News   Apr 03, 2020
From the Editor: A Message to Our Readers
 8K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Topping Off March 2020: What's Hot on SkyriseEdmonton
 9.1K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 3K     0 

Municipal Politics

policyenthusiast said:
I wonder why he wants the Committee infrastructure folks to report directly to council instead of the City administration. Very unusual, unless they suspect the recommendations from the Committee are being modified or affected by Admin.
Click to expand...
For accuracy, he is only asking that the third-party members of the committee report directly to council.

As for your concern that the recommendations from a committee are being modified or affected by Administration, it's more likely based on precedent that the committee itself would simply ignore the input/advice of those third party members when finalizing their reports to Administration such that council never sees that input/direction.
 
policyenthusiast said:
I wonder why he wants the Committee infrastructure folks to report directly to council instead of the City administration. Very unusual, unless they suspect the recommendations from the Committee are being modified or affected by Admin.
Click to expand...
Today, City Council said it didn't have money to support businesses for long term disruption due to construction. So if this is the case, maybe they should also be putting more projects on hold until they do have money.
 
David A said:
Today, City Council said it didn't have money to support businesses for long term disruption due to construction. So if this is the case, maybe they should also be putting more projects on hold until they do have money.
Click to expand...
In fairness, it could have been a band-aid solution anyway. The support project has been brought forward and shot down by Andrew Knack 3 times now, and would set a precedent that other businesses affected around Edmonton should also be entitled to compensation, while this proposal was only for Stony Plain Road construction effects.

Knack also suggested the funding be provided through redirecting funding from "under-subscribed grants", which if that's an option maybe it should be exercised anyway.
 
policyenthusiast said:
In fairness, it could have been a band-aid solution anyway. The support project has been brought forward and shot down by Andrew Knack 3 times now, and would set a precedent that other businesses affected around Edmonton should also be entitled to compensation, while this proposal was only for Stony Plain Road construction effects.

Knack also suggested the funding be provided through redirecting funding from "under-subscribed grants", which if that's an option maybe it should be exercised anyway.
Click to expand...
Oh no, we can't have a "precedent" for helping struggling small business people negatively impacted by what the city does. Having the city actually try do something helpful, that would never do!
 
David A said:
Today, City Council said it didn't have money to support businesses for long term disruption due to construction. So if this is the case, maybe they should also be putting more projects on hold until they do have money.
Click to expand...
It’s less a “we don’t have money” and more a “this is super complex and the grey areas are massive”.

Like how do you determine lost revenue vs increase in competitors, more online ratings leading to a drop in sales, failure to adopt digital improvements. Different kinds of businesses are hurt more by construction due to their relationship to customers. What if sales grow significantly after construction (ex. Renewals that improve pedestrian experiences). What if a store had 5 years of declining sales, then close 1 year into construction. Do we blame construction or the trend line? If you lease a space in the midst of a 5 year project (like SPR right now), do you qualify for assistance?

Would love to see more done for businesses. But the can of worms it opens is tricky.
 
Let me get this straight: TC is going to run on a political platform that is fundamentally outside the #1 rule of politics (you win by giving people things) and actually expects to win. Bwahahaha what an incompetent idiot!
 
thommyjo said:
It’s less a “we don’t have money” and more a “this is super complex and the grey areas are massive”.

Like how do you determine lost revenue vs increase in competitors, more online ratings leading to a drop in sales, failure to adopt digital improvements. Different kinds of businesses are hurt more by construction due to their relationship to customers. What if sales grow significantly after construction (ex. Renewals that improve pedestrian experiences). What if a store had 5 years of declining sales, then close 1 year into construction. Do we blame construction or the trend line? If you lease a space in the midst of a 5 year project (like SPR right now), do you qualify for assistance?

Would love to see more done for businesses. But the can of worms it opens is tricky.
Click to expand...
What I had heard referred to a fixed or flat rate amount of money per business which would have been helpful, simple and perhaps would have worked.

However, almost anything can be made complex and government does love to make programs complex these days perhaps excessively so. Which unfortunately often means more money spent on administering it and less to the people for whom it is supposed to help.

It is possible revenues would improve after and hopefully that does actually happen, but that is hypothetical. The current disruption is real.
 
IanO said:
www.timcartmell.ca

Councillor Tim Cartmell

Learn more on Tim's website!
www.timcartmell.ca www.timcartmell.ca
Click to expand...

If Tim does run for mayor, he will have an excellent chance. You just have to look at his bio and what he has highlighted as his accomplishments on council:

"During Tim’s first term as Councillor, he advocated for investments in Southwest Edmonton’s road network. These include the Terwillegar Drive Expansion, Rabbit Hill Road twinning, Anthony Hendy widening and countless other road projects in new southern neighbourhoods."

Nothing else mentioned.

Roads, roads, and more roads.

A true city builder!

This will play very well in Edmonton.
 
Last edited:
The City of Edmonton is spending $307,000 on security upgrades at city hall that include taller barriers in council chambers, “no standing” signs in a part of council chambers, and security doors that block access to most of the third floor, Postmedia reported. Some details of the upgrades are contained in a June 13 memo from interim manager Eddie Robar to council made public this week. The upgrades are the result of a security review that followed a shooting at city hall in January.
-Taproot
 
IanO said:
The City of Edmonton is spending $307,000 on security upgrades at city hall that include taller barriers in council chambers, “no standing” signs in a part of council chambers, and security doors that block access to most of the third floor, Postmedia reported. Some details of the upgrades are contained in a June 13 memo from interim manager Eddie Robar to council made public this week. The upgrades are the result of a security review that followed a shooting at city hall in January.
-Taproot
Click to expand...
Love Taproot. Not sure that a "no standing" sign will stop violence.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top