Municipal Election (September, 2013)

[PoscStudent]

I guess Doc's point is, that this is the RNC's responsibility. He can't tell them what to do, though he could speak out for the need for the RNC to provide more enforcement in this area.

[Marty_Mcfly]

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

I guess Doc's point is, that this is the RNC's responsibility. He can't tell them what to do, though he could speak out for the need for the RNC to provide more enforcement in this area.

It probably doesn't help that the RNC barely want to help you when you're in need.

[krc321]

I think it's highly inappropriate for O'Leary to involve herself in that matter. People don't look favourably on that kind of political posturing. I think Doc is making the right choice of sitting back and letting her become her own worst enemy.

[PoscStudent]

It will be interesting to see if more focus is given to O'Leary over the next several months, and if it helps or hurts her. She doesn't seem to have a great a relationship with many councillors, has taken odd positions on issues, and has made some, what i would consider, inappropriate comments.

[mrjanejacobs]

What inappropriate comments are you talking about? Because I could say the same for Doc...

I really think we're over-analyzing O'Leary's involvement in the investigation. At the same time, I also wish she should quit some of the over-zelous political posturing.

In the same breath, I am going to counter-argue many commentators in their claims that O'Leary is not leader material. How isn't she? She speaks better than doc (or any other councillor), she articulates better than any other councillor, she is firm and assertive and has original ideas. Moreover, how is DOC a leader? He is not firm at all, he epitomizes what I perceive as a 'follower'.

For anyone who watched the video today on the Glencrest development, it's a great example. Other councillors stood to kind of incoherently utter a couple lines that were total posturing.

Duff spoke well and reasonably.

O'Leary stood and seemed very on point. She spoke loudly, clearly and articulated her points, touching on her particular portfolio on the Environment committee. She was also reasonable and supported the project yet fairly, where necessary, raised cautions (as Duff did as well).

Doc finishes off with his usual, exhausting political rhetoric about some anecdote of two girls sitting in the stands and this development is for them, blah blah blah. Total nonsense that had nothing to do with anything.

[Copes]

Honest question (because maybe I just don't know).

What are all these great, original ideas O'Leary has? (Aside from the bad tree idea)

[Marty_Mcfly]

O'Leary's most notable ideas to date:

-Approve funding for the harbour fence before knowing anything about the proposal. Upon learning more she decides to flip-flop and lead an angry mob over the whole idea.

-Be against the Mariott Hotel extension: a perfectly nice, low-rise building that was mindful of its presence in the historic district of the city. May as well keep a parking lot there, right?

-Against the Encanex waste treatment laboratory to be built on a currently vacant, industrial piece of land downtown. Without knowing anything about the proposal, she took what would have been a two-storey building much like the others in the surrounding area, and painted the public image of a huge water treatment plant like the one across the harbour, and was worried about the pumping of toxic waste into the harbour. Complete fear mongering.

[SignalHillHiker]

I had the same mistaken reaction to your third point. That's one of my worries about O'Leary - that she jumps to confusions (typo - but it stays because it's perfect) - even if out of love and passion for the city. But I'm learning not to do it, I'm sure she could as well.

The political posturing is deeply annoying, and disappointing. I have tremendous respect for her community activism record. She's been fighting for groups of people (gays and lesbians, for example) long before it was en vogue to do so. But that doesn't mean someone will be a good mayor.

I'm mostly worried about what the tone will be like if she wins. Developers are just starting to gain a little bit of confidence that they can propose better than the Hilton here. I don't want to lose momentum.

Our boom isn't going to last forever. We need people who aren't afraid to dream REALLY big, people who will protect our heritage areas but still be VERY pro development. Someone, somewhere, is really going to benefit from our resource wealth. And council is a HUGE part of making sure that's us and not equally suitable mainland cities.

[krc321]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

I had the same mistaken reaction to your third point. That's one of my worries about O'Leary - that she jumps to confusions (typo - but it stays because it's perfect) - even if out of love and passion for the city. But I'm learning not to do it, I'm sure she could as well.

The political posturing is deeply annoying, and disappointing. I have tremendous respect for her community activism record. She's been fighting for groups of people (gays and lesbians, for example) long before it was en vogue to do so. But that doesn't mean someone will be a good mayor.

I'm mostly worried about what the tone will be like if she wins. Developers are just starting to gain a little bit of confidence that they can propose better than the Hilton here. I don't want to lose momentum.

Our boom isn't going to last forever. We need people who aren't afraid to dream REALLY big, people who will protect our heritage areas but still be VERY pro development. Someone, somewhere, is really going to benefit from our resource wealth. And council is a HUGE part of making sure that's us and not equally suitable mainland cities.

