15 replies to this topic

[captain highliner]

Since this is the politics part of the forum, lets talk about the people who set the direction that our city/region takes.

Who are the visionaries who could lead our region to a golden dawn of smart growth policies?

Who are the reactionary busybodies who give progressive development policies a golden shower?

Who designed Pam Madoff's glasses?

And most importantly, why do the 30% of citizens who vote in the core municipalities choose the representatives they do?

What is our strategy come November 2008? Who do we support?

[captain highliner]

So to start things off, I'd like to look at Victoria's city council.

Obviously, there are some on council who I could never support, Pam Madoff being one. And that's because she stands for policies I can't agree with. But for all her muddled preservationist ideas the one thing I can say about her is that she actually stands for something. She's consistant. I know how she'll vote on a development before it even hits the order table. She has principles.

What about the other councillors? Geoff Young markets himself as the balanced free market environmentalist. Yet he has pandered to the NIMBY vote by voting against developments that conflict with antiquated community plans, even though these developments could help to build the compact core that true environmentalism demands.

Sonya Chandler is an idealistic left winger, suspicious of any thing "corporate". I think that her idealism comes form a genuine place of concern for the state of the world, she just needs to broaden her analysis. Its unfortunate that she seems to be moving ever closer to the VCE Madoff camp. Maybe that's because there's still no real voice for the kind of progressive urbanism we support. In the absence of such a voice, a community minded politician easily gets seduced by the preservationist left, because they claim to represent the communities' interests in the face of corporate profiteering.

Helen Hughes is the quintessential city grandmother, concerned with social issues, centrist, and very likeable.

As for the rest, despite their affiliations left or right, they all seem to share a unique lack of vision, balls, whatever. They try to be everything to everyone floating with the breeze of short term political expediency.

So that's how I see it. Maybe I'm full of ****. Call me on it, if that's the case. The captain can take it.

What do you think? And what about other municipalities?

[Mike K.]

Obviously, there are some on council who I could never support, Pam Madoff being one. And that's because she stands for policies I can't agree with. But for all her muddled preservationist ideas the one thing I can say about her is that she actually stands for something. She's consistant. I know how she'll vote on a development before it even hits the order table. She has principles.

I'm not so sure about that.

She champions development within the height guidelines but time and time again tries to destroy proposals within those guidelines. Projects of note are the 14-storey Juliet and 12-storey Aria, both within the height guidelines and both responding to the vision (Pam's vision, mind you) of increasing residential density downtown.

She preaches urban design that leaves space for public use and public amenities althewhile she's against buildings with slimmer profiles (taller) and smaller footprints. She encourages developers to build shorter, stockier buildings. In effect public space around a building is decreased to the point of leaving nothing quantifiable for the public. At public hearings she laments that the shorter, stockier buildings short change downtown through larger building footprints. Come again, Pam?

During the 2020 conference Pam made an emotional plea to the community asking residents to become involved in downtown development issues. Now that the community has become involved, she publicly states the community doesn't know what it wants and is in fact misguided.

...and the list goes on.

Sonya Chandler is an idealistic left winger, suspicious of any thing "corporate". I think that her idealism comes form a genuine place of concern for the state of the world, she just needs to broaden her analysis. Its unfortunate that she seems to be moving ever closer to the VCE Madoff camp. Maybe that's because there's still no real voice for the kind of progressive urbanism we support. In the absence of such a voice, a community minded politician easily gets seduced by the preservationist left, because they claim to represent the communities' interests in the face of corporate profiteering.

C. Chandler has been bullied by C. Madoff to support Madoff. C. Chandler has no voice on council as she echoes whatever C. Madoff has to say. Every public hearing I've been to Chandler will vote in unison with Madoff even though the issues at stake are supported by the Green Party. You can actually see Chandler cringe as she complains about tiny particulars and desperately tries to maintain some level of credibility as she states her reasons for voting against a proposal.

Chandler knows her political survival is based on name recognition and Madoff's support, so she's left behind her true supporters (you and I) and instead has begun appeasing the VCE in the hopes of getting re-elected in 08.

Chandler's behaviour at the table is considered by many as a disgrace to the community.

[Scaper]

Concerning Sonya Chandler....

On Developments whe will vote what ever Pam Votes. This may seem wierd but it's true. Word has it that she and Pam have made an agreement on development issues.

Here is a councilor that is waving the Green Party Banner. A party that is suppose to stand for anti sprawl and believe in a Dense Urban core. She has voted no on virtually every major development that has come to council since she has been in power.

The Falls
The Julliet
Chard's Michigan St. proposal
The Well
and the list goes on....

At the falls after voting no....(heaven forbid a green pary member voting yes for 154 livable units on what is now a parking lot) she actually stated that she was disappointed that this was just a silver leeds project and that it should have been platinum.

Platinum is incredably expensive to acheive not only does it include such things as on site sewage etc. But you also have to make it a smoke free building. This means that when selling condos owners can't smoke cigs or cigars. This is just unacheivable.

[captain highliner]

So are there any good Victoria councillors? And are there any local personalities you'd like to see run next time?

