My comments to City Council on the future of Calgary

For those that follow my Twitter feed and my blog you know I have have had an entirely split focus for the past couple of days. My blog has dealt exclusively with the Doug Elniski issue while on Twitter I have posted dozens of tweets over the same time regarding the City of Calgary's PlanIT public consultation process going on at City Hall.

PlanIT is an extremely important document laying out the 'plan' for how Calgary will grow over the next 60 years. As a result public input has been sought for quite sometime and 'for' and 'against' side are now providing their thoughts in person to Council. The 'pros' concluded last night after two days of presentations (about 110 people signed up to speak) and the 'cons' began immediately following (about 60 people signed up to speak).

Last night - at number 97 - I provided my thoughts. Below are my comments to council:

Thank you for allowing me to the opportunity to speak. My name is DJ Kelly, I am an administrator in the not-for-profit sector and president of the Winston Heights/Mountview CA.

I’m happy to answer questions from the point of view of our CA but today I’m simply talking as an engaged citizen.

I wanted to begin, if I may, by thanking Council and Administration for showing vision in creating this document. I’m confident we can all agree, that no business or organization can possibly be effectively run without a big picture strategic plan.

I’m reminded once again of one columnist’s comment from sometime in the late 90s that Calgary is “the city that planning forgot”. With the approval of PlanIT no longer will we be able to be the butt of these kinds of jokes. PlanIT finally provides Calgary with the strategic growth plan columnists and citizens alike have requested oh so frequently.

I’m hopefully the cries of “those fools down at City Hall have no idea what they’re doing” will be, if not eliminated, at least lessened because of this document.
The benefit of speaking toward the end of the “for” or “pro-PlanIT” list is I don’t need to get into the reasons why you should or should not support PlanIT. Instead I can marvel at some of the fantastic comments made by previous speakers.

The main one that comes to mind is Derek the Urban Studies student from UofC. I think he brought forward a perspective that many have not thought of when discussing PlanIT and it bears repeating: our generation will not live the same kind of life our parents and grandparents did. Just as they did not live the same kind of life as those a generation before them. There are no pioneers or gunfighters in our midst any longer.

None of us in this room are psychics. We cannot predict the future and should not purport to. Even the City’s own marketing for the PlanIT response process makes light of this fact. I cannot say what the city will need in 60 years, and despite the protests of others that I’m sure are coming, they cannot either.

Look at what we planned on 60 years ago. Those are the very things we are now struggling with and that people smarter than us have shown to be unsustainable. Even the poor bulging city budget shows that at the very least we need to think differently.

This is why the “spirit” of PlanIT is far more important than anything else. So long as we can agree with the points and goals laid out in the first few pages we are heading in the right direction.

The one thing we can say for sure is that PlanIT will change and grow over time. It will have to be a living document. There will be variations as we move forward. We do not need to approve the perfect plan this week. However I think PlanIT lays an excellent the groundwork for the future and I’m proud to live in a city with this kind of vision.

Another thing I think is important to note is that every speaker who has lamented the non-inclusion of the airport tunnel has self classified themselves as “in favour” of PlanIT. I’m encouraged that despite their disappointment, they still have the foresight to see what PlanIT can do for the city.

I am interested to hear the comments of those not in favour of PlanIT. From what I have heard through the press it sounds like the majority are from one single industry, whereas those who have spoken in favour appear to represent a large swath of industries. Having PlanIT receive such wide-spread support leaves me further encouraged.

Personally I’m more concerned with the City’s track record of follow through on ambitious plans. My thoughts on that can be found in tomorrow’s post for Alberta Venture’s Think Alberta,

I won’t get into them today other than to say I encourage City Council to have the courage of our convictions, approve this big picture plan, and get on with the process of building the better city I know this council wants.

Questions followed from Ald McIver about my statements around implementation. I answered that, yes, indeed I do see this as the major concern facing council moving forward and regardless of what planning document we approve it will continue to be the major issue and Council and Administration has serious work ahead of them. More background on that is in my Alberta Venture Think! Alberta post that will be available at 1pm today. (I'll cross post here following that.) Part II goes up on Friday.

Ald Chabot congratulated me on my timing for showing up shortly before my presentation time. I thanked the internet and the Council webcast. He followed up with another question but to be honest I don't remember what it was. I remember it being akward and me not really understanding what he was asking. It felt adveseraly (is that even a word?) and I certainly didn't mean for it to. Sorry if it came across that way!

