Jump to content

      













Photo

City of Victoria - 2018-2022 Mayor and council general discussion


  • Please log in to reply
2282 replies to this topic

#41 N E Body

N E Body
  • Member
  • 234 posts

Posted 04 November 2018 - 10:24 AM

Isitt was involved in their campaign. His campaign volunteers promoted him, Loveday and TV when calling constituents.

 

Isitt knew that with at least two open seats in 2018 and possibly more, it was vital to support a slate that aligned with his views. Especially in 2018 which saw a large number of strong candidates competing for those spots. Nothing nefarious, just common sense and good politicking. 

 

Which takes me back to my comment about including Helps...


  • John M. likes this

#42 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,117 posts

Posted 04 November 2018 - 10:40 AM

Did you not read Spanky's comment above containing the quote from CTJ? Why would you include Helps in this conspiracy theory of yours.

 

I think that Helps is on the outside on this and in a very difficult position. If she fails to support Ben then she will lose credibility with the progressive vote, if she supports him then her developer backers will be enraged. 

 

I think that Helps had planned to shake up council, (JAM issue as an example) but was thinking that Grace Lore and Anna King would be elected. Both of them were better aligned with Helps.


  • John M., grantpalin, pennymurphy2000 and 1 other like this

#43 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 22,556 posts

Posted 04 November 2018 - 10:57 AM

...If she fails to support Ben then she will lose credibility with the progressive vote...

That only matters if she intends to run for political office again. Hasn't she indicated otherwise? Not that she wouldn't go back on her word.


  • rmpeers likes this

#44 rmpeers

rmpeers
  • Member
  • 998 posts

Posted 04 November 2018 - 11:51 AM

Which takes me back to my comment about including Helps...


Wasn't clear to me who is aligned with the TV people. Hence my raising it. Not sure what you are saying/asking.

#45 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,117 posts

Posted 04 November 2018 - 12:28 PM

That only matters if she intends to run for political office again. Hasn't she indicated otherwise? Not that she wouldn't go back on her word.

 

She said that she had no intention of running for LOCAL office again.


Edited by spanky123, 04 November 2018 - 12:28 PM.

  • pennymurphy2000 likes this

#46 A Girl is No one

A Girl is No one
  • Member
  • 796 posts

Posted 04 November 2018 - 12:44 PM

She said she wouldn’t run again in 2014.

#47 John M.

John M.

    John M.

  • Member
  • 319 posts

Posted 04 November 2018 - 01:53 PM

I think that Helps is on the outside on this and in a very difficult position. If she fails to support Ben then she will lose credibility with the progressive vote, if she supports him then her developer backers will be enraged. 

 

I think that Helps had planned to shake up council, (JAM issue as an example) but was thinking that Grace Lore and Anna King would be elected. Both of them were better aligned with Helps.

if you look at the six of them though, Ben is really the only one who would cause problems. On development, it'll still be Helps, Alto, Loveday, Collins, Dubow and Potts as generally pro-development and Isitt and Young anti-, with Thorton-Joe somewhere in the middle. Even if the developers lose some of the TV councillor's vote on some developments, they need to lose 2 out of the 3 to be defeated, IF Thorton-Joe votes against. 



#48 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,117 posts

Posted 04 November 2018 - 02:01 PM

if you look at the six of them though, Ben is really the only one who would cause problems. On development, it'll still be Helps, Alto, Loveday, Collins, Dubow and Potts as generally pro-development and Isitt and Young anti-, with Thorton-Joe somewhere in the middle. Even if the developers lose some of the TV councillor's vote on some developments, they need to lose 2 out of the 3 to be defeated, IF Thorton-Joe votes against.

The docs I referenced were signed by TV, Ben and Jeremy so they are definitely aligned. The differences of opinion are in how far they lean, not if they lean. They are pro development but pro development under Government rather than private control.

We will know more on Thursday when they all cast their votes.

Edited by spanky123, 04 November 2018 - 02:02 PM.

  • rmpeers likes this

#49 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 22,556 posts

Posted 04 November 2018 - 04:33 PM

...They are pro development but pro development under Government rather than private control...

