Now if only we’d vote…

As a long time resident of Ward 3, I would like to start off by looking at the four candidates, and the profiles that they submitted to the City of Regina’s page on the election. For fairness, I will cover each of the candidates in the same post and in alphabetical order.  Warning, this is going to be a long one…

Fred Clipsham – I tried to email Fred Clipsham two years ago. At the time, I was working in Downtown Regina and living in the Transition Area. So, my morning commute included trying to cross Victoria Avenue at Cornwall Street. Easily the most dangerous crossing in the city, I had grown tired of nearly getting run over every time I had the audacity to go to work. So, I wrote Clipsham a nice email asking him if he would raise my safety concerns about that crossing. He never replied.

I am a big boy and frankly, if he didn’t care, all he had to do was write back and say, “Greg, I don’t care if you get run over”  But, I am a little bit miffed at not getting so much as a reply.

Now, let’s focus a little more on Clipsham’s record. The moronic Tag Day Permit (which makes panhandling illegal in the City of Regina) has remained on the books throughout his term. Perhaps if he worked on building businesses and building other opportunities for the less fortunate, I wouldn’t be so bothered by this.  In fact, if I saw evidence that he was working to make Downtown Regina a safer place for the less fortunate, I would not even be so bothered by the fact that he did not reply to my email.

And what about the fact that 13th Avenue was closed for a large part of the summer. With the economy what it is, any blow to the Cathedral Village’s business sector should have been seen as a major blow to all of Ward Three. Did Clipsham try to come to the rescue? Nope, he was more concerned about people burning shit in their backyards.

His candidate profile contains precisely what you would expect from an incumbent running for re-election. He says that this election is “about maintaining Regina’s momentum and making it sustainable.”

Next….

John Conway – John Conway taught me Sociology in University and I managed to enjoy his class, despite the fact that our politics are quite different. He left his position as a public school trustee over his convictions and is running for City Council to make sure that everyone is represented, not just the business lobby.

I would love to be able to support him for City Council. Problem is, some of the things he has said actually worry me a little. Consider these nuggets that the Regina Leader-Post printed about him when he announced the he was going to run:

“I think I share with many people a perception that the current council basically is carrying out an agenda that’s set forward by the business lobby,” he said.

About a new version of Taylor Field, he said:

“Personally, I think it’s madness,” he said. While unlikely, the evidence could convince him otherwise; but for now, he thinks that such a luxury shouldn’t be contemplated considering great infrastructure and social deficits, he noted.

Sometimes, in politics, you have to be very careful about what you say, lest the wrong people will get the wrong ideas. When I read those two statements, I am left with the image of someone who may prove rather difficult to work with. When I vote for a Councillor, I vote for someone who will be able to work with the rest of Council to build a better city.

Then there is the press release that I found on socialistproject.ca. Conway wrote, “Providing and keeping good jobs in the community should be central to the city’s tendering policy. The fact is that in our world good jobs usually means union jobs. Council should adopt a strict “union-first” tendering policy, giving preference to local, unionized companies.”

Do not get me wrong – I have nothing against unions, in fact, I believe that certain industries need unions to protect workers. However, I resent the idea that the City of Regina needs a “union-first” tendering process. Rather, the City of Regina needs a “quality-first” tendering process – it needs to ensure that we get the best value for our tax dollars. Adding a “union-first” tendering process will end up putting upward pressure on our budget while penalizing those companies whose employees have no need or desire to unionize.

Is that really fair? Should management have to encourage its employees to unionize for purely competitive reasons?

The Leader-Post article and the press release aside, I was pleased to read his profile on the city’s site. He wrote, “On Council I will approach every issue, every decision in the context of the question: ‘What is in the general public interest?’ and act accordingly.”

Perhaps that is a sign that he will be consensus builder and that he will not let our Council get bogged down in a sea of rhetoric about social deficits, the overwhelming superiority of unions and the evils of the business lobby.

