So, No on the Giant Ball Pit?

Edmonton, having tucked its central airport into the ground and scattered the sod, is now looking to re-imagine and reinvent the area into a full community; a herculean task incorporating commercial, family housing that honors the history of the airport, which still looking to become more environmentally sustainable. We have taken proposals from five engineering companies from around the world, and today the concepts were unveiled. I have given them a brief scan, but it is a massive pain to do so online, if Dear Reader is interested, I would highly suggest wandering over to take a look in person.
Alright, as promised I managed to wander on over to city hall and gander at the proposal boards, despite being pretty star-struck from the sky-high windows of City hall. 
 
A dominant theme in all the proposals seems to be altering the topography, breaking up the large, flat area into ditches to corral water and provide activities, but I am unsure why people seem intent on turning the runways into giant flowerbeds, as though using the available concrete pad would be bad. Another thing no one seems to have tipped  off these dreamers about is that in Canada, a large, flat, pool of stagnant water is a mosquito love-ground. Without adequate measures in place to either spray for pests (which I hate) or constantly break up the placid water, we have a large bug problem on our hands. I also dislike how everyone brings up the LRT connections, as though the City was not going to do that already (Holy smokes, guys, have you heard of this El-Ar-Tee thing?!); No taking credit for our ideas, please. The other problem is that three of them noted how much Edmontonians consumed, saying if everyone in the world consumed as much as we did, mankind would need four planets to sustain ourselves; because nothing starts a proposal off like a lecture about how we are bad, bad people.

The Kansas proposal focuses too much on open space concept, and although the gardens are a nice touch, we run the risk of incorporating too many hobo friendly spaces and initiatives, such as the complete accessibility and the foliage. Carbon neutral by 2020, but a private waste sorting seems a waste of money if it cannot be expanded into a whole-city endeavor. There also is little to suggest comfortable integration into the existing roadways, but further examination may prove this false. A complete review of this proposal confirmed what I was concerned about; it does not really matter how many ravines or interesting hills you have if every building resembles a bunker. Just big block squares far as the eye can see.  Their claim that every point is accessible is 5 minutes sounds like reckless hyperbole meant to compete with other buisness' proposals that any point is accessible in twenty minutes. Also, their concept picture is populated with random people images that I recognize from Google. I searched for 2girls1cup for a half hour, to no avail.  

The U.K proposal bisects the space less aggressively, but  relies more on natural forms of energy conservation, gray water systems and solar collection,  rather than the manufactured ones suggested by Kansas; this would seem to save us money that we can put towards other endeavors. They also offer a greater variety of spaces, public and private, home and business, but the extravagant "main street entrance" runs the risk of partitioning the location, turning it into a gated downtown community. The dominant theme is merging outdoors and city life, but the private spaces, like apartment courtyards, are sort of creepy in a downtown area. Worse, they propose to surround the outside with the highest value properties, which serves to increase the feeling of a gated community, into which no darkness shall enter...

The Netherlanders incorporate the existing roadways into the new space, which would certainly help accessibility, since navigating around that area is mildly annoying right now, and focuses on "magnets" that specialize in certain services, "community sports magnet", "commercial magnet" and "transit" to name a few. They also incorporate a line of wind turbines into the location, however, which is unlikely to ever fly (Har. Har.)but is a nice touch.The eco-houses are quite admirable, and I hope we can incorporate something similar into any winning design, but they still have those wind turbines and the gray water system empties into the canal, where they suggest people can bathe.  Because that is something we really want to encourage in Canada. Outdoor bathing. In public.

The proposal from Vancouver got an automatic boost because it was Canadian, I am shamelessly pro-Canadian, and had me tearing up within a minute by suggesting we name one of the community towers after Margaret Littlewood, the only female flight instructor at Edmonton's old air base. It may be a nose-leading plug, but it totally worked on me. I can also appreciate their emphasis on using local resources, such as local food, in which the interest has been growing, but they do it through community gardens, or hobo-magnets as I call them. This is the first display to suggest a carbon program that can be expanded to include all of Edmonton eventually (other than filling the city with windmills) and so help me, I like this one.
I like it marginally less now that I have read about their "underground vacuum garbage tubes", which I am certain will result in at least a few deaths in their first few years of existence, but with Edmonton's homicide rate where it is, maybe it will lower the risk we suffer of tripping over a body.  And they have windmills. What did we do to piss off Vancouver?


