It's been amusing to watch the battle in Calgary between cyclists and motorists. It's actually quite similar to the battle we see daily on the roads, with middle fingers raised in the air and curse words coming from all directions. It's left many (including myself) scratching our heads and asking that all-too-familiar question: "can't we all just get along?"
For those who haven't been watching this whole episode unfold: Calgary is looking to introduce a "cycle track" into the downtown. Yes. An entire lane of traffic being taken out on some pretty important roadways to accommodate cyclists. They will be partitioned off, in theory to make it safer to ride the two-wheeled variety of transportation and decreasing the number of interactions (read: crashes + horn-honking + other forms of vitriol between the two sides) that happen.
The arguments for and against this pilot project (which has been pegged at anywhere from $9-million to $11.6-million) have been pretty vocal. It doesn't seem like many are sitting on the fence on this one. Those who want the project say let the numbers speak for themselves. "If you build it, they will come" has been uttered way too much in the last few weeks. They will say people don't ride their bikes because they don't feel safe and this will fix that problem. On the other side, you have those saying Calgary's a winter wonderland where no one will cycle for six months out of the year. They will cite other bike lanes aren't being used as much as the pro-bikers claim. And they will say the numbers have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with urban sprawl making it virtually impossible for anyone outside a one-mile radius of the downtown to even try to cycle.
And trust me, I'm giving these arguments a "general audience" feel, because to watch the argument on social media would need a PG-13 warning sticker.
We can argue until the cows come home about whether this is going to be a good fit for the downtown. Realistically, all anyone is working with right now is stats and probabilities. No one has any empirical evidence to prove the other side wrong. But there's one undeniable truth in all of this nonsense: getting around downtown Calgary is virtually impossible and SOMETHING needs to be done.
Calgary has the highest parking rates in any Canadian city and is second only to New York in all of North America. Why? Because the market is there for it. People feel the need to drive their vehicles into the core and are willing to shell out ridiculous amounts of money to do it. This sets off a whole bunch of supplemental questions and answers:
Q: Why not take transit?
A: First off, if you have to drive to the transit station (which many do), you better be at the park-and-ride by 6am. Because parking is at a premium. If you're lucky enough to get a spot, then you get to feel like a sardine in a can for the entire trek. And then if there's some sort of outage or trouble downtown, you're stuck in that can for even longer. And don't even get some people started on the bad behaviour/bad smells/bad whatever on the train itself.
Q: Why not live closer to the downtown?
A: Have you seen the prices for living downtown? A young family paying $500,000 or more for a house with a small backyard? And all the talk about "building up" instead of out has many wondering about what might be in their backyard anyways. So why not get into the 'burbs, where you get a little bit of the country with the big city amenities? Plus inner-city schools seem to be few and far between. So families are left with one option, and they will need their vehicles to at least get them to the transit station. Go back to Question #1.
Q: Why not walk/bike to work?
A: Have you been out to the suburbs? It takes 45 minutes to DRIVE into work. Unless you're Lance Armstrong, there's no way you're biking in each day. So forget walking. And oh yeah. There's that little thing called winter that rears its ugly head every year.
So you see, there's a fundamental problem here. Calgary's grown up, grown out and apparently grown impatient. They want a quick fix but don't want to spend a single tax dollar on that fix. Many must think that this deal's still under warranty.
Here's an idea: why hasn't anyone brought up the idea of staggering opening/closing times, like they have for bars and nightclubs? Many think that'll alleviate some of the issues around taxi shortages, bar brawls, etc because of everyone getting booted out at 2am. So let's have some businesses go 10-6 or 7-3. Why not?
Because from what I gather, everyone's trying to find the answer (perhaps mythological) to getting more vehicles off the road. Which is a great idea. But it's naive to think that bike lanes will solve that problem on its own. This is a much bigger discussion than many are making it out to be. And in the process, it's pitted cyclists vs. motorists in a hotly-contested war of words. We need to figure out how to get vehicles, transit, cyclists and pedestrians using all of the means available to them, with the understanding that we live in a cold weather climate. We're not living in Portland, Minnesota, San Francisco, Victoria or any other place. We're living in Calgary. So we'll need to come up with what many politicians will call a "Calgary solution".
This isn't an either/or issue. This is a "strategic planning" issue. We don't necessarily have to get along here. Maybe bike lanes and cycle tracks aren't the answer. But keeping things status quo won't be making things better any time soon either.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Saturday, March 22, 2014
The Next PC Party Leader
It would be really easy for me to break down my thoughts and give my two cents on what's happened in the last two years with Alison Redford serving as Premier of Alberta. But as I've said to many people, I honestly can't wait for politicians to get back to the work of governing this beautiful province that I've called home my entire life. But there is one piece of important business that will need to be done over the next 4-6 months and that is to select a new leader for the PC Party, who in turn will become the next premier. And the challenges that lie in even selecting that person, especially for the party, are going to be plentiful.
There are several key questions that are going to have to be answered when it comes to selecting the new leader. Some are obviously large and some are quite small but will still be a part of the grand plan. Here's just a sampling:
#1. Within the party or out of the party?
This is probably the biggest one, as it leads to a few spin-off questions as well. We've already had several names thrown into the rumour mill. Everyone from Manmeet Bhullar and Jonathan Denis to Stephen Mandel and Naheed Nenshi. If it's from within party, how entrenched should that person be? A long-time MLA or a fairly new MLA with many great ideas? And how much support is that person going to get from the rest of the party? That was one of the problems with Redford, is she virtually had no support from the party faithful during the 2011 leadership race and so it was an uphill battle for her right off the hop. Will the "old guard" be willing to back a younger candidate who will undoubtedly claim again that this "isn't your father's PC Party"? If this is an "outsider", how open to new ideas will the party be? And how much change will be too much change if it's someone like a Mandel or Nenshi, who will likely want to change the identity of the party, at least a little bit?