Shirley Dixon – If I were to base my vote wholly on the information I have found online, Dixon would get that vote. In the Leader-Post article announcing her decision to run, she was quoted as saying:

“I’m feeling very positive because I’ve been talking to people on the street, and I’ve been getting a lot of good feedback. I’m excited. We have to get people passionate about municipal politics. It’s so important to get out and vote,”

A beautiful quote and a great way to end a good article. That article also contained:

“Women are not represented enough in politics,” she said. “I have the experience, the knowledge, the passion — and I’m the woman to do it. There’s a lot that the city can do and hasn’t done. We can move forward in a more positive way.”

However, she is going to run into a serious problem in this campaign. While I am sure that she is an amazing, talented, passionate person, I don’t really know who she is. And, since I don’t really know who she is, when I read quotes likes the two I just cited, I really need to see some policy. It is easy to say, “we can move forward in a positive way”, but it is significantly more difficult to craft policy that will accomplish that. When I look for actual policy, all that I can find is:

“Shirley will work for improved snow removal and street cleaning, curbside recycling, more reliable public tranist (sic), progressive approaches for crime prevention, and effective partnerships for affordable housing.” (source – Facebook Group – Shirley Dixon for Ward 3)

That quote contains two actual policy ideas – she wants improved snow removal and street cleaning, and curbside recycling. As for ‘more reliable public transit’, I take the bus daily and have never had any serious problems with it. If anything, our current model of public transit (woohoo – Sunday service!) is the best that I have ever experienced in all my years riding big diesel limos. And the rest?

What is a progressive approach to crime reduction? What kinds of effective partnerships and with who? Greg needs to learn more.

Don Young – Municipal politics are always funny because there is always, inevitably one candidate who just doesn’t quite understand the Canadian constitution. Don Young ruined his whole profile with one line. Drum roll please….

“Take a tougher stance on crime; develop more effective crime-reduction methods”

What is this tougher stance on crime that he speaks of and how will a municipal politician accomplish such a thing? Is he going to fight to bring the death penalty to Regina? Or maybe public floggings?

Does Don Young want to separate from Canada? That way, City Councillors can ‘take a tougher stance on crime’ and actually modify the Criminal Code of Canada. Or is, ‘take a tougher stance on crime’ just a particularly boneheaded piece of jargon and rhetoric?

Please don’t insult my intelligence.

The rest of his profile is decent and he likely got the best Leader-Post article of the whole bunch. One particular quote really stands out and almost saves him:

If elected, Young would push for improved streets and snow removal; reduced crime, litter and graffiti; cost-effective spending; fair and equitable revenue-sharing; reasonable taxes; better relationships with unions; enhanced family amenities; improved senior programs and benefits; better transit; a revitalized downtown; and, improvements for art, cultural and community groups.

While I love graffiti and consider it a legitimate, beautiful form of art, I think that it could be channeled in better ways. The rest of that statement is wonderful, but….City Councillors just can not change the Criminal Code.

Conclusions – Many of my comments have been scathing and I really mean no disrespect, but I take my municipal politics very seriously.

Based on what I have seen, we have a very good crew of candidates in our ward. This election will create dialog and we badly need dialog in Regina. However, I can not find enough information online to facilitate making a real decision. Rather, the information I found only makes me want to dig more, read more and talk to more people. As I learn more, I will share it with each of you.

Happy Thanksgiving – I’m very thankful for democracy!!

As a longtime resident of downtown Regina, let me tell you what this means – it signifies the closure of the last book store in the downtown area. That’s right, you didn’t hallucinate that last sentence, and it’s not a typo. If you want to BUY A BOOK you must leave the downtown area.

Of course, we still have the main branch of the public library downtown, and it remains a magical place. But what if you don’t have access to the library? Or better yet, what if you wish to support the author by actually purchasing their book? What if you simply desire a copy of a book that you don’t have to return? What if the book is a new release? Point is, there are a dozen or more reasons to go to a book store as opposed to a library, and if you live in downtown Regina it just became very difficult to buy a damn book!

