opinion".

Perhaps the Calgary Herald ought to have labelled their "Voter Resources" section with the simple label "Opinion" rather than trying to mask it as a nonpartisan resource.

Election Predictions

Tomorrow is the day - make sure that you go out and vote. Let's show that Calgary has a spirit apart from political apathy. If you don't know where to vote, or how to vote click here for all the details. There are no excuses!

My predictions for the race are as follows...

Mayor
1. Dave Bronconnier
2. Alnoor Kasam (a close second)
3. Sandy Jenkins
4. Jonathan Joseph (J.J.) Sundstrom
5. Elizabeth Kaur Fielding
6. Jeremy Zhao
7. Allan Foster
8. Harry Heck
9. David Bertram
I predict that the race between Bronconnier and Kasam will be close, with the other 7 candidates lagging far behind.


Alderman
Ward #1
1. Dale Hodges (I predict a clear victory by a landslide!)
2. Jennifer Banks
3. Normand Perault

Ward #2
1. Gord Lowe (Clear victory)
2. Biagio Macliocca
3. Daniel Del Re
4. Terry Avramenko

Ward #3
1. Jim Stevenson (Tight race perhaps going to a recount)
2. Helene Larocque (I predict an upset of the incumbant).
3. George Chalal

Ward #4
1. Bob Hawkesworth
2. Richard Evans
3. Bob Peterson

Ward #5
1. Ray Jones (By a significant margin)
2. Mohamed El-Rafih

Ward #6
1. Craig Burrows (I predict that this one will be very close - and will go to a recount).
2. James Donald Istvanffy
3. Joe Connelly
4. James Kohut
5. Rosemary Berglund
Rosemary Berglund withdrew from the race, although her name will still appear on the ballot. I predict that we will still see a lot of vote splitting, with a very low majority for Burrows.

Ward #7
1. Druh Farrell (Predict a clear victory)
2. Merle Terleski
3. Barry Eldridge
4. Jag Aithal

Ward #8
1. Madeline King (It will be close, perhaps going to a recount)
2. Steve Chapman
3. Lindsay Luhnau
4. John Marr

Ward #9
1. Joe Ceci (It will be a tight race with Koenig, possibly going to a recount)
2. Al Koenig
3, Stan Waciak

Ward #10
1. Andre Chabot (by a landslide)
2. Nargis Dossa

Ward #11
1. Brian Pincott (Clear victory)
2. James M. "Jim" Murray
3. Dave Matthews
4. Jim Rockwell
5. Evonne Whelan
This will be an interesting race to watch with the incumbant having stepped aside.

Ward #12
1. Ric McIver (By a landslide)
2. Nick Halfyard
I predict that Nick will get a significant number of protest votes.

Ward #13
Diane Marie Colley-Urquhart Acclaimed

Ward #14
Linda Fox-Mellway Acclaimed

What are your predictions? Put 'em on the table here!

Who will be King?

Yesterday CBC and Mount Royal College hosted a Mayorality debate - the only all-candidate forum planned for this election (quite a disappointment given the importance of the seat). Unfortunately I was not able to attend (you can bet that I would have had some fun questions to ask).

All reports are that the forum went well, although with the limited time, time for each candidate was sorely limited. CBC reports that there was a great deal of sniping between the candidates, but apparently Jeremy Zhao managed to stay out of a lot of it. (Who would have thought that the youngest candidate in the room would be the most mature?).

CBC reports that the biggest issues on the table were affordable housing and election financing.

I have given a lot of thought to both of these issues, and I must agree with Bronconnier that the bandaid solution of "make secondary suites legal" is not the best solution. I'm sure that a lot of people who currently have an illegal suite would love the opportunity to make it legal - but a lot of others would also jump at the chance to use an unused basement to bring in some additional monthly income.

Certainly, on a case by case basis with relaxed zoning it could make a great deal of sense - but there are a lot of suites that are illegal for good reasons ranging from health and safety issues (such as access/egress, fire supression) as well as valid concerns with added occupant loading on streets (parking, access to city services such as EMS, garbage removal, etc).

If we consider legalizing secondary suites in areas not currently zoned, we need to take a careful look at emergency services to serve the area (i.e. would a sudden population surge such as a ten percent increase in population in Acadia cause undue pressures on EMS potentially resulting in lower quality of services? Do the suites meet basic safety and health regulations? It comes down to a case of the city needing to do significant legwork to legalize suites and like the rest of Calgary, the City is short staffed too.

It's not the instant-fix bandaid solution that candidates like Alnoor might be hoping for. Certainly if we threw open the floodgates and cried "the illegal is now legal" we would generate some more housing - but as Al Foster pointed out short term gains may not be in the best interest of a city that is here for the long term.