Although I had expected the most from the Swedish proposal, the video is half over before they say anything substantial other than, "Check out our engineering muscles!" and "We should, like, use less energy!" I am interested to know how spaces can be both child and senior friendly, other than simply shoving everyone into giant, soundproof bubbles. (Kids would enjoy it and they would potty-train themselves [sorry for that visual], and old people would both be safe from harm in a peaceful, quiet area.) They also mention gardens, but save themselves with the notion of urban farms. If we are to have urban, sustainable gardens, they are going to have to be professionally done, that is just how it is. As a grand finale, they remind us that we are all going to have to go to school to learn how to be as environmentally friendly as Sweden. I can not make this up. Seeing the proposal in person did nothing to diminish the arrogance of the company; the headline on a board says the proposal was not about "a design competition" or finding "a winning master-plan" to which I wondered, since when? Of course it is.  The design also features a closed waterway which will either become stagnant or run up power bills to artificially move it. The rest of the proposal was confusing, citing things like the "Bohemian index" and the number of patents per capita (Are there any in Edmonton?). It is intended to house people "cradle to grave", but the cost of building the overly ambitious houses may sink us.

Anyway, I hope to go check out some of the actual display boards so I can get a better feel for the proposals, since I think I am missing a lot of the details, unless they were blatantly thrown in my face. I will try to check it out tomorrow, or next Tuesday at the latest.
In perusing them all, I have come to the conclusion that they all need to revamp the gray water system since, if I recall correctly, some medications like birth control are not filtered out adequately.

UPDATE: 24/06/11
It seems that the Vancouver proposal has been selected! We await the vacumn tubes with much anticipation! 

What's this about an airport? What, what?

It was dead. We had killed it. It was over, but it is back like some sort of bad movie villain who is resurrected for the tearful final battle scene where it comes out he is really the pet alligator the protagonist flushed in the prologue.
But now the conservatives in the province are passing legislation that has some concerned about "pro-airport" sympathies and, whether it has or not, this perception has some serious repercussions.
Prior even to the election Council had made the decision, and Stephen Mandel weathered the consequences, of turning his back on the plebiscite petition so close to a municipal election that many wondered if it would be the knife in his back. As unpopular as it made him, it showed a strong council that came out largely intact from the election; Edmonton needs a united council above all else. If the new legislation does propose to backhandedly stick it's fingers in Edmonton's municipal affairs, we need to regard this as an attack on our sovereignty; we cannot allow them to treat us the way Ottawa has treated Alberta. To their credit, they've been pretty verbose in denying any interest or involvement in our protracted airport scuffle.


Critics of the resolution are calling it "redundant" and saying they don't understand why this new legislation is being debated if it only covers issues that are already on the table, and it seems a common trend in Canada, upon encountering confusing government policy, to assume that it's because "politicians are stupid" but I have always been mistrustful of this view; it blinds oneself to what might really be a piece of tricky political maneuvering.

On the other hand, I would caution our council against making statements such as, "Council faced this issue in the election, and we have been re-elected," councilwoman Kim Krushell who recently defended her seat against challenger Don Koziak (a Pro-airport ex-mayoral candidate who backed down after a discussion with Dorward, who then lost the Mayoral race). This implies that Edmontonians support their decision to close the airport, and this is the fallout from allowing the election to become a one-issue race; they believe, once they are elected, that we agree. This is not the case, necessarily. Just because we felt you were the most capable for the job does not mean that everything you do is good. It just means we think the other candidates were dribbling baboons.

Not only that, but sometimes they don't even fully represent what type of baboon they are.One of the newly appointed councilors to our city has vowed to hold a plebiscite about the airport, even though he never mentioned it during his campaign. Given that precisely none of Envision Edmonton's lackeys made it on to council, the fact that he hid his interest in the airport (he is not believed to be with Envision Edmonton) means nothing good for our view of who we have elected, i.e. can we ever claim to know who we elected if they are deceptive about their motives and at what point can we claim they have misled the voters? Although, considering his old job was an Edmonton Sun reporter, perhaps we should have seen this coming.

Shut Up.

Seriously. Envision Edmonton is taking the city of Edmonton council to court over the petition rejection. At this point, I'm pretty sure they are just manufacturing attention. Fine if you get all  your signatures ratified; Next they'll turn back time so the petition won't be A YEAR LATE.
(For those who can't read the subtle subtext in this post: I had another lousy day, and this one is my own fault. I knew GDP was only goods produced, not sold, in Canada. Knew that. Until I sat down for my econ midterm.)

In a move usually reserved for little girls who aren't allowed in the boy's tree house, another group waxing poetic about the chunk of asphalt downtown has reared their collective heads, calling themselves "Yes for Edmonton", ("No for context" was already taken by Bob Ligertwood.) The way Envision Edmonton (the foremost group championing the airport) has tried to downplay them made me automatically assume they were important, but with little over 200 supporters, they couldn't even hold a very good sit-in, let alone a riot. They are said to be "grassroots" but I'll believe it when I see it, especially in a group headlining two former city council people and a current senator. But wait! They are getting their message out through "social media", which apparently does not include a facebook page. Perhaps by social media they meant telegram. That's what's hip now-a-days.

