Tag: politics

Mayor Don Iveson looks back on 2018

“I believe this was the year we made a shift to building Edmonton for the next generation,” said Mayor Don Iveson last week as he hosted the media at City Hall for a briefing and roundtable discussion on 2018.

Asked for a highlight from the past year, Mayor Iveson cited the new funding deal with the Province. The City Charters Fiscal Framework Act will provide Edmonton and Calgary with “infrastructure funding tied to provincial revenues, meaning they would share in Alberta’s future revenue growth.” It is both a replacement for Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI) funding and a new source of long-term transit funding. “We’re legislated now into long-term growth,” the mayor said. Last month he wrote that “the deal reflects the province’s economic reality now.”

Mayor Don Iveson

Here are some of the highlights from the roundtable discussion:

Budget Savings

Given the budget hadn’t yet passed when the roundtable took place, there were some questions related to cost savings. Acknowledging there were valid questions about the size of the City organization and in particular the size of management, Mayor Iveson said “it will be a continuing conversation for us.” He noted there are pros and cons to reducing the size of management that need further discussion.

In terms of savings, the mayor said that through innovation the City has harvested $68 million in savings in the last five years. And he indicated there was more to come. “I suspect there will be things over the next year that we close or significantly adjust our approach to,” he said. “We’re prepared to declare certain things no longer relevant.”

Culture of Confidence

Asked about his frustration this summer over the way Administration handled things like the bench plaques program, the mayor said “mistakes are going to happen given the complexity of what we do.” He acknowledged that Council had given Administration competing direction to both save money and to be as helpful as possible. “Both are values this organization has and they conflicted with one another,” he said.

The mayor made it clear he doesn’t want to micromanage things. “I don’t think every complex decision needs to come from Council,” he said. “It’s not an effective use of the thirteen members of Council.” Instead what he’d like to see is a “culture of confidence”.

“My expectation is that anyone working at the City with an idea that could lead to savings has the opportunity to bring that forward as opposed to being afraid to suggest it due to risk management,” he explained. That requires “a tolerance for failure and innovation” that won’t come easily. “We have to give some permission for it to not work out,” he said.

Mayor Iveson did say that he thought the “long-term culture change is moving in a good direction” at the City of Edmonton.

Edmonton Coliseum

On the question of what will happen to the Coliseum (formerly Rexall Place) the mayor said “it has no practical use or reuse that is economically viable” and as a result “it will be torn down.” He noted there are ongoing costs related to keeping the building secure and said, “I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to find a cost-effective and timely way to deal with the Coliseum.”

And what about the land? “We’re going to have some interesting discussions about how to redevelop those lands,” the mayor said. He’s not in a rush to sell the land, though. “In this market the land is probably not worth as much,” he said. “Where we try to rush land decisions that generally doesn’t go well for us.”

Media

Unsurprisingly, some of the journalists in the room were curious about the mayor’s thoughts on the media. He has made suggestions throughout the year that the City needs to do more of its own storytelling, and of course he continues to be active on Twitter and his own website.

“I think people expect a certain amount of direct content from their city,” the mayor said. “I think for most people the City of Edmonton is a credible source.” He doesn’t see direct communication from the City being the only channel, however. He talked about the importance of transparency and opening up multiple channels to the public. “Earned media is always going to be part of our day-to-day connecting with people,” he assured everyone.

Mayor Don Iveson

Innovation

Many of Mayor Iveson’s comments touched on innovation, but he used a question about the city’s economic outlook to share the majority of his thoughts on the subject. “We can fear the future or we can chart our own destiny,” he said. “This is why I put so much focus on the innovation economy.”

The mayor said he’s “excited” to work with EEDC’s Derek Hudson and Cheryll Watson further on a culture of innovation and said the recent scrutiny of EEDC “is really, really good.” He said the SingularityU conference that Edmonton is hosting next year “will be a platform for that culture to grow in our city.”

“As the world faces a lot of uncertainty, we can be problem-solvers for the world,” he said. “That’s not incompatible with our DNA as a city at all.”

Region

We didn’t have as much time to discuss the region as I’d have liked, but Mayor Iveson did touch on the subject. “If the region can speak coherently to the provincial and federal governments we can have much greater impact than historically we’ve had,” he said. The mayor cited work on transit, the regional growth plan, and economic development as recent successes in the region.

Mayor Iveson also spoke briefly about “shared investment for shared benefit” saying “it’s about the region getting to the point where we fix problems together.” He explained that the idea is “some of the new money that comes from new development goes into a pot that helps to pay for the next thing to attract jobs and prosperity to the region.”

Thoughts on Council

During the budget discussions Mayor Iveson expressed frustration with his colleagues on Council bringing forward ward-specific items to essentially try to “queue-jump”. He told us that he was talking to former mayor Stephen Mandel about it recently and realized, “I was doing the same things 7 years ago!” He added that “what we have ultimately is a Council that has come together remarkably well around this budget.”

“We have a group of very bright Councillors who have a desire to serve and to have their service noticed,” the mayor said. “It’s not a bad thing to have councillors with ambition to make an impact on the city.”

Third Term

“I really like being Mayor of Edmonton and I have no plans to enter federal politics, other than to stay on as chair of the Big City Mayor’s caucus,” he said in response to a question about running for another office. “I’ve got more work to do here.” Mayor Iveson told us “the City Plan is going to be a lot of fun” and that representing Edmonton through the upcoming provincial and federal elections would be “a great challenge”.

Noting “it’s a really long way to the next election,” he did acknowledge that others might be thinking about making a run for his chair. “I think it’s fair to say that some of them have their own political aspirations.” His advice to those Councillors? “Don’t get started too early.”

Mayor Iveson said he has not made any decisions about seeking a third term as mayor. “I want to focus on governing, and implementing the things I ran on,” he said. “If I can think of four more years worth of stuff to do, then I would look at running again.”