#2. Calgary, Edmonton or rural?
This probably sounds like a rather minor issue but you know that it's going to come up. Ralph Klein was a Calgary guy who rubbed Edmonton the wrong way. Ed Stelmach was a rural guy from around Edmonton who didn't seem to get a lot of support in the south (hence the emergence of the Wildrose, who has a stranglehold in the south). Alison Redford was someone who had strong support in the cities but not-so-much in rural. So is it Edmonton's turn to try to right the ship again? If it is, does that not further distance the party from Southern Alberta (and possibly Calgary)? Is it time to go back to a rural candidate, and run the risk of not connecting with the big cities? Or do you stay in Calgary (the economic engine of Canada) and hope it's not viewed as a slap in the face for the capital? Like it not, there's a divide in this province and the new PC Party leader is going to have to bridge that gap somehow.
#3. What about personality vs. politics?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: optics is almost EVERYTHING in politics. You could be the biggest buffoon, but as long as you have personality, people will like you. You could also be the smartest person in the province, but if you can't connect with people, you're doomed. When you look at Ralph's track record, you'll probably bring up the fact he balanced the books and that he was a "man of the people". But people seem to forget things like blowing up the General Hospital in Calgary, which was a short-term fix with no long-term plan. He was very much an "in the now" leader. Sure it's great that the books were balanced but how much stuff still needed to be built or done?
That's what Ed Stelmach and Alison Redford struggled with. Stelmach was known as "Honest Ed". I actually really enjoyed it whenever he and I chatted but he was widely perceived as soft-spoken and a bit awkward in front of the cameras. He did what needed to be done but without the fanfare. I can't say a lot about Redford as she's the only one I wasn't able to do a one-on-one interview with. Not for a lack of trying though, as requests through her office were either turned down or avoided. But from her time as justice minister, I do remember thinking to myself that she is very smart and willing to do what it took to get things done. She had a plan to make things better and she executed (remember it was her and the police chief's work of cracking down on gangs in Calgary that dropped the murder rate down substantially). But as premier, that work was just never communicated well. Whether that was her call or her office's, is anyone's guess. Long story short: the perfect leader needs to have some personality, but also some smarts to make sure the politics aren't left in the dust.
#4. How long before the next election?
My fourth and final question and this could be a big one. The PC Party is in quite the Catch-22 right now. The sooner the election is called, the more likely you catch the opposition parties napping, but the party's support has been dwindling which may send the electorate elsewhere. You're also facing your own inner-party problems (like finances), and calling an election soon doesn't allow you a lot of time to build your war chest. Wait a long time, and the opposition parties are given more time to prepare their slate of candidates, but it also gives your new leader time to win hearts and minds, plus you get some time to build up your donations. But it also gives the opposition more time to dig up some dirt on you and your new leader. The timing of the next election may very well depend on who is selected as the new leader. If it's someone with a proven track record and seems to be fairly popular out of the gate, it might be good to have an election sooner. But if it's a new candidate, or even an all-star that comes from outside provincial politics, you almost want to spend more time without an election to prove just how good things can be with them at the helm.
And that takes us right back to the initial question of whether the PC Party of Alberta wants to go with someone from inside the party or from outside. I don't know if there's a right or wrong answer to any of these questions. But I get the sense that the party could be compared to a hockey team in the midst of a rebuild. Might be time to detach yourself from the veteran presence in the locker room, pick up a few prospects and draft picks, and hope that they will go out there and work their rear-ends off to get you a few wins. The Stanley Cup might be imminent. But if you play your cards right and work hard, the fans will stick around to watch you rise again.
There are several key questions that are going to have to be answered when it comes to selecting the new leader. Some are obviously large and some are quite small but will still be a part of the grand plan. Here's just a sampling:
#1. Within the party or out of the party?
This is probably the biggest one, as it leads to a few spin-off questions as well. We've already had several names thrown into the rumour mill. Everyone from Manmeet Bhullar and Jonathan Denis to Stephen Mandel and Naheed Nenshi. If it's from within party, how entrenched should that person be? A long-time MLA or a fairly new MLA with many great ideas? And how much support is that person going to get from the rest of the party? That was one of the problems with Redford, is she virtually had no support from the party faithful during the 2011 leadership race and so it was an uphill battle for her right off the hop. Will the "old guard" be willing to back a younger candidate who will undoubtedly claim again that this "isn't your father's PC Party"? If this is an "outsider", how open to new ideas will the party be? And how much change will be too much change if it's someone like a Mandel or Nenshi, who will likely want to change the identity of the party, at least a little bit?
#2. Calgary, Edmonton or rural?
This probably sounds like a rather minor issue but you know that it's going to come up. Ralph Klein was a Calgary guy who rubbed Edmonton the wrong way. Ed Stelmach was a rural guy from around Edmonton who didn't seem to get a lot of support in the south (hence the emergence of the Wildrose, who has a stranglehold in the south). Alison Redford was someone who had strong support in the cities but not-so-much in rural. So is it Edmonton's turn to try to right the ship again? If it is, does that not further distance the party from Southern Alberta (and possibly Calgary)? Is it time to go back to a rural candidate, and run the risk of not connecting with the big cities? Or do you stay in Calgary (the economic engine of Canada) and hope it's not viewed as a slap in the face for the capital? Like it not, there's a divide in this province and the new PC Party leader is going to have to bridge that gap somehow.
