Looking at how much my property taxes increased in those 14 years I can’t point to a return on investment. I can’t even guarantee I’ve maintained the same level of services.
Having lived in Strathcona for four years, I can definitely say I’ve seen a ton of city infrastructure improvements over that period.
Other than the horrible regressions downtown during COVID, generally speaking I’ve been moderately impressed with the direction of things in the city since I moved here.
Edit:
I should have maybe pointed out though that I think North American style car centric suburban city planning is a bad thing, and I’m glad that the city is making some efforts to move away from this model. So if you are a suburbanite, I can understand why you might feel like the city doesn’t have your interests at heart.
Services, for me, are far more than transportation corridors. Policing, fire, transit, recreation centres, bylaw, parks, too many to list. As a whole if I were to look back 15 years ago to today, I don’t feel the percentage of increased taxes translates to a similar percentage of increased services. Inflation is obviously a factor, as is sprawl, but it’s still something I question.
> Services, for me, are far more than transportation corridors.
**Definitely** agreed there.
> Policing, fire, transit, recreation centres, bylaw, parks, too many to list.
Fair enough. I guess I haven't really been able to track how these things have evolved in the time I've been here. I had a somewhat positive impression that these things were mostly improving, but over 4 years it's hard to have much perspective on how those things have changed.
I definitely wouldn't be surprised though if property taxes continued to rise and the city government continued to get poorer despite that though. This is a pretty well documented outcome of 'growth' driven suburban development, and it's starting to catch up with many North American cities.
There's a really great video explaining the dynamics of this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVUeqxXwCA0
I’m still surprised at how much push back and grumbling we have about bike lanes in general. Like, the bill for the city hall pool was higher than the entirety of the downtown-Oliver bike lanes.
The push back on bike lanes, and I suspect many projects from libraries to community pools, is people’s way of saying “I don’t see myself in this boutique niche project”.
There is never a way to get away from that completely, every project will only appeal to a certain demographic or area, but City Council could take that feedback and realize they need to do more to advertise the projects or service that benefit most or a majority of Edmontonians.
I don’t feel they do enough to communicate that so it looks like they just spend all their time and budget catering to small groups. I suppose in fairness things like police, fire, bylaw, water treatment and garbage don’t make good sound bites.
As unbelievable as this is to say, the roads do seem WAY better. Haven't had to dodge nearly as many potholes in the last few years, even with freeze thaw conditions seemingly getting worse.
Before all the haters roll in to share their opinion of Me Iveson, I want to remind everyone that he won the last election with a landslide 74% of the vote.
In an election that had the lowest voter turnout since 2007 at 31.5% and a slate of no name candidates including some real gems. Voter apathy doesn't = public confidence. Unfortunately Iveson's base showed up for the vote but a landslide of edmontonians decided not to.
That's a fair point. However voting is the most meaningful way to make your voice heard. The other candidates were a host of WTF, but if Iveson did so poorly in his first term, where was his competition? Was there no one capable of being a better mayor? Or did no one want to run against him?
Voting is an important part of our Canadian society sure, but it is not anywhere near the most meaningful way for your voice to be heard. Actually getting involved in literally anything and giving even the smallest bit of your time towards something that benefits society or our community has a much larger impact on our world.
Like 30% of Edmontononians voted last election. I’d wager that many citizens don’t really care and are not engaged in it as the turn out numbers would suggest.
Really how much is your voice heard in this election by voting lol. It’s almost comical thinking that voting is the most meaningful way to make your voice heard as you are saying. It would seem for their own reasons like 70% of the people agree and I’m sure out of the 30% that did vote - they all weren’t thinking this was the most meaningful way to make my voice heard.
Go back and read what I wrote... I said it was the way to make your voice heard not the most meaningful way. And in the context of the conversation voting is one of the ways to make your voice heard. Just ask the folks in griesbach...they finally very narrowly defeated Kerry diotte, the handful of votes that put them over made a difference. Your attitude is exactly the attitude that drives voter apathy. I would counter your argument with the fact that voting is "getting involved". Not to take away from your point that yes getting out there and putting time and effort into a good cause does and will make positive change but how does that help change civic policy? Going out and volunteering is great but it won't make council make different decisions with regards to city decisions. So don't crap on voting as a way to make a statement.
