As it stands now the debate hinges on two proposals: A re-jigged five ward system with two councillors each or a ten ward system with one councillor per ward. A hand full of wannabe city councillors have threatened with an OMB challenge along with the bare minimum of cherry picked signatures needed to make it happen. Their rationale is pretty simple. They feel that they have a better chance of winning in a municipal election if Windsor's map is carved into more and smaller wards with what they feel is a lesser chance of being beat up by an incumbent councillor. They are asking for wholesale change that, if put into play will break Windsor into physical shards while some of the new challengers will become the next incumbents.
FRACTIOUS, UNFAMILIAR TEN WARD SYSTEM
Everyone involved including City Council and those who wish to unseat the current administration have to look at this more closely. The right choice for Windsor is only going to come from honest deliberation. There is not much wrong with the current ward configuration give for the population imbalance. That can be easily resolved with a minimum of boundary tweaks. The net result will be fairer representation and a very familiar ward system for the electorate. That's all that is really needed.
The Ten Ward System Undressed
First, lets take a look at who is calling for a ten ward system. Essentially it is a handful of people who are simply looking to dethrone the current council. Fair enough but why can't they do this by way of the traditional election process? They have already proven that they can muster 600 votes for the OMB appeal. Take that same show on the road and they are running for office. Chopping up the city map into smaller, easier parcels to better their odds for being elected might suggest volumes about how up to the task these players actually are.
Some argue that a ten ward system will give individual councillors equal clout. This is unfounded because Councillors are elected on the merit of their campaigns and they are re-elected on the merit of their track records. If they blow it at either level they are done. Its as easy as that.
Proponents of the ten ward system are hung up on accountability. They claim that ten Councillors from ten Wards will be more accountable than ten Councillors from five wards. They support this argument by suggesting that an ineffective Councillor will simply not be re-elected. Ahhh...That's the way it works now. Not an argument at all.
Another funny notion is that a ten ward system should increase interest in elections thereby increasing the amount of voters. Ask yourself this. Does buying swampland in Florida appeal to you? Look at the statistics for any other municipality and you will find that voter turnout is the same as it is here. Throw this one out.
A one Councillor per ward system will place a greater focus on a sitting member's voting record and agenda. All political shut-ins watch this stuff every week on TV and read about it every day in the paper. Voting records and agendas are very well known. Throw this one out too.
Some Councillors are freeloaders who let their ward mates do all the work. Ask any Councillor if this is true. Ask them who the freeloaders are. Non existent. So is this argument.
As one might deduce, there is only one argument that effectively supports a ten ward system. Population disparity. Sure...You can achieve it by cutting up the city into ten smaller bits; twenty if you want but that is akin to thickening the bureaucracy. Who wants that? Simply re-drawing the current five wards to level the playing field does the whole job.
Kiss Me
Imagine an actual election under a ten ward system. Assume two or three candidates per each of ten wards. All the lawn signs, radio adds, billboards and the repetitious thud of perpetual stumping. Who wants to go through all of that? If ever there was a pure application for K.I.S.S.
Everyone Has it Wrong
Councillors still reeling from the Gs of the CUPE strike may be overreacting to this left hook from out of nowhere. All they need do is take their time with this thing. It is important and it has ramifications for the future. A final decision is not an absolute for Monday evening. Weigh it out properly. Ask yourself who has the most to gain from such a change? True conviction is the best bet.
Proponents for the ten ward approach should be wary of those who are stoking them. A ten ward system will not play out as favourably as one might think. In fact it might be a grave tactical error. The incumbents will actually have an easier go of it in a ten ward system because there will be more challengers. And with that comes a split vote which almost always favours the incumbent. If convictions are strong and correct then change can easily be had within the current election process. An even distribution of voters in a five ward system is as good as an even distribution of voters in a ten ward system. Challengers will just have to work harder for it. Show us what you are made of.
SIMPLE, BALANCED, FAMILIAR FIVE WARD SYSTEM
28 comments:
I don't about that, MoM. 507 confirmed signatures amounts to more than a "handful" in my books. Every person who signed that petition is throwing their support behind it.
To Anonymous...
Those 507 signatures were a part of a valiant effort but its basis was to ensure an OMB appeal. The idea being to light a fire under Council one way or another. Opting for a ten ward system to wipe the slate clean destroys something good to appease that frustration. It really isn't necessary wouldn't you agree? And, as mentioned, the process in getting those 507 signatures tells us how the election process should work at large. Good work on that but don't let it keep you in a perpetual whipped frenzy. Thats how mistakes are made.
