Jump to content

      













Photo

2018 Greater Victoria Civic Election Review


  • Please log in to reply
125 replies to this topic

#41 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 10,376 posts

Posted 22 October 2018 - 11:00 AM

What is this "far left" you speak of?

 

Putting people and community first is now, "far left'?

Building a more liveable and affordable city is, "far left"?

 

Together Victoria is not, 'far left" unless you are Fox News.

 

Far left policies

 

1. Basic income for all.

2. 50% of all new development must be affordable (20% below market). 

3. Housing is a right and not an asset, homeowners should not be able to profit from housing. (Whistler example where housing can only appreciate at the COL amount).


  • rjag and pennymurphy2000 like this

#42 Bernard

Bernard
  • Member
  • 4,241 posts
  • LocationVictoria BC

Posted 22 October 2018 - 11:39 AM

48 incumbent councillors ran for re-election in this region, 45 of them were re-elected.   The three that lost were Rick Kasper in Sooke, Jason Nault in Colwood and Pam Madoff in Victoria



#43 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 8,854 posts

Posted 22 October 2018 - 12:29 PM

48 incumbent councillors ran for re-election in this region, 45 of them were re-elected.   The three that lost were Rick Kasper in Sooke, Jason Nault in Colwood and Pam Madoff in Victoria

 

Madoff still had decent numbers. Her 2018 vote total would have got her seventh place in 2014. Lynn Hunter and Philippe Lucas got voted out. Madoff (and John Luton) just got outrun by more powerful candidates.

 

Thanks to Bernard for providing the raw numbers that are making these analyses possible.


  • Baro and Bernard like this

"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#44 Belleprincess

Belleprincess
  • Member
  • 161 posts

Posted 22 October 2018 - 12:42 PM

Far left policies

1. Basic income for all.
2. 50% of all new development must be affordable (20% below market).
3. Housing is a right and not an asset, homeowners should not be able to profit from housing. (Whistler example where housing can only appreciate at the COL amount).


☝️ Yup
  • pennymurphy2000 and Awaiting Juno like this

#45 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 8,854 posts

Posted 22 October 2018 - 12:46 PM

I would still like to know what accounts for these huge numbers we keep seeing.

 

Only some of it can be attributed to population increases. Denise Blackwell's vote count almost quadrupling in Langford is pure population growth. Victoria is population growth too, but remember as new voters are created, old ones die. I think we are seeing the results of aggressive voter recruitment and followup because I doubt there's more than a few hundred new voters in Victoria since 2014. 


"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#46 Bernard

Bernard
  • Member
  • 4,241 posts
  • LocationVictoria BC

Posted 22 October 2018 - 12:56 PM

Madoff still had decent numbers. Her 2018 vote total would have got her seventh place in 2014. Lynn Hunter and Philippe Lucas got voted out. Madoff (and John Luton) just got outrun by more powerful candidates.

 

Thanks to Bernard for providing the raw numbers that are making these analyses possible.

I will be adding all the 2018 results to that table over the next day or so



#47 Torrontes

Torrontes
  • Member
  • 136 posts

Posted 22 October 2018 - 01:05 PM

I would still like to know what accounts for these huge numbers we keep seeing.

 

Only some of it can be attributed to population increases. Denise Blackwell's vote count almost quadrupling in Langford is pure population growth. Victoria is population growth too, but remember as new voters are created, old ones die. I think we are seeing the results of aggressive voter recruitment and followup because I doubt there's more than a few hundred new voters in Victoria since 2014. 

 

Eligible voters in Victoria increased from 63,084 in 2014 to 68,297 in 2018 (+5,213). 

 

Votes cast increased from 24,663 in 2014 to 29,707 in 2018 (+5,042). Being 39.1% in 2014 and 43.5% in 2018.


Edited by Torrontes, 22 October 2018 - 01:08 PM.

  • Rob Randall likes this

#48 Awaiting Juno

Awaiting Juno
  • Member
  • 584 posts

Posted 22 October 2018 - 01:38 PM

Far left policies

 

1. Basic income for all.

2. 50% of all new development must be affordable (20% below market). 

3. Housing is a right and not an asset, homeowners should not be able to profit from housing. (Whistler example where housing can only appreciate at the COL amount).

 

 

These ideas really do need to be challenged, but importantly most of them are far beyond the scope of what a municipal government should be concerned with.  On 1, basic income is premised on doing away with most other income transfers, everyone gets the basic, but there is no welfare, no employment insurance, no childsubsidy, etc. etc. It is without regard for differences in need and assumes all need the same level of resources.  It really is quite flawed.  With respect to 2 - just no. Requiring new development to be affordable is not the way to affordable housing - affordable stock has never been new stock, and this expectation is just loopy.  That said, looking at what is affordable and moving towards a greater share of stock being considered affordable is an admirable goal but the measures should be vacancy rates and average rental rates and the share of total stock that is "affordable".  3. So are homeowners be protected from losses?  If they cannot profit, is it up to the public to safeguard them from loss?  Again, unless a person is running a non-profit or a charity, this expectation that a person would not see reasonable return for their capital is laughable.


  • Midnightly likes this

#49 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 8,854 posts

Posted 22 October 2018 - 02:57 PM

I will be adding all the 2018 results to that table over the next day or so

 

You're doing the Lord's work.


  • Bernard, John M. and Awaiting Juno like this

"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#50 Bernard

Bernard
  • Member
  • 4,241 posts
  • LocationVictoria BC

Posted 22 October 2018 - 03:58 PM

48 incumbent councillors ran for re-election in this region, 45 of them were re-elected.   The three that lost were Rick Kasper in Sooke, Jason Nault in Colwood and Pam Madoff in Victoria

44 of 48 were re-elected, I forgot Cam McLennan in Sidney lost



#51 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 10,154 posts

Posted 22 October 2018 - 05:17 PM

Eligible voters in Victoria increased from 63,084 in 2014 to 68,297 in 2018 (+5,213). .