"You've got limited parking in these areas now. And if they have alleys now,
you're just going to double the garbage pickup," Foster said. "You're just going
to turn them into slums in the future."

About a year ago I attended a symposium on affordable housing that was hosted by Liberal MLA Dave Taylor. A number of good ideas came out of that evening, and I must admit that I was quite impressed by Alderman Joe Ceci's approach. He suggested that we need to look at housing on a different level - new communities need to support a mix of housing, and to be designed in a way that no one section of the community becomes a "slum". His vision was not to have rows upon rows of duplexes squashed into the least-desirable section of a new community, but instead to spread them throughout. Urban planning is something that Calgary has long ignored in favour of the developers - perhaps we need to revisit the need for a master plan in developing a City that we all want to live in.

Certainly by ensuring that developers have to provide a certain percentage of lower-cost housing more opportunities are opened up for everyone. However, Ceci made a very important point - that current provincial legislation does NOT allow the City to regulate this. Perhaps this is the first thing that we need to look at as part of the solution. (And this seems to be the tack that Bronconnier is taking towards the problem - a healthy long-term solution).

Campaign financing was also addressed - and Alnoor is proclaiming loud and clear that once he has purchased HIS seat, he is all for putting limits on the fundraising that others can do. As I have mentioned in a previous post, it worries me when a candidate spends $1 million to become Mayor - a post that has a significantly lower return on investment in terms of dollars than he is investing. It just doesn't make sense! (Doesn't something seem fishy for a profit-minded individual to not care about losing money on a proposition?)

Elections in the name of the Environment

As I watch the amount of election signage and materials being produced it makes you think a bit about the environment. Of course, a few extra Coroplast signs and a few thousand pounds of paper being added to the landfill is small potatoes compared to the gross amounts that go into the weekly flyer log (TM).

So far, I have seen absolutely nothing out of my alderman or the individual running against him, apart from a few signs for the incumbant (almost all of them illegally placed I might note), and have received one mailing for Bronconnier, one for Alnoor, and one from the City with general election goodness contained. On the whole, three mailings is not a great deal.

But as I was driving up Glenmore Trail today I started thinking about the environmental impact of the election. In particular, I noticed a large one ton truck that was painted brilliant yellow displaying signage for Madeleine King. It was a mobile billboard - something that I have noticed in this city before, but not very often (it seems to be quite short lived). Now, I don't have a problem with the concept of the mobile billboard when 'billboard' is the secondary purpose of the vehicle, but when vast amounts of gas and energy are being expended just to drive around a sign... then I have a problem.

We see a lot of mobile billboards every day - transit buses, some advertising on courier fleet vehicles (I've seen a lot of movies advertised on these in the past year). When the vehicle is already on the road and advertising is a secondary function - that doesn't bother me anywhere as much as a vehicle being placed on the road for the express purpose of carrying a sign. (And I can bet that vehicle is driving around day and night until the election is passed).

Now, when you go to visit Madeline King's website you will notice that she is talking about her own personal attempt to act in an environmentally friendly fashion. Hmmm... action vs. words?

On the whole I have been quite happy with the way that Madeleine King has handled herself on council - she has been quite a reasonable voice and in my experience has always been quite open to talking to her constituents and considering their views. In past election sshe has been unfairly attacked on health questions (i.e. on the last election Chapman tried to attack her on the question of her battle with breast cancer and her ability to represent the ward if her health was in question - something I considered to be a low blow and totally uncalled for).

Perhaps she has turned to mobile signs in an attempt to counter John Marr and Steve Chapman peppering the area with signs and waging a war based on marketing materials. (What else could you call the election signage?).

Chapman is out of PGIB camp - he's another McIverite who is running for a seat on council. From everything that I have seen, read and encountered, he would be another liability whose primary purpose would be to represent his own views rather than those of his constituents.

I get the feeling that he is running a campaign on scare tactics of crime and the need for increased policing. When you start to do a bit of digging on Chapman you notice that he is very much of the Consevative Religious Right movement.

Last election he gave Madeleine quite a run, and came back for round two this time. (Reminds me a bit of McIver, when he was told 'NO" the first time he ran against Sue Higgins, he just kept on coming back and participating in all possible byelections until he finally got a seat. Persistant to a fault).

John Marr, also making a run for Madeleine's seat comes from a community background having currently sitting on the Scarboro Community Association Board as President, and having worked as a RCMP Officer. He seems to be trying to take a quiet middle line in his fight against Madeleine - and browsing his website gives me the feeling that he is afraid to be too outspoken so as not to offend anyone. Unfortunately, in this case, being quiet will not win the race.

