Archive for December, 2009

I’m still angry about the Peace Bridge.

You want to know why I’m still angry about the bridge? Because it’s pissing away money and after several years of continuous tax increases we are shown (again) a dramatic disregard for fiscal responsibility in city hall.

And the name Peace Bridge is already taken by a bridge between Canada and the USA along Niagara falls. Also, there’s one across the Suez Canal in Egypt. Not that original, is it?

City hall has made arguments for spending the $22 million (with an extra $3 million for misc. costs to total the costs to $25 million) on the design from Santiago Calatrava, a Spanish architect.

Firstly, however, let’s look a little at Calatrava. His last project went over budget by 300%, by the way. Venice Grand Canal Bridge, according to councillors in Venice, was “a monument to bad administration and a waste of Venice’s money.” As artknowledgenews reports:

Calatrava gifted the Municipality of Venice with the project of a new bridge on the “Canal Grande” in 1996. As of 2007, the project is still under construction and it has gone though numerous structural changes because of the mechanical instability of the structure and the excessive weight of the bridge, which would cause the bank of the canal to fail. In 10 years the project has been inspected by more than 8 different consultants and the cost has raised up to three times the original expectations; however the work has not been finished yet. [Emphasis theirs]

I do not look forward to paying $75 million for city hall’s newest postcard-worthy project. Especially, of course, with this year’s budget shortfall of $20 million. There will be cuts in staff and other things to sort of cover this deficit. Then there’s the memorial drive improvements at $75 million. And, of course, there is the issue of the constant increases in taxes on everyday Calgarians.

The first of argument being is that it’s a tourist attraction. Huh. People are going to travel from China, the USA, and other places to see a tubed-shaped bridge? To think such a structure is going to be like the Golden Gate bridge or some other famous bridge is, quite frankly, stupid. It’s a small bridge with a huge price tag and to even ponder that people will travel miles, pay for hotel and food, and other things to see a single bridge is telling of city hall’s state of mind.

The second argument is that the new bridge is needed. Well, there’s 10th street’s bridge, Prince’s Island’s bridge, and the Louise Bridge within under two minutes of each other. The LRT’s footbridge is also close by. There’s also the issue of there not being a stop light on the northern side of where the bridge will be, so joggers will be jogging through traffic to get to the bridge. It’s inconvenient and the needs of the community are already being (mostly) served.

The third argument is that it looks nice. Well, there’s a few problems with that. It’s going to be a red blotch in the middle of Calgary–surrounded by gray and glass. Its going to divert the attention of people from the river, our blue sky, and nature to a single object: It’s going to bleed away any attention anything near it could have gotten before. In the winter it’ll be a glaring piece of Calgary real estate. Calatrava extols that this is a good thing, seeing that contrast is deemed beautiful by his type. I’m in disagreement, of course. The bridge in its all encompassing blinding red will give a large of attention to it but it’s going to detract from people taking a step back and looking at the diversity of the area. It’s a blaise new age bridge from the intelligentsia of Europe.

In other words, it’s not Calgarian. We have architects and engineers up to our ears in this city, and multitudes of future designers at the Schuulich School of Engineering at the University of Calgary. We have the skill capital to design our own bridges and design them well. It’s a tube that, in some strange way, honors our fallen soldiers and memorializes the brave souls who defend our country. Yet we pulled a Spaniard to make it for us, not any engineers or architects that have directly benefited from those soldiers’ too many sacrifices. We don’t need to grab a hold of some Spaniard to do a job a Calgarian could have done quicker, easier, and, most importantly, cheaper. Also, if that Calgarian screwed up he or she would face quite a bit o’ shame over his/her mistakes. Calatrava can move on, like he did with his Venetian fiasco, free of concern or harm.

We would have also probably gotten a bridge that actually had something to do with memorializing our military.

There’s also the concoctedness of all of this. The military rhetoric is mighty interesting, seeing that city hall vetoed the use of ‘Support our Troops’ stickers on municipal vehicles. Talk is cheap, I suppose–especially from politicians. There seems to be an abuse here of taking advantage of veterans to push through a bridge that is not needed nor wanted.

That aside, the covered ‘hood’ of the tubular bridge is perfect for drug deals and homeless people (expect that to increase from shutting down beds at homeless shelters and cutting anti-drug programs in Calgary, etc).  I look forward to people complaining about the homeless and addicts being in there, and the need for police to patrol it, and then all the costs of doing so. Not only has it been expensive, it’s going to be an eyesore, more expensive later on, and not Calgarian. Did I mention expensive?

