HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted May 29, 2022, 6:01 PM
Danny D Oh Danny D Oh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by cllew View Post
They see people like Susan Thompson, Sam Katz and Brian Bowman get elected mayor with no prior political experience and think that they can do the same thing,

I do agree with you though that anybody running for may should have prior experience in some sort of elected position (MLA, city council or school trustee)
All of those people had a public profile though. Through their careers they were involved with public discourse. Bowman was constantly on the news as a privacy and legal expert. He also telegraphed a mayoral run a year in advance. Katz obviously involved with lots of businesses that had large profile. Thompson led the Chamber of Commerce.

Even the most politically engaged Winnipegers couldn't tell you who most of these candidates are. The odd thing is that none of them seem to be trying to build that profile even just over 4 months out from the election. I'm pretty engaged politically and I recognize Bokhari, understand how she got elected as a party leader to a party with basically no membership but couldn't tell you where she would fall on various policy issues for the COW or even what her core beliefs are.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted May 29, 2022, 6:20 PM
zalf zalf is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Jabroni View Post
Squires will definitely be running after June 1.

City definitely needs a ranked ballot system. The problem is that they have no power into making that change. I believe it's the province who has that power (correct me if I'm wrong).
Yeah, our elections are defined in the Winnipeg Act, which is provincial legislation. It would be the province who needs to change it. I imagine they wouldn't alter the electoral process without a formal request from the mayor and council, though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted May 29, 2022, 6:22 PM
Phil's neighbour Phil's neighbour is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by thurmas View Post
I disagree without party platforms and some form of organization you get what we have had the past 40 years mind numbingly bad lack of vision and crusty loons who control their wards like their own little fiefdoms and contribute nothing.
City hall was ruled by the Independent Citizens Election Committee after amalgamation into the early 80s. It was a front for developers and right leaning candidates and delivered up just about everything the big money in this city wanted, including sprawl and the quadrant based shopping malls. It left little room for a more progressive vision.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted May 29, 2022, 6:25 PM
zalf zalf is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 658
The fixation by people on the mayoralty a little odd. I guess it's the most visible position in City government, but what power does the mayor actually have over and above any other councillor?

I guess they can hire and fire civil servants, and can choose EPC, but beyond that what specific powers do they wield?

It seems like you could get yourself elected to council much more easily than going up against 8+ other candidates for mayor, and still have a lot of influence.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted May 29, 2022, 7:00 PM
Danny D Oh Danny D Oh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalf View Post
The fixation by people on the mayoralty a little odd. I guess it's the most visible position in City government, but what power does the mayor actually have over and above any other councillor?

I guess they can hire and fire civil servants, and can choose EPC, but beyond that what specific powers do they wield?

It seems like you could get yourself elected to council much more easily than going up against 8+ other candidates for mayor, and still have a lot of influence.
Exactly. The mayor in Winnipeg has very limited power. To some extent the power is controlling who is on EPC which is the committee that sets the agenda for council (eg what gets to the floor for a vote).

For some reason our municipal elections have become a 649 draw where everyone says "I'll get a ticket" for a shot at being mayor. Realistically most of these candidates are more suited at this point to run for council.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted May 29, 2022, 7:32 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalf View Post
The fixation by people on the mayoralty a little odd. I guess it's the most visible position in City government, but what power does the mayor actually have over and above any other councillor?

I guess they can hire and fire civil servants, and can choose EPC, but beyond that what specific powers do they wield?

It seems like you could get yourself elected to council much more easily than going up against 8+ other candidates for mayor, and still have a lot of influence.
A lot of observers have made this very point over the years... people tend to overstate the power the mayor has, and understate the power each individual councillor has. Yes selecting EPC is important, but then after that you are just one vote as mayor.

Anyhow, I will vote for whichever mayoral and council candidate actually demonstrates the soundest grasp of municipal governance. I'm not interested in someone who mainly wants to bring people together in the name of inclusivity and acceptance, nor am I interested in someone who just wants to fill potholes. Both of those things are great, but they are not and shouldn't be the primary focus of the job.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted May 29, 2022, 8:51 PM
zalf zalf is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Anyhow, I will vote for whichever mayoral and council candidate actually demonstrates the soundest grasp of municipal governance. I'm not interested in someone who mainly wants to bring people together in the name of inclusivity and acceptance, nor am I interested in someone who just wants to fill potholes. Both of those things are great, but they are not and shouldn't be the primary focus of the job.
Agreed. However, I assume (and hope) those were just sort of filler statements while the candidates sort out their actual platforms.