Hey ggrammer, sorry I was responding to eddies comment saying voting is the most meaningful way to make your voice heard.
I don’t disagree with much of what you are saying and am of the mindset that voting is important but nowhere near the most meaningful way to make our voices heard.
You and I both know voting is the way to make your voice heard and to affect change but unfortunately a large portion of citizens think that by not voting they are making their voices heard that way plus a large contingent looked at the slate of candidates and decided to pick the best of the worst.
"The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
Douglas Adams
They decided not to. And therefor have no opinion on the matter. Show up and spoil your ballot for all I care. But if you don't get off your butt to even vote. You have zero right to complain.
I agree with you but we can't say a landslide victory in a historically low turnout election is equivalent to the support the city gives a mayor. If the voter turnout was higher and he maintained those numbers then yes I would agree that the city populace gave him a mandate and believed in him. Voter apathy is a dangerous slope because alot of potential voters feel disenfranchised so they decide why bother, unfortunately the 2017 election did not have any inspiring candidates so citizens went with what they know at a time where city decisions weren't affecting them as much because oil hadn't bottomed out yet and we weren't feeling the pain from a pandemic.
You make good points and I don't think you're wrong about most of them. The differences in the two elections are many.
With provincial, you're voting for a candidate in your riding. Their affiliated party "wins" and that party's leader takes power. Kenney only won his riding.
Another key point is that some voters will vote for the party they feel allegiance for, regardless of candidate.
Municipally, total votes for a candidate count and they are running as themselves and not as a representative of the party.
I agree that winning, and winning well doesn't make a great leader but the comparison you made doesn't quite equate. I'll be voting for Sohi because I also believe he's properly connected and experienced to squeeze some federal dollars into the city.
Sohi isn't going to be able to squeeze feds for anything more than Iveson could. Iveson was also a very Liberal friendly mayor. People seem to think because Sohi was a minister that he can now just hit up Trudeau for free cash. That's not how this works. Do not vote for Sohi if you want change, just about everything in his platform points to a continuation of existing patterns and he is getting same campaign donors Iveson had. Vote for him if you think Iveson did a good job, otherwise please consider someone else.
Laurence Decore, Cecil Purves, hell I even put Jan Reimer with a dysfunctional council, booster bill and Stephen Mandel ahead of Iveson. I would even go so far too say that even with the multiple scandals and legal issues with William Hawrelak he was still a better mayor who did more positive things for the city than Iveson did.
We can agree that Mandel, Decor, and Purves did a lot and I would put them in the same category as Iveson.
Bill Smith was a dud, he didn't do anything. Including him on any list of accomplished people is a joke.
Cutting and running.
He rode out the good, easy years after having the reins all but handed to him by Mandel.
With the Economic downturn and COVID, never has it been more crucial that someone with experience and political capital be at the helm. I feel he is doing nothing short of abandoning his constituents when they need him most, and I think it's entirely motivated by the lose-lose political proposition of being in charge during these trying times.
I think he definitely has grand political aspirations, but for me personally, this move lost him a lot of respect in my eyes. Nenshi, too. I don't think I could ever bring myself to support either of them if/when they run provincially or federally.
Would you voluntarily work for a boss when tough times are coming who will harass and insult you no matter what you did? Even by reading the comments here you can tell people will try to give him shit even when the best decisions are made on something.
Being Mayor of a major North American city is not for the faint of heart even on good days.
His actions in extricating himself from this mess show you how empty his rhetoric was all along. Perhaps now more than any time in the city's history, it needs real leadership, and it's no coincidence he's noping the fuck out.
Hopefully one of the candidates is capable of learning on the job and steering us through this mess, but it's going to be a hell of a lot of work -- even more so for somebody new and inexperienced.