It’s a shame the Aldermen did this all in secret and then released their plan after they dolled out the cash for it. They realized, likely, that there would be some form of reaction against their building a bridge. But do you know what is the cherry on this cake? City hall is planning a second bridge and they’re picking an Albertan to make it. You want to know why they’re making this clear? Because they wanted to increase this second bridge’s quality by having a Spaniard come in first to make the quality of the second ‘higher’. Talk about a disregard to Calgary’s and Alberta’s able builders and engineers.

Oh well. It isn’t like I can do anything about it. They’re just pissing away money and will continue to. It’s unlikely that it’ll change. Taxes will keep going up and more pet projects like this will keep springing up and about Calgary. City hall will keep its silence, we’ll get a new bridge, and be reamed with more taxes. Let the good times roll (for Druh Ferrel and friends).

… the current sitting members of the Alberta Liberal and Alberta Progressive Conservative parties do not want to admit their misnamed parties really do stand for big government, anti-freedom [emphasis mine], micro-managing, social democracy.

[Source]

Ms. Smith calling her opponents anti-freedom is rude and against Albertan politics. This doesn’t help debate nor does it assist in the public discourse, and it is a flavour of a special narcissism so prevalent in other provinces like the vapid vortex of Ontario (blegh). It’s wrong.

Coupled with her denial of climate change, or at minimum her complete obfuscation and deflection of the topic as noted by Thomson of the Edmonton Journal, there is a serious problem on the Wildrose’s politics. It’s negative, yet it says it should be negative. It is for solutions to environmental problems, yet it is against the very scientific fact of climate change. Hypocrisy at its worse.

This is tiresome. It’s the same old politics by the same old people. It’s the Dinning crowd, and the rightwingers who were pushed out of the PC caucus when Stelmach beat them at the PC leadership convention after Klein departed, that are continuing their existence in the WAP. It’s sad. It’s depressing. It’s tiresome. And it’s the same old politics of negativity and hypocrisy.

It’s this reason why 36% of youth are aligned with the Alberta Liberal, and a minuscule minority are even contemplating voting for the Wildrose. It’s been recognized, this obvious negativity, and younger Albertans see it for what it is.

Message from Ignatieff about Mr. Rossi’s resignation that I received this morning at 7am (liberal.ca’s newsletter ftw) is quoted below.

Dear Rocco:

On behalf of all Liberals, please accept my most heartfelt thanks for your invaluable service to the Liberal Party of Canada.  The enduring strength of the Liberal Party has always been our ability to attract people of the highest calibre and commitment to our banner.  Your service over the past year as National Director is an excellent case in point.  Under your leadership we have vastly improved our fundraising; our membership has more than tripled; and we are in a solid position to fight the next election, whenever it comes.  Indeed, I know that all those who worked alongside you appreciate your hard work, support and dedication.

You have now decided to serve our fellow citizens in another capacity. I can only salute your dedication to serving the public good and your desire to seek the support of the electorate. Torontonians should be proud to attract talented people such as yourself who want to lead.

I wish you the best of luck.

Sincerely,

Michael Ignatieff
Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada

Not only did membership triple under Rossi’s directorship, fund raising in the first quarter jumped to three times what it was in the same time span the year before. Rossi has an awesome gift, along with a great team, working with him across the country. It’s a shame the LPC is losing him, honestly. The Torontonians (?) are getting a wonderful candidate for their mayoralty race coming up in the fall of 2010.

Now, however, there is the issue of replacing Rossi. The National Director, according to the Liberal federal constitution, is a position that is appointed by the Leader of the party. There doesn’t need to be an election within the party or any sort of mechanism to put a popular person in charge. Rather, an organizer will be appointed to the position of national director.

Warren Kinsella, Chretein’s executive assistant, quickly comes to mind. He’s from Alberta, but is incredibly tied to Toronto, and last night he squashed Tim Powers on CTV’s powerplay on the topic of hidden documents. Kinsella also has a book out called the War Room that has been used across Canada to start up media centres to engage in policy and debates in the public discourse. It was also one of my textbooks in my Canadian Elections class with Dr. Tom Flanagan.

So he knows his stuff. Since party renewal has been partially already done, and is being taken over by others in all likelihood, a new mode of communication might be needed. Kinsella might be the guy for that and will likely be a contender for the position. At least, I think he would be. Media savvy, reliable, outspoken, and, well, a guy who is outside the centre of the universe (note the sarcasm) of Toronto. He’s also from Alberta, too.