If some journo asks what you would plan to accomplish as mayor before you have a comprehensive set of policy goals sorted, you can't exactly reply with "nothing yet". You have to at least regurgitate some platitudes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted May 29, 2022, 9:10 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny D Oh View Post
Loney would be transformational but doesn't have the profile or backing to get elected IMO.
How would Loney be transformational? I know nothing about what he stands for. I’ve heard he thinks social enterprise can solve everything but I’ll admit that I don’t really know what social enterprise is. What has he done that would make you believe he would be a knowledgeable city-builder?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted May 29, 2022, 9:11 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,440
I agree that it’s bizarre to run for mayor with no qualifications. No other job is like that. But I think Murray was the only councillor to become mayor in like 60 years or so.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted May 29, 2022, 10:09 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
I agree that it’s bizarre to run for mayor with no qualifications. No other job is like that. But I think Murray was the only councillor to become mayor in like 60 years or so.
But that's politics for you. People can take on higher levels of office without having to work their way up every rung on the ladder if they have developed experience in other ways. It's not like a Prime Minister has to, or even should necessarily start out as a school trustee or whatever.

I personally don't care if a mayoral candidate has been a councillor before, I am mainly interested in their views and philosophies in relation to how the City of Winnipeg should work. But that said, I admit that having some experience with the inner workings of municipal government as a councillor or otherwise, has to be an advantage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zalf View Post
Agreed. However, I assume (and hope) those were just sort of filler statements while the candidates sort out their actual platforms.

If some journo asks what you would plan to accomplish as mayor before you have a comprehensive set of policy goals sorted, you can't exactly reply with "nothing yet". You have to at least regurgitate some platitudes.
I would agree. I mean, a serious mayoral candidate should be able to give a 2 minute elevator speech that gives you a pretty clear idea of what they're trying to accomplish.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted May 29, 2022, 10:52 PM
zalf zalf is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 658
Here is what I would like to see from a candidate

Electable platform:
1. Building out BRT is top priority
2. Congestion pricing at City boundry - Winnipeggers + non-Manitobans exempt, with park & rides immediately outside toll zone. Make Stonewall, Lorette, and East St. Paul pay their fair share of our transport system
3. 30 km/h speed limit in residential areas, supported by traffic calming measures like speed tables

Semi-Electable platform:
0. The above, plus...
1. Abolish R1 Zoning - all R1 defaults to R2, as is already the case in Wolseley, St. B, or similar cities like Edmonton
2. Tie AT budget to road maintenance budget for duration of term
3. Scrap parking minimums, let the market decide how much parking is needed
4. Make it easy to allow "low-impact" businesses like coffee shops, corner stores, book shops, etc in residential areas

Eternal Emperor Zalf platform:
0. The above, plus...
1. Start laying plans for LRT or metro system
2. Minimum property tax tied to long-term infrastructure costs of a given property - reevaluate every year to give NIMBYs an incentive to support local development since it reduces their tax obligations
3. London-style congestion pricing around core neighbourhoods and downtown, no exemptions
4. Abolish R2 zoning too, and replace with something like "R6". Those 6-plexes that Paragon has been building should fit into any residential neighbourhood without any fuss
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted May 30, 2022, 12:28 AM
Danny D Oh Danny D Oh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
How would Loney be transformational? I know nothing about what he stands for. I’ve heard he thinks social enterprise can solve everything but I’ll admit that I don’t really know what social enterprise is. What has he done that would make you believe he would be a knowledgeable city-builder?
I don't know if the mayor position is "city-builder." It's a political job. It's a job to enact/enable policies that allow city-building in a sustainable way.

I know Loney and have had the chance to work with his group in building some work experience for young people who otherwise would have really struggled to get a shot at any employment.

He's an extremely pragmatic person which is what I believe a non-partisan mayor needs to be. It's a real understand the problem, build solutions to problem kind of approach. Having that kind of leadership and compromise in that chair would be transformational. Really the leadership style is what I'm talking about as transformational. Now how does that specifically tackle a multitude of policy issues I can't say. I hope he'll put out some strong policy statements soon.