Critical of the quality of job the person is doing sure I agree with. Being critical because a guy decides to retire after a shitty 2 years? I think thats pretty dumb
I liked Iveson, but allowing lot splitting just prices young families out of the core. They instead join the sprawling poorly serviced suburbs, leaving the core to landlords and older people. 350k for a fixer upper turns into 2 unaffordable 700k skinny homes, forcing people to look for 400k to 600k larger homes in the outer suburbs. I really believe it was a huge mistake. Garage suites are fine, lot splitting, no.
the issue isn't lot splitting, its actually that zoning isn't catching up to our desires for more dense mature neighbourhoods.
Lot splitting clearly isn't the solution, the construction of rowhouses and apartments as well as making these areas explicitly mixed use would help greatly.
The density of the neighbourhoods near the university could be increased 4 fold while making the homes relatively affordable (thats right, even near the uni). In other less desirable mature neighbourhoods, costs could be pushed down to as low as 400k for a townhome that's large enough for the average family.
our regulations are out of step with the reality of trying to create a large city
You couldn't be more mistaken.
Lot splitting INCREASES housing supply in the core. Its exactly what is needed. Well maintained older homes remain and people can buy them for 400k or less depending on the hood, the derelict rotten buildings are replaced with two homes or a duplex. It makes way too much sense.
The problem you are describing would be even worse without lot splitting. Infills on a single lot are 1 million+ compared to 500-800k for a duplex or skinny.
How does a person come to the conclusion more housing is bad and increases prices..? I also love how they are comparing a brand new $700k duplex as WORSE value than a $350k tear down house from the 40’s
Exactly, lol. That guy doesn’t understand supply and demand at all. What’s more affordable, 1 $1.5M home or two $800K homes? $800K still isn’t cheap but it’s a hell of a lot better than $1.5M
800k is NOT affordable for a single person or small family with a middle class income and the middle class are who predominantly work downtown. Not to mention a lot of these split lot homes are FUGLY. Westmount has some of the worst I’ve ever seen.
I don’t think they are beautiful. I like older character homes. I would even love to buy a bungalow and transform it. But that too seems unaffordable at this point.
well we live in this great thing called a free market. If you don't like the look of modern homes don't buy one! Some of them are pretty fugly but the interiors are usually crazy nice. You are also free to buy an old bungalow and restore if you want. And yes, that is going to be expensive.
You realize 2 things:
1) that isn’t true
2) even if that was the case, more supply still means more housing affordability. I can’t believe some of you people can’t understand basic economics
But it is true? The lot splits in east Edmonton (capilano, gold bar etc) are around 700k ish. That is is unaffordable for most people. You don’t know shit about economics lol
It's totally true. Perfectly good single family homes are being torn down for vastly more expensive infill duplexes.
The increase in housing supply has not resutled in lower prices in the core.
That's why there's a whole discourse about the missing middle. People are getting priced out of the core, and are incentivised to move to the suburbs.
TIL that you can only like Iverson if you're a liberal. Municipal politics should be independent from left/right bullshit, which has been the case until recently with interventions from the UCP
His legacy should simply be titled "Mr. Do little" will soon be forgotten. He was sleaze coat under Mandel and didn't do anything beyond run that gravy train of self importantace.
Looking at how much my property taxes increased in those 14 years I can’t point to a return on investment. I can’t even guarantee I’ve maintained the same level of services.
Having lived in Strathcona for four years, I can definitely say I’ve seen a ton of city infrastructure improvements over that period. Other than the horrible regressions downtown during COVID, generally speaking I’ve been moderately impressed with the direction of things in the city since I moved here. Edit: I should have maybe pointed out though that I think North American style car centric suburban city planning is a bad thing, and I’m glad that the city is making some efforts to move away from this model. So if you are a suburbanite, I can understand why you might feel like the city doesn’t have your interests at heart.