YOu have given arguments against a 10 ward but here are some more
In a 10 ward system each candidate will have double the time to spend with their particular constituents. Knocking on doors, meeting and greeting. That means the moneys of special interests will mean less.
Its offensive to say that a 507 signature petition is simply the work of a handful of individuals. With me its worse, I have everyone questioning what I put in front of them including my own wife. No one was cherry picked and that is extremely insulting not only to me but those who signed.
I had to give a 10-15 minute explanation for almost every one of my signatures. No one just signed their life away to me.
One thing is that you've dismissed some arguments based on citizfaction but you've addressed few of the arguments of the consultant.
What basis do you have for dismissing the consultant?
You say that there will be more candidates in a 10 ward system. What basis do you have for that statement?
There are other advantages and I will grant you that there are some disadvantages. However, this is a far superior system and even 8 of our 10 councilors have conceded that with the only objections being that of someone whose worried from being cut off from a "Stop the DRTP" base and a councilor whose re-election has been threatened since she the day she was elected.
As a Downtown advocate, I heard that we will lose 4 councillors in place of 1 and I respond that Ward 2 shares its focus in Sandwich and Ward 3 in Erie, Walkerville and Ottawa. It will be nice to have one councillor obliged to solely downtown.
I do respectfully submit that the others have been mostly supportive of downtown causes (Especially Councilor Halberstadt) but its not the same thing
M.O.M. I respectfully ask you to reconsider
P.S. I actually do not call for the overthrow of many councilors. In fact I believe holding them to a higher standard of accountability will ensure many of the existing councilors who I know will be re-elected become far better.
I can accept arguments pro or con against either option.
However, the one argument that isn't addressed is where were the proponents of the 5-ward two-member system?
A group of citizens took matters into their own hands to demand action from city councillors.
Whether "right" or "wrong" is a subjective argument. Residents stepped up to the plate and demanded councillors act.
Now, your argument would have greater force, for example, had councillors actually approved the 5-ward two councillor system - one of the options the consultant put forward.
Your argument would be even stronger had councillors not -nearly 1 year ago - agreed to hire a consultant, and then - by the admission of some - not even bother to look at the proposals put forth by the consultant.
They chose to do nothing, whilst admitting the inadequacy of the status quo.
The beauty of democracy is that voters will have a choice to NOT elect individuals pushing for this change.
Our democratic system is based upon winner take all.
I concur with Mark Boscariol.
I gathered a small amount of signatures. I had to go through the consultant's report with the people who signed in support of the petition.
These signatories educated themselves on the issue and supported with their signature.
I would expect to see MOM at city council on Monday speaking his mind.
That is democracy.
Mark...
In for the debate.
Lets look at your points:
" In a 10 ward system each candidate will have double the time to spend with their constituents". When would that be? During the election, after getting elected? You yourself say that a minimum of 15 minutes is required to bend someones ear. In all of the elections I've participated in I can't recall any one candidate spending less than that and within the ward confines which we have now. 15 minutes isn't easy. For the constituent or the candidate.
"Moneys spent on special interests will be less". Candidates who are looking to get elected will seek out money and any other "edge" they can get from special interests or otherwise. You should know this better than anyone Mark. 5 wards, 10 wards or twenty wards won't change that.
"Cherry Picked". You are reading something into this which is not there. The conviction of a few mustered the signatures and mostly from a couple of key sources. ie. blog followers, twitters, facebook and a singular blitz of the downtown market. I'll give you your 15 minutes with some or all of them but the venues were not that difficult. You're too easily insulted.
"I had to give a 10 -15 minute explanation..." Which politician in the history of this planet hasn't. It's a part of the game.
"What basis do you have for dismissing the consultant?"
No one has dismissed what the consultant has provided. If you boil his points down they amount to what has been iterated in the post and to what has been debated here. If you are looking at anything more specific bring it up. Everything he spoke about can be applied to both systems.
"What basis do you have for saying that there will be more candidates in a ten ward system"? Thats easy. We usually have three or four in each of the five wards we have now. Why wouldn't there be three or four in each of ten wards? Thats why they call it an election.
"As a downtown advocate...It will be nice to have one councillor obligated to soley downtown".
