By-Election Bonanza

It's hard not to be intrigued by what will happen once Albertans head to the polls for upcoming by-elections. Sure, political junkies might be over-blowing the significance of the votes (myself included).  But Albertans should be keeping a close eye on all of the races.

Let's face it: the results won't only put new MLAs in seats, but will likely set the stage for an upcoming general election and campaign.  And interestingly enough, I think all five parties involved in provincial politics right now seem to have something to lose.

PC Party
Can you imagine if the three by-elections end without a PC party in any of the seats?  Or even less than three?  You have Premier Jim Prentice, Education Minister Gordon Dirks and Health Minister Stephen Mandel all vying for seats.  And if any (or all of them) lose, that would set off quite the firestorm.  Do you force another MLA out the door to get another by-election?  Do you say goodbye to the appointed ministers and name someone from within caucus to move into those spots?  And what if Prentice doesn't win his seat? The perception that he can turn this party around would take a significant hit.  But if they sweep the three seats, it would pretty much an end to the opposition belief that Albertans are "fed up".

Wildrose
I've been chatting with a few different people about this and if one party was supposed to take a stranglehold over the political scene thanks to the controversies surrounding the Redford government, it was the Wildrose.  Yet, they're not running away with things in all the opinion polls (take that for what it's worth, as we all know how reliable they've been recently).  They are in the lead, but some argue it's not as big of a lead as it should be, and it wouldn't take a lot for the Prentice PC's to gain back support.  So what happens if the Wildrose get swept or lose the majority of the seats up for by-election?  Is that a sign that the Wildrose failed to capitalize on the PC discourse?  If it is, who's to blame?  Does Danielle Smith take the fall?

Liberals
I know it was a long time ago, but in the 2007 by-election in Calgary Elbow (yes, THAT Calgary Elbow), the Liberals' Craig Cheffens beat the Conservatives' Brian Heninger to replace Ralph Klein.  Kind of came out of left field but set the stage for a general election nine months later where some people thought the Liberals would make up some significant ground.  They obviously didn't.  But it does prove that an opposition party can win in the riding.  The Liberals do have something to gain here.  A win in any of these races would be massive (and unexpected) for a party that is really struggling to find any footing and could potentially face the loss of a pair of Calgary MLAs to the feds.

NDP
If you look at the history of Calgary-Elbow and Edmonton-Whitemud, neither have been strong spots for the NDP.  Almost always in the single-digits when it comes to percentage of popular vote.  But they will likely head into these by-elections with a new leader (leadership vote set for October 18th).  All four current NDP MLAs are from Edmonton.  So depending on who wins that leadership race, it could set a really interesting tone if they pick up the Whitemud seat.  It would certainly send ripples up both the PC and Wildrose parties in particular and give the "left" momentum.  Although the one thing to keep in mind is the NDP and Wildrose could "vote-split" thanks to popularity and allow the PCs to run up the middle.

Alberta Party
This party is pulling out all of the stops and is being very aggressive in hopes of grabbing Calgary-Elbow.  All you need to do is look at the list of people involved in leader Greg Clark's campaign team.  Many names will be familiar to Calgary political eyes, having been involved in Mayor Naheed Nenshi's 2010 campaign.  You get the sense they just want to get on the political map "officially".  They have had a sitting MLA (Dave Taylor), but he wasn't voted in as an Alberta Party MLA.  They would probably like to see something like Paul Hinman in Calgary-Glenmore, where he won a by-election in 2009, setting a tone and gaining a lot of momentum.  Could this happen for the Alberta Party here, or is it back to square one?

One big question mark that will remain heading into the votes has nothing to do with the parties.  What will the voter turnout be?  In Calgary-Glenmore in 2009, it was 39.1%.  In Calgary-Elbow in 2007, it was 34.6%.  Interestingly enough, the last by-election held in the capital was in Edmonton-Highlands in 2000.  The winner of that vote?  Outgoing NDP leader Brian Mason.  The turnout?  41.9%.

Like I said, it will be interesting to see how each party mobilizes its forces and who ends up the big winners.  Because the fallout could be detrimental to one or more of the parties.