Signal, you completely summed up my feelings about O'Leary! I think she is a lovely lady and a great community figure but I think she will be completely lost in the mayors chair. I agree that Doc is not necessarily a strong figure for our city but sometimes it's better to choose your battles wisely and I think O'Leary feels like she has to shout about everything even if she doesn't have a strong opinion about it.

[Copes]

Originally Posted by krc321

Signal, you completely summed up my feelings about O'Leary! I think she is a lovely lady and a great community figure but I think she will be completely lost in the mayors chair. I agree that Doc is not necessarily a strong figure for our city but sometimes it's better to choose your battles wisely and I think O'Leary feels like she has to shout about everything even if she doesn't have a strong opinion about it.

My concern is that O'Leary is a step more than that. That she chooses what to shout about based on what she thinks the public will shout about, so she can be perceived as the only one willing to stand up to the man. I think this leads her to jump into things, and make mountains out of molehills. It is my number one concern.

I don't for a moment doubt her passion, or the fact that she is a good person. I don't like her clear political posturing (which she does far more of than Doc). I do doubt her ability to pick her battles and lead the city and local businesses in a time of great economic prosperity.

[PoscStudent]

Originally Posted by mrjanejacobs

What inappropriate comments are you talking about? Because I could say the same for Doc...

Inappropriate in my opinion for a councillor. When the whole Fortis controversy over their Water Street building was going on I remember her criticizing Fortis. I'm fine with her opposing the proposal, like most councillors did, but I don't think it's appropriate to criticize our province's most successful company when they want to invest tens of millions into the city.

[mrjanejacobs]

Originally Posted by Copes

Honest question (because maybe I just don't know).

What are all these great, original ideas O'Leary has? (Aside from the bad tree idea)

Hey - the tree idea is a great idea. The tree-fee I am not convinced by, but some policy that requires developers to plant trees in baron sub-divisions… this is an amazing concept and we need it (basically every major Canadian city has a similar policy).

Have you consulted the RoadMap2021? It's a strategic masterplan for St.John's. You should check it out. It is a pretty concise and pretty convincing. O'Leary led the execution of this policy document.

This is the "Highlights" summary of the document:

http://www.stjohns.ca/sites/default/...ghlights_0.pdf

Full document:

http://www.stjohns.ca/sites/default/...oadmap2021.pdf

— How aren't these ideas original ideas? What kind of vision has Doc offered beyond noisy rhetoric?

Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly

O'Leary's most notable ideas to date:

-Approve funding for the harbour fence before knowing anything about the proposal. Upon learning more she decides to flip-flop and lead an angry mob over the whole idea.

-Be against the Mariott Hotel extension: a perfectly nice, low-rise building that was mindful of its presence in the historic district of the city. May as well keep a parking lot there, right?

-Against the Encanex waste treatment laboratory to be built on a currently vacant, industrial piece of land downtown. Without knowing anything about the proposal, she took what would have been a two-storey building much like the others in the surrounding area, and painted the public image of a huge water treatment plant like the one across the harbour, and was worried about the pumping of toxic waste into the harbour. Complete fear mongering.

The harbour fence is a total cluster f**k. No one on council looks good when we talk about the harbour fence. It's still unclear what's best. High-profile residents came out, mis-information was shared - to sum, it's a total mess and so it's hard to criticize anyone for it. Sure, I think it's fair to criticize her for approving funding before knowing all the details. But I think it's also fair for a councillor to flip-flop after their is spontaneous public outcry…

I would have also rejected a pedway development in the east end of duckworth street… Pedways are cheesy. You can't accept every crappy proposal just because it's a proposal. You still need aesthetic standards…. So council should approve every bad proposal?

I would have also rejected the Encanex waste treatment laboratory… Why should council lose a valuable piece of land on the harbour front to a treatment facility that could literally go in any other community?

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

The political posturing is deeply annoying, and disappointing…

I'm mostly worried about what the tone will be like if she wins. Developers are just starting to gain a little bit of confidence that they can propose better than the Hilton here. I don't want to lose momentum.

Our boom isn't going to last forever. We need people who aren't afraid to dream REALLY big, people who will protect our heritage areas but still be VERY pro development. Someone, somewhere, is really going to benefit from our resource wealth. And council is a HUGE part of making sure that's us and not equally suitable mainland cities.

On your first point, Signal - couldn't agree more. Her posturing also annoys me and there is really no way I'll try to excuse her for it. It's kind of 'over-doing-it', if you ask me. It's one thing to put yourself out there and whole other to be like 'look at me, look at me!'