Mayor Don Iveson

Looking ahead to 2019, Mayor Iveson said “we must continue to rally for our city.”

Edmonton Global officially launches to attract investment to the Edmonton Metro Region

Last week Edmonton Global held a launch event outside its offices on the main floor of TELUS House.

“Edmonton Global’s goal is to attract investment and jobs to the Edmonton Metro Region by developing a regional brand, a regional database, and a strategic plan to ensure the Region takes its rightful place amongst ~300 comparable world communities.”

The event was emceed by Randy Boissonnault, MP for Edmonton Centre, who talked about the Edmonton region being a great place to work, live, and invest. The other speakers included Deron Bilous, Minister of Economic Development and Trade, Mayor Don Iveson, Edmonton Global Board Chair John Day, and Stantec’s Simon O’Byrne.

Edmonton Global Launch

Minister Deron Bilous said:

“With over 1.4 million people, Edmonton is one of the fastest growing metropolitan regions in Canada. We are proud to provide Edmonton Global $2.5 million to support projects that will attract new investment and create jobs.”

Mayor Don Iveson called Edmonton Global “a profound game changer” and said:

“This is the most important thing we need to do-pull the region together. But that would not be possible without all of you agreeing that that was what we needed to do.”

John Day said:

“We aren’t going to be successful unless we do it together. And that’s what this is all about… we have opportunities and challenges.”

Simon O’Byrne wrote following the event:

“I spoke to the audience about how places like Edmonton are ideally situated in a VUCA age (i.e. a time of volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity). Markets seek certainty and stability. Edmonton is that place. It has, perhaps, the best public education system on the planet. It is a meritocracy where refugee children go to school with children that fly first class. That just doesn’t happen almost anywhere on Earth. Edmonton is one of the most inclusionary cities. 1/3 of us was born outside of Canada. Almost 40% of Edmonton are visible minorities. 1/3 of us can speak a language other than English or French. We have some of the best higher education institutions. We are also an affluent region, where ¼ households makes more than $100,000 a year. Almost 80% of households spend less than 30% of their income on housing, which is an enormous competitive advantage over many coastal cities. So why does this all matter? Because in a VUCA world, we are the model to follow. We are the safe, resilient and surest bet. We are the place you want to invest. To move to and raise a family. The place where the business climate is fertile for growth.”

I’ll give Edmonton Global itself the last word on the launch:

“A big thank you to everyone who came to our official launch event last night in Edmonton! If the attendance was any indication, there is huge support for the work we are doing to bring business here and position the Edmonton Metropolitan Region as a location of choice for global investment. We have so much to offer, including strong collaboration from regional leaders.”

A brief history of Edmonton Global

In September 2015, the mayors of nine municipalities in the region (Edmonton, Strathcona County, St. Albert, the City of Leduc, Fort Saskatchewan, Spruce Grove, Sturgeon County, Parkland County, and Leduc County) announced the Metro Mayors Alliance. Together, they represented 95% of the region’s population, 96% of its assessment base, and 80% of its land base. They contributed a total of $600,000 to conduct a study on how to make sure the Edmonton region is globally competitive. This was done at a time when the Capital Region Board (CRB), created in 2008, was still an unwieldy 24 members. It wasn’t until October 2017 that the CRB became the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board (EMRB) and reduced its size to 13 members.

Mayors at MOU signing
Photo courtesy of the Metro Mayors Alliance

The Edmonton Metro Advisory Panel, the body formed to lead the study, released its report called Be Ready or Be Left Behind in June 2016. “We can’t just hunker down in our municipalities and milk the cows that we have,” said Don Lowry, who chaired the panel. The report warned that “as much as 87,700 additional hectares of agricultural land and 50,200 hectares of natural areas could be lost to uncooordinated development over the next 50 years” with the settlement footprint across the region growing to “as much as 273,900 hectares.” The report further warned that “taxpayers could be on the hook for an additional $8.2 billion to service that larger footprint with roads and other public infrastructure.”

The report made three cornerstone recommendations:

  1. Develop a collaborative, focused economic development strategy for the Edmonton Metro Region.
  2. Create a new inter-municipal mass transit entity in order to plan and deliver the smooth flow of people and goods between communities and across the region.
  3. Establish a mechanism with the capacity and authority to integrate and act on Metro Region land use plans and infrastructure development.

A few months earlier, in March 2016, the Capital Region Board had passed a motion to “incubate a formal regional economic development model, which would be independent of the CRB.” So when the Metro Advisory Panel’s report came out, there was a lot of overlap. The CRB pushed ahead with the new entity, adopting some aspects of the report along the way, and established an interim board of directors in February 2017, and followed that up with articles of association in April 2017. The City of Edmonton signed on to the entity the following month. Though all 24 members of the CRB were invited to join the new entity, just 15 signed on (the 13 members of what would become EMRB, plus Bon Accord and Gibbons).

The interim board phased out its work over the next month and the new organization was incorporated on June 9, 2017 as the “Edmonton Metropolitan Region Economic Development Company” now known as Edmonton Global, “the first fully regional economic development company for the Edmonton Metropolitan Region.” In September 2017, the inaugural Edmonton Global board of directors was announced, with John Day selected as board chair. They met for the first time a few days later and announced a target of July 1, 2018 to be fully operational.

In November 2017, Mayor Stuart Houston of Spruce Grove was named Chair of the Shareholders Group and Mayor Gale Katchur of Fort Saskatchewan was named Vice Chair. In April 2018, the organization announced that Malcolm Bruce would serve as CEO on a full-time basis starting July 1, 2018. He had been serving as interim CEO since the organization was formed, and was the CEO of the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board since January 2015.

And that brings us to September 6, when the official launch event for Edmonton Global was held.

Edmonton Global Launch

What’s next?

In 2016, I wondered who was responsible for the Edmonton metro region. While there’s still a lot of overlap and jockeying for position going on, it seems that EMRB will be responsible for long-term planning while Edmonton Global will be responsible for economic development. In an interview in May 2018, Malcolm Bruce said “when we hunt as a pack on the world stage, we offer a far more compelling package to investors.” Still to come is that new regional transit authority.