This whole ordeal is just  a cheap effort to spark interest in an election to create more votes by making people feel they are "part of something". "C'mon, everybody, vote for your favorite team!" If I see one vuvuzela anywhere near a polling booth, I'm moving to a dictatorship. One of the most trite, obnoxious, and self-serving positions a candidate can have is to "support democracy". Of course you support democracy, you bloated fart: you want votes. It is useless noise, drum beating of the most self-righteous kind, discernible only from sport fanatics because they don't wear goofy wigs (face painting is cool though).

 This is a cover group. Wheedled together out of the ramshackle vestiges of someone's dying career, or perhaps someone's shamelessly crippled one; they don't support candidates because there are none to support. The only openly anti-airport (oops, sorry, Pro-Edmonton since no-one is anti-anything) is Mr. Mandel, and he's aiming to waltz through this election like stank on a biscuit (The meme phrase "Move forward, not Dorward" pretty well reflects what Edmonton thinks of Mr. Mandel's closest competitor). Plus it's wildly hypocritical, given the current climate, to claim you are pro-choice (like as in "choices", not the abortion issue kind) and pro-Mandel because he's the "bad guy" who didn't listen to a petition and thus thinks all opinionated Edmontonians can go suck an egg because he'll do what he likes and we can do nothing, we are the downtrodden masses under an oppressive heel the likes of which the world has never seen.

The budget for "Yes for Edmonton" is under $5000, which, if it's businessmen pushing some personal agenda, as has been suggested, they are doing a sad, sad, job of promoting it (it could be entrepreneurs, however, who are notoriously loath to pony  up cash if they can't see an expected return spreadsheet [Good Feelings are not a good bottom line]), and is claimed to be used for "incidentals and support our web site". That is verbatim. I can only assume the incidentals are canisters of helium because it is hilarious to issue press releases when your voice is squeaky, and nachos because "grassroots activism" is hungry work.

So we have two conclusions: One this is a pathetic attempt to drum up support for the democratic process by appealing to the younger demographic but without the budget to research what the cool kids are doing (Admittedly, I have no idea what either; Are pogs still hip?), or two it is a front, paid for by Envision Edmonton to make themselves look better against the idiotic profile of a foil group, an entire lobby organization made up of strawmen.
Either way thank goodness they're here, or else the airport would never be closed, except for how it is now, or people's voices wouldn't be heard, all two hundred of them, or Envision Edmonton would run rampant and unchecked, instead of running themselves out of steam in a few months to a year, tops.
Again, we have good intentions misguided into a idiotic group with no thought. Does Ms. Stronach know about them?

Mayoral Candidate: Stephen Mandel

I wanted to maintain a cold, calculating view of the whole election, especially when it came to the incumbent candidate, Mr. Stephen Mandel, but after being battered by horrible spelling and grammar from previous candidates, my little heart melted when I stumbled upon a forum attended by Mayor Mandel where his opening speech was concise and correct. Nevertheless, I shall not be unduly moved by nice writing. My heart is stone; I strike it, it hurts my hand. (Oop. He missed an apostrophe "s", back to business as usual.)

To combat the volume of information that is available for Mr. Mandel, I'm going to focus on two different aspects, and divide them as such; his platform and his history as mayor.


The history:
Back in 2007 when he last defended his seat, there was only a 27% turnout, and many have attributed this to the idea that the population supported Mandel and felt there was little or no need to defend him. His chief opponent, it should be noted, was Don Koziak who was convinced not to run this year, and has put his support behind David Dowling, who is regarded to be the closest contender. Although 2007 was not a close year,  Koziak taking 25% to Mandel's 65%, the recent fervor over the "A"s (airport and arena) could bring more people to the polls.
Mandel has a laundry list of things that he's taking credit for achieving over his terms as mayor, including: LRT expansions, bridge widening, four new rec centers, 50% snow clearing budget, downtown clean-up and safety initiatives, 10% increase in neighbourhood revitalization funding, the new gasification facility, and 200 new police officers hired. Perhaps we should have examined Mandel first, because I don't believe there is even one issue that another candidate is bringing up that is not addressed here. I was really hoping to find some of his previous campaign platforms to see if he's followed through on promises but they seem to be well-hidden.

