From the Calgary Herald – Oct 13, 2007

Last week, the Better Calgary Campaign, with which I volunteer, released the results of an extensive voter education project. We published the results of a detailed candidate survey, and took the next step, telling voters who we endorsed.

We were taken aback by the extraordinary level of response. Thanks to help from the media and tools like Facebook, we’ve had thousands of Calgarians hitting our website at www.bettercalgary.ca to read the candidate surveys and see if they agree with our endorsements. It seems that reports that Calgarians don’t care about municipal politics were premature, and people have been thirsting to know more about candidates, and to have a source that can help them cut through the platitudes.

Even more interesting, however, is what we learned about the issues and how the candidates addressed them. If the slate we are endorsing is elected, we’ll have a very different council.

On one of our core issues, campaign finance reform, the vast majority of candidates, including most incumbents, agree the current system is broken and ripe for corruption. Five changes need to happen: there should be donation limits, say $1,000 from any individual, corporation or union; there should be spending limits, say 50 cents per resident; disclosure of donors should occur within six days of the donation; any surplus must be distributed to charity; and donations should only be solicited in the calendar year of an election. These simple changes are within council’s power to make. Once council proves it’s serious about change, we can lobby provincial and federal governments to allow tax receipt treatment for municipal donors as they do for their own.

It’s also clear that everyone shares a sense that public transit does not work. The time is ripe for a root-and-branch redesign of Calgary Transit — its strategic plan, its network and its priorities. We expect this to be among the top priorities of a new council’s first 100 days.

We suspect the results of the study would show a need for greater east-west routes, much more bus rapid transit (e.g. from the northeast to the University and Foothills Hospital, and a re- envisioning of the west LRT. At the least, this needs to be realigned to serve Mount Royal College and the new dense development at Currie Barracks. It may well be that the entire west LRT project must be delayed in favour of the southeast line, but it’s time to have the conversation.

Affordable housing, too, is much on the minds of Calgarians and candidates. Many candidates were somewhat circumspect on this issue, given their reliance on the votes of homeowners, but we need to be clear: not legalizing suites doesn’t mean that R-1 neighbourhoods will remain pristine and free of renters. Suites are already in those communities. A smart new council would simply stop enforcing rules against suites, except in cases of egregious safety violations. At the end of a one-year moratorium, the majority of residents would realize, as they did with the no-smoking bylaw, that the world has not fallen in, and that acknowledging these suites across the city is a fair, safe and equitable solution to a very serious problem.

We’re also excited about the potential for serious, systemic change to how the city works. Many candidates expressed the same thought: if we need new suburbs to be built, why can’t they all look more like Garrison Woods than like Tuscany?

It’s certainly possible to build neighbourhoods that are attractive, pleasant, easy to serve with transit, featuring work and shopping in close proximity, and which are three times more dense than what we are building today. Almost all candidates rejected the Craig Burrows view that more density on the outskirts just leads to more traffic in existing neighbourhoods — if we keep building out with low-density housing tracts, people will still cut through the neighbourhoods — they’ll just have to travel farther to do it.

More dense suburbs with better transit will reduce traffic.

Finally, a number of candidates were serious in their assertion that the regressive property tax system does not work. Could 2008 be the year we finally talk seriously about scrapping this medieval system and replacing it with a fair, revenue-neutral city income tax?

It’s a game of numbers and leadership, and replacing a few voices is all we need. If we can switch out a Helene Larocque for a George Chahal, a Barry Erskine for a Brian Pincott, and (dare we hope?) a Jennifer Banks for a Dale Hodges, we can get ready for a remarkable Calgary renaissance over the next three years.

Naheed Nenshi volunteers with the Better Calgary Campaign, a nonpartisan group dedicated to improving municipal government. Read their candidate surveys, all responses, and rationale for their endorsements at www.bettercalgary.ca

« Back to “In His Own Words”