News   Apr 03, 2020
From the Editor: A Message to Our Readers
 9.1K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Topping Off March 2020: What's Hot on SkyriseEdmonton
 10K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 3.3K     0 

Municipal Politics

Knack seemed kind of quiet and otherwise the defender of tax increases the status quo, which I don't think will go over well with a lot of voters.

However, there were four candidates here running to be change candidates to various degrees, so perhaps the vote split may work for him.

Jaffer seemed energetic and more polished than expected, which is probably also not good news for Cartmell.
 
David A said:
Knack seemed kind of quiet and otherwise the defender of tax increases the status quo, which I don't think will go over well with a lot of voters.

However, there were four candidates here running to be change candidates to various degrees, so perhaps the vote split may work for him.

Jaffer seemed energetic and more polished than expected, which is probably also not good news for Cartmell.
Click to expand...

Knack has basically said he supports continual tax increases and criticizing others for trying to come up with solutions to prevent increases.
 
^
^ ^
I haven't yet determined my mayoral vote but in looking at some of the "promises" to slow down or eliminate tax increases or to "roll back" our current level of taxation, people seem to forget that many of our current costs and many of the increases that will be required going forward are already "baked in".

When it comes to capital dollars already spent and the subsequent debt repayment and servicing costs needed to pay for them, these are no longer discretionary expenses. That discretion has already been exercised and the pigeon's are coming home to roost regardless of who is mayor.

The only hope we have to get out from under is to expand our tax base such that new residents and new businesses shoulder some of the load that will otherwise be entirely paid for by current tax payers. Anyone thinking there is some kind of magic wand that can be waved that would otherwise change things doesn't deserve to be running for office and anyone prepared to vote for that doesn't deserve to be able to vote.

Are there some efficiencies that could be achieved or even some services that could be reduced. Absolutely, but to think they amount to anything substantial is delusional.
 
kcantor said:
^
^ ^
I haven't yet determined my mayoral vote but in looking at some of the "promises" to slow down or eliminate tax increases or to "roll back" our current level of taxation, people seem to forget that many of our current costs and many of the increases that will be required going forward are already "baked in".

When it comes to capital dollars already spent and the subsequent debt repayment and servicing costs needed to pay for them, these are no longer discretionary expenses. That discretion has already been exercised and the pigeon's are coming home to roost regardless of who is mayor.

The only hope we have to get out from under is to expand our tax base such that new residents and new businesses shoulder some of the load that will otherwise be entirely paid for by current tax payers. Anyone thinking there is some kind of magic wand that can be waved that would otherwise change things doesn't deserve to be running for office and anyone prepared to vote for that doesn't deserve to be able to vote.

Are there some efficiencies that could be achieved or even some services that could be reduced. Absolutely, but to think they amount to anything substantial is delusional.
Click to expand...
In general, I hate the language of "finding efficiencies" just because of how mindlessly it tends to be used. Someone who's promising a tax freeze/cut can always say, under any circumstances, that they'll find efficiencies. At some point, what they really mean is that they'll cut services people need or kick the can down the road for future generations.

At U of A, successive rounds of provincial budget cuts and "finding efficiences" mean that PhDs are now taking on more and more of the work of administrative support staff, which is seriously hobbling the university's ability to do the research that drives the provincial economy. Still, every budget cycle the upper admin has to write about how they made a serious effort to "find efficiencies"...
 
bodsbods9090 said:
How did Walters present himself?
Click to expand...
Fine overall, I suppose. As you would expect from the most moderate candidate.

The problem for him is that the things he proposed, as Knack pointed out, are not possible. You can't broadly increase services while decreasing cost of delivery, he offered no plan for how he intends to pay for the changes he wants, and one focal point (CoE business concierge servcies) that he pitched already exists.
 
I dare say there are lots of ways to tackle the tax vs service equation to public benefit; but it does require outside-the-box thinking which -- with maybe two exceptions -- doesn't exist with this crew.
 
archited said:
I dare say there are lots of ways to tackle the tax vs service equation to public benefit; but it does require outside-the-box thinking which -- with maybe two exceptions -- doesn't exist with this crew.
Click to expand...
For sure, there are specific changes that can make the tradeoff better - but this doesn't work broadly. Ultimately, services, taxes, and debt form an impossible trinity. You can't make one budge without affecting the others. Another interesting impossible triangle from MMI:

1758128844924.png
 
policyenthusiast said:
Fine overall, I suppose. As you would expect from the most moderate candidate.

The problem for him is that the things he proposed, as Knack pointed out, are not possible. You can't broadly increase services while decreasing cost of delivery, he offered no plan for how he intends to pay for the changes he wants, and one focal point (CoE business concierge servcies) that he pitched already exists.
Click to expand...
One of the other candidates called this response by Knack as defeatist and I would share that sentiment. It may or may not be possible, Knack is not the sole arbitrator in Edmonton as to what can or can not be done.

I don't feel voters are in the mood now for councilors to yet again dismiss their concerns, but rather want them to figure out ways to do things better and more efficiently.
 
Cartmell calling for moratorium again - this time an immediate halt to any multi-use path or bike lane under current construction that was part of active transportation acceleration plan such as the multi-use path along Kingsway Ave - a project that doesn't even involve any road space. In fact, 80% of the work in the plan he wants halted doesn't require any road space where vehicles travel as this work is mostly on boulevards. I really wonder if he's even aware of how much of this work is multi-use paths.

Anyway, as he knew it would, it failed.

Screenshot_20250917_154944_YouTube.jpg
 
SarcasticMarmot said:
He knows, he just has no interest in letting the truth get in the way of politicking and grandstanding.
Click to expand...
This is ridiculous, but I really don't see the point of council meeting and voting on things at this point, with an election in a month or so.

Everything becomes political and any decisions that the incoming council does like will probably be changed. Time to wrap this sh*t up.
 
IMG_0402.jpeg


How do you cut taxes by 22% while increasing the police budget? (The largest item in the City’s budget.)

It makes no sense.

I listened to Omar Mohammad on Jespersen today. He was saying 98-99% of people in Edmonton get around by car. Obviously wrong.

He wants to limit mid block infill to 6 units (fair enough) but wants to mandate the building of one parking spot per unit.

It makes no sense.

Cartmell has consistently proposed ideas that make no sense (infill moratorium and BRT to replace Valley Line West LRT come to mind.)

I don’t know Walters well enough.

Is he a serious candidate?

Knack seems like the only guy who is grounded in reality and isn’t coming up with half baked promises of cutting/freezing taxes without any plan of how they would do so.
 
I'm talking about P3 investments where the City is essentially a silent partner and those where there are substantial incomes from patent issuances.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top