His platform:
In response to his biggest opponent's plan to provide senior's rebates, Mayor Mandel has stated his priority is looking into building 1000 new houses in Edmonton, since homelessness is a high priority for Edmonton (most candidates do mention it) and also to assist the rapidly aging population (there is an incentive available for construction workers who outfit houses with accessibility features). The tricky thing with "looking into" is one can discharge that responsibility with very little cost or fan fair. For example, in the next three minutes I'm going to look into doing my calculus homework. Wow that's a lot of homework. Back to blogging.
They are also aiming to use the revenue from the below market value sale of these land units for an initiative to encourage interest in housing or rec facilities. 
And the senior's initiatives. We're talking "senior-friendly" training for front-line workers (sounds like customer service is a battlefield),more senior oriented festivals, better coordination between rec facilities and senior's housing, and evaluating the current senior's property tax rebate.
Kinda makes me wish I was old.
There are two possible reasons for this campaign feature; One, he really does care about the aging population, or two, it's aimed to undermine David Dorward's bid to find votes in the elderly demographic, by expanding on his platform. We'll likely be able to tell on election day, if all the eight seaters budget vans are rented out by supporters of the two parties so they can ferry old people to the booths, and tell them who to vote for (it's worked before).


Although the whole issue is making me dry-heave, it needs to be addressed, again: the airport. Mandel has posted a letter, dated September 15th, 2010, that outlines why council could not vote on the issue, and why the petition was ignored. It seems a compelling reason (council can't wait forever to act on the chance that someone may object) but whether you consider it a fair reason, or the council hiding behind the law, is a personal choice. I do have to wonder, however, why the petition people would wait until just before election season to put in the paperwork, and whether anyone else can do anything differently. Notice how no candidates are promising to keep the airport open, just that they promise to hold a vote, but since the confirmed airport supporters (those who signed the petition) number 73,567 out of a population of 782, 439, if they promised the airport it would only gain less than ten percent of the vote.


You are likely all thinking right now, "Geez, I thought she was supposed to be objective?" but let's be honest, Mayor Mandel has thousands of dollars to put into professional campaign management (he has two full-time campaign managers, neither of whom are his mother), if he has problems or inconsistencies, it'll likely take a whole army of monstering journalists to suss them out. The moral of the story is; you've had six years to form an opinion on Mandel, if you like him, you're gonna keep liking him, if you don't, there is not a damn thing I can say that will change that. It's the reality of elections and such; being the incumbent is a good and bad position. Pretty much the only way you can be toppled is by a really strong outside opponent, which I'm not sure any of the newcomers really are, especially since they can not say that they will do any different than what Mandel has already done.

Mayoral Candidate: Bob Ligertwood

I like him already. Just one picture is all it took.
Imagine Doc Brown has had time to settle down, but needs glasses, and learned to slick his hair back. Now put him in a suit. Hell, why don't we just give him the position now?

He has run for office before, in 1992 gaining 0.73% of the votes in the year Jan Reimer was elected, in 1995 earning 0.26% of the votes when Bill Smith was elected, in 2001 with 0.22% of votes while Bill Smith remained Mayor, and 2007 with 0.82% under the name Robert Ligertwood while Stephen Mandel defended the position he had earned in 2004. Personally, I think this kind of trend is not a good sign, but hope springs eternal, right? He even echoes Kennedy in his "I am an Edmontonian!" but without the subtle reference to pastries, I'm not sure it has the same effect. Also without the whole "decorated war hero" bit, but it's really the pastry reference that makes it.

He is also of the opinion that our infrastructure is in sore need of revitalization. Like others, he mentions that the core services are being neglected, and pledges to focus on those, but when pressed about some neighbourhood's concerns over high-rise buildings being erected he pats them on the head and tells them to go play, the big kids are working, no you can't have an arena, stop whining.

Someone might want to drop him a memo that even when construction jobs are going "over budget", such as the 23rd avenue interchange, you can't just "not continue" with it. It's not like a date, where when your companion orders the lobster, you can just excuse yourself to the bathroom and ditch out the window (she can cover for you, right?); the interchange knows where you live, and might spray paint your windows.

He also admits that he feels the 13% pay raise, up to $72,000, is reasonable, which puts him in a vulnerable position as far as cost-saving pundits go, but I can't really disagree. When I compare the salary to my own, they're only earning a third more than I do (Stop doing that math! You don't need to know!), and all I do is sit on my butt and push buttons. Councillors at least make decisions. The only decision I make is when I'm sitting on the can and the phone rings, whether I should finish in a rush, hurry out the door, and desperately try to grab the phone with my pants around my knees, or just say screw it. (The fact that others work in my area, facing this dilemma, and I don't doubt the "hand washing aspect" is sacrificed for time, keeps me up at night.)

Like most candidates, he is pro-democratic process, he wants people to get out and vote; he believes the people elected would act differently if 85% of the population voted, instead of the paltry %30 we have on average. He believes it is because city-sponsored events have fallen in number. Apparently in 1992 there was %50 which has fallen to %28 in 2007. Sorry, was that confusing because there's no reference to what the percent represents? It's obvious. He's saying he likes to quote meaningless statistics without any frame of reference or context, and use it to uphold his position. If you don't want to take his word for it, you can study these realities for yourself on the Internet. No, I didn't miss copying the link. He just says "study these realities for yourself on the Internet." He blames the media. There's not enough information out there. Don't worry, Bob, I've got your back! We can fill the world with information*!!
*may not be useful, accurate, or true.

