If the Liberals have left the blog, who's left? Hateful NIMBYs?
So now we're going to start behaving like idiotic Americans and start up with the polarizing nonsense that we see every night on US news networks? Grow up, Anon Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:13:00 AM.
John, how about you start minding the shop and bring this place back to a decent level of discussion and debate? Pasting links to news stories does not a political blog make!
The civic Union contributions are the ones that are a complete conflict.
Council votes on whether or not to approve the union's wages and benefits contract increases and, miracle of miracles, the very folk that accepted union election funding think it's a good idea to ratify union increases at taxpayer expense.
I'd rather trust local residents than those with a financial or political axe to grind or put our municipality's fate in the hand of special interests group.
It isn't NIMBYism to want a healthy, safe, happy place to live without the creeping "Mordor-ization" we've seen so much of.
It isn't NIMBYism to get really really p***ed off when you see people flipping the bird as a substitute for talking to each other.
I was listening to the talk show the other day and some guy came on wanting council to freeze staff wages.
Unionized wages cannot be "frozen" as long as there is a valid contract in place or even after the contract has expired and there is active negotiation toward a new one. Not legal and would be overturned by the LRB.
The only time that the taxpayers have a chance at "freezing wages" is when the unratified contract is given to council for their approval and wages can be frozen for future years.
Unfortunately, that discussion takes place behind closed doors, in camera, and we don't get to see the debate on what probably has the biggest impact on every taxpayer.
The public seems clueless how this process works yet they moan for years about annual staff wage increases after it's too late and can't be changed.
The last CUPE contract total wage increase of over 18% barely merited a mumble on this blog.
OK. Nothing surprising or that hasn't been said by others.
1. Disappointing turn out on the very level of gov't that has the most immediate and close to home impact on voters.
2. Incumbents are hard to beat. Name recognition is everything in politics ergo re-election of every rep.
3. In my opinion, there is a corelation between dollars spent and votes garnered. Setting aside ego, a candidate should ask him/herself am I receiving support because people understand and like the job I do or am I a successful advertiser and a mediocre politician? Nixon?
4. Unlike CNV, DNV voters don't respond well to civic union money behind candidates. Macauley.
5. The fringe is just the fringe. Name dropping won't get you there. Quershi.
6. The majority of those that voted are (obviously) generally content with the staus quo in DNV.
Wendy still puzzles me. I remember sitting at the sports council all-candidates meeting and there had been some difficult questions that there had been some excellent answers to. Wendy came rushing down the aisle during the break and nervously, and loudly, blurted to another person "I am in way over my head!"
Because longboarding is banned in all other jurisdictions in the area that have hills, which they require, they will be arriving here as a previous commenter pointed out.
These idiot DNV councilllors and mayor really have no idea what they have done.
And the law abiding tax paying residents of the DNV will as usual be paying the price for bad politics.
If long boarding isn't illegal, which law abiding tax paying residents of the DNV are you speaking of? Are there now degrees of law abiding tax payers? Are you more important than any other law abiding, tax paying resident of the District because you hold a differing view?
Discussion re financial disclosures, the election, candidates, staff salary increases etc. seem important to a broad spectrum of taxpayers and worth a bit of an exchange.
Long boarding is a youth pastime enjoyed by a tiny percentage of our population that doesn't really matter to me.
It seems like Darwinian selection at its best.
If they get mowed down they will tend not to reproduce and the smarter more cautious ones remaining will carry on the species.
As long as my car insurance rates don't go up and the boarder or his parents will pay for my broken windshield or damage to my bumper and hood I don't really care what they do.
It's like "death by cop" but it is "death by vehicle" and these people are really ruining the "good people's" lives by getting in their way.
Most important is that because the DNV has legalized their playing on our roads, they will arrive in our municipality (because they're banned everywhere else) and harass the people who live here and pay taxes.
There are people out there who don't want campaign donations when they are running for municipal public office.
If I were running I would like to enter the arena knowing that I didn't owe anybody any favours. I would also like to let potential voters know that I am independent.
Municipal disclosures are a bit loosey goosey. The candidates fill them out and the clerks job is just to make sure it is filled out, not verify or make corrections.
I find Holly Back's financial disclosure very interesting. All her expenses are even dollar amounts. Reads more like an estimate than actual figures. I doubt her receipts would correspond.
And I suspect she didn’t include the cost for the advertorial that ran in the News on the first day of the campaign.... all about how wonderful her hair business is and what a fabulous community leader she has been and how we all shouldn’t be surprised if she runs for council because she is so committed and dedicated to our community.... I feel vomit rising in the back of my throat
35 comments:
Nixon spent $24 grand!
Wow, I guess it was money well spent to make his $millions because he is a realtor in the DNV.
Difficult to see the dollars spent due to the incrongruity of the publishing of the documents.
Mussatto is backed by developers. Doesn't anyone find this a lack of democratic process?
Hicks spent $17,859.
The Liberals have left the blog. Good riddance!
Wow 24,000! The man just spent 2/3 of a councillors income on his re-election bid. Something is wrong with this picture.
But I suppose he is trying to 'give back to the community'.
If the Liberals have left the blog, who's left? Hateful NIMBYs?
So now we're going to start behaving like idiotic Americans and start up with the polarizing nonsense that we see every night on US news networks? Grow up, Anon Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:13:00 AM.
John, how about you start minding the shop and bring this place back to a decent level of discussion and debate? Pasting links to news stories does not a political blog make!
I'm always open to suggestions as to what to post. Do you have any?
I agree that links to news stories are only A source.
