11779 replies to this topic

[G-Man]

I think you are both wrong, please provide evidence of home ownership being a determinant of voting patterns. The CRD as a whole is mostly renters.

I used to own a home, now I rent yet my voting pattern hasn't changed.

[Victoria Watcher]

• Renters are significantly more likely to lean left. Among homeowners, President Trump beat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election by a margin of 6 percentage points, but Clinton won the renter vote by a staggering 30 percentage points.

https://www.apartmen...ng-preferences/

 

 

There is truth to the old stereotype of more conservative suburbs and a more left-wing downtown core, experts say

 

 

https://www.thestar....he-suburbs.html

[Victoria Watcher]

The CRD as a whole is mostly renters.
 

 

 

in saanich it's around 15% for most areas except near uvic (students).  james bay as high as 80%.

 

https://censusmapper....4634/-123.3710

 

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 29 December 2018 - 01:20 PM.

[Mike K.]

The CRD’s dwellings are 37% rental stock.

The City of Victoria’s dwellings are 61% rental stock and rapidly rising.

Even Esquimalt has a higher rate of homeownership with 49%, and Saanich has a whopping 70% rate of homeownership, as does Langford.

The correlation between homeownership rates and a feel-good political agenda driven not by pragmatism and conservative budgeting but through big ticket and lavish gestures is quite evident in the City of Victoria. It literally stands alone on many fronts.

[Nparker]

...Councillor Isitt just earlier this month labelled landlords as untrustworthy while calling for immediate covenants on rental stock...

And let's not forget his misuse of the term "affluenza". 

[G-Man]

Victoria Watcher said that basically the thoughts of renters should be dismissed. I find that insulting.

[Victoria Watcher]

Victoria Watcher said that basically the thoughts of renters should be dismissed. I find that insulting.

 

i said this:

 

we need to try to stop giving victoria so much weight in the media around here.  it's neither the largest in municipality in physical size and population (and is indeed only 25% of the population) it contains poorest or second-poorest population with the lowest home-ownership possibly in the english part of our entire country.  maybe it's not so surprising that we elect strange and poor politicians in the cov.  

 

and this:

 

poor people and renters tend to vote more to the left.  in terms of who to listen to i'm not sure why cov gets all the media coverage except because it shares the name of the region with its own name.  if all you changed was the name of victoria to saanich and vice versa i bet what was formerly saanich would now get 75 or 85% of the media coverage.

 

 

i did not suggest ignore/dismiss the voters/renters' thoughts. i said the media should shift a bit.  victoria is the smaller fish here sannich is king.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 29 December 2018 - 08:41 PM.

[Mike K.]

I guess wherever the decisions that impact the economic heart of a region are made is where the focus is.

And the political moves in Victoria are just so often mind boggling that one can’t help but tune in. Even though Langford gets things done on a massive scale (think of all the parkways they’ve built) and gets a passing mention when appropriate, Victoria’s gaffs like the pursuit of money from Venezuela and a councillor’s disdain for Christmas are like a drug to the ears.

[Victoria Watcher]

i also wanted to point out that there is not a single city in this entire country other than victoria that has a name that reflects a whole region but is smaller than an adjacent municipality.

[Victoria Watcher]

I guess wherever the decisions that impact the economic heart of a region 

 

except it's not really.  add saanich and langford and they are higher.  or saanich and sidney.  etc.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 29 December 2018 - 08:57 PM.

[Mike K.]

Right. The City of Nanaimo is 91 sq km. Victoria is 19. Kelowna is 212.

[Awaiting Juno]

It's been said before, it'll be said again, some degree of amalgamation is needed at least of the core (Esquimalt, View Royal, Victoria, Saanich, Oak Bay).  There's too much duplication of services, too many politicians, and a real disconnect between where people live and where people work.  As a result, those actually calling Victoria home are carrying a disproportionate share of a regional burden.  I do think the voting patterns of renters and owners are different - and that there are good reasons for that difference.  I would say that being a renter would make the costs of moving to Saanich/Oak Bay/Westshore a lot lower and as a result a person might be less worried about the long-run impact of their voting decision.

[G-Man]

Again I disagree with this notion of the renter. I am not as likely as an owner to pick up and move to another part of town. I live where I live because near downtown is home to me.

[Victoria Watcher]

do you work downtown? if so how many of your home-owning co-workers live in the cov? I’ll guess very very few.

[Nparker]

do you work downtown? if so how many of your home-owning co-workers live in the cov? I’ll guess very very few.

This one does.

[Ismo07]

do you work downtown? if so how many of your home-owning co-workers live in the cov? I’ll guess very very few.

 

It's likely true that more people working in my office live outside of the CoV, however without a poll, I'm not sure that the highest % of people aren't from the CoV rather than say Saanich or Langford.  I'm not clear what the point is.  If it's a question of who votes more I'm pretty sure, again without looking, Victoria may have gotten the highest voter turnout in terms of % and if Victoria has the highest share of voters I think that math might be easy.  Stats are fun though

[Mike K.]

One of the concerns Stew Young has is that people are so happy with the direction Langford is heading in that they won't show up to vote nor would they think another candidate could unseat the mayor, therefore there's no need to vote.

 

Higher voter turn-outs are not necessarily a sign of a healthy situation, just like low voter turn-outs are not necessarily a sign of an unhealthy situation.

[Ismo07]

One of the concerns Stew Young has is that people are so happy with the direction Langford is heading in that they won't show up to vote nor would they think another candidate could unseat the mayor, therefore there's no need to vote.

 

Higher voter turn-outs are not necessarily a sign of a healthy situation, just like low voter turn-outs are not necessarily a sign of an unhealthy situation.

 

And I didn't say they were.  I thought we were discussing if renters voted or not.  I do agree about the voter apathy however.

[Mike K.]

It would be interesting to learn just what the split is between renters and owners, and which way renters tend to vote and owners tend to vote.

 

We could solve that riddle relatively easily by adding a simple yes/no question to the ballot.

[Bob Fugger]

I don't know about "relatively easily."  I wouldn't tend to trust any data that relies on an anonymous, non-verifiable self-declaration.