Time For Compromise

It's amazing to see just how divided 15 people can be on any topic.  When they are 100% set in their ways and beliefs, trying to budge them off their pedestal is nearly impossible.  Give them an electorate and an idea that they have "consensus", and watch out!

Some will say it's Calgary city council, which has 15 distinct voices and it would be wrong to have everyone singing from the same book of hymns.  Others will say it's dysfunctional.  The reality is: it's sometimes a bit of both.  Call it "middle ground".  And it's almost too bad that councillors can't seem to agree on that "middle ground" on some pretty important portfolios.  I can point to three in particular.

To me, these three need to be dealt with properly with adult conversations.  Proponents on both sides need to take a gander across the room and realize the world doesn't revolve around them.  And someone at the council table needs to be the leader.  Or at least the mediator.  Because talking in circles isn't going to get us anywhere in "building this beautiful city".  Those three topics, in no particular order:

#1. Urban vs. Suburban

It's not a sexy topic but people need to realize it's affecting everyone.  I know many will look at the past battle between the mayor and the homebuilders.  But it's not just there.  Look at how the inner-city councillors have banded together, just as much as the suburban councillors have done the same.  The trouble is that both sides are kind of right.  Calgary needs to start growing UP, as in more high-rise apartment buildings and urban planning to allow people to live, work and play in one area.  Because it seems counter-intuitive to have EVERYONE live in the 'burbs and work in the inner city.  On the flipside, we need to give people options.  Not every family should be pent up in a 15th storey 2-bedroom apartment and not every unmarried person should be forced to own a home at the edge of the city because that's all they can afford.  We need options.  And pitting each side against one another is doing us no good.  Imagine having a solid mix of inner-city and suburb living.  Might actually make housing affordable across the city, rather than continue to drive people further and further out.  Then we might finally get ahead of the transit shortage and the lengthy commute times as well.  Oh the utopia!

#2. Secondary Suites

This one has been in the news for the last couple of days.  It's driving some councillors absolutely nuts, forcing them to wonder why we're spending so much time drawing up reports and task forces when it will go all for not when it's voted down anyways.  And there's a point to be made there.  How many times does this story have to be recycled?  As someone who has lived in a secondary suite before, I didn't consider myself the scourge of the earth.  I was a good tenant with a back lane parking spot and no desire to invite "unfavorable characters" because I was busy trying to make enough money to get myself through school and out of there to move into a nicer place.  I couldn't afford rent in one of those fancy apartment buildings at the time.  It was nice to have an option.  I can understand some of the concerns by certain neighborhoods or groups of residents.  But at the same time, it does beg the question: do you not trust your neighbors, who might set up one of these "unsightly suites"?  It's a baffling discussion.  And the longer the debate goes on, the deeper the heels are dug in.  No one is arguing we have a severe lack of affordable housing in Calgary, even those making "middle income" in the city who seem to be looked down upon because they can't afford to buy a $500,000 house at the moment.

#3. Bike Lanes

This one is a fun one.  In one corner, we have the pro-cyclists who believe that bike lanes will be revolutionary for the downtown core and no one will ever need to drive downtown again.  In the other corner, we have the anti-cyclists who believe that bike lanes will forever alter the space-time continuum, never to be repaired again because they're too attached to their vehicles.  I've talked about this one before and the fact that I actually can't wait for these lanes to be put in for a trial basis.  Because we will FINALLY have some ACTUAL evidence to prove one of these arguments to be absolutely false.  Again, I go back to the idea of having options.  Why shouldn't we give people an option/the ability to cycle?  Might take a few vehicles off the road, which would reduce the mass chaos known as "rush hour" in Calgary, which would also lead to less demand for parking, which could mean the price for parking downtown wouldn't cost you one night a week with your wife AND your first-born.  It does need to be done in a smart fashion, but where's the negative here?  On the flipside, I don't believe for a second that we should choke off vehicle access into the core.  That's just plainly naive, especially with the ever-expanding urban sprawl we've been so attached to.  Not every neighborhood has convenient transit (or other transportation) options.  Some people depend on their vehicle for their job (cough*reporters*cough).  