Ahh Mark...The 5 ward map in this post pushes the boundary of ward 2 east to Aylmer/Howard. That gives you your own ward and two councillors. Have no fear.
Chris...I concur. Oncde again though lets look at what citizens took action for. To force council to move one way or another. If they vote for a five ward system on Monday will you be satisfied?
I have to ask...Am I a proponent of the Five ward system? Just wondering.
To me, council fanned simply because they were preoccupied with the strike. I will give them that. Did they choose to do nothing? I think it is more probable that they wanted more time to shake the strike off of their boots.
I will hand it to you that it was not that easy to garner the required signatures and that people wanted more background to make a logical choice. Did you give them the option without bias towards one system or another? You have to be honest with yourself about that. This means that the signatories in question may still not be fully educated.
As for me speaking to council. I had every intention of doing so but I will be out of town for the entire week. I'll make you or anyone else who cares to listen a deal. If the decision holds over for another session I will be glad to register.
Here is my final attempt to tweak the Consultant's supplementary report:
http://tinyurl.com/wardrevisions
Page one is the Consultant's map, and page two is my alternative. I left Wards 4 to 8 unchanged, but moved a few lines in the remaining wards to balance populations and avoid having a ward stretching from Matchette to Walker.
The 2006 Census population has Ward 9 with approx. 4,100 more people than Ward 1, but the 2009 MPAC figures show it with 800 fewer people. This discrepancy may have affected the Consultant's decision to use Dougall, rather than Howard, south of E.C. Row.
Comments?
This is more than just a debate for me. This is the culmination of years of campaign experience
" In a 10 ward system each candidate will have double the time to spend with their constituents". When would that be?...
I've knocked on doors with candidates for council, MP and Mayor. I've had the crappy job of pulling a candidate away from a resident when they spend too much time with them. Even though the candidate is truly wanting to spend that time explaining their views and who they are, I've had to do it under strict orders of the campaign manager.
I can only wish that pressure was cut into a fraction where they actualy had the time. I can only dream of a campaign where you could go beyond handshaking to actual dialogue.
"Moneys spent on special interests will be less".
That is actually incorrect on my part. Moneys will be the same. It just won't matter as much. A hard working candidate without as much developer money behind them will still have the opportunity to knock on every door in their ward and negate the impact of ads and billboards.
"No one has dismissed what the consultant has provided. "
I just simply disagree with you here. You have not countered all the consultants arguments.
"Thats easy. We usually have three or four in each of the five wards we have now...."
There will be more candidates solely on the basis that the economy is bad and the job will look more attractive. Wards won't matter.
My final argument is that when a guy like me and a guy like Mr. Schnurr are on the same side of an issue with no argument. That alone speaks volumes
And one major post script. M.O.M and kirwood Derby
If you ever want to know more about how politics truly works in this city.
Talk to me in person about what I've seen at these $500 a plate dinners and high end fundraisers that go on at the federal and mayoral level. I've been to ones for Conservatives and Liberals. I've listened to donors who financed candidates on both sides of these elections. Windsor's a small town and its not hard to follow the money when watching where candidates stand on issues. A lot of times you have the same guys giving to both sides.
I believe that the candidates I've worked for have been men of integrity. However, when you see the way people talk, behave or what they expect that are throwin' the money around it would turn your stomach.
If you've seen what I've seen you might understand more why I want to do anything at any level to make issues and character dominate over dollars and special interests.
I can look you or anyone in the eye knowing I have truly honorable intentions when it comes to this particular issue. You can disagree with me or dislike anything you want about me, but don't use that as reason to oppose this issue.
As far as Citizfaction and the petition go, let me clear up a few things. I started planning the website a couple hours after the finish of that fiasco called a Council meeting. I spent my free time that Monday evening sketching out a rough plan and playing some word association to come up with a name and then the design. Late Monday evening and into Tuesday morning I created the actual site and Facebook group and then began publicizing it. For the record, I've never and and never will have any intention of running for City Council.