#3. What about personality vs. politics?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: optics is almost EVERYTHING in politics. You could be the biggest buffoon, but as long as you have personality, people will like you. You could also be the smartest person in the province, but if you can't connect with people, you're doomed. When you look at Ralph's track record, you'll probably bring up the fact he balanced the books and that he was a "man of the people". But people seem to forget things like blowing up the General Hospital in Calgary, which was a short-term fix with no long-term plan. He was very much an "in the now" leader. Sure it's great that the books were balanced but how much stuff still needed to be built or done?
That's what Ed Stelmach and Alison Redford struggled with. Stelmach was known as "Honest Ed". I actually really enjoyed it whenever he and I chatted but he was widely perceived as soft-spoken and a bit awkward in front of the cameras. He did what needed to be done but without the fanfare. I can't say a lot about Redford as she's the only one I wasn't able to do a one-on-one interview with. Not for a lack of trying though, as requests through her office were either turned down or avoided. But from her time as justice minister, I do remember thinking to myself that she is very smart and willing to do what it took to get things done. She had a plan to make things better and she executed (remember it was her and the police chief's work of cracking down on gangs in Calgary that dropped the murder rate down substantially). But as premier, that work was just never communicated well. Whether that was her call or her office's, is anyone's guess. Long story short: the perfect leader needs to have some personality, but also some smarts to make sure the politics aren't left in the dust.
#4. How long before the next election?
My fourth and final question and this could be a big one. The PC Party is in quite the Catch-22 right now. The sooner the election is called, the more likely you catch the opposition parties napping, but the party's support has been dwindling which may send the electorate elsewhere. You're also facing your own inner-party problems (like finances), and calling an election soon doesn't allow you a lot of time to build your war chest. Wait a long time, and the opposition parties are given more time to prepare their slate of candidates, but it also gives your new leader time to win hearts and minds, plus you get some time to build up your donations. But it also gives the opposition more time to dig up some dirt on you and your new leader. The timing of the next election may very well depend on who is selected as the new leader. If it's someone with a proven track record and seems to be fairly popular out of the gate, it might be good to have an election sooner. But if it's a new candidate, or even an all-star that comes from outside provincial politics, you almost want to spend more time without an election to prove just how good things can be with them at the helm.
And that takes us right back to the initial question of whether the PC Party of Alberta wants to go with someone from inside the party or from outside. I don't know if there's a right or wrong answer to any of these questions. But I get the sense that the party could be compared to a hockey team in the midst of a rebuild. Might be time to detach yourself from the veteran presence in the locker room, pick up a few prospects and draft picks, and hope that they will go out there and work their rear-ends off to get you a few wins. The Stanley Cup might be imminent. But if you play your cards right and work hard, the fans will stick around to watch you rise again.
Monday, February 17, 2014
What Are Kids Learning Nowadays?
I've really slacked off when it comes to this blog in recent months and for that I apologize. But if it's any consolation, I've actually started a list of potential ideas so that should help in getting more of these out there. Also: I've realized being a manager means "lists", which is code for "organized". I'm getting the hang of it. Now with that caveat out of the way, let's continue.
Actually, let's have another little disclaimer before we really get started. I'm not a parent. I don't have kids in school in Calgary or anywhere else in the province. I'll be writing the rest of this post from an outsider's perspective with a little bit of an inside track on what's going on around this province, and in particular in this city, given I am in the news business and am more informed than many. OK. Now we're good.
To say the last few weeks in education in Calgary have been a little weird would probably be an understatement. Let's set aside the whole "New School Tour" the province has been on, where everyday Premier Alison Redford or one of her cabinet ministers is in a different community making an announcement. That one on it's own would likely garner a few responses.
Here's why it's been a little weird to me: I remember a time when different schools/programs were facing closure because they didn't have the numbers to support keeping the schools open. And yet, the local school boards are still begging for more schools (in the 'burbs). To me, this begs a couple of questions:
#1. Are the school boards trying to close down schools in the "inner-city" because they can then move those kids to other schools and maximize the capacity at those schools to convince the province they need more spaces? I believe the magic number is 85% capacity, so if you can stuff as many kids into a school as possible and get that capacity to 95% or 98% or 102%, it makes a bigger and better case for getting new schools.
#2. Are the school boards and the province in close enough discussions with city planners on how new communities are being built and do they have a pretty good idea on where a school COULD go should it be built? Because if you look at what's happening in regards to my #1 question, one could argue the City of Calgary is being made to look like a donut when it comes to schools. As the city's urban sprawl gets bigger, more attention is paid on getting new schools in the fringes and attention is lost on keeping people in the inner-city. It seems to be a vicious cycle with no end in sight, especially when you consider how expensive living is as you get closer to the downtown. What new family wants to live there when they can get a cheaper house in the 'burbs?
Maybe I'm over-simplifying this. By no means am I accusing anyone of being negligent in their duties. No one's questioning that population growth is a major issue. All I'm saying is something seems to be amiss here when we can't seem to keep up with growth yet we're not able to utilize the space we have at our fingertips.
Here's another thing I'd love some insight on: did we stop teaching the basics in grade school? I'm a really simple boy who grew up in a simple world. But I started to notice this in the difference between what I learned in Grade 12 compared to what my youngest sister learned when she went into Grade 12 (seven years difference between us). What I learned that year was what she later learned in Grade 9. I know school boards are really going after this "education for every student" philosophy so that each child is feeling engaged. Is it possible that we have forced our education system into becoming TOO specialized/personalized that the kids have no choice but to go to a particular school to get the education they need, rather than simply go to the one that's closest to them? Whatever happened to having math, language arts, social studies, the sciences, gym and maybe a few electives, like shop or foods? Last year I remember doing a media tour of a high school that was made specifically for different careers and trades. It was mind-boggling to see kids in Grade 9 learning about TV and radio. I paid college dollars to do that!
