Jump to content

      



























Photo

Running for Council in a municipality you don't live in.


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#41 groundlevel

groundlevel
  • Member
  • 76 posts

Posted 04 July 2008 - 09:14 AM

all buildings erected in core in last decade have been architectural marvels delighting all.

With Hughes, if city staff recommended acceptance of development proposal, Helen always voted with council majority.

Downtown development may not be Brutalist but its banal. do you urge visitors to admire the innovative challanging architectural masterpieces of this small city?

we can't discourage the wasted from laying on our sidewalks. we can't appropriate buildings from slum or negligent landlords. we can't insist that owners developing property in this desired and desirable location adhere to rigorous aesthetic standards.

we can vote. (all 26% of us)

#42 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 04 July 2008 - 09:33 AM

Not too much brutalist architecture recently in Victoria, though I would suppose that some of the new UVIC buildings and certainly the CRD headquarters contain large brutalist elements. I would suppose the best examples of brutalism in downtown Victoria are the government building on Superior behind the Museum, the Royal bank Building, the twin mid rises on upper Johnson.... Anyone think of a better example?

That said I think we do have some newer buildings worthy of admiration. I personally still think that Corazon is a masterpiece (better than the Juilet IMO), whatever the arguments against it, Shoal Point is striking as is the Reef across the street. I also think that the Aria may be one of the very best but I will confirm upon completion.

To be fair though our city council restricts the ability of developers to build great building here either because they will not "fit in" or won't allow sufficient density for there to be the excess capital to spend on superior design.

Some may think we can build gold plated four storey low income housing buildings designed by Frank Gehry on every block but it just is not possible.

#43 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 04 July 2008 - 10:29 PM

I'm going to vote that developers no longer have to break even on projects so they can give lay-people the buildings they desire.

#44 concorde

concorde
  • Banned
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 10 July 2008 - 08:22 PM

I believe Frank Carson Lived in Oak Bay when he was elected to Victoria Council, and when he ran for Mayor.

Tom


That is correct. He passed away earlier this year.

There have been a lot of mayors that have not lived in the city, but who really cares where they live. I want the best person for the job.

I really don't understand why anyone would want the job. It costs about $50,000 to run a decent mayoral election campaign only to receive ZERO benefits and a salary of around $67,000 a year. Councillors get a salary of $21,000 a year and zero benefits.

#45 Lover Fighter

Lover Fighter
  • Member
  • 653 posts

Posted 11 July 2008 - 10:49 AM

I've never had a problem with someone from a 'satellite' municipality running for Victoria's council (ie Charlayne) but after reading Ms B's post I realize she does make a very good point. As a Saanich-resident who lives two blocks away from Victoria and has always identified with Victoria, I initially want to support out-of-towners running for Victoria's council. But when Saanich (and Oak Bay) residents are on council, and I can go to any Victoria City Hall meeting and voice my opinion, the necessity of amalgamation seems much less important, and maybe even forgotten.

#46 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 11 July 2008 - 11:30 AM

... only to receive ZERO benefits and a salary of around $67,000 a year. Councillors get a salary of $21,000 a year and zero benefits.


Those are outdated figures (and incorrect to boot).

In February [2007], council bumped its pay to $25,878 for councillors and to $74,458 for the mayor, up from $21,943 and $66,013. In 2009, after the next municipal election, councillors will be paid $39,104 while the mayor will get $97,760. But unlike the present situation, which gives municipal politicians a one-third tax break, all of the money will be taxed in the same way other citizens pay income tax.


I'd say a one-third tax break is a pretty nice benefit.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#47 yodsaker

yodsaker
  • Member
  • 1,280 posts

Posted 11 July 2008 - 03:48 PM

Its still pretty low wages when compared with running a company with a comparable operating budget, staffing levels etc. And running a city is way more complex, IMO, than operating a company where profit/shareholder return is what its all about and no social issues.
Plus, operating a company doesn't draw the constant media scrutiny, dirt-digging etc etc.

#48 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 11 July 2008 - 05:20 PM

^ It is very low, true. In some ways, that's what keeps really qualified people out, too. It's almost like you have to be retired, or of independent means, to be able to afford that kind of remuneration.

Oh, the irony...
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#49 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 11 July 2008 - 05:49 PM

Its still pretty low wages when compared with running a company with a comparable operating budget, staffing levels etc. And running a city is way more complex, IMO, than operating a company where profit/shareholder return is what its all about and no social issues.
Plus, operating a company doesn't draw the constant media scrutiny, dirt-digging etc etc.


The City Manager and other managers make a lot more than the mayor.

There are plenty (I think over 20) of positions in the City that pay over 100k.

#50 concorde

concorde
  • Banned
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 11 July 2008 - 08:25 PM

Those are outdated figures (and incorrect to boot).



I'd say a one-third tax break is a pretty nice benefit.


...and no dental, no medical, no long term disability, no pension, etc. Sounds like great benefits to me. It sounds like my numbers were a little outdated, thanks for providing the updated ones.