I reached out to anyone and everyone that I possibly could and thankfully, many responded. The group of people involved is far more diverse than you would have your readers believe. While people like Chris and Mark played no small role, many, many others did their part from all across the city. The minister from South Windsor who presented the petition to his church, the gentleman who collected signatures in his senior's residence, former Councillor Margaret Williams, Councillors Dilkens and Halberstadt, a person who has placed the petition at three hair salons across the City, Milk, Phog, Black Kettle Bistro, The Service Market, not to mention over 50 people who mailed in petitions with one or two signatures on it. I even received mailed in petitions from people who were away from Windsor on work or vacation. I collected signatures at Devonshire Mall and yes someone hit the downtown market. One lady drove all the way from Banwell to the Service Market just to make sure she could sign. Yes many of the signatures came from the downtown because that is where I both live and work. I'm grateful to everyone who worked at this as the timeline for collection was extremely tight.
As to the merits of a five or ten ward system there are certainly pros or cons with each. I happen to agree with the consultant that on balance, the ten ward system is more representative. Windsor is one of the few remaining municipalities not only in Ontario but all of Canada to retain a two councillor per ward system and the only one from a Census Metropolitan Area.
In terms of challenging an incumbent, you too easily shake off the difference between running against one or two incumbents. Name recognition is a significant factor in any political race and more so at the Municipal level given it's historically lower turnouts. Facing one incumbent is a tough enough hill to climb for any challenger let alone two.
Money is always a significant factor in any election. A re-balanced 5 ward system has an average of roughly 40,000 voters per ward. At 70 cents per voter that puts the spending limit at $28,000 per candidate plus $5,000 for a total of $33,000. A 10 ward system with an average of 22,000 per ward comes in at $15,400 plus $5,000 for a total of $20,400. A candidate or spouse may contribute as much as they wish to a campaign while all others have a limit of $750 to any one candidate. Incumbents can bank any campaign money that is unspent with the Clerk and save it for the next municipal election. When you combine incumbency, name recognition, financial status and the ability to bank previous campaign funds, the hill just got a lot bigger to climb.
Part II
When you compare Windsor with other municipalities across the Province you can see that it's a rare thing for incumbents to be defeated here while it's not uncommon for wholesale change in other areas. When was the last time four or more incumbents were defeated in Windsor? Certainly not in the last 30 years. While institutional memory is crucial to any organization, change and innovation is just as critical. Smaller wards help lower the bar of entry to Municipal politics and help ensure more diversity of opinion across all race, age and gender categories.
There were several reasons for chosing the 10 ward option for the petition. One, it was my first choice, as well as many others that I spoke with. Two, it kept things simple. Finally, I was looking forward to a possible OMB hearing and wanted something as bullet proof as possible. The 10 ward option was the consultants preferred option and if a hearing actually came to pass, he could be relied upon to testify in it's favour. The OMB has the option to do whatever they wish, whether it be dismissing the complaint, imposing one of the consultants options or choosing one of their own. Past precendent though has shown the OMB to most often pick one of the options presented by whatever process a municipality has gone through.
My main goal in starting the petition was to encourage Council to take action on their own. Everyone agreed that the status quo was unacceptable yet they still voted to do nothing. When they voted to note and file the Consultants report they were under the impression that the issue was dead and buried for at least another two or three years. Most were not aware of the section 221 option of the Municipal Act. I spoke with several Councillors and they all told me that not only were people signing the petition but were calling and emailing them as well. For an issue that most people would compare to watching paint dry, they were quite surprised at the reaction.
I think both Mark and Chris have made many good points and I won't re-hash them other than Mark's point that if this issue can unite both him and Chris (and many more), it certainly can't be all bad!
Yes a re-balanced five ward option is still possible. It's not my preferred choice, but if at the end of the day that is all we can achieve this round it is still better than the do-nothing option we faced a short four weeks ago. One way or another I myself am determined to see some progress on this issue in time for the next election in 2010.
One last thing. After the conclusion of the Ward Boundary issue my intention is to continue running Citizfaction. I plan to incorporate it as a non-profit with an initial goal of candidate education on Municipal Election campaigns. In the long term I would like to continue on the educational theme, specifically civic engagement and outreach on the variety of issues face by municipalities.
Since wards were re-introduced at the 1978 municipal election, 83% of councillors who chose to run again were re-elected.
In 1980, half the Council (5 out of 10) were voted out. Since then, no more than two councillors have been defeated at any election.