Again, maybe I'm over-simplifying this, but I grew up in a town of 250 people. We could have gone to Claresholm or Vulcan for high school, which was anywhere from a 20-30 minute drive. That's rural Alberta. Am I wrong to think that it's bizarre that kids are having to be on a bus for 45-60 minutes in the "big city", especially when they have a school three blocks away?
This doesn't seem very elementary, my dear Watson...
Actually, let's have another little disclaimer before we really get started. I'm not a parent. I don't have kids in school in Calgary or anywhere else in the province. I'll be writing the rest of this post from an outsider's perspective with a little bit of an inside track on what's going on around this province, and in particular in this city, given I am in the news business and am more informed than many. OK. Now we're good.
To say the last few weeks in education in Calgary have been a little weird would probably be an understatement. Let's set aside the whole "New School Tour" the province has been on, where everyday Premier Alison Redford or one of her cabinet ministers is in a different community making an announcement. That one on it's own would likely garner a few responses.
Here's why it's been a little weird to me: I remember a time when different schools/programs were facing closure because they didn't have the numbers to support keeping the schools open. And yet, the local school boards are still begging for more schools (in the 'burbs). To me, this begs a couple of questions:
#1. Are the school boards trying to close down schools in the "inner-city" because they can then move those kids to other schools and maximize the capacity at those schools to convince the province they need more spaces? I believe the magic number is 85% capacity, so if you can stuff as many kids into a school as possible and get that capacity to 95% or 98% or 102%, it makes a bigger and better case for getting new schools.
#2. Are the school boards and the province in close enough discussions with city planners on how new communities are being built and do they have a pretty good idea on where a school COULD go should it be built? Because if you look at what's happening in regards to my #1 question, one could argue the City of Calgary is being made to look like a donut when it comes to schools. As the city's urban sprawl gets bigger, more attention is paid on getting new schools in the fringes and attention is lost on keeping people in the inner-city. It seems to be a vicious cycle with no end in sight, especially when you consider how expensive living is as you get closer to the downtown. What new family wants to live there when they can get a cheaper house in the 'burbs?
Maybe I'm over-simplifying this. By no means am I accusing anyone of being negligent in their duties. No one's questioning that population growth is a major issue. All I'm saying is something seems to be amiss here when we can't seem to keep up with growth yet we're not able to utilize the space we have at our fingertips.
Here's another thing I'd love some insight on: did we stop teaching the basics in grade school? I'm a really simple boy who grew up in a simple world. But I started to notice this in the difference between what I learned in Grade 12 compared to what my youngest sister learned when she went into Grade 12 (seven years difference between us). What I learned that year was what she later learned in Grade 9. I know school boards are really going after this "education for every student" philosophy so that each child is feeling engaged. Is it possible that we have forced our education system into becoming TOO specialized/personalized that the kids have no choice but to go to a particular school to get the education they need, rather than simply go to the one that's closest to them? Whatever happened to having math, language arts, social studies, the sciences, gym and maybe a few electives, like shop or foods? Last year I remember doing a media tour of a high school that was made specifically for different careers and trades. It was mind-boggling to see kids in Grade 9 learning about TV and radio. I paid college dollars to do that!
Again, maybe I'm over-simplifying this, but I grew up in a town of 250 people. We could have gone to Claresholm or Vulcan for high school, which was anywhere from a 20-30 minute drive. That's rural Alberta. Am I wrong to think that it's bizarre that kids are having to be on a bus for 45-60 minutes in the "big city", especially when they have a school three blocks away?
This doesn't seem very elementary, my dear Watson...
Sunday, November 17, 2013
The Rob Ford Conundrum
It's been an interesting few weeks in Toronto. I don't think I need to go through it play-by-play and blow-by-blow. But it's created a bizarre conundrum for those of us media types outside of Toronto: how much time should we devote to Rob Ford coverage?
It had the opportunity to anchor a few newscasts over the last week and I made the point of not including a Rob Ford story in a couple of newscasts, even joking on Facebook and Twitter that I did something "un-Canadian" by doing that. By that point in the day (late afternoon), there was nothing "new" to the story as Ford hadn't spoken to the media since 8am. My posts came with a mixed reaction. Some loved the fact that a Calgary radio station went an entire six minutes without talking about Toronto's mayor. Others hated it because they want to hear the latest, regardless of how small the story is.
Frankly, I can see both sides of this argument. On one hand, if you don't live in Toronto, how does this really affect you? You didn't vote for or against Ford. He's not making any decisions directly impacting you. And are we going to have put up with hearing the breath-by-breath from Ford until he either steps down or the next municipal election in Ontario? It's no wonder some people are quite tired of hearing about this story and want to move on.
On the other hand, this is a story that EVERYONE is talking about. It was on SNL last night. It's the fodder on all the late-night talk shows. Every news outlet is spending time on this story. It is the water-cooler talk of the country, as this IS the mayor of Canada's largest city. So it would be ill-advised to throw up your hands and avoid the story completely as it would appear that you're not in tune with what's going on in the world and what's being talked about.
I know I say this a lot, but I do believe there's a delicate balance that can be reached. A city like Calgary or Edmonton probably doesn't need the play-by-play and in-depth coverage every hour on the hour. But we are in the business of broadcasting news, information and stories that you are and will be talking about, so we will continue to talk about this saga as it continues to unfold...