Edmonton Global’s 2018-2023 Strategic Plan includes four priorities:

  1. Serve as a catalyst for investment and job attraction and retention for the Edmonton Metropolitan Region.
  2. Be the voice of the Edmonton Metropolitan Region’s economic development activities.
  3. Leverage partnerships to enhance Edmonton Global’s success.
  4. Organizational Excellence.

The organization started with a budget of $1 million 2017 which grew to $3 million this year and will expand further to $5 million in 2019. Over the next six months or so, Edmonton Global anticipates adding up to 20 staff.

The City of Edmonton contributed $330,000 to Edmonton Global in 2017, which came out of the Corporate Expenditures Management Initiatives budget. This year it contributed $668,000, which came out of the EEDC budget. Next year the City will contribute $1.346 million, but the funding source is yet to be determined. Each shareholder contributes funds based on a formula tied to its population and assessment base, which means the City of Edmonton is funding about 75% of the organization’s total budget.

The big question then is what this means for the Edmonton Economic Development Corporation (EEDC), which was responsible for nearly everything that Edmonton Global will now be tackling. A report to City Council last year promised “a broader reflection on role clarity relative to areas of investment by the City of Edmonton’s in economic development will be undertaken.” The City also said in November 2017 that “discussions are ongoing with the Edmonton Economic Development Corporation regarding the roles and responsibilities between the two organizations.”

That work is still ongoing. I asked EEDC CEO Derek Hudson about it last month just after he was named to the role. “I don’t see us stepping back in much of the work we do,” he told me. He pointed out that capacity-wise, there’s no comparison. EEDC has a budget of nearly $50 million and more than 200 employees, so it simply has a greater ability than Edmonton Global to get things done.

That said, he sees a need to work together, and told me the boards of the two organizations have a subcommittee to sort through it all. “One of the things that is critical is what’s the experience of someone coming from outside,” he said. “Ideally an investor from Asia gets a coherent experience from the time they first hear about the Edmonton metro region to when they participate in an investment,” no matter where in the region it is.

Edmonton Election 2017: A mandate to keep moving forward

Monday’s election resulted in very few surprises for City Council. Don Iveson easily won re-election as mayor, all but one of the incumbent councillors is returning, and while it is still early, the winners of the three open races seem like they’ll fit in just fine with the mostly progressive Council they are joining. Voter turnout wasn’t great, but it was far from the disaster many were predicting with such a boring mayoral race. So why does it seem like the overwhelming narrative is that citizens are unhappy?

Consider what Paula Simons wrote in her first column after the election. “Sure, incumbent mayor Iveson cruised to easy re-election, with support from almost three-quarters of those who cast ballots. But don’t misread that,” she warned. “Iveson faced no legitimate challengers, so voters who were unhappy with his leadership had nowhere to channel their frustrations.”

Her colleague David Staples seemed to agree. “Iveson will likely have majority support for his agenda on council, but on a host of issues where he has taken a strong stand, from LRT and bike lanes to photo radar and social housing, Edmontonians appear increasingly less inclined to go along with his progressive vision.”

Or consider what the Edmonton Journal’s editorial board had to say. “If letters to the editor, media comment boards, call-in shows and candidate forums are any indication, much of the electorate is in no mood for business as usual,” they wrote. “Many may have expressed their frustration by staying home Monday, which along with the lack of a high-profile challenger for the mayor’s chair, could help explain a disappointing voter turnout.”

I look at Monday’s results and I see something very different. I see a clear endorsement of the decisions that Iveson and the previous Council made and a mandate for this new Council to build on that work.

Iveson with the new councillors
Bumped into all four new members of #yegcc on the media circuit just now. Congrats! – @doniveson

Yes, there are citizens who are annoyed about bike lanes and photo radar. Some are opposed to infill, at least in their own neighbourhood. There are plenty of citizens who love to complain about how it isn’t as easy to park downtown as it once was. But these are just squeaky wheels and we shouldn’t let them speak for the majority. There’s a big difference between being annoyed that a traffic lane now belongs to bicycles and being upset about the overall direction the city is headed. This is what people really mean when they say they want to vote for something rather than against something.

I see no credible evidence that Edmontonians are unhappy with the direction our city is going.

“They wrote letters to the editor! They called the call-in shows! They tweeted their discontent!”

Then why not show up to express that anger where it matters, at the ballot box? Voter turnout was 31.5% in this election, which is down 3% from the 2013 election. Considering that voter turnout went from 41.79% when Stephen Mandel was first elected to just 27.24% when he won re-election the first time, I’d say a 3% drop isn’t too bad at all.

“Voter turnout would have been higher but people stayed home to express their frustration!”

If citizens were really expressing frustration by staying home, I would have expected much lower turnout. Don Iveson received 141,182 votes on Monday, up from the record-setting 132,162 he received in 2013. Only four times has an Edmonton candidate cracked the 100,000 vote mark and Iveson has done it twice in a row (the other two were Jan Reimer in 1992 and Stephen Mandel in 2010). A record number of Edmontonians voted for our mayor rather than staying home.

“They only voted for Iveson because there were no credible challengers!”

Why is that? In a city of roughly 900,000 people not one credible person was willing to step forward to run against Iveson. Could it be that no one was miffed enough to go to the trouble? The 2010 election, in which the City Centre Airport was the big issue and the downtown arena debate was starting to heat up, saw a challenger step forward in David Dorward. It has happened before.

“Incumbents never lose and Dave Loken lost! Ben Henderson barely scraped by! Tony Caterina nearly lost!”