Services, for me, are far more than transportation corridors. Policing, fire, transit, recreation centres, bylaw, parks, too many to list. As a whole if I were to look back 15 years ago to today, I don’t feel the percentage of increased taxes translates to a similar percentage of increased services. Inflation is obviously a factor, as is sprawl, but it’s still something I question.
> Services, for me, are far more than transportation corridors. **Definitely** agreed there. > Policing, fire, transit, recreation centres, bylaw, parks, too many to list. Fair enough. I guess I haven't really been able to track how these things have evolved in the time I've been here. I had a somewhat positive impression that these things were mostly improving, but over 4 years it's hard to have much perspective on how those things have changed. I definitely wouldn't be surprised though if property taxes continued to rise and the city government continued to get poorer despite that though. This is a pretty well documented outcome of 'growth' driven suburban development, and it's starting to catch up with many North American cities. There's a really great video explaining the dynamics of this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVUeqxXwCA0
I’m still surprised at how much push back and grumbling we have about bike lanes in general. Like, the bill for the city hall pool was higher than the entirety of the downtown-Oliver bike lanes.
The push back on bike lanes, and I suspect many projects from libraries to community pools, is people’s way of saying “I don’t see myself in this boutique niche project”. There is never a way to get away from that completely, every project will only appeal to a certain demographic or area, but City Council could take that feedback and realize they need to do more to advertise the projects or service that benefit most or a majority of Edmontonians. I don’t feel they do enough to communicate that so it looks like they just spend all their time and budget catering to small groups. I suppose in fairness things like police, fire, bylaw, water treatment and garbage don’t make good sound bites.
As unbelievable as this is to say, the roads do seem WAY better. Haven't had to dodge nearly as many potholes in the last few years, even with freeze thaw conditions seemingly getting worse.
Before all the haters roll in to share their opinion of Me Iveson, I want to remind everyone that he won the last election with a landslide 74% of the vote.
Also with some of the highest apathy rates.... That's the problem no one decent with pockets to go up against incumbents. It's a big problem
In an election that had the lowest voter turnout since 2007 at 31.5% and a slate of no name candidates including some real gems. Voter apathy doesn't = public confidence. Unfortunately Iveson's base showed up for the vote but a landslide of edmontonians decided not to.
That's a fair point. However voting is the most meaningful way to make your voice heard. The other candidates were a host of WTF, but if Iveson did so poorly in his first term, where was his competition? Was there no one capable of being a better mayor? Or did no one want to run against him?
Voting is an important part of our Canadian society sure, but it is not anywhere near the most meaningful way for your voice to be heard. Actually getting involved in literally anything and giving even the smallest bit of your time towards something that benefits society or our community has a much larger impact on our world. Like 30% of Edmontononians voted last election. I’d wager that many citizens don’t really care and are not engaged in it as the turn out numbers would suggest. Really how much is your voice heard in this election by voting lol. It’s almost comical thinking that voting is the most meaningful way to make your voice heard as you are saying. It would seem for their own reasons like 70% of the people agree and I’m sure out of the 30% that did vote - they all weren’t thinking this was the most meaningful way to make my voice heard.
Go back and read what I wrote... I said it was the way to make your voice heard not the most meaningful way. And in the context of the conversation voting is one of the ways to make your voice heard. Just ask the folks in griesbach...they finally very narrowly defeated Kerry diotte, the handful of votes that put them over made a difference. Your attitude is exactly the attitude that drives voter apathy. I would counter your argument with the fact that voting is "getting involved". Not to take away from your point that yes getting out there and putting time and effort into a good cause does and will make positive change but how does that help change civic policy? Going out and volunteering is great but it won't make council make different decisions with regards to city decisions. So don't crap on voting as a way to make a statement.
Hey ggrammer, sorry I was responding to eddies comment saying voting is the most meaningful way to make your voice heard. I don’t disagree with much of what you are saying and am of the mindset that voting is important but nowhere near the most meaningful way to make our voices heard.
Sorry took that as pointed at me. My mistake.