I'll say I'd had similar hope with Bowman (without knowing him before he ran) but have realized over time that he really doesn't have the leadership skills to navigate council or take a strong position.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted May 30, 2022, 12:34 AM
Danny D Oh Danny D Oh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
But that's politics for you. People can take on higher levels of office without having to work their way up every rung on the ladder if they have developed experience in other ways. It's not like a Prime Minister has to, or even should necessarily start out as a school trustee or whatever.

I personally don't care if a mayoral candidate has been a councillor before, I am mainly interested in their views and philosophies in relation to how the City of Winnipeg should work. But that said, I admit that having some experience with the inner workings of municipal government as a councillor or otherwise, has to be an advantage.



I would agree. I mean, a serious mayoral candidate should be able to give a 2 minute elevator speech that gives you a pretty clear idea of what they're trying to accomplish.
If someone rises to Prime Minister or Premier they've navigated party politics which takes decades to get into a leadership position, front room and backroom experience. Someone like Trudeau is an anomaly but he's also been a public figure since he was born.

I'm not saying people need to hold elected office to be qualified to run for mayor, but how does anyone think they are going to win 100,000 votes to get the chair if they have no public profile and are doing nothing to build one?

Even someone like Motkaluk who ran before. Where the hell has she been for the last four years? If you want to give it a legitimate run why not be out in public, attend City Hall, get involved?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted May 30, 2022, 1:12 AM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny D Oh View Post
I don't know if the mayor position is "city-builder." It's a political job. It's a job to enact/enable policies that allow city-building in a sustainable way.

I know Loney and have had the chance to work with his group in building some work experience for young people who otherwise would have really struggled to get a shot at any employment.

He's an extremely pragmatic person which is what I believe a non-partisan mayor needs to be. It's a real understand the problem, build solutions to problem kind of approach. Having that kind of leadership and compromise in that chair would be transformational. Really the leadership style is what I'm talking about as transformational. Now how does that specifically tackle a multitude of policy issues I can't say. I hope he'll put out some strong policy statements soon.

I'll say I'd had similar hope with Bowman (without knowing him before he ran) but have realized over time that he really doesn't have the leadership skills to navigate council or take a strong position.
This is what frustrates me about all city politics. It is 100% city-building. They are required to be urban planners more than actual urban planners. but nobody has any training or even basic knowledge of it. We don't look for it when we evaluate candidates. Councilors or Mayor.

When they are elected they get a two day crash course in city building and that's it.

Everything about being mayor (and council) is city building. Unlike the other two levels of government who are dealing with bigger policies, civic politicians wade deep into the weeds. We ask our mayor to vote on the most basic things such as building variances and re-zoning. That is their fundamental job. How the city grows and develops fundamentally defines how we pay for everything. Their understanding of how cities work is critical.

That's why I am praying Murray runs. He is the only one with professional training. He lives an urban lifestyle and understands the intricacies of urbanism.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted May 30, 2022, 1:37 AM
thebasketballgeek's Avatar
thebasketballgeek thebasketballgeek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Rimouski, Québec
Posts: 1,642
From what I’ve heard Murray is working with Loney so he’s probably getting some good info in terms of city-building. Also, Loney is the only one who has reached out to Bike Winnipeg (that I know of so far) to develop policies related to AT infrastructure. I also saw an article stating that once he’s mayor he will live a car-free lifestyle.

Imo he’s gonna be as good as it gets for urbanizing Winnipeg considering it is directly correlated with “social enterprise” because multi-family housing is more affordable and accessible to services and amenities then single-family detached houses
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted May 30, 2022, 1:59 AM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
That's why I am praying Murray runs. He is the only one with professional training. He lives an urban lifestyle and understands the intricacies of urbanism.
If Murray runs I'm 100% voting for him because yeah, honestly, who else would get it the way that he does? Nobody.

But that said, I voted for Murray to be mayor nearly a quarter-century ago... it's a little disappointing that there is no new generation of urbanist political leaders that has stepped up to carry the torch.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted May 30, 2022, 2:35 PM
3de14eec6a 3de14eec6a is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalf View Post
2. Congestion pricing at City boundry - Winnipeggers + non-Manitobans exempt, with park & rides immediately outside toll zone. Make Stonewall, Lorette, and East St. Paul pay their fair share of our transport system
3. 30 km/h speed limit in residential areas, supported by traffic calming measures like speed tables
I'd vote for you on just these two. But the rest sounds good too.