With two well-funded candidates both running on the "crime and policing" policy point, there is a much greater chance of them splitting any opposition vote to Madeline.

Lindsay Luhnau is running on a very green platform - very admirable, but I don't think it will be strong enough for her to win a seat against a strong personality like Madeline.

It would be interesting to see a candidate like Luhnau on council as an environmental counterpoint to the current batch on council. Certainly she is running in the right ward for appealing to the environmentally conscious, but I don't think that Calgary is ready to vote green, at least not yet.

Campaign Financing Abuses

Grog made a very good point on his recent comment about Alnoor's spending habits in regards to the mayoral race. He wrote

"What's he after - rumour has it he's shelling out nearly 7 digits in campaign spending to get a job that pays $160,000 - doesn't quite add up, does it? (especially when he is ostensibly spending his own money, not donations he's accumulated)"

That's so very true! The position, while well paid, certainly does not warrant paying double your three year salary to win the election.And I think we know Alnoor well enough to undertstand that he is all in it for himself. After all, this IS the same man who decided to hike rents on a Mount Royal property to line his own pockets in a cash grab response to local market values.

More recently, he found himself on the wrong end of media reports when he radically raised the rents in a Mount Royal lowrise -- for one tenant, from $650 to $2,500 a month. (Calgary Herald)

Not exactly the move of an altruistic caring individual. And the old saying that actions speak louder than words rings true here, as we note that Alnoor proclaims that affordable housing is one of his electoral concerns. It requires substantial suspension of disbelief to reconcile those two statements - and I'm afraid that I'm just not up to the task of believing the words of a man whose recent actions are so diametrically opposed.

So why would he do it? Spend $2 for every $1 that he has a potential to earn? Not a very good return on investment, especially since the election is nowhere near guaranteed. There has to be something else in it for him. Perhaps a few perks and benefits? Such as the ability to influence council decisions and make policy that benefits Alnoor himself. It's clear that the man is involved in real estate - could he possibly benefit from changing zoning or sliding permits through? (The cynic inside wants to make the claim that perhaps this is the only way to grease the wheels in Calgary since the suitcase of cash that worked so well in Kenya doesn't have the same pull here - but Alnoor claims that he has done that in the past, but now is above and beyond all of that).

So what's the solution? Perhaps we need to take a fresh look at election spending. Perhaps it is time to set a few limits on the amount of money that can be invested in the race to even out the playing field? Of course, any suggestion like this does have quite a few drawbacks - there is so much coverage that money just can't purchase (newspaper editorials from the Conservitites, volunteer labour, donations in 'kind' - all sorts of ways to slip through the loopholes like a greased eel).

The other thing that we so desprately need to address is the question of campaign dontations - when the Union or the Police Commission can fork over tens of thousands in support of a single candidate in a single donation; and when the large developers refer to contributions as "investments" - well, it's clear (at least to me) that the system is not without flaws. I prefer to see my elected representatives to stand alone without the need to pay back certain 'favours'.

And how do you go about doing it so that it is reasonable and fair across the levels?

First, let's set some limits on how much can be donated to an individual. If we follow the contribution guidelines federally we see that (when not sliding around loopholes like the Conservatives did on their recent leadership race by selling thousands of memberships to a Union): According to Elections Alberta Election FInance and Contributions Disclosure Act:

Limitatio

n on contributions

17(1) For the purposes of an election under the Election Act, contributions by any person, corporation, trade union or employee organization to registered parties, registered constituency associations or registered candidates shall not exceed

<> (a) in any year,
(i) $15 000 to each registered party, and
(ii) $1000 to any registered constituency association, and $5000 in the aggregate to
the registered constituency associations of each registered party,

and

(b) in any campaign period,
(i) $30 000 to each registered party less any amount contributed to the party in
that calendar year under clause (a)(i), and
(ii) $2000 to any registered candidate, and $10 000 in the aggregate to the
registered candidates of each registered party.

One thing that is also notible is that Candidates donating to their own election are limited by the same donation caps - and must report to Elections Alberta as well.

Now, given that Civic Politics are not partisan base d (At least not yet - until the McIverites get their way and start up the PGIB party), and taking into account that candidates cover significantly smaller territory and represent fewer people, equating civic political donations to provincial ones seems execessive. First, let's rid ourselves of clause a) and b) (i) since we do not have constituency associations or parties, and let's just look at clause b (ii). A limit of $2000 campaign contribution. It's still a sizable amount, but certainly doesn't come anywhere close to the tens of thousands that are benefiting not just the candidates running for council, but also the contributors albiet indirectly.