Loken won his seat in 2010 by just 507 votes and won re-election in 2013 by just 501 votes. Is it really that unbelievable that he might lose this time around by 464 votes? Both he and Henderson were pretty quiet in this election. As Dave wrote, Henderson ran “what appeared to be a stealth re-election campaign in Ward 8.” It’s not at all surprising that the results reflect that. Caterina has never been seen as one of Iveson’s sure votes, so I don’t see how his narrow victory is any indication that people are unhappy with the progressive agenda. Quite the opposite, in fact.

“The polls say people have doubts about everything!”

Don Iveson and Ryan Jespersen talked about polls on Tuesday morning. “It’s not accurate, it’s not a true thing,” Iveson said. “I would enourage all media outlets as a matter of ethics and integrity to stop reporting that.” There are definite flaws with many of these polling methodologies. Trust them at your own risk.

I have no doubt there are some people who truly are upset about certain decisions, whether it’s bike lanes or infill or whatever. There’s always going to be someone who is upset about something. And yes, Iveson and Council should take what they heard on the doorsteps to heart and they should always strive to truly listen to citizens in order to make the best decisions possible. But they should also see the outcome of Monday’s election for what it is: an endorsement of the trajectory our city is on and a mandate to keep moving forward.

Edmonton Election 2017: Nomination Day Recap

Nomination Day took place on Monday, September 18. A total of 132 Edmontonians filed their nomination papers and paid their deposits to run in the 2017 municipal election. Michelle Draper was the only candidate acclaimed on Nomination Day, so she’ll continue serving as the public school board trustee for Ward B. Barry Koperski had filed his paperwork to run for council in Ward 4, but withdrew his nomination by the deadline on September 19.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

So that leaves us with 131 candidates in this election:

  • 13 mayoral candidates
  • 70 city council candidates
  • 20 Edmonton Catholic School Board trustee candidates
  • 28 Edmonton Public School Board trustee candidates (including one acclamation)

A total of 131 candidates is a new record for municipal elections in Edmonton. The previous high was 120 in the 1986 election. The 2013 election came close, with 119 candidates filing their paperwork.

Linda Sahli
Returning Office Linda Sahli

“This morning ran very smoothly – now it’s the voters’ turn,” said Edmonton Elections Returning Officer Linda Sahli.

Andrew Knack, councillor for Ward 1, was running unopposed until Nomination Day, when three challengers came forward. “Thankfully people will have a choice in Ward 1,” he tweeted. It’s actually Ward 2 that has the fewest candidates for council, with just three, a significant decline from 2013’s seven. In the 2013 election, Wards 4 and 9 had just two candidates each.

There are 24 female candidates for mayor or council, which is about 29%, and that’s up from 17% in 2013. Counting all the races, 36.6% of the field is female (48 candidates), which is up from 32.7% in 2013 (39 candidates).

Election Candidates by Year

Edmonton Elections has made the full candidate list available on its website and in the open data catalogue.

You can see more photos from Nomination Day courtesy of Dave Cournoyer. Here’s my recap of Nomination Day for the 2013 election.

Your Guide to the 2017 Municipal Election

We’ve combined open data from the City with other data that we’ve collected to build an election microsite at Taproot Edmonton. You can browse the full list of candidates, all the wards and voting stations, and a list of election-related events. On Election Night, you can watch the results dashboard to see who your new elected officials are.

For a more personalized experience, try our Election Guide feature. Simply put in your home address and we’ll tell you everything you need to know – which wards you’re in, who your candidates are, where to vote, and more.

We’re also publishing a weekly roundup of election news and other links. Here’s our latest edition and here’s the archive. You can sign up to receive the newsletter in your inbox each week.

If you find the election microsite and/or newsletter updates useful, spread the word! Maybe we can bump the voter turnout numbers up a bit. And if you want to support the work we’re doing at Taproot Edmonton, become a member. It’s just $10/month.

Here’s where to find the latest Edmonton Election news for 2017

During the 2013 election, I got into the habit of writing a regular series of posts to collect all the election-related news I could find in one place. It was useful for me, to keep tabs on what everyone was doing, and I think others found it useful too. This year I’m doing the series again, but at Taproot Edmonton! Currently we’re publishing the roundup every two weeks, but we anticipate increasing the frequency as we get closer to the election.

This is a bit of an experiment for us, just like our #YEGFringe Daily Digest that Ryan Stephens has been writing for the past couple of weeks. Like some other future-of-media entrepreneurs, we think email has a big role to play. For all the talk about spam, there’s actually quite a bit of evidence that people like email newsletters!

If you’d like to get our Edmonton Election Update in your inbox for free, join our mailing list here. If you’d like to support the creation of our local feature stories as well, consider becoming a full member of Taproot Edmonton. It’s just $10/month or $100/year to join.

Edmonton Election Update

The format we’re using at the moment is 2-3 “feature” items, followed by a list of other news items and events. If you read and enjoy my regular Edmonton Notes or Media Monday Edmonton posts, the election roundups should feel very familiar. Here are the three I have written so far:

  • Aug. 23 — Helping Edmonton’s homeless community vote, Taz Bouchier is running for mayor, Work the election on Oct. 16
  • Jul. 27 — More than three dozen female candidates already, Campaign finance reform, Fahad Mughal to challenge Iveson for mayoralty
  • Jul. 13 — Iveson remains uncontested, Ward 5 heats up

If email isn’t your thing, watch our Twitter and Facebook — we’ll be sharing each roundup on social media as well. We’re still working on the rest of our election coverage, and will have more to share on that in the weeks ahead.

Have an election-related tip for us? Let us know by email, or share it on Twitter with the #yegvote hashtag and tag us @taprootyeg.

What do you think?

Recap: Political Pub Night

In the 2013 municipal election here in Edmonton, just 39 of the 119 candidates who ran for office were women. And of the 79 candidates who ran for City Council specifically, just 17 were women. Nomination Day for the 2017 municipal election isn’t until September 18, but already there are more than three dozen female candidates who intend to run!