It had the opportunity to anchor a few newscasts over the last week and I made the point of not including a Rob Ford story in a couple of newscasts, even joking on Facebook and Twitter that I did something "un-Canadian" by doing that. By that point in the day (late afternoon), there was nothing "new" to the story as Ford hadn't spoken to the media since 8am. My posts came with a mixed reaction. Some loved the fact that a Calgary radio station went an entire six minutes without talking about Toronto's mayor. Others hated it because they want to hear the latest, regardless of how small the story is.
Frankly, I can see both sides of this argument. On one hand, if you don't live in Toronto, how does this really affect you? You didn't vote for or against Ford. He's not making any decisions directly impacting you. And are we going to have put up with hearing the breath-by-breath from Ford until he either steps down or the next municipal election in Ontario? It's no wonder some people are quite tired of hearing about this story and want to move on.
On the other hand, this is a story that EVERYONE is talking about. It was on SNL last night. It's the fodder on all the late-night talk shows. Every news outlet is spending time on this story. It is the water-cooler talk of the country, as this IS the mayor of Canada's largest city. So it would be ill-advised to throw up your hands and avoid the story completely as it would appear that you're not in tune with what's going on in the world and what's being talked about.
I know I say this a lot, but I do believe there's a delicate balance that can be reached. A city like Calgary or Edmonton probably doesn't need the play-by-play and in-depth coverage every hour on the hour. But we are in the business of broadcasting news, information and stories that you are and will be talking about, so we will continue to talk about this saga as it continues to unfold...
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Living in a Post-Conservative World
Took me a lot longer than I'd hoped to be back on the blogging train. It has been an intense couple of months acclimatizing to my new role. Looking forward to seeing things calm down again and we can get back to some semi-sense of normalcy.
A little while ago, I asked people on Facebook what they would want to see me blog about and I had a number of options thrown at me. The one that seemed to stick out in my mind was the youth movement that seems to be going on in Alberta politics, especially as witnessed in the recent municipal election. It's an interesting topic that will likely expand into something unexpected. Let's begin.
Frankly, it's been a long time coming in Alberta politics to see young(er) political hopefuls get some attention. Don't get me wrong: I 100% respect what the veterans have done, putting themselves into the public eye term-after-term. It can't be easy to give up all of that time. Especially when it's always the "wrong" choices that get the attention while most of the good work you do ends up largely ignored. But I think Albertans were hoping for something new. Something fresh.
A lot of that "old guard" that some refer to could be considered conservatives. It's not that they align with a particular political party. But they know what their bread-and-butter is that will get them re-elected. They don't upset the apple cart, make sure their friends stay faithful, and they're in. They don't need to make bold, outrageous campaign promises because they're institutions to their constituents.
But something changed. People are no longer okay with the status quo. Things need to keep improving and progressing, especially at the municipal level. Otherwise, you're getting left in the dust. And so when there's an opportunity for change, Albertans have seemed to embrace it (at least at the local level). When was the last time we saw so many mayors who are under the age of 40?
And I do believe it has something to do with the idea that things can be even better. No longer is it acceptable in the eyes of most voters to stand by what's made you successful. They want to know wha'ts next. Politicians seem to love the idea of no tax hikes for a decade. But then when you ask residents how they feel, they wonder why nothing's changed with poor snow removal, broken-down city services and the like. The good economy in Alberta created an interesting environment where people started to realize that you have to spend money to make money. Of course, the hope is that the money will be spent wisely.
That's why I think it's more acceptable nowadays to see higher tax increases than we've seen in the past. Part of it is that many communities are trying to catch up from years of no funding (aka falling behind) for necessities like infrastructure. I think that's why there's an acceptance, even on the provincial level, that going into debt isn't necessarily a bad thing in the eyes of some taxpayers, because they will be able to physically see what they're getting in return (in theory). It's a lot like what they're doing at home, getting mortgages and borrowing money for a better future. Does this mean Alberta is losing its "Conservative" to get a little more "Progressive"? Maybe.
Don't get me wrong: I don't believe Alberta is giving its politicians a blank cheque. I do believe there is a hope that money will be spent wisely and on the things we need, rather than the things we want. The difficult balancing act has been (and I've written about this before) is that EVERYONE will come at a politician with demands. We are a needy crew here and we want EVERYTHING now and in most cases, we don't actually want to pay for it. It's up to the politician to decide what's needed now and what's not. You can't make everyone happy. And it's pretty obvious who has been caught trying to do too much and who hasn't.
The one side of any government's economy that I've been thinking a lot about lately has been those "rainy day funds". I know Alberta has its Heritage Savings Trust Fund and many communities have their own little pot of gold sitting around somewhere. What intrigues me about having all these young(er) politicians is, how will they handle these "untouchable assets"? I love the political hot potato that these funds have become. Many will say "these are savings for future generations" or they will say "this is for when we hit a bad patch". And yet, when we actually use it during a rough patch (remember that recession we just went through), the governments/councils get raked over the coals for it. Am I wrong to think that the average taxpayer would actually be okay with dipping into a rainy day fund during something like this summer's flood? Or like the massive fire in Slave Lake? Or even something minor that we couldn't have predicted? Why does the money just have to stay there? For the future? Which future? The one where we wait long enough for the next generation of politicians to stand by and say "whoa whoa whoa, you can't touch that, we have to save it for the future!"
Yes I realize the issues around government finances are more complicated than I've made them out to be. But what's so wrong with making it more simple? The average Joe or Jane on the street is having a hard enough time trying to wade through the political BS. They don't care anymore about what's worked in the past or why things have been done a certain way for so long. The insider baseball of who likes who and who has helped who out or why so-and-so has been in the job for as long as they have just doesn't matter anymore. People want to see action. And the opportunity has come where they have a choice to vote for new candidates who are bringing fresh ideas to an old system. Which is why I think we're seeing quite the shift in the way politics are being done in Alberta. And by which generation.