 

I'm repeating myself again. That's equivalent to over 100 new voters every month in Victoria proper. You take the entire region and do the math...we don't have a housing problem we have a population problem. 

 

The politicians that are running on platforms of creating affordable housing and solving homelessness are pissing into the wind.

 

Until we close the airport and mainland ferry terminals, I don't want to hear about affordable anything. We're done. The secret's out. Brace yourself.

 

I saw this happen in Santa Barbara in the 70's. Moms and Dads had to move away to be with their growing families because their kids couldn't compete with newcomers from big cities for housing. 


  • Bingo, Wayne, Awaiting Juno and 1 other like this

#52 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 45,361 posts

Posted 22 October 2018 - 05:35 PM

Oh, but there is a heap of money to be made pretending the issue can be solved.


  • rjag, spanky123 and Cassidy like this

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


#53 FogPub

FogPub
  • Member
  • 119 posts

Posted 23 October 2018 - 03:10 AM

I'm repeating myself again. That's equivalent to over 100 new voters every month in Victoria proper. You take the entire region and do the math...we don't have a housing problem we have a population problem. 

 

The politicians that are running on platforms of creating affordable housing and solving homelessness are pissing into the wind.

The problem still remains: too much demand + too little supply = out of control housing costs.  That the demand side is being piled-on by people moving here just makes things worse, and any solution will have to account for this as a factor.


  • Awaiting Juno likes this

#54 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 10,376 posts

Posted 23 October 2018 - 05:59 AM

The problem still remains: too much demand + too little supply = out of control housing costs.  That the demand side is being piled-on by people moving here just makes things worse, and any solution will have to account for this as a factor.

 

Basic economic theory states that over time demand = supply. The problem is that populist politicians seek to try and adjust temporary imbalances with policies that actually make the problem worse. Does anyone think that 4 years from now housing and rental prices will be lower despite the hundred million dollars that Victoria will throw at the problem? There will be a lot of people and organizations who will have enriched themselves playing optics while the average taxpayer will have increased costs footing the bill to pay for it all. The policies currently being proposed will ensure that the brief period where we have seen purpose built rentals built will quickly end.


  • Awaiting Juno, Cassidy and rmpeers like this

#55 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 23 October 2018 - 06:03 AM

Oh, but there is a heap of money to be made pretending the issue can be solved.

 

By a bunch of rookie politicians, but hey...you never know.



#56 rmpeers

rmpeers
  • Member
  • 858 posts

Posted 23 October 2018 - 06:16 AM

Part of the reason I votes as I did (only one of my choices won) is that I strongly felt that under Helps, Isitt, etc, nothing would improve in terms of housing, affordability, reducing homelessness and so on. But I just don't see things improving, either because the solutions aren't within the ourview of municipal govt or because they don't have real solutions for the things that do.

Also, as a self identifying moderate leftie, I do not resonate with these people at all. I don't think it's because they're too far left, just that they seem to lack real soutions.

Let's say you put aside your concerns about whether your taxes will go up, etc and concern yourself only with caring about the poor and disadvantaged - have things gotten appreciably better for them? I'm not seeing it. And please correct me if I'm missing it. I'd genuinely like to be proven wrong.
  • Awaiting Juno likes this

#57 AnAndrew

AnAndrew
  • Member
  • 21 posts

Posted 23 October 2018 - 06:29 AM

Until we close the airport and mainland ferry terminals, I don't want to hear about affordable anything. We're done. The secret's out. Brace yourself.


Have any solutions that are Constitutional?

#58 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 4,534 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 23 October 2018 - 07:05 AM

Oh, but there is a heap of money to be made pretending the issue can be solved.

 

Just like the Business of Poverty, none of them want it solved as theyd all be out of work.



#59 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 10,376 posts

Posted 23 October 2018 - 07:11 AM

Have any solutions that are Constitutional?

 

Wait it out and let economics do its thing. Remember in Fort Mac a few years back when everyone was complaining about affordability? What would have happened if the Government had spent $100M manipulating the housing market so that everyone could have $500 a month apartments/condos? Not only would the Government been forced to spend even more to carry the properties, everyone else in the market would have seen their own property values and rents depressed as workers moved out and there was suddenly a glut. 



#60 tedward

tedward
  • Member
  • 1,773 posts
  • LocationJames Bay

Posted 23 October 2018 - 07:25 AM

Far left policies

 

1. Basic income for all.

2. 50% of all new development must be affordable (20% below market). 

3. Housing is a right and not an asset, homeowners should not be able to profit from housing. (Whistler example where housing can only appreciate at the COL amount).

 

I guess you have missed all the conservative thinkers and economists who are in support of basic income. Not that it is a municipal issue anyway as mentioned above.

 

LOL, as if the idea that people who live here should be able to afford housing is, "far left"!?!?  

 

Now you are just talking out of your ass if you say that Together Victoria has taken the position that, "homeowners should not be ale to profit from housing."
 

These are all reasonably centrist ideas and to call them "far left" is to indulge in the sort of Tea Party/Trumpian re-framing that plagues our political discourse. Far left would be actual communism and collective ownership of all housing for starters. 


  • John M. and Brantastic like this

Lake Side Buoy - LEGO Nut - History Nerd - James Bay resident


You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

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


To advertise on VibrantVictoria, call us at 250-884-0589.