Political Pub Night

Many of them were in attendance earlier this evening at Political Pub Night, an informal mixer organized by Ward 5 candidate Miranda Jimmy. “I went to an Equal Voice event last month and everyone said ‘we need to get more women elected’,” she told me. “I thought, the way to do that is to support each other.” She organized the event to give people an opportunity to meet the women running in this election in a more casual environment.

Political Pub Night

There were about two dozen candidates who confirmed their attendance and the free event “sold out” in just four days. “Obviously, there’s a need for this,” Miranda said after I remarked how impressive it was that so many people gave up a beautiful July evening to talk politics.

Political Pub Night
Miranda Jimmy and Amanda Nielsen

Amanda Nielsen, past chair of Equal Voice’s Northern Alberta chapter, said events like tonight’s mixer are important to help candidates build confidence. “Being a candidate is tough, so you need to build support for what you’re doing,” she told me. Equal Voice has been holding training schools for candidates on door knocking, organized the Fundraise-HER event last month, and is paying attention to Twitter to proactively respond to gendered attacks.

In addition to meeting potential voters, the event was an opportunity for candidates to meet one another. “There’s a lot we can learn from one another,” Miranda said.

Here’s the list of candidates that was shared at the event:

You can see more photos from tonight’s event here.

For more election coverage, be sure to subscribe to Taproot Edmonton’s newsletter or become a member to support our work.

Chicago, Trump, and what comes next for journalism

I was in Chicago with Sharon a few weeks ago when Donald Trump won the U.S. presidential election. It seems like a distant memory now, but I sensed quite a bit of optimism the day before the election as we explored the city. Maybe it was just residual joy from the Cubs winning the World Series and the massive parade that had taken place just a few days before, but it was there. The lines at early voting stations were incredibly long and we marvelled at the Americans patiently waiting to do their part for democracy. People wouldn’t wait that long back home, we thought!

Early Voting in Chicago

The next day was the election. We spent some time downtown and were approached by GOTV volunteers who asked if we had voted yet (how’s that for blending in!). We told them, “sorry, we’re Canadian” and they chuckled. We wished them good luck as we moved past and they responded, “thanks – we’ll need it!” A crack? Later that day we were taken on a tour of Chinatown, which included visiting some polling stations. It was business-as-usual for the most part, but at the second polling station we encountered a heated debate between an elections officer and an activist that someone had complained was getting saying a bit too much to voters. There was passion there, a real sense that this mattered!

No Electioneering

That evening we went back to our temporary home and watched the results come in. Like many people, we couldn’t quite believe it. We stayed up to hear Trump’s speech and made sure to watch Clinton’s the next morning. Then we ventured back out to explore more of Chicago. Gone was the optimism we felt a few days earlier as a sense of shock set in. We overheard people talking about the election everywhere we went. We walked past the beautiful Trump tower as a police officer stopped to take a photo of it. I wondered why he wanted it.

Protesting Donald Trump in Chicago

That night we stumbled into the massive protest against Trump that wound its way through central Chicago. We saw the large gathering at the base of Trump tower and we saw the protesters marching again later in the evening near Michigan Avenue. On social media we could see that similar marches were happening in major cities all across the country. For the most part it was peaceful, but the heightened police presence did make us feel a little uneasy.

On Thursday, two days after the election, I attended the People-Powered Publishing conference in downtown Chicago. The purpose was to discuss “innovative projects and practices that build stronger connections between reporters and the publics they cover.” Understandably, the room full of journalists wanted to talk about the election and what happened and why. And about what will happen next.

There have been a few positives, of course. The New York Times has seen subscription growth that is ten times the same period last year and donations to organizations like ProPublica are up significantly. Journalism leaders like Marty Baron and Margaret Sullivan have used their platforms to reiterate the mission and purpose of journalism and to articulate the importance of holding the powerful accountable.

But most of the news has been negative. Trump continues to denigrate the media while the media continue to amplify his lies. Questions about access abound, especially after Trump called the media in for a major dressing down. That’s likely just a taste of what’s to come. Fake news is a big topic of discussion, with calls for Google and Facebook to do more to stop it, raising fresh concerns about just who a modern media company is. And to top it all off, “post-truth” was named word of the year for 2016.

So, what did happen? How did the media fail to see a Trump victory? And what comes next?

Maybe social media and the echo chamber that often results is to blame. “Psychologists and other social scientists have repeatedly shown that when confronted with diverse information choices, people rarely act like rational, civic-minded automatons,” wrote Farhad Manjoo in the New York Times just days before the election. Instead, they look for sources that confirm their existing preconceptions and biases.

Or maybe it had more to do with the campaign Trump ran against the media. “As a result of Trump’s attack-the-messenger strategy, for perhaps the first time in U.S. history no mainstream outlet has any influence over the voters backing one of the presidential nominees,” wrote Jack Shafer in a popular Politico piece. Trump received billions of dollars worth of free publicity as a result.

Or maybe the media just refused to believe it was possible that Donald Trump could win, as The Atlantic’s Salena Zito wrote back in September: “The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.”

Of course, the reality is that Trump won the election by getting millions of Americans to vote for him. The views of his supporters were too often dismissed by the media, wrote Kyle Pope in the Columbia Journalism Review. “Now a new era needs to begin, a period in which reporting takes precedent over opinion, when journalists are willing to seek out and understand people with whom they may have profound personal and philosophical differences.”

That can’t be done by simply visiting the so-called flyover states. It can’t be done by perpetuating the “us vs. them” attitude that often permeates newsrooms, even unintentionally. It will require listening. Not just hearing, but genuinely listening “for the sake of understanding and building truly reciprocal relationships with communities,” as Josh Stearns wrote in 2013.

If Trump and Brexit are just the latest in a growing wave of populism, then we should expect more uncertainty, more uncharted territory, more previously unthinkable becoming possible and even likely. Good journalism that serves the community is going to be more important than ever, but we can’t keep doing it the way we’ve always done it. We can’t just tweak things and hope for a different result. We need new approaches, new business models, and new experiments. Some will fail, but that’s okay. We need to figure out what works and what doesn’t.