Warren Kinsella’s blog is at warrenkinsella.com.

Seeing that I’m not ‘in the know’ or remotely connected to anyone in Ottawa (Western alienation much?) I have no clue as to who else might be considered for the position. I didn’t even know who Mr. Rossi was before Ignatieff appointed him so I wouldn’t be surprised if I was surprised again by Donolo and Iggy.

Does anyone have any other people that comes to mind?

New poll from Angus Reid says that, from amongst 1,000 people called, 390 would vote Wildrose Alliance, or 39%. Steady Eddy is now tied with the Liberals at 25%. 9% are wandering out in the wilderness with Mason’s NDP.

Angus Reid’s poll is posted here.

Let that sink in for a moment.

And now for a “Look at the Polling”/Quick analysis:

• A party that has never formed government and has never had more than a single seat in the legislature now holds enough of a % to possibly grab a majority and definitely a minority. Smith’s message is definitely resounding here and will likely cause a lot of people to actually look to her to see her as an alternative to the PCs.
• This will likely put the pressure on PC MLAs who, in my humble opinion, won their ridings when they won their riding’s nomination will likely find that public opinion turning favorably toward the WAP and unfavorably against the PCs will encourage their jumping ship to the newer party. I’m not saying that it’ll happen but the thought will likely have crossed their minds the moment they pick up the paper today to see this poll.
• This could just be a group of people voicing their anger at the PCs by picking the nearest, flashiest choice, too. It might all be just one blip in the radar and nothing more. We will likely have to wait another month for another poll to see if this trend continues. That doesn’t stop me from looking at the numbers, though.
• There is a 1/20 chance that this poll is wrong. As a statistical tool, polling Canadians is not an exact science. Normally polls like Angus Reid’s relies on the idea that they can be right most of the time with a small chance of being completely off. That’s the issue with taking a group of 1,000 and extrapolating it to a couple of million people. Thusly, the chance of this poll being a weird, out-of-whack poll is 1/20 (5%) as per Angus Reid’s methodology page.
• Also, it should be noted that Stelmach’s Conservatives were int he lower 30% when election time came around last year. They ended up with a landslide victory there. So any poll should be taken with a grain of salt.
• Seeing that the Liberals in Alberta are likely feeling the blowback from unhappiness with the Liberal brand in Ottawa, which will likely cool over the coming months, that 25% will likely go higher. Smart, tactical NDP voters will likely vote tactically like they did in 1993 for Decore’s Liberal party, adding at least half of that 9% to the Liberal numbers. It’s possible that the Liberals could, in an election, hit a nice number of the popular vote between 30% and 35%. That puts in them in the game in most of Calgary and definitely a possibly dominating position in Edmonton.
• Vote split?:  Note that the WAP’s polling % is likely of soft supporters, most likely, and would likely at least partially ebb away once an election is called. That puts them likely at around 35%. With PCs going up (it’s not like they can go down, can they?) they’d likely hit around 30%-ish. The right vote has been effectively split in this case and, quite likely, if the Liberals can argue themselves into the public eye it’d be possible to sap the protest vote going to the WAP and create the possibility of a Liberal minority with a divided opposition in Edmonton.
• Liberal sweep in Edmonton?: Last election Edmonton was partially won by the PCs by barely a few % points. The split of votes done by the WAP will likely give all of Edmonton, and some inner-city Calgary ridings, to the Liberals.
• Regionalism?: Alberta is divisible into four core areas. These are southern Alberta, northern Alberta, Calgary, and Edmonton. Ridings are heavily skewed toward rural areas, which increases the importance of N’ Alberta and S’ Alberta. The PCs, if we could see polling numbers for rural Alberta, likely have a rather strong hold on most of these ridings still seeing that the Liberals nor the NDP have any influence there. The major upset here is that the Wildrose is hitting into the high 40%s in rural areas in general, and on the higher end in S’ Alberta. The PC vs WAP split will likely become a contentious area for campaigning by both parties come election time. Calgary might be in the Wildrose’s back pocket if they play their cards right, seeing that a three way battle between the Liberals, Conservatives, and themselves allow for a highly contested race that lends itself to new, baggage-less candidates. Edmonton has already been discussed.
• Youth vote?: 36% Liberal voting intention for those aged 18-34. If you’re over 55, though, Angus Reid say’s 51% of your peers are voting WAP.

And that’s a “Look at the polling” for December 11th.

Who else is blogging about this?

Dave at Daveberta

Dan at CalgaryGrit

Pareta at Paretascene

Hugh at Freedom is my Nationality