Now, the other thing that we need to consider is that on a provincial election each individual MLA runs in a single territory - including the party leader. It's a level playing field for the territory that each individual needs to reach. On a municipal level there is the inequity of size of territory for Mayor, Alderman and School Board - each covers a very different territory and each has a very different return on their investment in terms of salary and responsibility.

So it would make sense to set the limit per individual donor much lower.

Rather than setting a single limit of $X per donor with no donor limit, perhaps it might be more reasonable to set something that is a percentage of salary for the position. Perhaps it might make sense to limit Aldermanic spending per election to no more than 50% of yearly salary; and similarly for School board. Perhaps for Mayor, since their is so much more territory to cover, it might make sense to limit to no more than one year's salary. And, of course to eliminate any question of "favours owing" we need to limit how much any given group can donate to one candidate. This would take the election OUT of the realm of "Daddy Warbucks" and back to the question of individual candidate merit. Although, like everything else, this too could be open to great abuse.

There are drawbacks to each and every system that might be proposed - and this is not like any other. We still have to deal with columnists like Bishop Henry, Link Byfield, Paul Jackson and Rick Bell who have their own agenda to forward, and seem to take great glee in ensuring that their columns are single sided and ignore all inconvenient facts... but that's an entry for another blog.

Do you have any ideas on electoral financing reform for Civic Politics? Do you agree that it is needed?

Signs of the Times...

As the election nears we're seeing more and more signs gracing our streets. Some of them are relatively inoffensive, some are relatively ineffective, and others are just plain irritating.

One of my big beefs when it comes election time in this berg is the number of people running for election who turn a deaf ear and blind eye to the City of Calgary Sign Bylaw. Ok, I can understand that perhaps Jenkins or Heck might not be completely familiar with civic bylaws, but I think it is totally unexcusable when a candidate who is currently sitting on council to not be familiar with bylaws.

The City of Calgary is quite clear in what their expectations are for signage in their sign bylaw, and provide a clearly stated list of what is and what is not permissible right within each candidate information package.

I get downright grumpy when I drive down a street festooned with a white, orange and blue characture of Conservative Signs proclaiming their support of Ric McIver (or the other McIverites who are running their own little PGIB block in this election) - especially when he has chosen to post these signs within 30 meters of an intersection, right at the side of the road (two meters is six feet pal!), as well as on a median. Personally I find his signs to be most unsightly, especially those that have the large black line crossing out information on what I can only guess to be a previous election date. (Say, doesn't that qualify as graffiti?).

I guess that good old Ric is exempt from the sign bylaw - after all, Blackfoot Trail is a prohibited roadway (Ric, perhaps we ought to amend that sign bylaw to read that Blackfoot Trail is a prohibited roadway for everyone EXCEPT Ric - and if we don't will you start screaming to the media about how unfair it all is and how mean the other candidates are being to you? After all, that seems to be all that we hear any time that things don't quite go your way in council.... it's poor David against big mean Goliath)

But apart from those who really ought to know better, we're seeing a lot of signs that contravene the bylaw. And some that are quite amazing in their ingeniuty.

Lindsay Luhnau is being quite thrifty and artistic with her green on white signage. Pity that she didn't choose a shade of green that was dark enough to have a bit of contrast. I think that hers, although small and difficult to read, are some of the more innovatively designed signs out there.

James Kohut is taking a unique view to his signage (one might even call him a Banner Candidate - if you will forgive the pun). I drove past two of his home-made signs and scratched my head at the message he is trying to get out. "BAN CALGARYS CORRUPT AMERICAN DOLLAROCRACY STYLE OF ELECTION" and "BAN CORPORATE AND UNION POLITICAL DONATIONS UNLEASH REAL DEMOCRACY" (Hmmm, depending where you punctuate that second sign perhaps the meaning is intended to be "Ban Corporate and Union, Political Donations Unlease Real Democracy"). Apart from being wordy and difficult to understand, Kohut's signs do very little to further his campaign - after all, he apparently doesn't want me to vote for him, he is instead asking me to ban things that are outside of my control. He tells me very little about what he believes in - and gives me very little reason to want to vote for a NAYSAYER THAT BELIEVES ALL CAPITALS ARE EASY TO READ.

Some days I find the signs to be most irritating - some roads are plastered with a row of ten or twenty of them, all shouting for attention. The candidates seem to clump together like a bewildered heard of wildebeast - not a single candidate seems to notice that the road is open to two-way traffic, and nobody has posted a sign on the opposite direction. (This is repeated in hundreds of places across the city).

As the election draws closer I am sure that we will see many more signs go up, parodies of the Conservatives, parodies of the Liberals, and parodies of good taste all mixed in as the frenzy of the countdown builds up.