Until next time, my friends...
A little while ago, I asked people on Facebook what they would want to see me blog about and I had a number of options thrown at me. The one that seemed to stick out in my mind was the youth movement that seems to be going on in Alberta politics, especially as witnessed in the recent municipal election. It's an interesting topic that will likely expand into something unexpected. Let's begin.
Frankly, it's been a long time coming in Alberta politics to see young(er) political hopefuls get some attention. Don't get me wrong: I 100% respect what the veterans have done, putting themselves into the public eye term-after-term. It can't be easy to give up all of that time. Especially when it's always the "wrong" choices that get the attention while most of the good work you do ends up largely ignored. But I think Albertans were hoping for something new. Something fresh.
A lot of that "old guard" that some refer to could be considered conservatives. It's not that they align with a particular political party. But they know what their bread-and-butter is that will get them re-elected. They don't upset the apple cart, make sure their friends stay faithful, and they're in. They don't need to make bold, outrageous campaign promises because they're institutions to their constituents.
But something changed. People are no longer okay with the status quo. Things need to keep improving and progressing, especially at the municipal level. Otherwise, you're getting left in the dust. And so when there's an opportunity for change, Albertans have seemed to embrace it (at least at the local level). When was the last time we saw so many mayors who are under the age of 40?
And I do believe it has something to do with the idea that things can be even better. No longer is it acceptable in the eyes of most voters to stand by what's made you successful. They want to know wha'ts next. Politicians seem to love the idea of no tax hikes for a decade. But then when you ask residents how they feel, they wonder why nothing's changed with poor snow removal, broken-down city services and the like. The good economy in Alberta created an interesting environment where people started to realize that you have to spend money to make money. Of course, the hope is that the money will be spent wisely.
That's why I think it's more acceptable nowadays to see higher tax increases than we've seen in the past. Part of it is that many communities are trying to catch up from years of no funding (aka falling behind) for necessities like infrastructure. I think that's why there's an acceptance, even on the provincial level, that going into debt isn't necessarily a bad thing in the eyes of some taxpayers, because they will be able to physically see what they're getting in return (in theory). It's a lot like what they're doing at home, getting mortgages and borrowing money for a better future. Does this mean Alberta is losing its "Conservative" to get a little more "Progressive"? Maybe.
Don't get me wrong: I don't believe Alberta is giving its politicians a blank cheque. I do believe there is a hope that money will be spent wisely and on the things we need, rather than the things we want. The difficult balancing act has been (and I've written about this before) is that EVERYONE will come at a politician with demands. We are a needy crew here and we want EVERYTHING now and in most cases, we don't actually want to pay for it. It's up to the politician to decide what's needed now and what's not. You can't make everyone happy. And it's pretty obvious who has been caught trying to do too much and who hasn't.
The one side of any government's economy that I've been thinking a lot about lately has been those "rainy day funds". I know Alberta has its Heritage Savings Trust Fund and many communities have their own little pot of gold sitting around somewhere. What intrigues me about having all these young(er) politicians is, how will they handle these "untouchable assets"? I love the political hot potato that these funds have become. Many will say "these are savings for future generations" or they will say "this is for when we hit a bad patch". And yet, when we actually use it during a rough patch (remember that recession we just went through), the governments/councils get raked over the coals for it. Am I wrong to think that the average taxpayer would actually be okay with dipping into a rainy day fund during something like this summer's flood? Or like the massive fire in Slave Lake? Or even something minor that we couldn't have predicted? Why does the money just have to stay there? For the future? Which future? The one where we wait long enough for the next generation of politicians to stand by and say "whoa whoa whoa, you can't touch that, we have to save it for the future!"
Yes I realize the issues around government finances are more complicated than I've made them out to be. But what's so wrong with making it more simple? The average Joe or Jane on the street is having a hard enough time trying to wade through the political BS. They don't care anymore about what's worked in the past or why things have been done a certain way for so long. The insider baseball of who likes who and who has helped who out or why so-and-so has been in the job for as long as they have just doesn't matter anymore. People want to see action. And the opportunity has come where they have a choice to vote for new candidates who are bringing fresh ideas to an old system. Which is why I think we're seeing quite the shift in the way politics are being done in Alberta. And by which generation.
Until next time, my friends...
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Movin' On Up
It was a little over three years ago that I decided to leave my post as news director at CJCY in Medicine Hat. At that point, I told a select few people that if I ever decided to go back into a management position, they were allowed to kick me in the unmentionables.
It wasn't that I hated the job or that I was particularly bad at it. But after two years of leading a fantastic team in building our reputation and exceeding all expectations, it was time for me to move on and let a fresh set of eyes take the helm. I was emotionally and physically drained from doing 60-hour weeks for two-straight years. It was going to be nice to be a foot soldier again.
Yet, here we are, with those select few people shining up their kicking boots. Today's the last day of my two-week vacation. Tomorrow marks the beginning of a new chapter in my career, as I officially begin my transition into the post of news director and assistant brand director for News Talk 770. Back into a "managerial" position. So what changed in the last three years?
To tell you the truth, I don't have the slightest idea. It's not like I woke up one day and said "it's time". When the position came open, I threw my name in the hat, essentially to see how far down the process I could go. Yet, what seems to have been the norm during my career, I went a lot further than originally anticipated. And here we are.
What might excite me the most about this opportunity is being part of a change in the way people view news. Especially the "news talk" format. It's viewed as a bit of a dinosaur that is only listened to be the older demographics. There's a perception that young people (under the age of 40) don't care about news. Honestly, I believe that is completely false. They've simply been handed fewer places to get their information in the "traditional form" (newspapers, TV, radio). They're getting their information in different places (particularly the internet). So the challenge is out for us to draw them back in, but in a different way. In a "multi-format" way. There is a thirst for solid news that they can relate to. Our role is two-fold: be informative and be insightful. Tell people what's going on and then tell them why it's important.