Importantly, we need to support good journalism wherever we can. Both to keep the good stuff coming and to provide opportunities for new experiments. That post has some great suggestions on how to find and support trustworthy journalism. Of course if you’re in Edmonton, I hope you’ll consider supporting us at Taproot Edmonton!

Listening is central to what we’re doing at Taproot. The curiosity of our community drives the stories we produce and the collective knowledge and insight of the community helps us to make those stories come to life and to have impact. I was thrilled to find a great deal of interest in our approach at the conference in Chicago, and I was grateful to hear about all of the other interesting experiments that are trying to achieve similar objectives. A little bit of optimism returned as I listened to others talk about how we can change journalism for the better.

We don’t have all the answers, but with Taproot we’re doing our part to produce good, trustworthy journalism and to figure out what the future of local journalism looks like. If this is important to you too, help us by becoming a member!

Don’t get too excited about supertall building proposals in Edmonton

There’s nothing quite like a skyline-defining tower to get people excited. Earlier this week a proposal for an 80-storey tower in The Quarters known as the The Quarters Hotel and Residences caught the eye of many. Developers Alldritt Land Corporation LLP still need to get approval for the tower from City Council, something they’ll seek within the next year. But is this proposal really something we should get excited about?

After decades without any new towers being built downtown, I completely understand the appeal of these proposals. Especially with recent examples to point to like Enbridge Centre and the new City of Edmonton Tower, both of which are very attractive buildings. Not to mention the Stantec Tower, which will finally get Edmonton into the skyscraper club. Closing the City Centre Airport and removing the height restrictions over downtown made these buildings possible.

Kelly Ramsey Hero Shot
Kelly Ramsey Hero Shot, photo by David Sutherland

But those are office towers, not residential towers, and they’re located in the heart of our commercial core. When we look at residential towers elsewhere in our downtown and the surrounding neighbourhoods, density is what should be important to us, not necessarily height. We want to increase the population of our core neighbourhoods, but we don’t need record-setting heights in order to achieve that. And in fact, such heights might actually be detrimental.

I wrote about this back in June when the issue of changing downtown land economics came up before Council:

“A really tall tower on one site might be appealing for the impact it’ll have on the skyline, for the apparent “prestige” that comes along with height, and for the increased profits and/or reduced financial risks for the developer. But it could also mean that instead of development occurring on multiple sites, only the tall tower goes ahead. Look at it this way: would you rather have three 20-storey towers or one 60-storey tower?”

There is one other potential benefit of the supertall towers aside from being attractive and it’s that in theory Council can negotiate with the developers to ensure there are public good contributions made in exchange for the height. The problem is that the last time that opportunity came up with the 45-storey Emerald Tower in Oliver, we didn’t end up with a very good deal. This is partly because there are no formal rules for those negotiations.

At it’s July 6 meeting, Executive Committee passed the following motion in attempt to change that:

“That Administration conduct further research and stakeholder engagement towards a formalized review procedure and incentive system to be applied to Direct Control Provision rezoning applications that add Floor Area Ratio in the city core and Transit Oriented Developments, and return to Committee in the First Quarter of 2017.”

Ideally this framework will be approved before the proposed Quarters tower goes to Council.

Downtown Skyline

There are other reasons to question proposals for supertall buildings, of course. Plenty of proposals have come forward and then quietly disappeared, such as the 71-storey “Edmontonian” tower that was proposed back in 2013. More recently, there are concerns about the vacancy rate downtown with the approved towers coming online and the impact that’ll have on the residential market. And on top of that residential towers like Brad Lamb’s Jasper House Condos which haven’t started construction yet are now lowering prices. For all of these reasons there’s no guarantee that the proposed Quarters tower will go ahead.

Yes, it would be great to see The Quarters develop into a vibrant part of our downtown core, and maybe this building could help us achieve that. A supertall building there could do for The Quarters CRL what the Bow Building did for The Rivers District CRL in Calgary. It’s certainly better than a giant hole in the ground! But I’m not convinced a single, supertall building is what we should be pursuing for the area.

A similar discussion is playing out in cities like New York, albeit at a very different scale. Here’s the criticism that Diller Scofidio + Renfro co-founder Elizabeth Diller had for the multiple out-of-character skyscrapers being proposed in New York City:

“I believe in planning logics where you have neighbourhoods, and you don’t just do one building at a time. We need more planning vision in the city than there is now, where there’s no thinking of the effect of tall buildings. I believe in planning, and even zones that are planned up high. There are zones and then logics, and they have edges. There needs to be a consciousness of the urban adjacencies and the products of what the building comes with.”

Edmonton absolutely needs to build up rather than out, but we need to consider the impact that approving one supertall tower will have on the surrounding area. Multiple tall buildings is probably more desirable than one supertall tower.

Coming up at City Council: October 17-21, 2016

Busy week coming up at Council next week with some really interesting topics on the agenda!

Cold City Hall
Cold City Hall, photo by Kurt Bauschardt

Here’s my look at what Council will be discussing in the week ahead.

Meetings this week

You can always see the latest City Council meetings on ShareEdmonton.

Vehicle for Hire Bylaw 17400 Update

Edmonton’s new Vehicle for Hire Bylaw came into force on March 1, 2016 and this report proposed some amendments to address “several issues that have emerged since the Bylaw was passed.”

One issue is markings on vehicles for hire. Currently, taxis and accessible taxis are required to have an operating top light, meter, valid meter accuracy certificate, and colors and markings to identify the vehicle. Passengers must have access to the dispatcher’s name and contact information. Private transportation provider (PTP) vehicles, like Uber or TappCar, do not have any such requirements nor any prohibitions. The City did a lot of consultation on this and heard clearly that PTP vehicles should not look like taxis. The result is a rcommendation that PTPs be prohibited from having markings like taxis do, but that they be required to have a small decal in the front and rear windshield to identify them.