Unless underage people can access that information. Mr. Ligertwood does not believe children should have unsupervised access to computers in the Edmonton Public libraries. He argues that we must feel completely safe with our children at the library alone. Please read that again. "feel completely safe having our minor children at the Edmonton Public Library on their own". I don't have children, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the idea that anything could happen to them while they were out on their own is scarier than the idea that they could stumble on a dirty website. I think once I feel comfortable letting them wander to the library by themselves, I will likely feel comfortable that they are mature enough to stay away from bad sites. (Perhaps an expert opinion; Mom?)

He is also opposed to the bylaw prohibiting aggressive panhandling. Please note the date involved in this (2009); even the Vatican is moving at a faster rate than this guy on dealing with issues. Anyway, since he had a positive experience with a panhandler (Alice the Quarter Lady) he doesn't think that any of them are dangerous and so we should all live in harmony and happiness. I agree that there are occasionally good people who are in tough situations and they deserve assistance, but these are not who the law is aimed at, and stereotyping all homeless people as good people is just as wrong as assuming they're all bad. Here's the latest development on the situation; not a bylaw, but a much better solution. Gives me warm fuzzies.

Since it is the topic of the moment, his take on the municipal airport is quite simple, he would like it closed. He feels the arena would be a better investment for the area, and heck, they can keep one runway open next to the arena for "rich guys". The way I see it, the airport is an all or nothing endeavor. Either we close it and reap all the benefits, or keep it open and gain those benefits. To keep it half open would be ridiculous, which is why no one else has suggested it. 


Anyway, I think that's enough from Mr. Bob Ligertwood. I am just not sure I could elect anyone who would use the phrase "would of been" when they meant "would have been".

Mayoral Candidate: Dan Dromarsky

Likely as a result of his young age (Mr. Dromarsky is only 32; Daryl Bonar does beat him at 31, but he has chosen not to make his age an issue) his campaign focus is on social networking, and being frugal with his campaign budget (not $20 frugal...). His site is nicely accessible, and he is on twitter, facebook, and a separate blog. He is also shown in a picture called "the connection" talking to a youth on the street (Urban!) but if the guy withdraws any further, he's going to have to grab an "I'm not with stupid" shirt.

First off, he hits the issue that is really the "gimmie" in terms of vote-gaining: the airport. It taps into a large group of disgruntled Edmontonians, spurring them to get up and out on voting day (which is half the battle) but I must admit to feeling a little dragged along, like all these candidates are waving a big landing strip in my face (Ha, subtle stripper reference), but we can't run the risk of this becoming a one issue election; especially since it would result in the group pummelling Mayor Mandel (who we all know is anti-airport), and then squabbling amongst themselves in a giant battle royale that would have decidedly Hamlet-esque overtones.

Some other sound-bites are:
-LRT expansion: apparently this needs to be inexpensive. Who knew?
-Snow removal: he aims to make it a higher priority. He also brings up the fact that our roads would be less lousy if we cleared it faster, and more often. I think I agree with him.
-Pro-arena: This is another pretty big issue, but it's hard to assess the numbers from such a distance. I think it would be better to get someone more cautious, rather than gung-ho, and willing to evaluate.
-Pride: Not the homosexual kind, but the good, honest, we're proud of our city,  kind. I'm not sure he got the memo, maybe someone should forward it to him: Being Canadian is grumbling about politics. 
-Pro-democratic process: He'll consider his work finished if more people show up to vote. Kind of defeatist, but all right. Pursuant to this is his goal to have at least 75,000 people "like" his facebook page by election day. As of writing, he has 441. Let's assume half of those people (twice last election's turnout) can set an alarm-clock and remember to vote. I'm not sure this man is as in the running as he would like. 

Seems during a recent forum at Harry Ainley school, which I am itching to read, he asked the mayor why more was not being done on the Anthony Henday freeway, as he felt a two lane freeway was insufficient. Mr. Mandel turned the question around with a vicious backhand to inform Mr. Dromarsky that the Henday was a provincial concern, not municipal, and Mr. Dromarsky, in his own words, had no rebuttal.
"Hey, honey? what's that thing in the lake? Is it moving?"
"No, I think it's dead in the water."
In the spirit of the staircase, as the french say, he has now come up with a response, which I suspect caused him to sit bolt-upright in bed and scream at 3:00 (that's when rebuttals spawn). The big response he produced was that as a municipal we should have more say in the roads around our city, rather than letting the province decide such a pivotal part of our city life. I feel he's not going far enough, we should have a say in Fort Mac Murry, since so many of their citizens commute to and from Edmonton. But then also the surrounding forestry areas, because those are ours too. Heck, just give us all of Alberta. Let's turn the whole province into a municipality. See what happens when we toe the line? It has to be drawn somewhere.

