Victoria All-Candidate Forums: Your Impressions
#1
Posted 23 October 2008 - 01:43 PM
This is unfortunate, but if the individuals who participated in this thread would be willing to re-write their impressions of candidate meetings it would be most appreciated.
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#2
Posted 23 October 2008 - 02:05 PM
Unfortunately the original thread was deleted and all content erased from the database.
This is unfortunate, but if the individuals who participated in this thread would be willing to re-write their impressions of candidate meetings it would be most appreciated.
So where do we post them. Under a new topic/heading?
#3
Posted 23 October 2008 - 02:30 PM
Oaklands was great. Questions were drawn and candidates chosen randomly. Everyone was on their best behavior and even "fringe" candidates were well-spoken and thoughtful.
Last night's ACM at St. John the Divine was rough at times, with accusations hurled at incumbent politicians over homelessness. A rude woman accused Charlayne Thornton-Joe of disrespecting her by saying she discarded a CD of photos of tent cities in Portland and dismissing them and launched into a long diatribe of anger and hate about how Charlayne insulted homeless people. Charlayne rose, tears welling, and voice trembling and said she had the CD in her possession, never threw it away and was in fact had all the information, including web bookmarks of every tent city in the world and reports from her trip to Portland and how she works night and day to fight for their rights. Charlayne got up and left in tears. She has to learn that sometimes the best response to an abusive person is to say they're wrong and stay silent.
Ironic, that members of a group that claims to suffer abuse and prejudice and disrespect are so quick to dish it out to people who work so tirelessly for them.
I was at last night's meeting for over two hours. I spoke on two occasions, my 60-second opening statement and a one minute+ follow up question on alternative health care. I said homeless need a wide range of care, from health to one-on-one counselling from the new ACT outreach workers or maybe even merely a locker so that a person has a safe place to store their workboots so they can work at a construction site earning enough to pay rent. Many solutions are needed, there's no one size fits all fix.
These candidates meeting are of limited use. By the time everyone has their one minute plus a minute for a follow-up, a couple of hours have passed.
The worst times are when audience members speak. Many drone on for up to five minutes spouting their opinion before finally formulating some sort of question after the moderator begs them to. It merely becomes a venue for people to vent without bothering to come up with an actual worthy question. Plus it eats up valuable time and bores everyone. It happened time and time again.
I'm increasingly shocked at how many candidates are shaky and not informed on municipal issues, and waste their precious allotted time talking about the platforms of the Provincial or Federal parties they are (or were) aligned with. Two candidates in particular wasted his time talking about fish farms and one about the evils of hay production. Lynn Hunter didn't know what Bonus Density was, stammering that density was good for a city--a bonus. The other candidates that have been debating Bonus Density for years now were stunned.
#4
Posted 23 October 2008 - 05:08 PM
So where do we post them. Under a new topic/heading?
Here works.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891
#5
Posted 23 October 2008 - 10:14 PM
The meeting started at 7:00, not 7:30 as was posted here originally. I missed quite a few speakers!I agree that the overall tone for the Q & A part was civil. Caution: my formal training as a writer is in technical documentation. Don't blast me too hard if my attempt at reporting falls short.
The randomly chosen questions showed a few unprepared candidates; by far the most surprised response was "What do you mean by amalgamation?" I'm not naming any names on that one - you know who you are!
---
Councillor Candidates:
Wayne Hollohan - that council spends 50% of its time deliberating rezoning reflects a flawed community plan. If that could be dropped to 10% , perhaps Victoria's problematic transportation infrastructure could be addressed.
John Luton - supports a permanent safe injection site, reducing the stress on health service agencies.
Pam Madoff - almalgamation does not appear to generate any cost savings; regional planning is a better approach. Particularly, densifying Victoria does NOT preserve green space in Langford or View Royal.
Simon Natrass - We need smaller, more personal-sized parks. His personal observation: The largest playing fields spend most of their time unused, yet smaller ones such as basketball courts are regularly full.
Richard Park - opposes converting Douglas St. and Blanshard St. to one-way.
Tim van Alstine - supports safe injection site; it offers addicts an opportunity to get in contact with treatment programs.
---
Mayoral Candidates:
(different format - 5 minutes to speak on topic of their choosing, followed by 2 minutes Q & A.
Georgia Anne Jones - I'm sorry, but I couldn't see how anything she was saying was relevant to municipal politics, aside from her objection that sewage treatment was too expensive an activity. If I recall correctly, the province has legislated compliance and Victoria is behind on this.
Steve Filipovic - average annual cost to various levels of government to deal with one homeless person: $55,000 (I didn't catch the source of this number). Also, one way to encourage cycling is to stop subsidizing cars.
Dean Fortin - supports a commuter line between Langford and Victoria, and came up with the best quote of the evening: "I'm interested in ending homelessness. I'm not interested in managing it."