1978 -- Re-elected: 7, Defeated: 1, Retired: 0, Ran for Mayor: 0
1980 -- Re-elected: 5, Defeated: 5, Retired: 0, Ran for Mayor: 0
1982 -- Re-elected: 5, Defeated: 1, Retired: 2, Ran for Mayor: 2
1985 -- Re-elected: 6, Defeated: 0, Retired: 2, Ran for Mayor: 2
1988 -- Re-elected: 7, Defeated: 0, Retired: 2, Ran for Mayor: 1
1991 -- Re-elected: 9, Defeated: 0, Retired: 0, Ran for Mayor: 1
1994 -- Re-elected: 7, Defeated: 1, Retired: 2, Ran for Mayor: 0
1997 -- Re-elected: 7, Defeated: 2, Retired: 1, Ran for Mayor: 0
2000 -- Re-elected: 8, Defeated: 2, Retired: 0, Ran for Mayor: 0
2003 -- Re-elected: 6, Defeated: 2, Retired: 0, Ran for Mayor: 2
2006 -- Re-elected: 7, Defeated: 1, Retired: 2, Ran for Mayor: 0
Total -- Re-elected: 74, Defeated: 15, Retired: 11, Ran for Mayor: 8
Good Morning Gentlemen...
I trust there is no ire raised here.
From this dialogue I can see that one thing is for sure. There is a clear committment to change. I could predict nothing less from this room but lets ask the question: What is the change you are looking for?
Let me start with Mark. A bit of background. There is not one of us on this string who hasn't been up to our "hands on" neck in local or otherwise politics. That is without doubt how we were drawn to this medium. Every one of us here has pounded stakes, provided or solicited campaign funds, manned the phones, scrambled on damage control, canvassed and hung out deep into the night with teams of power hitters. All of us I'm sure have helped seat at least two councillors and even a Mayor or two. Some of us ran for office and some of us contributed to seating an American President. $500 dollars a plate is a poor boy luncheon. We know the game, we know the players, we all know how it works. Like a Darwinian given. Lets not put ourselves into a suck and blow cavitation.
"Moneys spent on special interests"
Yes they will be the same. The hard work and dedication of each candidate matters but as you have eluded, the process is also on the clock.
"The consultant" Perhaps I haven't directly addressed the consultants points (for the sake of brevity) but you haven't brought any of them forward either. You are welcome to do so.
"There will be more candidates..."
Give that one up Mark. In the best of political circumstances there are multiple candidates. Be honest Mark. At the moment you are not really happy with local representation. That is what is driving you more than the current socio-economic climate. There is nothing wrong in that. Wards will always matter because they are the "binder" between the electorate and City Hall.
" I can look you or anyone in the eye knowing I have truly honorable intentions when it comes to this issue. You can disagree with me or dislike anything you want about me, but don't use that as reason to oppose this issue".
I'm not sure where you are coming from here Mark but what does the issue have to do with you anyway? No offence intended.
Sounds like you and Chriss are hooking up for the next election.
Issue has nothing to do with me personally. Stupid thing for me to say,
No ire at all, its important to raise the issues you are raising
"$500 dollars a plate is a poor boy luncheon. We know the game, we know the players, we all know how it works. Like a Darwinian given. Lets not put ourselves into a suck and blow cavitation."
Other than knowing most here have been very involved, I don't know what anyone elses particular involvement was. I found myself early on as a large financial contributor (no more) and as president of the riding association heavily involved in fundraising.
I was disturbed and jaded by the comments made by various large contributors. What they said, how they crassly joked about what their expectations were for their money they gave. And if it isn't the LIberal and Conservative money men, its the NDP labour pressure. Same difference as far as I'm concerned
I see how our councillors have rarely ruled against a developer (unless its in favor of another one). How they don't even ask the question how a developers hired consultant can write a report saying how Windsor has plenty of demand for more commercial while ignoring the fact we have the highest commercial vacancy rate in Canada. God forbid we offend one of these builders who would never dare live next to the big box ugliness they build. Hell most of them won't even live within city limits.
I see how they can put me through an inquisition when going before council but handling the money men with kid gloves
"There will be more candidates..."
"At the moment you are not really happy with local representation. That is what is driving you more than the current socio-economic climate. There is nothing wrong in that. "
While I disagree with virtually every councilor on many issues, that does not make me unhappy with representation.
I would probably vote for half of them if living in their wards. I believe that it will only take 2 or three key changes to force the other ones to become more responsible just like citizfaction did. I still believe that most councilors will vote the right way if they had more support. Its why I give extra credit to Halberstadt. Its damn hard to stand up to 9 councilors and the mayor and hold your ground. You think councilor Postma would ever have that type of courage. I believe she would cave into the pier pressure every time unless she's simply walking out due to frustration or pressure.