TappCar

Another issue is related to street hails. Under the current bylaw only taxis and accessible taxis are permitted to pickup passengers that hail them from the street. PTP services must be prearranged, but the bylaw doesn’t prescribe how those pre-arrangements should be made. The fine for picking up passengers from the street is currently $250. The consultation on this was more split, but the resulting recommendation is to increase the fine to $1,000.

The report also discusses the use of exclusive parking areas, and looks at the impact of recent amendments to the Traffic Safety Act. Finally, it includes some enforcement statistics:

  • “Since March 1, 2016, approximately 200 violation tickets have been issued for Vehicle for Hire Bylaw or applicable Traffic Safety Act offences.”
  • “Community Standards Peace Officers have completed approximately 350 vehicle for hire traffic stops, and performed approximately 2,350 licence checks.”
  • Of those 200 tickets, around 130 were related to the Vehicle for Hire Bylaw: 40 were for operating without the proper City license, about 45 were for failing to produce a required document, and about 40 were for failing to display or provide required information to passengers.

If Council agrees with the proposed amendments, Administration will prepare them to be brought to a future City Council meeting.

State of the Autonomous and Connected Vehicle Technology

This is an annual report that Council has asked for, discussing the state of self-driving vehicle technology. The report notes that the Society of Automative Engineers describes six levels of vehicle automation, from 0 to 5. Level 4 vehicles “are able to drive themselves in complex environments without human supervision” and the report suggests Level 5 is required for self-driving taxis. It is not bullish on timelines:

“There are several reasons to anticipate that full automation will emerge further in the future than the most optimistic estimates suggest. Challenges remain in developing automation technology. There are also legal, liability and ethical issues related to the technology. After the technology becomes available it must also be adopted broadly by fleet and vehicle owners. Rates of adoption have been estimated based on local data and the expected adoption time ranges from 18 to 30 years after the technology becomes available.”

On the plus side, the report does highlight the opportunity that self-driving vehicles present for public transportation:

“The interface between automated vehicle technology and the transit system presents a significant opportunity for positively shifting the way Edmontonians travel. Driverless taxis and public transit service can be complementary: driverless taxis could serve less dense suburban and rural areas and higher capacity transit would continue to serve high-demand corridors in urban areas.”

In the next year or so, the City plans to develop communication materials on automated vehicles and to form an internal working group. Over the next 2-5 years, the City could “test the impacts of automated vehicle technology” and “develop a comprehensive strategy to prepare…for the emergence of automated vehicles.”

You can read the full 146 page report, Planning for Automated Vehicles in Edmonton, here.

Changing in School Zone Speed Limits to 30 km/h

This report summarizes the results of an evaluation of Edmonton’s 30 km/h school zone speed limits, which came into effect for all elementary schools in September 2014:

” The results show a positive trend with a reduction in collisions and speeds after the new speed limits were introduced. A survey sent to Public and Separate schools in the City indicated that the schools were satisfied with the new speed limit and the majority felt that there was a reduction in speeding following the implementation of school zones. Based on these promising results, Administration recommends expanding the 30 km/h school zones to junior high schools.”

Why stop there? As Conrad tweeted: “Only defensible end game is 30 km/h on all residential streets.” Especially if we’re serious about Vision Zero.

Some highlights from the report:

  • “There were 50 injury collisions in the three-year time period prior to implementing school zones (an average of 17 per year), and there were 10 injury collisions in the year following implementation. Accounting for the different time periods, injury collisions were reduced by approximately 41 percent, a statistically significant result.”
  • “Under ideal conditions, drivers traveling at 50 km/h need at least 11 more metres in order to stop compared to those traveling at 30 km/h; this distance increases when roads are wet or icy.”
  • “Before introducing the reduced speed limits the average speed in school zones was 46 km/h. The results of the assessment indicated an overall reduction of 12 km/h in the mean speed down to 34 km/h after the introduction of the new speed limits.”

The recommended expansion to junior high schools is estimated to cost $75,000, plus another $100,000 for an awareness campaign.

Changing the Ward Boundaries for the 2017 Municipal Election

Bylaw 17700 will update the ward boundaries in prepration for the 2017 Municipal Election. First reading was held at the September 20, 2016 City Council Meeting, and second and third readings will be held on December 8, 2016. At Tuesday’s meeting, Council is holding a Non-Statutory Public Hearing on the proposed amendments.

proposed ward boundaries
(click for detailed maps)

The Returning Officer recommends the following alignments with affected populations:

  • Eight neighbourhoods – Allard, Blackburne, Blackmud Creek, Callaghan, Cashman, Cavanagh, Richford, and Twin Brooks – move from Ward 9 to Ward 10.
  • Two neighbourhoods – Jackson Heights and Kiniski Gardens – move from Ward 12 to Ward 11.

These changes are recommended to bring Wards 9 and 12 closer to the optimum poplulation ranges. “Data from the 2016 Edmonton Census indicates an optimum population range per ward of 56,215 to 93,692.” Both wards had a population of more than 100,000 in the 2016 Municipal Census.

