[policyenthusiast]

If people start to use phrases like common sense again more, it is usually a reaction to the feeling that good sense is not being used on some important issues or the government is failing in managing them.

The phrase doesn't strongly appeal to me, because it is vague and subjective, but I sort of get where its appeal comes from. Although one saying I especially like is that common sense is not so common.

It has a certain audience. I like to hear things from candidates that I don't understand at all, like technical specifications and legislative references. It demonstrates a far stronger understanding of policy than phrases like "We need better communication with constituents."

 

[archited]

^ plus it leads (or can lead) to self-education on technical aspects of projects.

 

[David A]

Well years ago I was communicating with a councilor about a certain concern and the response I got was that nothing could be done, but parking restrictions were involved, so perhaps they could look into that.

So, yes there was a legislative issue, but council can apply or change such restrictions. Most people do not want an education in the municipal government act, but the city to find a solution to a problem or concern.

 

[policyenthusiast]

Well years ago I was communicating with a councilor about a certain concern and the response I got was that nothing could be done, but parking restrictions were involved, so perhaps they could look into that.

So, yes there was a legislative issue, but council can apply or change such restrictions. Most people do not want an education in the municipal government act, but the city to find a solution to a problem or concern.

The solutions are often found in an understanding of legislation. For example:

• Your neighbor abandons their house. Over the course of several years, it rots away.
• You decide to sell your home. No one wants it because it's next to a rotting empty home.
• After constant unsuccessful showings, you reach out to your city councillor asking for the City to find a solution to this abandoned home.

A councillor with no understanding of the MGA says these properties are a problem, and pitches an outreach, grant & education program which costs millions and changes nothing. (Has been done in many municipalities)

A councillor with stronger legislative comprehension (in this case, Ashley Salvador in 2024) knows that the City can create tax subclasses under the MGA. A tax subclass is created which punishes the owners of abandoned homes with higher property taxes. Your "neighbour" demolishes the rotting home to save on the taxes and sells the lot. Your home is once again desirable.

You, as the constituent, never needed or received an "education in the municipal government act", but benefited by voting for someone who does.

 

[David A]

I am fairly sure the city has a number of people who understand well and can explain legislation to councilors and others.

So I am not voting for the person who claims to best understand legislation, but the one whose focus is communicating with people, understanding problems and making an effort to come up with solutions.

 

[constance_chlore]

Did anyone watch the mayoral candidates' debate?

 

[TAS]

Interesting read from former Mayor Iveson titled "Ruining Downtown"

On 'Ruining Downtown'

Safety, addictions and housing solutions

open.substack.com

A few quotes I pulled.

"I don’t for a minute question whether people feel unsafe at times, and that is heartbreaking all around, but I am watching this narrative get refined to higher and higher strength in this election cycle and it breaks my heart."

"Housing first vs. recovery is a false dichotomy. We need both, administered compassionately, and respecting the dignity of folks who thrive more if they are treated with respect, rather than judgment."

"I suppose the alternative is rounding people up and shipping them somewhere society doesn’t have to think about them. But as
Dr. Boozary says, using Ontario numbers: it costs $30K a month to keep someone in hospital; $12K to imprison them; $6K in a shelter; or $4K a month for supportive housing. So there is a fix for the social disorder, the suffering, the crowded hospitals, the predation, and that felt-sense of unease in North American big city downtowns. It’s housing first, with embedded addictions and mental health support for our most marginalized to heal."

 

[TAS]

Interesting read from former Mayor Iveson titled "Ruining Downtown"

On 'Ruining Downtown'

Safety, addictions and housing solutions

open.substack.com

A few quotes I pulled.

"I don’t for a minute question whether people feel unsafe at times, and that is heartbreaking all around, but I am watching this narrative get refined to higher and higher strength in this election cycle and it breaks my heart."

"Housing first vs. recovery is a false dichotomy. We need both, administered compassionately, and respecting the dignity of folks who thrive more if they are treated with respect, rather than judgment."

"I suppose the alternative is rounding people up and shipping them somewhere society doesn’t have to think about them. But as
Dr. Boozary says, using Ontario numbers: it costs $30K a month to keep someone in hospital; $12K to imprison them; $6K in a shelter; or $4K a month for supportive housing. So there is a fix for the social disorder, the suffering, the crowded hospitals, the predation, and that felt-sense of unease in North American big city downtowns. It’s housing first, with embedded addictions and mental health support for our most marginalized to heal."