I would imagine this is a different beast from the development sector that aided in Helps' re-election.



#50 Bob Fugger

Bob Fugger

    Chief Factor

  • Member
  • 3,172 posts
  • LocationSouth Central CSV

Posted 04 November 2018 - 04:42 PM

if you look at the six of them though, Ben is really the only one who would cause problems. On development, it'll still be Helps, Alto, Loveday, Collins, Dubow and Potts as generally pro-development and Isitt and Young anti-, with Thorton-Joe somewhere in the middle. Even if the developers lose some of the TV councillor's vote on some developments, they need to lose 2 out of the 3 to be defeated, IF Thorton-Joe votes against. 

 

As the self-anointed boss of TV, he will whip those votes as often as he can.  The only way he loses is if Loveday rediscovers the backbone that he grew late in the last term and the rest vote as a bloc.


  • AllseeingEye likes this

#51 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 22,556 posts

Posted 06 November 2018 - 12:16 PM

Although not exactly a mayor and council discussion topic, a number of CoV boards and committees are actively recruiting volunteer members.

Capture.JPG

They neglected to mention the need for someone to fill the obvious vacancy on the Internet Posting Spell-Check Committee.


  • mbjj likes this

#52 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 9,323 posts

Posted 06 November 2018 - 12:41 PM

Music Advisory, that's a new one.


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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#53 shoeflack

shoeflack
  • Member
  • 1,725 posts

Posted 06 November 2018 - 12:44 PM

They neglected to mention the need for someone to fill the obvious vacancy on the Internet Posting Spell-Check Committee.

 

Nah, it's a special committee led by Geoff Young where he can get drunk off of this stuff to attempt to hide the fact that he has 4 years of dealing with this new council.

 

desgin-bottle.png


  • Nparker likes this

#54 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 9,323 posts

Posted 06 November 2018 - 12:45 PM

I would be shocked if Madoff didn't submit an application for Heritage. Maybe Library too. I just can't see her dropping City Hall cold turkey and she'd be apoplectic at the thought of these new kids at council who can't tell a spandrel from a spaniel voting on architecture.


  • nerka likes this

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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#55 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 22,556 posts

Posted 06 November 2018 - 01:40 PM

I would be shocked if Madoff didn't submit an application for Heritage...

While I can understand the logic behind this, I would hope those in a position to decide on committee make-up would at least consider a fresh perspective.



#56 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 9,323 posts

Posted 06 November 2018 - 01:49 PM

In this case she would be an active participant rather than an observer or as council liason. 

 

Heritage Panel has been around for a while so just about any warm body that knows anything about heritage has already served a term or two so they need fresh blood. And I've seen some real hacks on Heritage. Pam would actually be an asset. 


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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#57 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 22,556 posts

Posted 06 November 2018 - 01:51 PM

...Pam would actually be an asset. 

That's one opinion.



#58 mbjj

mbjj
  • Member
  • 1,070 posts

Posted 06 November 2018 - 02:01 PM

Music Advisory, that's a new one.

What on earth is that! I shudder to think. How about the pothole advisory panel, the sidewalk advisory panel, etc. The thought of all this fluff yet again sickens me.



#59 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 9,323 posts

Posted 06 November 2018 - 02:06 PM

Pam would actually be an asset. 

 

That's one opinion.

 

If you saw some of the duds that served on that panel you'd change your mind, trust me. 


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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#60 nerka

nerka
  • Member
  • 1,230 posts

Posted 06 November 2018 - 02:34 PM

As the self-anointed boss of TV, he will whip those votes as often as he can.  The only way he loses is if Loveday rediscovers the backbone that he grew late in the last term and the rest vote as a bloc.

Loveday has got to take the election as an endorsement of his approach. While Ben's vote actually fell Loveday got a large increase in vote. He's established himself to the extent that he can probably keep getting elected to council for as long as he wants (barring anything untoward)  So I don't think you will see him blindly voting for the "Ben bloc" just because his political survival rests on that.

 

That said I think you will see this council asking for a bigger affordability component from developers. That could tip some developments to being non-viable


  • Bob Fugger and Awaiting Juno like this

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