I'll post about the Harry Ainley forum as soon as I can find a transcript. I want to read it so bad it feels like I'm trying not to fart.

Mayoral Candidate: Dave Dowling

Even without the added modifier of "Edmonton Mayoral race" the search for "Dave Dowling" results are all relevant. The first being a blog he apparently wrote for several years prior, but the latest was 2008 wishing us all a "happy holiday". A quick scan through however, especially focusing on his post about "the one true religion", which is apparently scientific theism, causes me to wonder if the man is not short a few crackers. Although he is currently ranking higher in bravery than all other candidates (even the solider Daryl Bonnar) because back in 2007 he declared himself winner of the mayoral race, then proceeded to challenge the current mayor to a fight. He also replied to this post, his own post, four times. I'm praying at this point that this is a joke website or perhaps a misspelling. I have rechecked my spelling three times. I think I may have to go back to my original sources.

So I have ascertained that this is at least the correct spelling, but in fairness, I shall continue the search for the "real Dave Dowling" (Would he please stand up?). Amending my search to include "Edmonton mayoral candidate" returns a more recent blog, including the nomination date and the platform. The new blog is, notably, written much in the same style as the old one, with spelling errors (yes, yes pot, kettle, black, now shush), grammatical errors, and functionally the same literary style (think 8th grader with a serious chip on his shoulder) but in fairness, we should disregard the first blog. Even if it is hilarious.

He repeatedly informs the reader that he is not taking donations (put back those platinum visas, everyone) and wishes them to donate to David Suzuki or the Edmonton food bank instead, perhaps because he feels solidarity with all those crackers.

September 18th he posted an open letter to the current mayor "Mr. Mandell [sic]" advising him to take some time off, leave the mayoral race, and  encourage everyone he knows to vote for Mayor Dowling. He is already calling himself Mayor Dowling. The man has got stones. He should run for mayor in Vegas.

Enough fun, folks, we're down to brass tacks.
Dave Dowling's vision is called the "$10 billion dollar vision [sic]" and is posted in all capitals on his main website. The ten billion dollar dollar vision is as such:
-$3 billion for non-fast tracked LRT, road, and bike paths to lower the cost of LRT expansion
-$1/2 billion to improve water quality
-$1/2 billion for the new arena and "downtown envitalization"
-$4 billion to take Edmonton off the grid, using alternative power supplies and to make city vehicles non-polluting.
-$1 billion for low-income housing and food banks
-$1 billion to improve schools and "library's [sic]" in Edmonton

There you have it. Concerned taxpayers may be wondering where this money is going to come from. Never fear, my Dear Reader, we're going to hostage ourselves to the federal government.
I'm sorry?
We are going to hold a referendum, asking the people of Alberta if they would like to separate and receive a $5000 cheque every year, yes or no, and then we will tell the federal government that we will separate if they don't meet our demand of  $10 billion. Foolproof.

Some other points of interest include:
-sending police officers back to school to learn how to serve and protect better.
-focusing on core services instead of "white elephants"
-better democratic process: longer voting hours, more accessible stations, a month to nominate candidacy, more disclosure of donations.
-promises to close city center airport, pave it over to make a park, and build a new on in ward 3 or 4
-supports allowing the Katz group to build a new arena so long as it does not involve new taxes.
-stopping the practice of "dumping raw sewage into the river". (I'm putting this issue at the top of my concerns.)
-promises a "line by line" examination of the budget. He informs us that we should follow his example; he is only spending twenty dollars on his campaign budget. Given that the candidacy fees for mayor are $500 I'm disappointed to find "Mayor Dowling" is lying to us already. I felt the need to ask this on his blog, I shall keep you all appraised of the answer.
-insists that he was talking about the poverty problem "years ago", and promises to involve the federal and provincial governments in the fight for low-income housing and food banks to fight poverty.


I am disappointed to find there is not much alternative information available on Mr. Dave Dowling. Most links from a search of his name linked to a brief mention as a mayoral candidate. Global Edmonton, bless their hearts, included this paragraph on his candidacy:

"Dave Dowling is 50 years old, and his occupation is currently unknown. He is campaigning for change in areas such as global warming, poverty, loss of natural environment, and transforming the airport into a park."

God bless us, everyone, when we can still take a step back from our hectic lives and focus on the important issues like turning the city center airport into a park. I can't stop saying that. Into a park.