The most important result of all of this (especially for radio) is we get away from being "background noise". Whenever you know a newscast is coming, I want you to stop what you're doing. You deserve and need to be informed. One of the things that happened in Medicine Hat was that people would tell me that we might not have been their station of choice, but they made sure to listen to our news. As news director, that's all I could have asked for.
But I'm not naive enough to think that our industry is changing. People want information now. And they want it in a different fashion than they wanted it a decade ago or 25 years ago. I posted this on Facebook a few days ago:
And asked a simple question. What would hook you back into the world of news? To go one step further, what would get you listening to radio news again, or maybe for the first time?
I'm looking forward to seeing what kinds of shenanigans I can get myself into in this new role. It's an interesting time in talk radio. It's time to prove to the world that we can be young AND plugged in to what's going on around us, and present it to you in a way that keeps you coming back for more.
It wasn't that I hated the job or that I was particularly bad at it. But after two years of leading a fantastic team in building our reputation and exceeding all expectations, it was time for me to move on and let a fresh set of eyes take the helm. I was emotionally and physically drained from doing 60-hour weeks for two-straight years. It was going to be nice to be a foot soldier again.
Yet, here we are, with those select few people shining up their kicking boots. Today's the last day of my two-week vacation. Tomorrow marks the beginning of a new chapter in my career, as I officially begin my transition into the post of news director and assistant brand director for News Talk 770. Back into a "managerial" position. So what changed in the last three years?
To tell you the truth, I don't have the slightest idea. It's not like I woke up one day and said "it's time". When the position came open, I threw my name in the hat, essentially to see how far down the process I could go. Yet, what seems to have been the norm during my career, I went a lot further than originally anticipated. And here we are.
What might excite me the most about this opportunity is being part of a change in the way people view news. Especially the "news talk" format. It's viewed as a bit of a dinosaur that is only listened to be the older demographics. There's a perception that young people (under the age of 40) don't care about news. Honestly, I believe that is completely false. They've simply been handed fewer places to get their information in the "traditional form" (newspapers, TV, radio). They're getting their information in different places (particularly the internet). So the challenge is out for us to draw them back in, but in a different way. In a "multi-format" way. There is a thirst for solid news that they can relate to. Our role is two-fold: be informative and be insightful. Tell people what's going on and then tell them why it's important.
The most important result of all of this (especially for radio) is we get away from being "background noise". Whenever you know a newscast is coming, I want you to stop what you're doing. You deserve and need to be informed. One of the things that happened in Medicine Hat was that people would tell me that we might not have been their station of choice, but they made sure to listen to our news. As news director, that's all I could have asked for.
But I'm not naive enough to think that our industry is changing. People want information now. And they want it in a different fashion than they wanted it a decade ago or 25 years ago. I posted this on Facebook a few days ago:
And asked a simple question. What would hook you back into the world of news? To go one step further, what would get you listening to radio news again, or maybe for the first time?
I'm looking forward to seeing what kinds of shenanigans I can get myself into in this new role. It's an interesting time in talk radio. It's time to prove to the world that we can be young AND plugged in to what's going on around us, and present it to you in a way that keeps you coming back for more.
Monday, July 15, 2013
Alberta Flood 2013
Welcome back to the little place we like to call "Confessions of a Vulture". Sorry for the length of time it took between posts (again). This time I think I have a legitimate excuse, as the last few weeks have been arguably the busiest of my professional career.
The floods that ravaged Alberta in the last month have forever changed a part of the world that I have called home for my entire life. It has been absolutely surreal to report and volunteer in some of these communities that more than a month ago, were preparing for what they were expecting to be a normal summer. We've seen stories of despair, heartbreak, disappointment, anger, heroism, jubilation and every emotion in between. I know the word "resilience" has been used a lot in the last few weeks, but it's the only word that comes to mind in watching entire communities rise above the carnage to help their fellow neighbors and complete strangers, in the midst of the most difficult times in their lives. There was never a moment where everyone said "oh whoa is me". It seemed to always be "well, this isn't going to clean itself".
As a reporter, it's a bizarre feeling to be in the midst of all of this. You're watching people break down in front of you as they tell you about their most cherished belongings being under water or get tossed into the garbage bin. You want to drop the microphone and help in any way you can. But at the same time, you have a responsibility to tell the stories of these people and these communities. You have a responsibility to get the information out there as fast and as accurately as you possibly can, and in any way you can, whether it be on-air, on-line, on-phone, wherever. For the first six days of the flood, I spent most of my time in Calgary's Emergency Operations Centre. That was where we were getting the majority of our updates from city officials. That was where municipal, provincial and federal politicians also spoke to the public, through the media.
I must admit, we're a fairly cordial media bunch in Calgary. There are no flying elbows or dastardly deeds done between different outlets. But this was, by far, one of the most cooperative situations I've ever come across in media. It was less about being territorial with the information and more about getting the right information out there in a time of need. Any lingering biases were tossed out while you saw reporters fling questions at one another, double-checking quotes or helping each other on the technical end. We became less about trying to "get the scoop", and we returned to being a public service.
On a personal level, it was literally one of the busiest stretches I've ever encountered. You see, it's not just about the "on the radio" aspect of the job. Sure, I'm in charge of gathering the tape (recording what's said into the microphone), cutting up the tape (downloading it onto my computer and editing the tape into short clips for newscasts) and writing the stories to go along with the tape. But you had all the other stuff to worry about. Social media became the big thing. I "live-tweeted" every single news conference I went to. Took pictures for Facebook and Twitter. I wrote up stories for our website whenever I had a chance. There was never a lack of things to do.