It will only cost around 50K to get the mayors job...the people who do it, do it because they love their community and all residents should be happy that they make the sacrifice.

If you don't agree with how your city is being run, you can put your name on the ballot, free of charge, at your local municipal office. Everyone needs to remember that when they complain about their politicians.

I admit I complain sometimes, but I remember that I don't want the job, so I am usually content with the way government is run.

#51 yodsaker

yodsaker
  • Member
  • 1,280 posts

Posted 12 July 2008 - 10:40 AM

Back in the old days in Quebec the bright Anglos stayed in business where they could make money and enjoy life quietly. Anglo bozos and ego cases went into politics.
The upper echelons of biz (beyond factory foreman) were pretty closed off to the Quebecois so many of them went into academia or politics. Lesage, Trudeau, Drapeau, Levesque, Marc Lalonde, Pelletier - all first rate minds.
In Toronto only the mediocrities, with a few exceptions, went into politics. Biz was way more attractive - they could make money and not be dragged through the mud 24/7.
IMO, you've gotta be nuts to go into politics, so thank heavens there are still some decent people who want to do it.

#52 Phil McAvity

Phil McAvity
  • Member
  • 1,238 posts

Posted 13 July 2008 - 11:06 PM

Trudeau, a "first-rate mind"?

Surely you jest.

I can't think of another person in the history of this country who has ****ed things up more than that idiot. It is Trudeau we can thank for the overwhelming proliferation of homelessness and panhandling that plagues the city of Victoria today, not to mention all the other **** that guy pulled.

I also think that giving renters the right to vote in a municipality is a bit ridiculous and that is coming from someone who has both rented and voted many times over the years in Victoria. When the referendum for the arena came up of course I was all for it since it wasn't going to cost me a nickel either way. My buddy who has a nice house in Fairfield had a slightly different view of things, especially since the money for the arena was going to come out of his pocket.

All I can add to the debate about running for council in a municipality you don't live in, is this; when the city of Victoria only has about 80,000 people but the entire CRD has about 350,000 people and we seem to have a hard time finding decent candidates from the entire CRD, why would we slit our own throats by making residency a requirement to run? Just look at all the people who weren't from Victoria who ran and/or became mayor-Percy Scurrah, Peter Pollen, Frank Carson and now Stan Sipos. You make it impossible for people like that to run and you hurt democracy even if they can't vote in the city they represent. Besides, parachute candidates at other levels of government are common, so why should municipal politics be any different? Let's cast as wide a net as possible for mayoral candidates. On that note, i'm glad to see raises coming to mayor and council even though I hate taxes and goverment at least as much as the next guy. If there is one place we don't put enough money in government, this is it. By providing such low wages, the city offers little incentive to bright, hard-working people when they can make much better money in the private sector. Even though they are going to have to pay full taxes now, their wages will still be a lot higher than they were. I'm all for democracy but my other concern is this; since there was something like 37 people last time running for 8 seats on city council, couldn't we tighten up the requirements to run a bit in order to eliminate many of the fringe candidates? When I last voted there were so many people running I had never even heard of many of them and I followed the election. Like maximum 24 candidates for council and 5 for mayor. Could we do that? And/or they have to have a certain number of endorsements to get the nomination because it must be pretty easy to run now. Like what do you need now? A name, an address, and a phone number? You might not even need a phone.

#53 yodsaker

yodsaker
  • Member
  • 1,280 posts

Posted 14 July 2008 - 06:46 PM

Phil,
Don't you think voters can figure out who the fringies are? They open their mouths and it becomes apparent pretty quickly. Still, it prolly wouldn't hurt if they had to pony up 100 signatures to get on the ballot.
Not really sure how PET can be held responsible for the urban social ills, though. Provincial and municipal politicians have far more sway in those areas.
First-rate mind and first-rate politician are not necessarily the same.
I wouldn't call either Chretien or Mulroney first-rate minds but certainly first-rate polticians (if the criteria for the latter are knowing how to get elected and re-elected with majorities). Pearson was a first-rate mind and I remember his time as one of bungling yet 40-odd years later his legacy is surely one of the very greatest. Politics is a strange business.

#54 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 06 August 2008 - 04:10 PM

Way back on p.1, where I brought this topic up, I wrote:

I'd like to know how often it has happened that a Victoria resident ran for council or mayor's seat in one of the other municipalities.

How many times did it happen that someone ran for such a position?

How many times did it happen that they were elected?

If it's the case that we're dealing with a one-way street (residents from other municipalities running for office in Victoria, but not vice versa -- Victorians running for office in other municipalities) -- if that's the case, then what does that tell us about our political balkanization?


I bolded that last bit, because today there's a letter to the editor in the T-C that really illustrates, IMO, how this plays out in the anti-amalgamation mind of people who live in Saanich. They do NOT see "their" mayors or councilors as coming from other municipalities -- they definitely perceive their representatives as living in their communities. So again, what does it say about how we are de facto accepting and institutionalizing this ridiculous balkanization we have here when we accept totally the idea that our (Victoria's) mayor or councilors can reside in other municipalities?