All members of council need to take a deep breath on these files and think for a couple of minutes about the pros and cons for everyone.  Stop playing to the tune of your specific special interest group and think of the benefits for Calgary as a whole.  We need to have a wide-ranging (and adult) conversation on all three of these topics (and others I'm sure).  We're talking about housing affordability, urban sprawl, commuter strategies and the future of Calgary.  At the end of the day, each council member needs to answer one very simple question: is the status quo good enough?

Drink & Fight & Drink & Fight

It has been a rough couple of weeks in one of Calgary's "entertainment districts".  At least in the public's eye.  But the interesting thing is, it's nothing really new if you actually live around 17th Avenue SW..

A few days ago, media got a hold of a video of a man getting pummeled by a couple of bouncers outside a bar.  The video (taken by a bystander) was reportedly taken out of context, as the "victim" had apparently sucker-punched one bouncer and had been kicked out of the bar.  As he was kicked out, he allegedly threatened the bouncers and staff that he'd come back, possibly armed.  He came back, sucker-punched a bouncer (not sure if it was the same one), and that's when the beatdown happened.

And now this morning, we're hearing word of another assault in the same vicinity as the first one.  We haven't heard a lot of the details yet so I hesitate to make any connections except for one.  And that is the reaction that has started to funnel in on this Sunday morning: "what is happening to our city?"

The fact of the matter is: talk to any bar staff member or police officer on 17th Ave and they will tell you the same thing.  They will tell you that these kinds of attitudes and incidents are nothing new.  And it's not just on 17th Avenue but pretty much anywhere when you combine booze and large groups of people.  Someone's bound to not like someone else and all you need to do is add some liquid courage to add to the powder keg.

Let's review three of the more high-profile cases where this combination really struck a chord for me:

#1. Lukas Strasser-Hird - police said it all started with some sort of exchange in a bar.  The two sides were parted, found each other, were parted again, then Strasser-Hird was beaten to death.
#2. Nicholas Baier - RCMP say the suspect in the case had intentionally driven into a crowd of people at the Texas Mickey Bar after supposedly getting kicked out of a bar.
#3. Matt McKay - this was one of the first major crime scenes I remember going to working in Calgary.  McKay was hit in the head with a pickaxe while trying to intervene in a dispute over unwanted guests at a house party.

What bothers me is that there seems to be a lot of attention being paid on the wrong issues.  Some have pointed the finger (at least lately) on 17th Avenue as a whole for having too many bars.  Others say it has to do with closing time and how everyone's let out at the same time.  The issue of "over-serving" at bars is always brought up in this conversation.  But no one seems to want to issue the REAL blame.  And that should be targeted at us: human beings.

Since when do we have the right to get so drunk that we're belligerent to the point of threatening or harming others?  Why is it that women are abused (verbally and physically) when they reject some guy's advances?  And then when we do get kicked out of an establishment for being an idiot, it's perfectly fine to threaten, harass and/or come back to get revenge?  The sad part is: for each of the examples I have outlined above, there are hundreds of others like it.  Maybe not with as dire consequences, but go to a bar in Calgary and stay until the end.  You'll likely see someone get kicked out at some point for unacceptable behaviour.

I don't want to be party pooper.  But why should complete strangers have to babysit you because you can't handle your alcohol or because you don't like someone or because you got rejected by the pretty girl?  Why should complete strangers have to feel the wrath of your anger for getting kicked out of a bar or a party?  Why do you feel entitled enough to come back to wage war on those who have "done you wrong"?  Own up to your actions.  And if you see a friend being obnoxious or worse, tune them in.

I know everyone wants a silver bullet to "make Calgary safe again".  We want that always-loved "silver bullet" that can fix the problem.  Unfortunately, that silver bullet isn't changing closing times, "cutting people off" from booze after a certain point, or limiting the number of bars on a strip.  It's going to depend on the sense of entitlement people seem to have after a couple of wobbily pops.  And sadly, that doesn't look like it's going to change any time soon.