Can I just write "Zalf" on my ballot?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted May 30, 2022, 3:17 PM
Winnipegger Winnipegger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 712
I think the problem most "visionary" candidates are going to experience if elected is money. The City simply does not have the current revenue needed to drive transformational change. It doesn't matter if your vision is enhancing transportation (free-flowing ring road, full BRT system, LRT, or metro), helping vulnerable communities and homelessness, building community centres and parks, or building a vibrant downtown. To make true progress on any of these initiatives in a 4 or 8 year timeframe would require tens of millions of dollars. Most City departments are on a shoe-string budgets and there is very little money to be re-allocated from existing operations to fund new problem-solving ideas.

Look at this image below (taken from city budget documents) that show how each department's budget has changed over time. It's quite clear to me that besides police, fire, and road repair, everything else has remained more-or-less stagnant since about 2010.


And if someone wants to make serious change without levying additional taxes by taking funding away from Police and/or Fire, while there may be some merit to the conversation, an intelligent mayoral candidate would need to acknowledge that a trade off will exist. Yes, Police and Fire employees are paid very well, but these salaries are somewhat in line with other Canadian cities with similar cost of living. So how do you reduce their salaries without retention problems or union interference? We all know police and fire unions are some of the most powerful in this province. And if you reduce staffing in these departments, they still have essential roles to fill which means more overtime on existing staff which will end up being even more expensive. Police are very busy as-is, and aren't sitting around browsing the internet all day. You can't remove some of them without impacting safety and levels of service.

Whether blue-collar fiscal conservative boomers like it or not, the fact of the matter is that Winnipeggers are under-taxed at a municipal level (low property taxes, no development charges) and over-taxed at a provincial level (high income tax, high payroll taxes, and high education property tax though this is changing but at what cost). And without a "Winnipeg-friendly" provincial government, there will be a strong fiscal imbalance between what the city can do and what the province can help out with, but refuses to do so.

Compared to every other major city in Canada, Winnipeg has the lowest municipal property taxes for average homeowners, the lowest revenue per-capita, the lowest expenditure per-capita, and property taxes as a share of homeowner income are also the lowest. I find the below comparison quite telling in explaining why, at a municipal service and infrastructure level, Winnipeg has fallen so far behind other Canadian cities.


This is a fundamental issue in municipal governance that no one ever seems to address. We just seem to elect populists who promise endless "efficiencies" to stave off much-needed municipal revenue growth as we fall further and further behind our peers, but you can only squeeze departments so much. We are at the point where actual "efficiencies" for the public service like software and hardware upgrades - things that would enable departments to do their jobs better and faster - are not approved because there is no budget. So you save money in the short term but build a less efficient and less competitive working environment over the long run.

My point is that it doesn't matter what your vision is, unless your vision is status quo and keeping taxes low, you will enter the mayor's seat and you will quickly find no money to accomplish your vision. And because we've kept taxes low for so long, there is very little room to maneuver and re-allocate without significantly disturbing existing service levels for roads, police, fire, parks, etc.

Significant change would have to be funded through a large policy shift most Winnipeggers wouldn't be used to or support: property tax increases in excess of 4% for several years, significant borrowing of debt to fund more capital, and the exploration of additional revenue sources like a properly-implemented development fee to offset servicing costs. We've hamstrung ourselves over the last 2 decades by keeping municipal revenue low to the point where meaningful change will be very costly both financially and politicly. And one-off stories in the media such as the building inspectors taking extended lunches or the traffic signal debacle - while valid and should drive organizational change - only cement the idea that the public service is lazy and incompetent, only there to burn your tax dollars, so naturally people are very wary of lending the city more money if they believe it will only be wasted even though these stories are far and few in between.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted May 30, 2022, 4:52 PM
zalf zalf is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 658
I made a semi-glib post above where I basically just worked down an urbanist wishlist.

Really, I think fixing Winnipeg's finances is the real goal to pursue, as is laid out by Winnipegger's sobering post.

What are some realistic steps that the mayor and council could take?

A commuter fee could raise $40 million per year, at a very reasonable $7 on 25k daily exurb commuters. Those impacted can't even vote against you.

Expanding the cadet programme to take the pressure off WPS could trade some expensive police overtime for some cheaper cadet wages. The Economist had an article which describes the successful roll out of Albuquerque Community Safety, which sound somewhat like the cadets or a career version of Bear Clan.