Other interesting items

  • There are two reports that clarify the process for reports and memos and the FOIP process. So far this year the City has handled 353 FOIP requests and 606 routine discloure requests. In 2015 and 2016, “half of the fee waiver requests received by the City were accepted or fees were reduced.”
  • The Current Planning Reserve Fund is supposed to have a minimum balance of 30% of the Development Services Branch operating budget expenditures, but it has fallen to just 17%, which means Administration must implement a strategy to manage the balance. The City plans to reduce costs by “minimizing externally contracted services”, “reducing discretionary spending”, and “managing staff vacancies”.
  • There’s a recommendation that $20,000 be granted to the Petrolia Mall in addition to the Development Incentive and Facade Improvement Program grants already being applied to a building on the same lot (this requires Council to approve an exception).
  • Councillor Gibbons inquired about traffic control at Victoria Trail and 153 Avenue. The response includes some interesting facts, such as: a typical estimated cost for a T-intersection traffic signal is $250,000.
  • The response to Councillor McKeen’s inquiry on pedways isn’t particularly surprising. It says the Capital City Downtown Plan contains policies that direct pedway development and that they are approved as part of the Development Permit application process. While the WinterCity Strategy doesn’t explicitly reference pedways, Administration says it is “arguably unsupportive of pedway network expansion.”
  • A report on the Revolving Industrial Servicing Fund, a $26 million incentive program, says its future is uncertain as a new program as part of the Industrial Investment Action Plan was proposed earlier this year and will be considered by Council in 2017.
  • The 2015 Annual Report and Audited Financial Statements are now available for the NW Industrial Business Association and for the Stony Plain Road and Area Business Association.
  • There’s a recommendation that Council approve the Environmental Impact Assessment and Site Location Study for the Snow Valley Summer Adventure Activity Area.
  • The next steps required to implement the District Energy Sharing System for Blatchford are outlined in a new report. The estimated cost for the first stage of the system is $19.4 million and development is expected to start in 2017.

Wrap-up

You can keep track of City Council on Twitter using the #yegcc hashtag, and you can listen to or watch any Council meeting live online. You can read my previous coverage of the 2013-2017 City Council here.

Who’s responsible for the Edmonton Metro Region?

Last week the Metro Mayors Alliance signed a Memorandum of Understanding “outlining a commitment to plan, decide, and act as one Edmonton Metro Region on regionally significant issues.” The MOU was the first recommendation of the Advisory Panel on Metro Edmonton’s Future, which delivered its report in early June. The next step is to negotiate a legally binding Master Agreement.

Mayors at MOU signing
Photo courtesy of the Metro Mayors Alliance

Today the Capital Region Board approved its updated Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan with a 22-2 vote. The plan “sets a path for more compact and efficient growth within the region’s 24 municipalities” over the next 30 years. The next step for the CRB Growth Plan is to send it to the Government of Alberta for review.

CRB Growth Plan

If you’re thinking there might be some overlap here, you’re right.

The Metro Mayors Alliance is made up of the mayors of nine municipalities: Mayor Roxanne Carr (Strathcona County), Mayor Stuart Houston (City of Spruce Grove), Mayor Don Iveson (City of Edmonton), Mayor Gale Katchur (City of Fort Saskatchewan), Mayor Rodney Shaigec (Mayor of Parkland County), Mayor Greg Krischke (City of Leduc), Mayor John Whaley (Leduc County), Mayor Tom Flynn (Sturgeon County), and Mayor Nolan Crouse (City of St. Albert). The latter two are not pictured above and were not at the ceremony, but they did sign the MOU. All nine municipalities are of course members of the Capital Region Board, and together they represent 95% of the region’s population, 96% of its assessment base, and about 80% of its land base.

The Metro Mayors Alliance MOU declares the municipalities’ intent to work in three key areas: economic development, public transit, and land use and infrastructure. The idea is that by acting together on opportunities related to these three areas the region will be better able to compete globally. The CRB’s Growth Plan also aims to “advance the Region’s global economic competitiveness” in a way that balances the region’s diversity and rural and urban contexts. It too discusses economic development, transportation, and land use and infrastructure.

There are some key differences to note between the Metro Mayors Alliance (MMA) and the Capital Region Board (CRB). First, as mentioned above, the MMA is much smaller than the CRB which has in the past been criticized for moving too slowly due to infighting (the new Growth Plan took 30 months to develop). Fort Saskatchewan Mayor Gale Katchur spoke about this to the Fort Saskatchewan Record:

“Quite often, it takes us a long time to make decisions (at the CRB) and a lot of the projects can take years before we see any advancement on them. The Metro Mayors came together to say we would be the willing who want to move things forward and to see how we can advance the items out of the recommended report. We can show that working together corroboratively with the biggest population and the biggest land mass, we can be more effective and more efficient than the CRB.”

In theory getting just nine municipalities to approve something is easier than getting a majority of the twenty-four at the CRB.

Another key difference is that while the CRB was mandated by the Province in 2008, the MMA is merely a partnership between the nine municipalities (formed in 2015). It’s a “coalition of the willing” as opposed to a group of cities forced to play in the same sandbox. That means that until a legally binding agreement is in place, there’s really nothing forcing the members of the MMA to do the things they say they’re going to do, unlike with the CRB. At the same time, the members of the MMA are the ones with all the resources (and the bulk of the challenges) needed to make things happen.

St. Albert Mayor Nolan Crouse is the chair of the CRB and this week suggested the two groups have too much overlap. “The report that was issued by the panel is basically the same mandate that the capital region board is already working on,” he told the St. Albert Gazette. He signed the MOU, but only because there was no cost and nothing binding, and said he’d be skeptical of next steps. “I’m being critical because we’ve got a good amount of work going forward with the capital region board.”

Note that two CRB members voted against the new growth plan. Leduc County voted against it because they felt it didn’t value the agricultural land south of Edmonton highly enough (the new plan includes an Agriculture policy area). Parkland County voted against it because they felt the CRB was expanding its mandate by considering agriculture and economic development. The rest supported the new plan however, which CRB CEO Malcom Bruce has said will save the region $5 billion in land and infrastructure costs and will save 250 quarter sections (160 sq km) of land.

It does seem redundant to have two groups focused on the same goals. And it’s confusing when there are potentially two different visions for the future of the region, especially if they overlap significantly. Some are already trying to use this confusion to their advantage. On top of this there’s the Municipal Government Act review and the City Charter discussions, both of which could have an impact on how things get done in the region. Especially if the City of Edmonton is granted new powers that the other municipalities lack. And of course there are annexation proposals that add to the tension. Does our regional governance need to evolve to clean all this up? It’s a suggestion that has come up many times over the last few decades.

At least there seems to be some consensus that we’re calling it the Edmonton Metro Region.