In closing, I bid you all farewell, and please; Don't forget to vote for Mayor Dowling!

UPDATE: 24/09/10
In response to my query about the discrepency between his $20 budget and the $500 candidacy fee, Mr. Dowling has responded that the city of Edmonton does not consider it part of campaign fees, and that he is not hiding anything because he will be filing a campaign expense form, which will be publicly available in city hall, and if his word is not good enough for me, then too bad.
I've responded asking him why he won't voluntarily including it, and how the form will prove that he is not hiding anything, since it will only show what he wants me to see.

UPDATE: 25/09/10
He is mad at me, accusing me of ulterior motives, and wondering why I am goading him into doing possibly illegal things such as adding the nomination fee to his campaign fee disclosure form. (When I asked why he would not add it voluntarily, I specified "If it is not illegal" because I am paranoid.) He also visited my site and declared it "trashy". Is this what being famous feels like? It feels wonderful.

Mayoral Candidate: David Dorward

His campaign slogan is "a head for business, a heart for people" but I can only assume he kept the lion's share of the courage for himself, since although he is considered the best competition for incumbent Mandel, many political analysts still see it involving domesticated swine and fluffy white things. His bio reads as a high school student's first resume (grew up in such and such, live in so and so), but I'm not here to talk about his biography, since anybody running for mayor should be able to sieve through their history and come up with at least half a dozen shiny experience-builders, although this candidate's is impressive.

First blush of his campaign seems very similar to Mr. Bonar's, pledging openness, although given how sparse his website is, we should take that promise with a grain of salt; but announcing he will provide funding to our "world class events" such as health care, sports, and education.

The next note is that as a certified accountant he will put the budgets of the city "under a microscope" and eliminate waste in the budget. Everyone wants that. The problem is; what is waste? It is not the case that there is a big column in the city budget labelled as "Useless junk" or "Expendables", so the wisdom is in looking at the sheet and knowing where to balance, and what we want in a leader is someone who will cut what we want to cut, to add where we want addition.

His promise that I appreciated most was that he did not make a solid stand on the city center airport; he promised a plebiscite. I like that. Edmontonians should be allowed to have their say on what happens to a valuable resource like the airport (as long as they agree with me) and the botched petition was a good try, but I agree that it was not valid; if we aren't going to play by the rules (almost a year late?) we shouldn't be allowed in the sandbox.

Finally, there are some reports of icky back-dealings with other candidates, most notably Daryl Bonar and a candidate who dropped out after allegedly discussing with Dorward to run for councillor. (A pro-airport candidate, I must mention, how likely is it this Dorward fellow wants the plebiscite to fail so he can save face with the electorate and still close the airport?) The whole affair feels a bit greasy, but I suspect with the money Dorward has coming up behind him, we'll likely be distracted with shiny advertisements for him before long, thus removing the issue from the public consciousness.

And that's it, folks. That's all we know about the enigmatic David Dorward. Now, if this was a date, some mystery is exciting, but I'm not willing to hand over the keys to my daddy's car with me in the passenger seat unless he tells me where we're going.
"Do ya' like sports?" he says with a grin,
"I guess so...are we going to see a game?"
"Could be, could be." then he laughs.
Yah, Where's the door-handle?


UPDATE 27/09/10
So now with hindsight we discover  why Mr. Dorward did not reveal his platform too early; he was waiting to tip his hand with Mayor Mandel. It's a calculated move that will likely bring benefits, taking some limelight from Mayor Mandel's announcement, and also leaving the possibliltiy for changes in case anything proved difficult.
The highlights are
Property tax rebates for seniors- The uncomfortable reality here, however, is that we must worry most about the seniors who no longer have homes, and so are unable to benefit from tax rebates.
LRT costs- His promise to cut costs in the city are likely going to be focused on the 23rd avenue interchange (everyone hates that thing, don't they?) and the LRT expansions.
Mayoral council- to further help out senior citizens, he is proposing a council of people to advise on issues that most affect them, such as health professionals.
It really seems to be a campaign focused on undermining Mandel, rather than internally focused. What that means for the race, remains to be seen.

Edmonton Mayoral Candidates: Daryl Bonar

It is the Municipal election season in Edmonton once more, but since I do not currently reside in Edmonton, I am unable to vote. Apparently I can pay taxes, but not have a say in where they go. Where's Lady Gaga when I need her support?
Since there's only so much time one can dedicate to examination of the issues, I've kept it down to just looking at the Mayoral Candidates, although this does mean there is no chance I'll get to use the word "gubernatorial", wait, there we go.

