[kcantor]

^
What about architects and engineers? Contractors and sub-contractors? Doctors and dentists? Nurses and teachers? Lawyers and court reporters? Building inspectors? Machinists and building engineers? Students and day care workers? Physiotherapists and accountants? Bus drivers and landscapers?

It is possible to care about both where you live and where you work.

 

[husky]

^
What about architects and engineers? Contractors and sub-contractors? Doctors and dentists? Nurses and teachers? Lawyers and court reporters? Building inspectors? Machinists and building engineers? Students and day care workers? Physiotherapists and accountants? Bus drivers and landscapers?

It is possible to care about both where you live and where you work.

Not to mention that many of these people also see Edmonton as where they exist. Even if they live in a suburb community, they may spend significant time/money in the City, and may be incredibly passionate about the City and Metro area as a whole.

But hey maybe I'm biased, as I am one of those people.

 

[constance_chlore]

Surely there's some boundary there though—the only question is where it lies. Nobody would be too upset about their hairdresser moving to St. Albert, but we would and should be if our city councillor did.

 

[kcantor]

^
You don’t need to live in a riding to run or be elected to Parliament although you do need to reside in Canada.

You don’t need to live in a riding to run or be elected to the Legislature although you do need to reside in Alberta.

You don’t need to live in a ward to run or be elected to City Council although you do need to reside in Edmonton.

Personally, I’m not hung up on any of the requirements to be a resident. If you can convince more voters in a federal or provincial riding or a city ward than any other candidate that you are the most capable person to best represent their interests regardless of where you live, so be it.

 

[constance_chlore]

^
You don’t need to live in a riding to run or be elected to Parliament although you do need to reside in Canada.

You don’t need to live in a riding to run or be elected to the Legislature although you do need to reside in Alberta.

You don’t need to live in a ward to run or be elected to City Council although you do need to reside in Edmonton.

Personally, I’m not hung up on any of the requirements to be a resident. If you can convince more voters in a federal or provincial riding or a city ward than any other candidate that you are the most capable person to best represent their interests regardless of where you live, so be it.

Yes, and I've always found those rules to be strangely lax, but they do all maintain the principle that if you're someone who is granted a lot of power to make decisions at a certain level (federal, provincial, municipal), you should be subject to the consequences of those decisions. In other words, you should have skin in the game. I would say the same of police officers, who are granted a near-monopoly on the legitimate use of violence—and who aren't even elected, so it's not even a question of the will of the voters.

 

[thommyjo]

Not to mention that many of these people also see Edmonton as where they exist. Even if they live in a suburb community, they may spend significant time/money in the City, and may be incredibly passionate about the City and Metro area as a whole.

But hey maybe I'm biased, as I am one of those people.

Sounds like an argument for annexation?

 

[archited]

When my brother joined the EPS the only place that he could afford as a purchase for a place to live was Bon Accord -- a duplex. I don't know if it is still the case (he has since retired) but there was a tight monitor for policemen and policewomen in terms of their credit usage while serving (the idea that they should not fall under suspicion in terms of financial strain). As individual human beings with wants and needs like any other I can't imagine being forced to live in any given area unless society is willing to subsidize their choices (which would probably open up another whole can of worms).

 

[kcantor]

Yes, and I've always found those rules to be strangely lax, but they do all maintain the principle that if you're someone who is granted a lot of power to make decisions at a certain level (federal, provincial, municipal), you should be subject to the consequences of those decisions. In other words, you should have skin in the game. I would say the same of police officers, who are granted a near-monopoly on the legitimate use of violence—and who aren't even elected, so it's not even a question of the will of the voters.

Elected officials are subject to the same consequences whether they live in the riding/ward/jurisdiction or not. If they can’t convince sufficient voters to elect them, they don’t get elected and if they can’t please sufficient voters during their term, they don’t get re-elected.

As for police officers, that near-monopoly is the same whether they live in the jurisdiction or not and if they abuse that near-monopoly they should be fired regardless of where they live. That they’re too often not is s legitimate concern but residency has nothing to do with it.

 

[_urbanite]

Almost gone

 

[Out of Towner]

While they are at it they should knock down the old train bridge over 97St and bring the road up to grade.

 

[archited]

I disagree -- it is a character bridge and one of the last vestiges of Edmonton's downtown CN presence plus it is attached to an urban park and it makes an excellent pedestrian connection across 97th Street between Qualico's development and whatever comes next for the demolished Remand Centre site.

 

[Out of Towner]

Landscaping the bridge properly and using it a as a pedestrian connection across 97th Street has some merit but that benefit is outweighed by the reality of its presence. Last time I was past that bridge, "homeless people" were using it as place for "homeless" people to hang out. Maybe it's been cleaned up but there were tents and all kinds of junk and garbage scattered all over the place.

Moreover, the bridge creates a good side of the tracks / bad side of the tracks stigma that discourages economic development on the north side of the bridge. Besides providing a benefit to the businesses on the north side, getting rid of the bridge would also create a freer traffic flow and help open up downtown from the north side and encourage more people to go downtown.

The historic significance of the bridge has been debated before but I personally don't see it as being anything iconic that many people would miss. It would be as missed as the rat hole is imho. That would be, not at all.

 

[David A]

I agree it needs to be improved, but I am also very skeptical we can just get rid of the social problems of the area by removing this. A lot of money could be spent for little or no real improvement.

 

[archited]

It is attached to a downtown park -- should we get rid of that too? It abuts RAM on one side; it is going to be part of the Qaulico Park extension in the future, it will be buttressed by whatever new development fills in the remand space, it has a standing proposal for a major Asian centre + tower just to the north on 97th Street. If we keep thing about what has been/what is, it is little wonder that the downtown is stagnant -- let's think about what could be instead. Helping to make 97th street a vehicular speedway hardly seems relevant.

 

[dkazzed]

I'd like to see the LRT SUP connected to the 105 Ave protected bike lanes. The only missing connection at the moment is between 96 St and 101 St.

It wouldn't be possible to go through the pedestrian corridor between Epcor and Stationlands 1. there's value in keeping it pedestrian only, 2. there are only stairs and a wheel chair ramp at 101 St, but there's a potential to convert the alley way north of Stationlands into a shared street.