BTW, I forgot about the Mayor. He's another centrist liberal type, but in an unusual turn for those kinds of politicians, he seems both able to change his mind about things, like the City's roloe in adressing homelessness and take contraversial positions like supporting a safe consumption site. His development positions are pretty good too.

As far as potential new councillors are concerned, I would like to see Gene Miller run again. I doubt he would want to, because in some ways he may be a more effective political actor outside of public office, but who knows.

[Scaper]

I had the chance to talk to Gene Miller a while back. He stated that he wasn't interested in running. (well at least this is what he stated)

I wouldn't put it past someone like Mathew McNeil to run for Council / Mayor.


Thanks for starting this thread. It was needed to be started by someone.

We will definately loose both Helen Hughes and Bea Holland in the next election. They have both stated that this will be their last term. This is unfortunate as these two councilors are truly visionaries.

[Holden West]

BTW, the next Mayor's Open door session with Alan Lowe is Friday September 15 from 9 am to 11:30 am at the Mayor's office at City Hall. No appointment necessary.

This will be the last open door until November 17.

[aastra]

I know how Pam Madoff will vote on a development before it even hits the order table. She has principles

To paraphrase something from a recent big debate in Halifax about a fancy new highrise project, "Eternal opposition is not a principle."

We've scrutinized Mrs. Madoff's remarks backward and forward over the years and to this day I still have no idea what she's about...other than seemingly eternal opposition.

I agree with you that she's predictable, however.

[Holden West]

What motto or adage do you live by?

"Beauty and utility need not be mutually exclusive"

-Pam Madoff, Focus Magazine

-----

Alright Pam, then why don't you start speaking out against ugly buildings, rather than simply those that exceed density guidelines or poke above the zoning height limit.

You have the opportunity to be Victoria's architectural watchdog, informing the citizens with specific examples of good and bad architecture. Instead you confine yourself to defending last century's zoning bylaws.

We are in the midst of an architectural renaissance in Victoria. You should be standing at the vanguard of this golden age. Instead you find yourself increasingly isolated and derided.

Such a waste of an amazing gift and skill.

[gumgum]

edit

[captain highliner]

For the next election:

It would be nice if there was a slate of candidates organized to present a clearly pro-urban political choice to Victorians.

Or maybe just a list of candidates who sign on to a non-partisan "urban agenda" document pledging support for greater core density, urban containment, a streamlined development approval process, and the like. Right now, I'm not sure that any of Victoria's councillors would support those principals, because none of them have been all that clear about it. People of our perspective need an easy way to pick who to vote for.

I would imagine that many on this forum would be interested in working on such a campaign. There just needs to be a credible organization behind it. I don't think such an organization exists at this time. Could Vibrant Victoria evolve into such a thing?

[Scaper]

The people running this forum are very credable. With people being involved within helping guid developers to what the public wants to see, to being involved with one on one meetings with councilors and the mayor and even consultants. The feedback from these meetings have been incredablely exciting. It's all about being committed, and communicative with those you organize with. When a person tries to be part of a group effort but has their own selfish or personal agendas in site over the groups ambitions, things won't get accomplished.

The good thing about the people behind this site is we all share similar goals and we all communicate with each other as things go on. I am incredably proud of every single person who has made this site happen and to those who have pushed even further than that and have got involved. It goes to show, everyones voice is important and powerful.

Good things are happening though much work is needed still. and Yes this website is the tool for that change.

[Mike K.]

I agree with the chap above. VibrantVictoria is the sort of organization/movement that will push to make elected officials accountable for their actions. Folks like Sonya Chandler, who say one thing and do another, will most certainly see little support from individuals in support of a downtown revival.

Back in 05 there was an online listing compiled by many of the folks on this forum that presented candidate info with respect to urban development and urban issues. Candidates were sorted and colour-coded according to their stance. Many individuals from SSP spent quite a bit of time compiling the data to create a factual resource about candidates, something no other website, publication or forum had done.

I think one or two people joined the SSP forum because of that thread, actually.

[Baro]

I know I did! Your colour coded guide helped me balance being a shamless pinko with wanting more business development and market forces in determining local development.

[Ms. B. Havin]

I'm with aastra and Derf -- it's very difficult to determine what exactly "the vision" of the councillor who has made architecture and urbanism "her" domain actually is.

My impression is that she sometimes champions a building based on its looks, but the look is taken in isolation. If the building is significantly tarted up, either in terms of referencing historical styles or in terms of having an expensive-looking exterior, it's more likely to get a pass. I truly don't get the sense, however, that she thinks about buildings in terms of how, as a group, they orchestrate a certain urban feel. Honestly, if the city were blanketed in Belmont Buildings and Terasen Gas Buildings, I know I'd be very turned off....

As for the '08 elections: oy veh. I don't see anyone I can excited about voting for.

[G-Man]

Well hopefully there will be some new faces that have not run before that people can get excited about.

I know Gene Miller will never run but perhaps he can tip his hat in a direction that will generate support.

With the age of some councillors it we may see a whole new slate.