First up in my alphabetical quest for familiarity is Daryl Bonar.
A second lieutenant in the Canadian Forces, he completed two tours of duty in Bosnia, each six months, and is now employed as a community relations officer. I feel it also pertinent to note his MMA record is 4/3/0. He's being campaigned as a sort of "working everyman", appealing to small businessmen, family men, students with debt, and street performers.
He promises to fight public spending on private projects, like the Expo, Indy, and the new arena, which I'm pretty in favour of, since I will not be patronizing any of those, and a few have already been shown to be a profit loss. However, as has been explained to me in the past, the reason these continue is because of their impact on the local businesses. Both hotel and tourist revenue are increased by these public events, especially considering the out of town people. On the other hand, I've heard that out of town attendance for most events is negligible, and in town people have an inelastic budget for entertainment, implying that if they spend it on one of these events, it is simply taking money from somewhere else, and simply redistributing rather than increasing the total profit for the city.

He's anti-photo radar, which, let's be honest, who, really, is not? But he plans to replace it with a higher level of traffic enforcement from actual police officers, which has been shown to be more effective, and also pledged more community-oriented officers, but he seems to have no clear plan for how to achieve this, since the latest aggressive hiring campaign has not garnered much change, and that included a financial hiring incentive. More police is fine, but where are they going to come from? We have, in the past, been recognized for our outstanding community program, but this has fallen by the wayside as the manpower dwindled. (EDIT: I've discovered that he aims to encourage neighbourhood peace officers, who are empowered with certain rights above citizens but below officers. It's a tentative step between police and the guardian angels, however)

His next fight is for integrity in municipal planning. This ties quite closely to his first argument against using public funds for private purposes, and he also pledges that all councillors will be required to attend a monthly community meeting to encourage open discussion and accountability, but whether attendance will be enough to justify the meeting is debatable; there are other things I would rather have the councellors working on then hearing the complaints of people who, if they really wanted  to, would make their concerns known. This smacks of an idealistic campaign promise that is unfeasible, and will likely be abandoned as soon as possible. It does tie in to his promise to "follow through on the public will", however. He does promise a financial incentive for departments that stay within their budget.

The third campaign promise is to fight "unfair bylaws" but I could find no information on what those might consist of.

Finally, he's hoping to fight neighbourhood crime rates and urban decay in our inner city by promoting low-income housing, while also promoting open air-spaces, of which we don't have enough, apparently, and street performers. There have been two numbers bandied about; an 80% or 90% reduction in homelessness by three years, but trying to lower homelessness beyond it's natural rate is like trying to reduce unemployment too far; you will never eliminate it, and it will always resist being moved too far from it's natural line by taking it out elsewhere, hurting the economy. It sucks, but it's true. 

He is, on the positive side, pro-city center airport, but for the reason that it's wrong  to violate your contractual obligations, which is an odd reason to keep something like this open. He does intend to bring in more business, more aerospace and green initiatives, but he may find it difficult to entice businesses in without breaking his promise to not spend public funds on private endeavours, the big enough ones are likely to go through Edmonton International, but the smaller ones will need municipal grants to assist their start up.

The other initiative he is involved with is the idea that he will credit post-secondary students for up to $5000 off their student debt, if they remain in Edmonton and work two consecutive years in their chosen field. Now, I likely won't have tuition debt, so a fat lot of good it does me, but I can appreciate the idea, and I have a large number of friends who would likely benefit. Still, it does mean we wouldn't be attracting the students that were bright or fortunate enough to be careful, plan ahead, and save the money to avoid debt. I should stop whining though.

He aims to help the disabled, by providing a quick reaction team (QRT) that will shovel the walks of disabled people and by ensuring handicapped parking stalls are used only by the legitimately handicapped.

There is also consideration in the works for an alliance with the railroad company to reopen some old tracks for use as LRT lines, how feasible this plan is, I'm not sure, but I hope in coming days to do some research into it. 

Finally, he is also pro-childcare, but in a sensible fashion; he intends to check through local bylaws to assist home-based childcare companies to become registered faster, thus providing greater services to Edmonton.
There is some vague lip service to green initiatives, physical fitness in schools, and a greater awareness of city services available to the public.

This is a pretty ambitious platform, but obviously they are issues close to his heart, which is good and bad. the only problem I can foresee, is the fact that his last campaign promise is to fight tax increases during his first term. Green Initiatives and opening up more spaces to loiter in around town are great, but they take money, and I see no places where money could be taken from in the budget that could not have a limiting effect on his other plans or vice versa. In his nomination speech, he says that this is a pivotal time for Edmonton, that this election and the subsequent years will shape our identity for years to come, but I see precisely no reason why this one is suddenly our "graduating from high school" moment. He aims to create a sense of urgency by insisting this "may be our last chance to create a city in which all off us can thrive". He claims to represent the majority, but he's sadly in the rear when it comes to supporters. He is idealistic but unfortunately the realities of office might prove  to be too much.