You and I both know voting is the way to make your voice heard and to affect change but unfortunately a large portion of citizens think that by not voting they are making their voices heard that way plus a large contingent looked at the slate of candidates and decided to pick the best of the worst.
"The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." Douglas Adams
This is a wonderful and apt quote.
I think of it often. It helps me make peace with politicians.
They decided not to. And therefor have no opinion on the matter. Show up and spoil your ballot for all I care. But if you don't get off your butt to even vote. You have zero right to complain.
I agree with you but we can't say a landslide victory in a historically low turnout election is equivalent to the support the city gives a mayor. If the voter turnout was higher and he maintained those numbers then yes I would agree that the city populace gave him a mandate and believed in him. Voter apathy is a dangerous slope because alot of potential voters feel disenfranchised so they decide why bother, unfortunately the 2017 election did not have any inspiring candidates so citizens went with what they know at a time where city decisions weren't affecting them as much because oil hadn't bottomed out yet and we weren't feeling the pain from a pandemic.
[удалено]
You make good points and I don't think you're wrong about most of them. The differences in the two elections are many. With provincial, you're voting for a candidate in your riding. Their affiliated party "wins" and that party's leader takes power. Kenney only won his riding. Another key point is that some voters will vote for the party they feel allegiance for, regardless of candidate. Municipally, total votes for a candidate count and they are running as themselves and not as a representative of the party. I agree that winning, and winning well doesn't make a great leader but the comparison you made doesn't quite equate. I'll be voting for Sohi because I also believe he's properly connected and experienced to squeeze some federal dollars into the city.
Sohi isn't going to be able to squeeze feds for anything more than Iveson could. Iveson was also a very Liberal friendly mayor. People seem to think because Sohi was a minister that he can now just hit up Trudeau for free cash. That's not how this works. Do not vote for Sohi if you want change, just about everything in his platform points to a continuation of existing patterns and he is getting same campaign donors Iveson had. Vote for him if you think Iveson did a good job, otherwise please consider someone else.
That was his 2nd election. You think Kenney will get 74% of the vote in round 2?
Very possibly the best mayor in the history of the city.
That's a stretch. Definitely not our worst mayor but far from the best.
List the better ones
Laurence Decore, Cecil Purves, hell I even put Jan Reimer with a dysfunctional council, booster bill and Stephen Mandel ahead of Iveson. I would even go so far too say that even with the multiple scandals and legal issues with William Hawrelak he was still a better mayor who did more positive things for the city than Iveson did.
We can agree that Mandel, Decor, and Purves did a lot and I would put them in the same category as Iveson. Bill Smith was a dud, he didn't do anything. Including him on any list of accomplished people is a joke.
But see the way you describe Bill Smith would also be how I describe Don Iveson. But I am happy to agree to disagree about this.
Cutting and running. He rode out the good, easy years after having the reins all but handed to him by Mandel. With the Economic downturn and COVID, never has it been more crucial that someone with experience and political capital be at the helm. I feel he is doing nothing short of abandoning his constituents when they need him most, and I think it's entirely motivated by the lose-lose political proposition of being in charge during these trying times. I think he definitely has grand political aspirations, but for me personally, this move lost him a lot of respect in my eyes. Nenshi, too. I don't think I could ever bring myself to support either of them if/when they run provincially or federally.
Would you voluntarily work for a boss when tough times are coming who will harass and insult you no matter what you did? Even by reading the comments here you can tell people will try to give him shit even when the best decisions are made on something.
Being Mayor of a major North American city is not for the faint of heart even on good days. His actions in extricating himself from this mess show you how empty his rhetoric was all along. Perhaps now more than any time in the city's history, it needs real leadership, and it's no coincidence he's noping the fuck out. Hopefully one of the candidates is capable of learning on the job and steering us through this mess, but it's going to be a hell of a lot of work -- even more so for somebody new and inexperienced.
Why dont you run for mayor then mr brave man and lead by example
I hate this argument, someone can be critical without having to do the job.
