[policyenthusiast]

No institutional campaign contributions? Perhaps not directly, but if Cartmell is "guilty" of accepting contributions from those working for or owning shares of development companies and not just accepting contributions from their companies, then Ashley is "guilty" of the same thing. You can't use different brushes for different candidates.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here. If you can compare the campaign disclosures side by side and say "yeah these are about the same", then more power to you.

 

[fjordgard]

Within those frameworks, it's also worth noting that conflict of interest exists on both sides of those transactions whether they are grants or business contracts. In other words, both the grantor and the recipient are in conflict of interest where there is a conflict of interest. The applicant/recipient has just as much - and sometimes more - responsibililty to avoid those conflicts than the grantor/approver.

I am uncertain what the conflict for the recipient would be in this case. Are you saying that YEG Garden Suites should not bid on any grant from the City of Edmonton simply because Salvador is on council, even if she has nothing to do with the decision to award the grant? I am genuinely trying to understand what people’s concern is with this whole thing.

 

[kcantor]

Not sure what point you're trying to make here. If you can compare the campaign disclosures side by side and say "yeah these are about the same", then more power to you.

I am not comparing or complaining about the total amounts of the contributions made to Cartmell or to Salvador, simply their sources and the fact the sources being complained about are identical. You can't choose to paint different candidates with different brushes simply because of who they are or how successful they are at it.

I am uncertain what the conflict for the recipient would be in this case. Are you saying that YEG Garden Suites should not bid on any grant from the City of Edmonton simply because Salvador is on council, even if she has nothing to do with the decision to award the grant? I am genuinely trying to understand what people’s concern is with this whole thing

At the end of the day, I think that is what I'm saying.

She may not have approved that particular grant application but she did approve the program under which it was granted and that's the point at which she should have declared the potential conflict of interest and abstained as per the City's conflict of interest guidelines.

As that didn't happen, I believe the company did have a subsequent obligation to avoid that conflict by not choosing to apply for the money. To those that say "well, it was only $10,000", what if it was $100,000 or $1,000,000?

In both of the above, it is not about the actual amounts, it's about the principles.

 

[buildings]

went to vote around 1pm. long lines, took 40 minutes.

 

[TAS]

went to vote around 1pm. long lines, took 40 minutes.

Given our population is 200,000 more than last election, I imagine it will be. Not sure how many additional voting stations have been added since 2021.

 

[Gronk!]

went to vote around 1pm. long lines, took 40 minutes.

Another reason why I prefer to vote in advance.

 

[SarcasticMarmot]

I'm a little anxious that there is high turnout because the anti-infill/status quo rhetoric amplified by all the party money has resonated. But it's also possible the "Cartmell = UCP" connection has struck a nerve and people are coming out to defeat him. Honestly, we have so little data at this point and we won't really know till tomorrow.

 

[BASE]

I'm not so sure the lines mean high turnout but hopefully proven wrong as would always like to see as much participation as possible. Hopefully we get some indication of numbers tonight even if nowhere near the full counts.

 

[trevorhayden]

420.69? Nice!