What does this mean? Am I to take this as a reflection of how downtown and its residents are viewed? Now, to be fair, I’ll confess a bias. I love to read and I love living downtown. I also don’t have a car. One of the perks of living downtown is that I can walk just about everywhere and am close to major bus routes. If I want to go to a book store, it’s now a major excursion; it takes me two hours just in travel time between waiting for and riding the bus. Is this a conspiracy? Has some secret society decided that downtown residents should work a little harder to buy books?

Okay, now I’m being specious. I want someone to blame for this! The illuminati seemed like a good choice. All joking aside, this is a real setback for rejuvenating downtown Regina. We have wonderful local businesses that receive little support from the city; we have a beautiful downtown area that would be vibrant if the majority didn’t shut down by 7pm; and now we have no bookstores. Downtown revitalization does not just mean more condos and parking lots; it stands for the need to facilitate positive changes for residents and business owners alike. More affordable housing; increased rental space; building successful and sustainable local businesses; and making downtown Regina a more vibrant and positive place for everyone.

Don’t civil issues matter to you?  What about a new domed stadium?  Whoever wins this election will be in the driver’s seat when all the choices are made.  What about affordable housing?  Whoever wins this election will have to take action, or the Regina economy is going to end up in a very dark place.  What about the anti-panhandling laws that Dr. Garson Hunter so eloquently covered in his most recent Poverty Paper?  Whoever wins this election will be in the driver’s seat when that silly tag day permit comes up for review.  What about North Central Regina?  Whoever wins this election will have to decide whether to celebrate that area’s beauty or to write it off as ‘not worth saving’.

This election matters, so please, make a commitment to vote and while you’re at it, make a commitment to get at least one or two other people to vote with you. I will not insult you by presuming to tell you who to vote for.  However, I will beg and plead to get you to vote.

Remember, not voting is not a form of protest.  If you are truly that pissed off with the state of electoral politics in Regina, spoil your ballot.  If you do not think that the candidates will be relevant to you, run!  But please, Regina, get involved in democracy!!

There’s a new buzz word that I really dig that’s being used to describe this conundrum – eco-discrimination. The hot topics of the day, such as the unanimous (albeit grudgingly) support in the Saskatchewan Legislature of nuclear power, or the equally hot debate surrounding Regina’s new stadium, often neglect that massive amounts of discrimination go into decisions like these. Especially when it comes to location – and the consequences are grave.

There’s a reason that Regina’s landfill is located just outside the city, right by our penitentiary. No one wanted a damn landfill in his or her neighbourhood. The consequences? Environmental standards require that garbage dumps be built on top of at least 8-10 feet of clay when they’re in proximity to a water supply or aquifer. Regina’s landfill is built above only 2 feet of clay, putting an aquifer that supplies vast numbers of Regina citizens with water at risk. It was viewed as the only acceptable place… and we will pay the price.

Mosaic Stadium, home of the Saskatchewan Roughriders, was built in one of the lowest income communities in Regina. Why? Because these citizens had little means of protesting it – unlike the successful protests that prevented the stadium being built elsewhere. Moreover, let’s set aside the accompanying noise levels for a moment. Stadiums have the ability to bring communities together with sport and cultural events – if they can afford to go to them. So, how nice for little Timmy or Suzie, getting to watch all the people going to events in the stadium across the street that they don’t have the money to attend. Does anyone else see the irony here?

As a last example of eco-discrimination, take the Saskatchewan government’s newfound collective support for nuclear power. Numerous Indigenous communities are bracing themselves for the inevitable battle for environmental and human rights. The fact remains that many lucrative, beneficial, yet environmentally invasive projects are situated incredibly close to Indigenous communities whose opinions are neither valued nor wanted by industry or government. One needs only to look to natural resource industry for existing examples.

Location matters – both of those making the decisions, but also the communities that will be affected. We must think critically about why certain locations are chosen for projects like stadiums and power plants, and who comprises the communities that live in proximity. Eco-discrimination takes many forms, but the underlying commonality is that it takes advantage of communities with little recourse to defend their rights. If you are in favour of Regina’s new stadium or prospective nuclear power plant, I ask you – whose backyard should they be built in?