The likelyhood of myself hooking up with Mr. Schnurr for an election is about as likely as me being Mr. Arditti's mayoral campaign manager.
I'm pretty much through with Provincial and Federal politics. I've alienated enough people that its doubtful any Liberal or conservative would want my support.
I'd still would like to see the Federal NDP defeated as a 4th place party doesn't seem to have helped Windsor since the Casino. Lets see how quickly the pendulum swings back into the states. (The only thing stopping it is that the Republicans are equally disgusting in their spendign and are in no way related to any type of small "c" conservative movement)
I haven't read all the comments (time constraints), so if I repeat anything, look at it as supporting your idea.
I propose minor changes to the current wards to alieviate the population disparity, but also increase the representation to the top THREE elected. Increase the sitting members by half in order to reduce the high-jacking of council, and give "over worked" Drew Dilkens some help with the constituents.
Onward with Paul...
Paul...I commend you for your huge input and effort on stringing "Citizfaction" together; especially in such short order. I am also acutely aware that you were the first out of the gate for ward reform.
You have presented the most valid argument here regarding running against one or two incumbents but that technically is not the real underlying detriment for challengers. The electorate learns in quick fashion who the new players are through media coverage and good canvassing and shear curiosity. If a candidate cannot come close to "equalizing" during his campaign then he has failed on the PR and advertising levels. He did not get the most fundimental of words out. You know better than most that the upcoming election is going to be a very important first no matter how many wards are on the map. This will be the election of the internet. A medium which gets the word out in the most profound, grass root way. Our current council has not yet embraced this to their detriment. I won't predict but I can promise that this election is going to be like no other... five wards or ten.
My comment about a "handful of wannabes" is drawn from Alan Halberstadts blog. I, and I don't know why, never considered you to be in the running because you have been more important as a facilitator to the whole political process. I mean that in a most respectful way.
Let me aknowledge your points:
"Smaller wards help lower the bar of entry to Municipal politics and help ensure more diversity of opinion across all race, age and gender categories". This is purely an academic argument. The fact remains that those who gravitate to politics surface regardless of all stated categories. We don't need a high chair to put the bar within easier reach of any candidate.
A ten ward system is no simpler than a five ward system. All linking processes are same or similar.
"Finally, I was looking forward to a possible OMB hearing and wanted something as bullet proof as possible. The ten ward option was the consultants preferred option and if a hearing actually comes to pass, he could be relied upon to testify in it's favor". Spoken like a true strategist but again I think the motive is a little off. You are pressing for change on council. Thats the payload but ward review doesn't have to be the vehicle. As for Dr. Williams; as a consultant his funtion was to present Council with findings and options, not to steer them. Admittedly, this has always caused some grumble in my gut.
"My main goal in starting the petition was to encourage Council to take action on their own". That in itself is fine and there is no issue with that but 10 ward proponents are playing to the "Knee jerk" inclination of this Council. Naughty, naughty. Yes...Council needed the inspiration to act on their own but without the steering committee.
"Dry Paint" Let's trust that for most of the electorate it is indeed still a dry paint issue.
Change is coming Paul. Ten wards or Five.
Mr. Alan Hall...
My apologies to you. You have chimed into this blog on several occasions with some very insightful and valuable data. Your talent and dedication to this issue is most noticeable. I have made a point to save all of the data you have presented. I suppose I should ask...Do you have a compelling argument for a five ward system? The stats in your last comment were interesting. To the chase:
"Total -- Re-elected: 74, Defeated: 15, Retired: 11, Ran for Mayor: 8"
A good guess would be that this is pretty typical of any city politics.
It is also interesting to see the result of the 1980 election. Five out of ten incumbents gonzo. They didn't fare too well in a five ward system did they? This might be the lesson for all of us. That there are times when the voting public insist on coming to the plate. We don't give them enough credit.
What are the odds you give for 2010?
To Ian S...
Now we're cookin with gas.
Mark...
You just made me laugh. Thanks.
Nobody can say that you don't wear it on your sleeve.
You covered everything quite well so I won't back track but for a couple of points.