The civic Union contributions are the ones that are a complete conflict.
Council votes on whether or not to approve the union's wages and benefits contract increases and, miracle of miracles, the very folk that accepted union election funding think it's a good idea to ratify union increases at taxpayer expense.
What a sham.
It is a sham. Margie Goodman got over 2000 votes and didn't spend a penny because the people who voted for her didn't want Walton in.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the DNV votes. I wonder how many people voted for the "slate" that was the incumbents.
DNV Results
Here are the results, but even though it is decisive, I suspect you will call it a sham.
What are taxpayers paying for
the Firemen wage increase?
OMG The Unions and developers
What is with Sunshine T?axi
Hateful NIMBYs?
I'd rather trust local residents than those with a financial or political axe to grind or put our municipality's fate in the hand of special interests group.
It isn't NIMBYism to want a healthy, safe, happy place to live without the creeping "Mordor-ization" we've seen so much of.
It isn't NIMBYism to get really really p***ed off when you see people flipping the bird as a substitute for talking to each other.
I was listening to the talk show the other day and some guy came on wanting council to freeze staff wages.
Unionized wages cannot be "frozen" as long as there is a valid contract in place or even after the contract has expired and there is active negotiation toward a new one. Not legal and would be overturned by the LRB.
The only time that the taxpayers have a chance at "freezing wages" is when the unratified contract is given to council for their approval and wages can be frozen for future years.
Unfortunately, that discussion takes place behind closed doors, in camera, and we don't get to see the debate on what probably has the biggest impact on every taxpayer.
The public seems clueless how this process works yet they moan for years about annual staff wage increases after it's too late and can't be changed.
The last CUPE contract total wage increase of over 18% barely merited a mumble on this blog.
Sad.
Could and/or would you provide analysis of the results of the DNV election.
OK. Nothing surprising or that hasn't been said by others.
1. Disappointing turn out on the very level of gov't that has the most immediate and close to home impact on voters.
2. Incumbents are hard to beat. Name recognition is everything in politics ergo re-election of every rep.
3. In my opinion, there is a corelation between dollars spent and votes garnered. Setting aside ego, a candidate should ask him/herself am I receiving support because people understand and like the job I do or am I a successful advertiser and a mediocre politician? Nixon?
4. Unlike CNV, DNV voters don't respond well to civic union money behind candidates. Macauley.
5. The fringe is just the fringe. Name dropping won't get you there. Quershi.
6. The majority of those that voted are (obviously) generally content with the staus quo in DNV.
Wendy still puzzles me. I remember sitting at the sports council all-candidates meeting and there had been some difficult questions that there had been some excellent answers to. Wendy came rushing down the aisle during the break and nervously, and loudly, blurted to another person "I am in way over my head!"
So one minute she is aware of it and the next...
Great talk!
The longboarders will be descending on the DNV. Won't this be a good thing?
Because longboarding is banned in all other jurisdictions in the area that have hills, which they require, they will be arriving here as a previous commenter pointed out.
These idiot DNV councilllors and mayor really have no idea what they have done.
And the law abiding tax paying residents of the DNV will as usual be paying the price for bad politics.
If long boarding isn't illegal, which law abiding tax paying residents of the DNV are you speaking of? Are there now degrees of law abiding tax payers? Are you more important than any other law abiding, tax paying resident of the District because you hold a differing view?
Discussion re financial disclosures, the election, candidates, staff salary increases etc. seem important to a broad spectrum of taxpayers and worth a bit of an exchange.
Long boarding is a youth pastime enjoyed by a tiny percentage of our population that doesn't really matter to me.
It seems like Darwinian selection at its best.
If they get mowed down they will tend not to reproduce and the smarter more cautious ones remaining will carry on the species.
As long as my car insurance rates don't go up and the boarder or his parents will pay for my broken windshield or damage to my bumper and hood I don't really care what they do.
It's like "death by cop" but it is "death by vehicle" and these people are really ruining the "good people's" lives by getting in their way.
Most important is that because the DNV has legalized their playing on our roads, they will arrive in our municipality (because they're banned everywhere else) and harass the people who live here and pay taxes.
Our Council doesn't have a clue.
Maybe Hicks does, and Doug came over too. There is hope.
Meanwhile, back at the financial disclosures...
Has anyone read the DNV disclosures?
How is it possible to have more than $2200 in campaign expenditures with 0 contributors and $0 in campaign contributions.
Huh?
That probably means they didn't raise any funds and paid 100% for their own campaigns.
There are people out there who don't want campaign donations when they are running for municipal public office.
If I were running I would like to enter the arena knowing that I didn't owe anybody any favours. I would also like to let potential voters know that I am independent.
Don't you have to disclose that you were your own contributor to offset the expenditures?
Anon 4:33
What planet of red tape do you belong to?
The full disclosure planet like all the candidates but one live on.
Who is that one who didn't legally disclose?
Municipal disclosures are a bit loosey goosey. The candidates fill them out and the clerks job is just to make sure it is filled out, not verify or make corrections.
Well take a look at WQ's document and tell me where the contributors are "filled out."
I find Holly Back's financial disclosure very interesting. All her expenses are even dollar amounts. Reads more like an estimate than actual figures. I doubt her receipts would correspond.
And I suspect she didn’t include the cost for the advertorial that ran in the News on the first day of the campaign.... all about how wonderful her hair business is and what a fabulous community leader she has been and how we all shouldn’t be surprised if she runs for council because she is so committed and dedicated to our community....
I feel vomit rising in the back of my throat
Post a Comment