One more Iveson quote.

"Could construction projects be handled differently? Inevitably. But beware false promises of magically coordinating it differently during a short construction season, around increasingly unpredictable weather, and because aging infrastructure sometimes breaks unexpectedly. Those are just facts that we should all be honest about. And beware, even more critically, suggestions that we should pull back on repair work or improving transportation infrastructure in a city with our growth pressures. Remember, Edmonton kicked the can in the ‘90s, and it wound up costing a lot more to catch up since then."

 

[kcantor]

While I pretty much agree with most of the last paragraph - and I would guess most of the public would as well - there is a disconnect between the various levels of government about who is responsible and who pays for what to deliver the various options and which levels of government incur the costs when they are not adequately delivered.

As to respecting the dignity of folks who thrive more if they are treated with respect, rather than judgment, I don’t think that’s an issue for me or for most of the public at large either.

What is an issue is continuously respecting the dignity of folks who don’t thrive when treated with respect and who continually refuse to treat others or the environment we all share with that same respect and dignity. Regardless of our respective circumstances, we all have the right to be treated with dignity and respect. It’s a two way street…

 

[thommyjo]

Did anyone watch the mayoral candidates' debate?

Absolute amateur hour by Global in the production. Can’t believe how badly it was filmed.

Also, panel of 3 white dudes of the same age/career… kinda wild to not have a woman or some level of different perspective represented.

 

[TAS]

Absolute amateur hour by Global in the production. Can’t believe how badly it was filmed.

Also, panel of 3 white dudes of the same age/career… kinda wild to not have a woman or some level of different perspective represented.

Agreed. As noted, poor choice by the Edmonton Chamber/Global (whoever it was) in picking the panel -

I found the tone of the debate kind of negative for the most part from most of the candidates. But I guess that is the mood many Edmontonians are in and perhaps that is being channeled and perhaps that is also the nature of political debates/forums.

 

[thommyjo]

Agreed. As noted, poor choice by the Edmonton Chamber/Global (whoever it was) in picking the panel -

I found the tone of the debate kind of negative for the most part from most of the candidates. But I guess that is the mood many Edmontonians are in and perhaps that is being channeled and perhaps that is also the nature of political debates/forums.

View attachment 680866

Yeah, these guys were a tough listen. No disrespect to them, but 3 guys with poor charisma/public speaking skills and the same sort of demographic representation being a “panel” for a mayoral debate was a bad choice.

 

[David A]

Interesting read from former Mayor Iveson titled "Ruining Downtown"

On 'Ruining Downtown'

Safety, addictions and housing solutions

open.substack.com

A few quotes I pulled.

"I don’t for a minute question whether people feel unsafe at times, and that is heartbreaking all around, but I am watching this narrative get refined to higher and higher strength in this election cycle and it breaks my heart."

"Housing first vs. recovery is a false dichotomy. We need both, administered compassionately, and respecting the dignity of folks who thrive more if they are treated with respect, rather than judgment."

"I suppose the alternative is rounding people up and shipping them somewhere society doesn’t have to think about them. But as
Dr. Boozary says, using Ontario numbers: it costs $30K a month to keep someone in hospital; $12K to imprison them; $6K in a shelter; or $4K a month for supportive housing. So there is a fix for the social disorder, the suffering, the crowded hospitals, the predation, and that felt-sense of unease in North American big city downtowns. It’s housing first, with embedded addictions and mental health support for our most marginalized to heal."

Sorry, people left downtown because of COVID and have been reluctant to come back because of safety concerns. Edmonton is actually building tons of housing in other parts of the city that feel safer, have jobs and retail nearby.

Those areas are not downtown. We need to fix many of the problems that make downtown less appealing and if we can, we will be able to easily attract more residents then.

 

[archited]

Unfortunately I don't see a strong Mayoral candidate in any of the contestants -- the retreads of existing Council members is far from encouraging.

 

[policyenthusiast]

Did anyone watch the mayoral candidates' debate?

Was in the audience. There was a group of ~10 people scream cheering every time Omar Mohammed spoke, despite the clear instruction at the start to not applaud/boo candidates.

Was not impressed by his responses or his "fans". Unsurprisingly, only Knack and Cartmell had serious responses.