Rob Ried - also wants to reduce the time the city spends on rezoning. Willing to consider a Public Private Partnership for sewage treatment.
Kristen Woodruff - homeless people must consider survival first, not laws. The city should have a designated place for the homeless to camp. Called current council to task for working around the recent court decision on the camping bylaw instead of meeting it head on.
Saul Anderson - since sewage treatment is legislated, why are we dragging our feet? Opposes PPP of any kind. Advocates staggered bar closing times, and stepped up enforcement of Serving It Right. Opposes closing down late night eateries.
#6
Posted 24 October 2008 - 12:27 AM
The randomly chosen questions showed a few unprepared candidates
Guilty as charged. At the Oakland's meeting I was asked how I would solve homelessness and I did not present my views very well, if at all.
Anyway, as I regret missing out on being mentioned in your synopsis of the evening, I have tonight posted my position on the Homlessness/Addiction thread. For anyone who has not written me off for having been rather weak kneed on Tuesday night you can find me there.
I am not a great public speaker (being far more confident with a keyboard in front of me) but am undergoing 'emergency' training
#7
Posted 29 October 2008 - 07:35 PM
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891
#8
Posted 29 October 2008 - 08:22 PM
I also feel that the Oaklands event was well managed. The UVic Students Society event at the Solstice Cafe was a bit of a wash - too small venue, bad sound system, too noisy to have effective conversations during the group discussion portion. Interesting to see a couple of candidates showing up an hour late...
#9
Posted 29 October 2008 - 09:26 PM
Cridge Park was good although at one point I gave up standing behind my table and went into the crowd. A few other candidates did too.
I mentioned to a few people afterward, is it better to talk to 150 people for one minute or six people for two hours? I'm so glad there wasn't a ACM at Vic High. I'm averaging five hours sleep a night and I need a rest--so instead I'm doing yet more questionnaires and surveys. .
The only decent coverage of these meetings is at Gregory Hartnell's blog.
These meetings are interesting as the 35 or so of us are becoming good friends. I really enjoy meeting them every couple of days, even the "fringe" candidates. Most are very friendly even though we're competing for the same job. You get a clear sense of what candidates would make great team players on Council and which ones are "my way or the highway" types.
#10
Posted 29 October 2008 - 10:05 PM
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891
#11
Posted 29 October 2008 - 10:19 PM
I was at the Burnside Gorge one.
Was not really able to get into any conversation with the candidates,
so I just grabbed as many leaflets as possible.
Georgia Anne Jones was very entertaining, but did not really answer any question directly. I know Steven Andrews was getting very annoyed with her inability to tell time.
Kristen Woodruff was...well...I'm not sure.
Saul Anderson and Steve Filipovic have their heart in it, but don't have the machine behind them.
Dean Fortin and Rob Reid were the the ones really in the running.
It's going to be a tough call.
Rob seemed to be pushing for a more open door policy with city hall. Accountability.
Dean already has much experience and I can see more provincial connections.
I do have an issue concerning Dean
which I'll post in the appropriate thread.
#12
Posted 29 October 2008 - 11:33 PM
Interesting to see a couple of candidates showing up an hour late...
It is very time consuming working for a living and running a campaign at the same time. I'm sure all the candidates are doing their best with their available time - and might prefer understanding not judgements, given that we all hope to be working together as a positive team one day. Just my opinion. Sue
#13
Posted 30 October 2008 - 09:31 AM
17 surveys! Average 3 hours each. Over ten days.
40,000 doors to knock on (half not home/ a quarter afraid to open door/ a quarter nicely engaged and polite)
3 hour candidate meetings with one minute to speak.
This is hard work.
Just wake me if I drift offfffff.......
Sue
#14
Posted 31 October 2008 - 01:52 PM
This city is never going to be able to "deal" with pressing issues - and be taken seriously by funders from upper levels of gov - if we don't start to address the lack of respect for our local government body and the electoral process.
Today I arrived to witness a mayor candidate chasing a council candidate through the lobby loudy (and obnoxioulsy) demanding an answer to something about the number of beds for the homeless.
Another mayor candidate could not make it as she is presently incarcerated, along with another candidate, for joining David Johnson in a sleep-over last night that lasted past 7am on City Hall land.
Another mayor candidate asked the audience: "Do we need more police?" Yes, said they. He then asked: "Is being homeless a crime?" No, said they. "Then, why do we need more police?" said he, to which the audience went silent - either humbled by such enlightenment - or just tired of the circle game.
When another mayor candidate spoke about needing more beat police on downtown streets, the homeless activist videographer sitting on the floor (camera seeming to only roll when a pro-activist speaker took the mic) loudly jeered and booed at the question. His friend spoke out loudly about the police being "in contempt of court" for arresting the previously mentioned mayor and council candiate, and added that "something needs to be done about it!" During a break I bothered to ask him what they had done to get arrested, not yet having heard the news, to which I did not receive an answer - just a hatefilled glare as he walked away to join his street journalist friend. So much for dialogue - which everyone keeps saying we need more of.