Some of the contributors do indeed make some strange demands but it is usually just hot air. For one thing, they are boastful of their position in the game and most usually give to all camps. Thats because they do not have the time or patience to monitor which way the wind is blowing. They stay close to politicians more to get an earful of whats happening behind the scenes than anything else. And the birds do chirp.
In their defence, most of the developers know first hand what the true markets are. Most hold the rants of politicians at arms length because they know how to distinguish talk from fact. As an example, lets look at the Western Anchor. A politician can come up with as much glory guck as he wants but if the market is not there, and the money is not there the developers aren't going to build. Sure...If the City jumps out and says "we're paying" all developers are on board. You just can't ask them or expect of them to take these projects in on their own. They know their markets better than anyone. Simple reality check.
The process is there Mark and it is certainly for the thick skinned. Career politicians are the masters of navigation through all of this. Lets hope they never lose sight of their electorate because that is when change is called for.
Thank M.O.M . I never shy away form reasoned debate and discourse. Alan thanks for the stats. Not quite 30 years but close. Since then never more than two, Even the one in 1980 would have been shortly after the last boundary change. Interesting to see if history repeats itself.
Wow! I'm blushing from all your praise! These comments all raise a lot of excellent points.
As you might guess, I'm a real keener on the whole issue of electoral boundaries. I think all this stuff really matters. Politicians make important decisions that directly affect people's lives, so all people should be represented fairly using districts that follow clear boundaries and avoid splitting neighbourhoods.
The people should decide who will speak for them, and the wards, ridings, etc. should be created to serve the needs of the electors, not the elected. I favour single-member wards. Reducing the populations and physical size of city wards makes it easier for councillors - and those seeking to become councillors - to meet and speak with the voters they want to represent. When wards become too large this personal connection isn’t always possible, making money and party affiliations a larger factor in who gets elected.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I still think most Windsor City Council candidates run their campaigns out of their own basements, using mostly their own money, with help from their friends and neighbours. Cutting the size of wards in half will make it easier (and cheaper!) for them to run a credible campaign, and do more door-knocking and less fund-raising. If that sends a shiver of fear up the spines of the incumbents (that is, those that have spines), it’s not a bad thing.
A special thanks to M.O.M. You have published on your website several proposed ward maps that even out populations while following reasonable boundary lines. I have not received a single e-mail from anyone, politician or civilian, about the ward maps I have prepared. No criticisms, no suggestions, nothing. I appreciate the time and trouble you have taken to do this work, and I thank you.
A bunch of lines on a map mean nothing so long as we have ten competent Councillors sitting at the table.
Come on MOM -
"Sounds like you and Chriss are hooking up for the next election."
Do you know something I do not? Chances of me "hooking" up with Mark Boscariol are as likely as me enjoying a full mouth tooth extraction.
I could ask if you are "hooking up" with an incumbent councillor, but that would be off the topic of this discussion.
But this comment alone signifies the thing that bothers me most about politics in Windsor.
Everyone has an "agenda" like its an evil revelation - and if the threat of an election brings about a response from a sleepy public and councillors who glide through the first 3 years - then bring on an election every year.
You ask:
"If they vote for a five ward system on Monday will you be satisfied?"
You know as well as I do they cannot vote for a 5-ward system as the motion to reconsider applied only to the 10-ward system.
Should council ignore the consultants' recommendations - again - no I will not be satisfied.
Your comments suggest you are interested in the parties behind the signature gathering.
Your question, "Did you give them the option without bias towards one system or another? You have to be honest with yourself about that. This means that the signatories in question may still not be fully educated."
How are you defining bias?
This is somewhat insulting to the individuals that asked for a copy of the consultant's report.
Again - because some individuals who may or not have political aspirations - in addition to the rest who collected signatures, somehow this is biased?
Then any citizen's group that goes before council are biased and those supporting them "uneducated."
Caroline Postma and Dave Brister could very easily have organized their supporters to advocate for their position and do the exact same as Paul et al.
They didn't.
Had Paul not started citifaction, the ward boundary review would have remained in "note and file" land.
We now have the result from Monday night. For all that was said and done the evening's events were anti-climactic. To an almost empty venue, city council sheepishly passed the desired resolution not because they advocated it but because their feet were held to the fire by a small but vocal group, and, for political reasons, needed to do so. Had the original proposition remained in "Note and File Land" would we be any worse off as a city? If the same 11 clowns are returned to office does it matter if there are 10 wards or five?
NEEEERDS!!!!!!
Post a Comment