Again, to repeat, I'm not saying bar candidates from other municipalities. I am saying, make it an issue, talk about it.

Here's the letter I mentioned:

No need for multiple licences
Times Colonist

Published: Wednesday, August 06, 2008

A recent column on amalgamation reported that "Fewer municipalities would please business owners who have to buy multiple business licences to operate in different municipalities."

I know of many business operators, such as contractors, plumbers, electricians and other trade-related businesses, who buy an inter-municipal business licence from the municipality in which they reside. The licence is recognized in all our municipalities.

The B.C. Local Government Act provides local governments with the flexibility to respond to the different needs and circumstances of their communities. It is preferable to have our own local councillors deciding on planning and zoning issues in Central Saanich where I live as opposed to councillors who may reside in the city of Victoria.

Wayne Watkins

Brentwood Bay

Badda-bing, badda-boom. This guy has no problem telling us, in Victoria, that he doesn't want politicians who don't live in his community (Central Saanich) telling him or his business interests/ businesses what to do.

And somehow I strongly suspect that if someone from Victoria (Fairfield, say) campaigned for mayor (or whatever they have) in Central Saanich, folks in Central Saanich would cock an eyebrow.

Yet if someone from Central Saanich wants to run for mayor of Victoria, it's ok -- and we in Victoria aren't supposed to wonder why that's so.

Again, to repeat: I'm not saying "bar people from public office (or running for it) if they don't live here." I'm saying, "can we have a conversation about how this might be lopsided, which in itself speaks volumes about balkanized thinking?"
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#55 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,390 posts

Posted 06 August 2008 - 05:42 PM

The current system is wacky.

#56 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 06 August 2008 - 06:35 PM

Maybe because running Victoria is a bit more complex than running a mostly residential neighbourhood. So we need to draw on the biggest pool, while they can be satisfied with someone whose main qualification might be that he is local. Also because most of the people who use downtown don't reside there. While most of the people who use Saanich probably do.

#57 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,155 posts

Posted 06 August 2008 - 06:41 PM

Yet if someone from Central Saanich wants to run for mayor of Victoria, it's ok -- and we in Victoria aren't supposed to wonder why that's so.


That's the status quo in the CRD, isn't it?

Victoria's downtown is everyone's downtown when conducting business or partaking in public events, but it's the City of Victoria's downtown when social issues need attention.

Len Barrie's interview on CFAX on Aug 05th revealed that he sees other municipalities as thorns in his side (not his exact words, but I'm trying to make a point). He sees Langford as having the only credible say in his project while other municipalities and their residents should be excused from dialog. But the irony is that on every piece of marketing material for his project, the City of Victoria of is touted as one of BM's perks (not Langford), and the location of BM is referred as x minutes from downtown Victoria, not downtown Langford. Heck, even the Westin is called The Westin Bear Mountain Victoria Golf Resort and Spa.

It's the same story as residents from C. Saanich weighing in on Victoria's politics while trembling at the thought of Victorians calling the shots in C. Saanich.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#58 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 06 August 2008 - 06:45 PM

Maybe because running Victoria is a bit more complex than running a mostly residential neighbourhood. So we need to draw on the biggest pool, while they can be satisfied with someone whose main qualification might be that he is local. Also because most of the people who use downtown don't reside there. While most of the people who use Saanich probably do.


ThaT'S IT.

#59 Phil McAvity

Phil McAvity
  • Member
  • 1,238 posts

Posted 31 August 2008 - 01:31 AM

Phil,
Not really sure how PET can be held responsible for the urban social ills, though. Provincial and municipal politicians have far more sway in those areas.
First-rate mind and first-rate politician are not necessarily the same.
I wouldn't call either Chretien or Mulroney first-rate minds but certainly first-rate polticians (if the criteria for the latter are knowing how to get elected and re-elected with majorities). Pearson was a first-rate mind and I remember his time as one of bungling yet 40-odd years later his legacy is surely one of the very greatest. Politics is a strange business.


Trudeau repealed the Vagrancy Act in 1972 enabling, and thereby making it one step closer to encouraging, homelessness and panhandling which brings us to Victoria circa 2008 where it has become so prevalent that it is hard to walk a block downtown today without some loser bothering you for something. 40 years ago they would be carted off to jail and back then there was actually a social stigma around being a "tramp". Today, homelessness and panhandling is practically embraced as just another "lifestyle choice". While many of the things Trudeau did hurt all of Canada, this one thing particularly hurt us In Victoria. Thanks so much, Pierre. :mad:

It seems to me that your first-rate mind/first-rate politician is semantics because to be as successful as Chretien or Mulroney were, you have to be pretty ****ing smart. While I despise Trudeau, I must concede the guy was very clever. He duped the whole country.

Now if I just had something to add to the topic..... :(

 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users