A few people got up and left the meeting - shaking their heads. One elderly man said to his friend as they rose to leave "This is bullshit. Lets go."
One incumbant was dressed as if she had just cleaned up after a basement flood - handing out halloween chocolate bars and apples from an albeit quaint basket.
While many candidates always show up dressed appropriately (before someone calls me an elitist I need to say that I was wearing a suit that I bought for $10 at the Winn Consignment store) - with good prepared answers - and you can tell that they intend to treat the "job" and their counterpart and senior elected officials with respect.
I was so looking forward to being a candidate because I love Victoria, love debate and fixing problems, love being part of, and learning from, others who want to serve because they can see the bigger picture. Those who have and express "common sense" (that we need police because we have CRIME on our streets - not because we lack care and concern for people living in poverty. That while (as the jailed mayor cadidtates stand-in illuminated in tears, "you can't eat money") we need to ensure we have a healthy economic situation downtown so we can fix roads and sewers, fund community associations, and yes, fund the 100's of agencies who come before Council asking for checks.
I am tired of listening to outright contempt and disrespect for anyone who tries to run a business or put up a building in Victoria. Let alone offer stewardship as a serious candidate. We need to start talking about other things, as well as homelessness. There are 80,000 taxpayers who are counting on more and better.
I left the meeting early and I am not afraid to admit that.
Sue
#15
Posted 31 October 2008 - 02:01 PM
I am not sure when our society lost its general sense of respect for other humans but it is seriously sad.
#16
Posted 31 October 2008 - 02:16 PM
No kidding.One elderly man said to his friend as they rose to leave "This is bullshit. Lets go."
Reminds me of this spoiled brat kid I knew in high school (here in Victoria), and how our art teacher said to me, "He needs to go to another city and have the **** kicked out of him." There's something about Victoria that lets a lot of people get all full of it and stay that way, that's for sure. I'm not even sure it's a respect issue. It's immaturity.
#17
Posted 31 October 2008 - 02:17 PM
But I also have to ask: Where was the moderator?
The groups that plan to hold the remaining all-candidates' meetings should get together now, and establish common ground rules. If anyone becomes abusive, whether they're a candidate or a spectator, they're barred from future events. And if we need to pool money to hire a security guard or two to keep them out, so be it.
What do they do in Vancouver? I'm sure they have to endure similar circumstances. Anyone been to all-candidates' meetings across the Strait recently?
#18
Posted 31 October 2008 - 02:22 PM
I think you're on the right track that the nomination process has to be tightened. At the same time, it's difficult to do that without restricting open democracy / low entry threshold for participation (which is considered desirable and democratic).
#19
Posted 31 October 2008 - 02:59 PM
I think you're on the right track that the nomination process has to be tightened. At the same time, it's difficult to do that without restricting open democracy / low entry threshold for participation (which is considered desirable and democratic).
Yep, you don't have a democracy without participation. But we still have rules. You're not allowed to "participate" by vandalizing your opponents' campaign signs. You can't "participate" by verbally and physically intimidating someone outside a polling place who's going to cast a ballot for your opponent.
I'd argue that some of these disturbances border on a violation of the election laws. I don't know how or when such laws are ever enforced municipally, but it's time to start looking into it. What does Rob Woodland, our city's election officer, have to say about all this?
#20
Posted 31 October 2008 - 03:53 PM
Intimidation
152 (1) In this section, "intimidate" means to do or threaten to do any of the following:
(a) use force, violence or restraint against a person;
(b) inflict injury, harm, damage or loss on a person or property;
© otherwise intimidate a person.
(2) A person must not intimidate another person for any of the following purposes:
(a) to persuade or compel a person to vote or refrain from voting;
(b) to persuade or compel a person to vote or refrain from voting for or against a particular candidate;
© to punish a person for having voted or refrained from voting as described in paragraph (a) or (b).
(3) A person must not, by abduction, duress or fraudulent means, do any of the following:
(a) impede, prevent or otherwise interfere with a person's right to vote;
(b) compel, persuade or otherwise cause a person to vote or refrain from voting;
© compel, persuade or otherwise cause a person to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate. ....
Penalties
154 (1) A person who contravenes section 151 or 152 is guilty of an offence and is liable to one or more of the following penalties:
(a) a fine of not more than $10 000;
(b) imprisonment for a term not longer than 2 years;
© a prohibition for a period of not longer than 6 years from holding an elected local government office;
(d) a prohibition for a period of not longer than 6 years from voting in local government elections.
I'd argue that some of these morons are violating s. 152(3)(b). They are using "duress" to "compel, persuade or otherwise cause" people who have been subject to their antics to "refrain from voting."
Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users