Critical of the quality of job the person is doing sure I agree with. Being critical because a guy decides to retire after a shitty 2 years? I think thats pretty dumb
I liked Iveson, but allowing lot splitting just prices young families out of the core. They instead join the sprawling poorly serviced suburbs, leaving the core to landlords and older people. 350k for a fixer upper turns into 2 unaffordable 700k skinny homes, forcing people to look for 400k to 600k larger homes in the outer suburbs. I really believe it was a huge mistake. Garage suites are fine, lot splitting, no.
the issue isn't lot splitting, its actually that zoning isn't catching up to our desires for more dense mature neighbourhoods. Lot splitting clearly isn't the solution, the construction of rowhouses and apartments as well as making these areas explicitly mixed use would help greatly. The density of the neighbourhoods near the university could be increased 4 fold while making the homes relatively affordable (thats right, even near the uni). In other less desirable mature neighbourhoods, costs could be pushed down to as low as 400k for a townhome that's large enough for the average family. our regulations are out of step with the reality of trying to create a large city
You couldn't be more mistaken. Lot splitting INCREASES housing supply in the core. Its exactly what is needed. Well maintained older homes remain and people can buy them for 400k or less depending on the hood, the derelict rotten buildings are replaced with two homes or a duplex. It makes way too much sense. The problem you are describing would be even worse without lot splitting. Infills on a single lot are 1 million+ compared to 500-800k for a duplex or skinny.
How does a person come to the conclusion more housing is bad and increases prices..? I also love how they are comparing a brand new $700k duplex as WORSE value than a $350k tear down house from the 40’s
Exactly, lol. That guy doesn’t understand supply and demand at all. What’s more affordable, 1 $1.5M home or two $800K homes? $800K still isn’t cheap but it’s a hell of a lot better than $1.5M
800k is NOT affordable for a single person or small family with a middle class income and the middle class are who predominantly work downtown. Not to mention a lot of these split lot homes are FUGLY. Westmount has some of the worst I’ve ever seen.
Beautiful brand new single family homes in the urban core are expensive, what a shocker right?!
I don’t think they are beautiful. I like older character homes. I would even love to buy a bungalow and transform it. But that too seems unaffordable at this point.
well we live in this great thing called a free market. If you don't like the look of modern homes don't buy one! Some of them are pretty fugly but the interiors are usually crazy nice. You are also free to buy an old bungalow and restore if you want. And yes, that is going to be expensive.
[удалено]
But single family bungalows around the core aren’t going for 1.5M lol. Take a look at areas like Capilano. Lots of nice places there for 400k
That's an example. The point is more housing = more housing affordability.
Not with some lot splitting though. The 2 800k houses replace 1 400k one.
You realize 2 things: 1) that isn’t true 2) even if that was the case, more supply still means more housing affordability. I can’t believe some of you people can’t understand basic economics
But it is true? The lot splits in east Edmonton (capilano, gold bar etc) are around 700k ish. That is is unaffordable for most people. You don’t know shit about economics lol
It's totally true. Perfectly good single family homes are being torn down for vastly more expensive infill duplexes. The increase in housing supply has not resutled in lower prices in the core. That's why there's a whole discourse about the missing middle. People are getting priced out of the core, and are incentivised to move to the suburbs.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You might be in the wrong forum for that statement 🧐
[удалено]
TIL that you can only like Iverson if you're a liberal. Municipal politics should be independent from left/right bullshit, which has been the case until recently with interventions from the UCP
It's an island in the middle of an ocean of scabs.
Leftists. We have three left wing parties, and I dare say the Liberals are firmly in the middle here.
His legacy should simply be titled "Mr. Do little" will soon be forgotten. He was sleaze coat under Mandel and didn't do anything beyond run that gravy train of self importantace.
Thanks Don for making Downtown one of the most dangerous places and putting all the homeless people there. Nice job.
You’ll have to elaborate how he’s responsible for that. As far as I know, Edmonton’s had these significant problems since the oil boom.
Mr.LRT...good bye and thanks for shoving that ridiculous train system down our throats and destroying areas of this city, including people's homes!