Home › Forums › Ottawa Municipal Election 2018: Comment And Debate › What Are The Municipal Election Issues For 2018?
This topic contains 10 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by Kosmo 7 months ago.
- November 3, 2017 at 9:10 AM #739021
Well here is your agent’s list of the main election issues for 2018?
These are the tops of the waves. What others would you suggest?
Poor road maintenance.
Massive over-spending and four sinkholes on the light-rail project.
Saving the Ottawa Senators.
Change … time for new leadership.
Lack of debate at committees and council.November 3, 2017 at 6:05 PM #739033
– Determine a city-wide plan for actual SAFE bike lanes.
( No more paint and half-baked solutions.
IF bike lanes are a city priority then provide more than an illusion )
– Continue with staffing shakeup.(this was started but I’ll guarantee that there are many more pink-slips needed)
– Eliminate arbitrary 2% cap on property tax increases
( instigate Zero Based Budgeting or at least stop setting next year’s budget by adding a percentage to current year’s actuals )
– Instigate a comprehensive Preventative Maintenance Program (that way buildings aren’t allowed to fall so far into disrepair that a new one is needed)
– Eliminate ALL FLUFF ( Set up a reserve fund towards, say, affordable housing & every dime should be squeezed. If you have spent money for Royal Blue Fleece Blankets and Key-fobs, sodded bridges, etc. – put those funds towards something important )
– Get out of the Landsdown (sic) Partnership ( and enter no for-profit partnerships in the future)
– Improve relationship with police force ( that does not mean throw money at them, it means improve )
– Set clear rules for when management MUST resignDecember 5, 2017 at 12:07 PM #740788
Poor road maintenance was at the top of Ken’s list on Nov. 3. The budget has been talked about too.
Since Nov. 3, the city audit reported on a problem about the quality of asphalt being used. Is this a funding issue or a management issue?
Today’s articles by Ken and Patton talk some more about what people really notice.
They notice when a city provided service is half-baked.
If a city decides to provide a service then it must fund it fully. The city must maintain the service fully. The city must manage the service fully.
Yes, a poor manager can ruin anything and that’s a subject for another time. Right now let’s look at funding only.
WHAT IS NEEDED vs WHAT IS WANTED vs WHAT CAN I AFFORD :
What tends to happen is a vicious cycle. People WANT something and the pols react.
– You want bike lanes = we’ll give you paint because we can’t afford full funding to give truly safe segregated lanes.
– You want sewers = we’ll give you sewers but we’ll hook sanitary and storm together because we can’t afford to do it properly.
– You want roads = we’ll build them but we’ll cheap out on the road bed and asphalt because we can’t afford to pay for the best.
If a city can’t afford 100% funding for everything it does then it must either collect more money or eliminate some services.
When my kid WANTS a new bike and a new playstation but really NEEDS a new winter coat, I must make a decision. Get him a used bike with bald tires, a 10 year old used playstation and a sweater or buy a proper new coat. Then I do my best to explain my decision.
** Collecting enough money to provide half-baked services is not the way things should be done, it is just the way things are done.
So which service(s) does the public want to eliminate?December 6, 2017 at 8:56 AM #740849
Improve all core services including improved oversight of the Ottawa Police Service.
Far (far) better oversight of the LRT with a report provided by some outside credible person/agency as to the status of it’s physical safety, where it leaves the city financially, etc., etc.
Nice to be a city with a pro hockey team, but the Senators are not a core issue. However, pity any politician responsible for us losing them.December 6, 2017 at 2:19 PM #740879
A few for me:
1. A change at the top.
2. A _less_ friendly and more professional relationship between the city and the police.
3. A better budget process that is more acquainted with reality
4. An end to the revolving door between planning consultantcy firms and the city’s planning office.
5. Far closer oversight of city joint ventures (Plasco, Lansdowne, etc)
And one that I just pulled out of the air:
A system by which a ward councillor has two votes on initiatives that are located in his or her ward as a slight counterbalance to the rural-urban split we continue to be plagued with.December 8, 2017 at 12:12 PM #741081
Those are all great additions.
I would change #5 to : Get out of city partnerships with for-profit businesses and go there no more.
It may be the government’s role to set standards, rules, and regulations but it is not the government’s job to get in bed with businesses. How can one oversee a business if one depends on that business for a kick-back in profits? You end up with the business being profit driven and the government benefiting only when they get a cut.
Profit motivates initiatives in a particular way while regulations put some safeguards on the particular ways that are acceptable.
ChazJanuary 14, 2018 at 5:05 PM #742786
After two disastrous attempts at revising the amalgamated City’s first Official Plan — OPA 76 took 3 years to resolve after Council approved it; OPA 150+, approved in December 2013, may finally see some of it coming into effect this spring and appeals squared away in late 2018 or ’19 — the next Council should sponsor a thorough re-make of the City’s land use plan. It should be a leaner document, stating the inviolate principles, and neighbourhood plans should provide the details. The broad public should be engaged in the exercise, culminating in a new Official Plan in 2023.
Which candidate for Mayor and which candidates for Councillor will demonstrate the ability to facilitate this civic endeavour?January 15, 2018 at 7:00 AM #742795
I’m intrigued by your suggestion of a double vote on issues in your ward. Back in pre-amalgamation days, there was a proposal on the table to set up a borough system within the amalgamated city. I was opposed to it in the form that was put forward because I saw it as a move by ‘certain’ municipalities to undermine amalgamation by essentially continuing the old cities and townships under a different name.
What did happen, though, was the creation of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee which oversees planning and other issues in the rural sector of the City. This has been very successful in my view. What would you think of setting up separate committees or possibly sub-committees of the Planning Committee that would oversee planning in the East, South, West and Central sectors with the existing Committee overseeing city-wide planning?January 15, 2018 at 7:04 AM #742794
Better still, how about a candidate that will actually follow the OP if elected? You can have the most beautiful Official Plan and all kinds of subsidiary plans with lots of community involvement in their development but, if they are ignored by Planning Committee and Council, what’s the point? If, as a community member, you want to find a way to waste your time, there are far more enjoyable ways to do it than getting involved with the Official Plan or a neighbourhood plan.January 15, 2018 at 7:17 AM #742807
Staff is either scared of the public or disdainful of it.
Hard to know which sometimes. Maybe a bit of both.
Planning committee chairwoman Jan Harder has been hanging around developers for so long she has drank the Kool-Aid.
Her remarks about some of us on council are smarter than others were just appalling. I guess that means going along with most everything developers say is smarter than questioning them or asking for better projects.
And the councillor to whom that comment was directed is one smart cookie. Ms. Harder better watch who she’s calling unintelligent or she might get out-smarted.
Harder has been on planning committee too long and has been the councillor from Barrhaven too long.
And by the way Ms. Harder, where is the overpass on the deadly level crossing at Woodroffe and the Via Rail line? Will we need to kill six more people to move the study along?
You’ve had enough time on that one, Ms. Harder. I would say it is time to act but that was a long time ago.
kgrayJanuary 16, 2018 at 9:45 PM #742919