Densification policies would help deepen the tax base over time, and could readily be couched in terms of housing affordability, which is a big public priority now. Maybe a second swing at growth fees. When they were struck down, the judge mentioned it was over some technicality on how they were implemented, and that the City could try again.

If there's any political capital left, you might be able to swing being the "tough choices and responsibility" mayor/council, and raise property taxes a smidgen. Maybe cap rises at 3.5% or something to keep it palatable, even if it should be higher.

If we pretend all of this goes through, where should the proceeds go? Retiring debt might not be a bad idea, given rising borrowing costs. The City has external debts of nearly $300 million. Might be tough to beat that kind of guaranteed ROI. Transit investments or homelessness prevention might have similar returns, but would harder to predict.

Last edited by zalf; May 30, 2022 at 5:16 PM. Reason: fix typo; add growth fees
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted May 30, 2022, 6:15 PM
Winnipegger Winnipegger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 712
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalf View Post
I made a semi-glib post above where I basically just worked down an urbanist wishlist.

Really, I think fixing Winnipeg's finances is the real goal to pursue, as is laid out by Winnipegger's sobering post.

What are some realistic steps that the mayor and council could take?

A commuter fee could raise $40 million per year, at a very reasonable $7 on 25k daily exurb commuters. Those impacted can't even vote against you.

Expanding the cadet programme to take the pressure off WPS could trade some expensive police overtime for some cheaper cadet wages. The Economist had an article which describes the successful roll out of Albuquerque Community Safety, which sound somewhat like the cadets or a career version of Bear Clan.

Densification policies would help deepen the tax base over time, and could readily be couched in terms of housing affordability, which is a big public priority now. Maybe a second swing at growth fees. When they were struck down, the judge mentioned it was over some technicality on how they were implemented, and that the City could try again.

If there's any political capital left, you might be able to swing being the "tough choices and responsibility" mayor/council, and raise property taxes a smidgen. Maybe cap rises at 3.5% or something to keep it palatable, even if it should be higher.

If we pretend all of this goes through, where should the proceeds go? Retiring debt might not be a bad idea, given rising borrowing costs. The City has external debts of nearly $300 million. Might be tough to beat that kind of guaranteed ROI. Transit investments or homelessness prevention might have similar returns, but would harder to predict.
Some good proposals, but we need to be realistic about some of the solutions.

The commuter fee is very unrealistic: first, there are too many access points to Winnipeg's streets from the outside that would make implementing such a system cost prohibitive. The costs of implementing, monitoring, and maintaining the program would likely exceed revenue. Second, when cities implement toll roads, it is typically accompanied by some improvement to the system such as decreased travel times and/or better road conditions. Politically it would be a hard sell to levy an additional fee for what most consider to be a sub-par product - especially considering no other Canadian city has a "commuter fee for outsiders". The toll roads that do exist in this country usually provide a substantial benefit to the customer in exchange for the fee (i.e. 407 ETR).

Densification is good, but again, the combination of Winnipeg's modest population growth and modest housing prices mean it will take a long time for density to reach levels seen in other Canadian cities. We all want downtown Winnipeg to feel like downtown Vancouver, but it will take a century or more to get that type of density, even with strong policies focused on downtown residential. Yes, there are more policies the city could focus on, but if even if the City could focus all new development to occur as infill instead of greenfield via the use of TIF or other tax mechanisms, it would take many years of population growth to cause change and the city would forego substantial revenue growth (~$5 million/year) to meet this policy goal. This should be explored more, though.

I don't think retiring debt is a thing. When the city needs to borrow, it goes to the credit market and seeks to purchase a tranche of debt at a given interest rate and amortization period, which is usually around 30 years. I do not believe there is a mechanism to "pay off debt early" without a substantial penalty, unlike some consumer loans. Also, this would make very little sense: tax-supported debt payments are somewhere around $40 million a year I think, which as a share of municipal revenue, is at one of the lowest points in history. People don't realize just how cheap debt is, and there is also an inter-generational component of fairness. When you build a substantial asset with a lifecycle measured in several decades (e.g. sewage treatment plant), it makes sense that people born now and in the future, who all benefit from the asset, pay for it as opposed to everyone living now paying for an asset that will also be used by people in the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:18 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.