The second point I believe to be total fear-mongering. And I think it's a little arbitrary. There has been no development in downtown St.John's for 25 years… most projects proposed have still been accepted. I really am not under the impression that developers are lacking confidence… and if she is not in support of a project, there is usually pretty good reason. Moreover, she often supports developments. Let's stop treating her like some anti-development witch (not to say you do, Signal, haha, I know you appreciate aspects of Sheilagh's approach).

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

Inappropriate in my opinion for a councillor. When the whole Fortis controversy over their Water Street building was going on I remember her criticizing Fortis. I'm fine with her opposing the proposal, like most councillors did, but I don't think it's appropriate to criticize our province's most successful company when they want to invest tens of millions into the city.

Not to say I don't agree with you, but that's pretty anecdotal. I didn't like it when MetroBus was on strike and Doc said something along the lines of, 'well we all did just fine without having a bus system'… I found that insensitive and inappropriate.

[PoscStudent]

^ That's fine. Personally I can't stand O'Leary and most of the views she has taken on stuff I think are horrible, and I'll be glad to see her gone. I'm not a big fan of Doc but he's by far better than O'Leary IMO.

[Marty_Mcfly]

Originally Posted by mrjanejacobs

The harbour fence is a total cluster f**k. No one on council looks good when we talk about the harbour fence. It's still unclear what's best. High-profile residents came out, mis-information was shared - to sum, it's a total mess and so it's hard to criticize anyone for it. Sure, I think it's fair to criticize her for approving funding before knowing all the details. But I think it's also fair for a councillor to flip-flop after their is spontaneous public outcry…

I would have also rejected a pedway development in the east end of duckworth street… Pedways are cheesy. You can't accept every crappy proposal just because it's a proposal. You still need aesthetic standards…. So council should approve every bad proposal?

I would have also rejected the Encanex waste treatment laboratory… Why should council lose a valuable piece of land on the harbour front to a treatment facility that could literally go in any other community?

-That's my point. She jumped the gun on the fence before knowing anything about the proposal. Is that really what we want in a mayor? Not at all.

-The "pedway" development she was against was approved, though I will agree that a pedway over east Duckworth wasn't the best idea. The developers were then mindful of this and redesigned the extension without the pedway and then she decided to have a problem with the height. Aesthetics aren't a problem with the Mariott, it's very mindful of its surroundings and tries its best to blend in with the historic properties in the area. If this is a crappy proposal, then all of east Duckworth is "crappy".

-The land where this building was proposed is for industrial use. If this isn't built there, another warehouse development will go there. We're not talking prime residential land here. St. John's has been reaping the benefits of the offshore oil industry for years. It's time to also deal with the dirtier side of the industry as well. If she's against the development, she has to state why and back it up with fact. Instead she's spewed shit out of her mouth that she has no idea about.

[mrjanejacobs]

Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly

-That's my point. She jumped the gun on the fence before knowing anything about the proposal. Is that really what we want in a mayor? Not at all.

-The "pedway" development she was against was approved, though I will agree that a pedway over east Duckworth wasn't the best idea. The developers were then mindful of this and redesigned the extension without the pedway and then she decided to have a problem with the height. Aesthetics aren't a problem with the Mariott, it's very mindful of its surroundings and tries its best to blend in with the historic properties in the area. If this is a crappy proposal, then all of east Duckworth is "crappy".

-The land where this building was proposed is for industrial use. If this isn't built there, another warehouse development will go there. We're not talking prime residential land here. St. John's has been reaping the benefits of the offshore oil industry for years. It's time to also deal with the dirtier side of the industry as well. If she's against the development, she has to state why and back it up with fact. Instead she's spewed shit out of her mouth that she has no idea about.

I think any action taken over the harbour fence is not worth labelling or outcasting a political candidate. As I said, it was a cluster-f**k (can we swear on the forum? I put the asterisks in but it's annoying, haha). I'd rather a mayor who flip-flops on an issue rather than one who doesn't give a shit one way or another...

I don't know details on the Mariott proposal. And when I say 'crappy' proposals, I'm talking generally about all developments. Not uniquely the Mariott... so don't be presumptuous.

And I think you're being a little dramatic about the waste water plant... just because you don't agree with what she is saying doesn't mean she doesn't know what she's talking about. Are you somehow qualified to know what you're talking about? haha (honest question)

Did the wastewater plant pass, council? Was she the ONLY one opposed it.....? Why do you care so much about some water treatment facility? It's not a highrise or something that would actually help the City...

[Marty_Mcfly]

Originally Posted by mrjanejacobs

And I think you're being a little dramatic about the waste water plant... just because you don't agree with what she is saying doesn't mean she doesn't know what she's talking about. Are you somehow qualified to know what you're talking about? haha (honest question)

Did the wastewater plant pass, council? Was she the ONLY one opposed it.....? Why do you care so much about some water treatment facility? It's not a highrise or something that would actually help the City...