And with this becoming a national story, our sister stations were also looking for information. So I became the unofficial point-man for live interviews with our friends in Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg and Toronto (mainly because I'm the morning reporter, so it's easier for them to line something up with the guy who's actually awake at the strike of stupid o'clock). It was, without a doubt, a challenge to juggle all these different roles and responsibilities. This wasn't unique to me either. Many reporters pulled all sorts of crazy hours, sleeping in the EOC, napping at their desks, running off of coffee and the company of fellow reporters. And while some might question why all that work was put in, the simple answer is: that's our job, our responsibility and our passion.
As I said before, at the end of the day, we are a public service. Whether we be newspapers, radio, television or internet, we are to be THE source for information. It's what we're trained to do. We'll do whatever it takes to get it out there. I remember when I was working in Medicine Hat and the power went down in the entire City of Lethbridge. That meant our sister station (and any other radio station in the city) was without power. But we still had our transmitter site with a backup generator. So our news director drove out to the site with a microphone and CD player (maybe it was an iPod, I can't remember exactly), plugged in, and kept broadcasting (although at lower than normal power). Between songs, he'd read news updates from his BlackBerry, which he was getting from my newsroom in Medicine Hat, as we were still getting all the city emails and updates. Our company had the only operational radio station in Lethbridge during a state of emergency, and we earned rave reviews for what we did.
Thank you to everyone, from family and friends to listeners and co-workers, for all the kind words throughout this disaster. But this is far from over. We still have many more chapters to read in what will be a long road to recovery, which will undoubtedly include more emotional extremes, from heartbreak to heroism. And I hope you join us as we share those stories.
The floods that ravaged Alberta in the last month have forever changed a part of the world that I have called home for my entire life. It has been absolutely surreal to report and volunteer in some of these communities that more than a month ago, were preparing for what they were expecting to be a normal summer. We've seen stories of despair, heartbreak, disappointment, anger, heroism, jubilation and every emotion in between. I know the word "resilience" has been used a lot in the last few weeks, but it's the only word that comes to mind in watching entire communities rise above the carnage to help their fellow neighbors and complete strangers, in the midst of the most difficult times in their lives. There was never a moment where everyone said "oh whoa is me". It seemed to always be "well, this isn't going to clean itself".
As a reporter, it's a bizarre feeling to be in the midst of all of this. You're watching people break down in front of you as they tell you about their most cherished belongings being under water or get tossed into the garbage bin. You want to drop the microphone and help in any way you can. But at the same time, you have a responsibility to tell the stories of these people and these communities. You have a responsibility to get the information out there as fast and as accurately as you possibly can, and in any way you can, whether it be on-air, on-line, on-phone, wherever. For the first six days of the flood, I spent most of my time in Calgary's Emergency Operations Centre. That was where we were getting the majority of our updates from city officials. That was where municipal, provincial and federal politicians also spoke to the public, through the media.
I must admit, we're a fairly cordial media bunch in Calgary. There are no flying elbows or dastardly deeds done between different outlets. But this was, by far, one of the most cooperative situations I've ever come across in media. It was less about being territorial with the information and more about getting the right information out there in a time of need. Any lingering biases were tossed out while you saw reporters fling questions at one another, double-checking quotes or helping each other on the technical end. We became less about trying to "get the scoop", and we returned to being a public service.
On a personal level, it was literally one of the busiest stretches I've ever encountered. You see, it's not just about the "on the radio" aspect of the job. Sure, I'm in charge of gathering the tape (recording what's said into the microphone), cutting up the tape (downloading it onto my computer and editing the tape into short clips for newscasts) and writing the stories to go along with the tape. But you had all the other stuff to worry about. Social media became the big thing. I "live-tweeted" every single news conference I went to. Took pictures for Facebook and Twitter. I wrote up stories for our website whenever I had a chance. There was never a lack of things to do.
And with this becoming a national story, our sister stations were also looking for information. So I became the unofficial point-man for live interviews with our friends in Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg and Toronto (mainly because I'm the morning reporter, so it's easier for them to line something up with the guy who's actually awake at the strike of stupid o'clock). It was, without a doubt, a challenge to juggle all these different roles and responsibilities. This wasn't unique to me either. Many reporters pulled all sorts of crazy hours, sleeping in the EOC, napping at their desks, running off of coffee and the company of fellow reporters. And while some might question why all that work was put in, the simple answer is: that's our job, our responsibility and our passion.
As I said before, at the end of the day, we are a public service. Whether we be newspapers, radio, television or internet, we are to be THE source for information. It's what we're trained to do. We'll do whatever it takes to get it out there. I remember when I was working in Medicine Hat and the power went down in the entire City of Lethbridge. That meant our sister station (and any other radio station in the city) was without power. But we still had our transmitter site with a backup generator. So our news director drove out to the site with a microphone and CD player (maybe it was an iPod, I can't remember exactly), plugged in, and kept broadcasting (although at lower than normal power). Between songs, he'd read news updates from his BlackBerry, which he was getting from my newsroom in Medicine Hat, as we were still getting all the city emails and updates. Our company had the only operational radio station in Lethbridge during a state of emergency, and we earned rave reviews for what we did.
Thank you to everyone, from family and friends to listeners and co-workers, for all the kind words throughout this disaster. But this is far from over. We still have many more chapters to read in what will be a long road to recovery, which will undoubtedly include more emotional extremes, from heartbreak to heroism. And I hope you join us as we share those stories.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)