I am 100% qualified to know what would happen in that building. I have a B.Sc.(Hons) in Chemistry, and it would have translated to a potential job in the city for me. Waste would be delivered in where it would be purified, filtered, etc. and run through quality control testing and then released. If anything, the largest vessels they'd need would maybe be a few 2-storey reactors. In comparison to the city water treatment plant it'd be minuscule, and completely housed inside; the two are not comparable.

The rest of council decided that they'd make a decision after reviewing environmental impact studies. Logical decision on their part. Anything that is released from the plant into the harbour will obviously have to meet high standards and council probably will scrutinize reports heavily before making individual decisions. O'Leary however took exception to this project immediately, before reviewing anything.

You're right: diversifying an economy and creating jobs won't help a city. Because right now, unless you're an engineer or a public service worker, job prospects aren't great. I've been a huge advocate of economic diversification during the oil boom so that once the oil is gone there'll still be a reason to be here. Projects like this are a start. There's no reason why St. John's can't have high-tech industry, biotechnology, pharmaceutical manufacturing, etc. companies calling us home. Especially with MUN and CONA spitting out thousands of fresh, educated graduates a year.

[mrjanejacobs]

Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly

I am 100% qualified to know what would happen in that building. I have a B.Sc.(Hons) in Chemistry, and it would have translated to a potential job in the city for me. Waste would be delivered in where it would be purified, filtered, etc. and run through quality control testing and then released. If anything, the largest vessels they'd need would maybe be a few 2-storey reactors. In comparison to the city water treatment plant it'd be minuscule, and completely housed inside; the two are not comparable.

The rest of council decided that they'd make a decision after reviewing environmental impact studies. Logical decision on their part. Anything that is released from the plant into the harbour will obviously have to meet high standards and council probably will scrutinize reports heavily before making individual decisions. O'Leary however took exception to this project immediately, before reviewing anything.

You're right: diversifying an economy and creating jobs won't help a city. Because right now, unless you're an engineer or a public service worker, job prospects aren't great. I've been a huge advocate of economic diversification during the oil boom so that once the oil is gone there'll still be a reason to be here. Projects like this are a start. There's no reason why St. John's can't have high-tech industry, biotechnology, pharmaceutical manufacturing, etc. companies calling us home. Especially with MUN and CONA spitting out thousands of fresh, educated graduates a year.

All great remarks (I really don't know much about the facility in question other than what I read in the news). I totally agree that it's unacceptable that she has been so quick on the gun with emotional reactions before hearing all the facts. It's a bit stubborn, but lots of our favourite politicians are stubborn - Danny Williams, Andy Wells, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, etc. Is being stubborn a deal-breaking quality for a politician?

And if I recall correctly, it would only have 2 full-time employees... that's going to revolutionize the economic portfolio of the region, you're right........

You're surely qualified on what's going on in the building, but are you really qualified to say "she doesn't know what she's talking about and she's spewing shit from her mouth..."? I think you're being a little extremist...

I absolutely agree that economic diversification is important and should be a top priority. But this, as you said, is a small facility and will do very little. Not to mention - how will this diversify the economy away from oil & gas if this facility is particular to oil and gas...?

I think you're really over-stating the impact that either accepting or refusing this facility would have...

[Marty_Mcfly]

Originally Posted by mrjanejacobs

All great remarks (I really don't know much about the facility in question other than what I read in the news).

And if I recall correctly, it would only have 2 full-time employees... that's going to revolutionize the economic portfolio of the region, you're right...

I absolutely agree that economic diversification is important and should be a top priority. But this, as you said, is a small facility and will do very little. Not to mention - how will this diversify the economy away from oil & gas if this facility is particular to oil and gas...?

I think you're really over-stating the impact that either accepting or refusing this facility would have...

Somewhere along the line someone threw out the number "5 employees". Such a facility would never be able to run with that number of employees. At minimum they'd need people who run the processes of cleaning, who will need managers/superiors. Then there will need to be another hand-full of people to run QC, who in turn will need other people to report to. It'd be an operation comparable to Petroforma (across the harbour) and if it wants to be done right will probably need about 10-15 full-time employees. Not to mention the jobs during construction.

Encanex actually does a number of things. While this particular facility will be primarily for water purification the option will be there to expand its Environmental testing and monitoring section in St. John's. With the extensive mining in Labrador, plus Muskrat Falls looming, it'd be very worth their time to look into this. Especially considering Muskrat Falls will require large amounts of testing (hydro electricity isn't as clean as most people think it is).

[Townie709]

GOOD GOD! Walter Harding drives me insane! If that fool gets elected we're all fucked. There, I said it.

[PoscStudent]

Don't worry Bruce Tilley will be re-elected!