From the high ideals of 1993 to the gerrymander of 2009

Below is some interesting information to help frame the discussion around whether Ald. Chabot's council approved map is a good solution and if a proper process was followed.

Policy Title: Ward Boundary Determination and Review
Policy Number: CC017
Approved by: Council
Effective Date: 1993 May 03

The criteria used by the Returning Officer for reporting or in developing proposals
during ward boundary reviews are as follows:

1. Total Population/Total Electors – all calculations will be based on the number of electors and total population. The total population is to be relatively equal between the wards. It is desirable to maintain a relative equality between the wards and the number of electors;
2. Deviation – the maximum allowed deviation from the mean population per ward is +/- 25%. The preferred deviation that the Returning Officer should attempt to achieve is +/- 10 to 15%. This is consistent with current court decisions.
3. Future Growth – the potential for growth in each ward over the next 10 years is a factor to be considered.
4. Community Boundaries – wherever possible the Ward Boundaries and The City developed Community District Boundaries should coincide. Community Association boundaries are given consideration to attain limited splits. It should be noted that these are not controlled by The City and are difficult to guarantee.
5. Easily Identifiable Boundaries – wherever possible, the Ward Boundaries shall be readily identifiable to the public by utilizing major streets, significant topography, etc.
6. Least Number of Changes – to reduce confusion to the electorate and implementation costs, proposals developed by the Returning Officer should involve the fewest changes possible to accomplish the required adjustments.
7. Block Shaped Wards – in accordance with the 1960 October 19 plebiscite, wards are to be relatively “block” shaped and not “pie” shaped with the downtown being the centre of the pie.
8. Environmental Mix – efforts will be made to equalize, wherever possible, the distribution of commercial, rural, industrial, institutional and green space areas between the wards.
9. Philosophy of Approach – the general philosophy to be used in developing proposals for Ward Boundary changes are two fold; (a) to develop changes which should not require major adjustments for a span of three general elections; and (b) to have the higher population in the more stable inner city wards and the lower population in the growth area wards.

You'll also notice that no where in this policy - that was first written in 1960 - does it give the criteria of 5 aldermen on the east side of Deerfoot. So why is it appropriate to suddenly give this new criteria to the Returning Officer after she submitted her proposals? After all she's been at work on those proposals since May 2006...

Here is is the text of C2009-12 Attachment 1 which shows where the ball started rolling at that time:

Council asked Administration to begin the ward boundary revisions earlier than scheduled by the Policy. At its meeting of 2006 May 15, Council adopted the following recommendation, as amended, FCS2006-19:

“3. Direct Administration to commence a process for a major Ward redistribution in 2008 January, with a view to have the complete recommendations to Council before spring of 2009.”

Following that the Returning Officer sped things up considerably before returning with Report 2008-83 on 2008 November 28 giving two proposed options. Alderman Chabot apparently was a fan because an excerpt of those minutes show:

“REFER, Moved by Alderman Chabot, Seconded by Alderman Connelly, that Report C2008-83 be referred to Administration to report to the 2009 February 09 Combined Meeting of Council with a comparison to the recommendations which were contained in Options A and B in 2006.”

The Returning Officer did just that. She showed up with the same documents as well as the maps she created in 2006 for the 2007 election that were not adopted. On 2009 February 09 C2009-12 was adopted which states:

“That Council;
1. Adopt Scenario A as the ward boundaries for the 2010 general election; and
2. Direct Administration to prepare a bylaw to amend Bylaw 19M91, Ward Boundary Bylaw, to return to Council no later than 2009 March.”

The bylaw was written. 13M2009 could now have first reading.

Then along came 2009 March 16 with C2009-21 when proposals by Ald. Chabot, Ald. Farrell and Ald. Hawkesworth were also tabled. The suggestion was:

“That with respect to Bylaw 13M2009, Being a Bylaw Of The City of Calgary To Amend Bylaw 19M91, To Establish Ward Boundaries, Alderman Chabot, Farrell and Hawkesworth’s proposals be referred to the Returning Officer for a report to the 2009 April 06 Combined Meeting of Council.”

C2009-21 goes on to state:

That Council:
1. Abandon Bylaw 13M2009; and
2. Give Bylaw 25M2009 first reading.

Confused yet?

And here we are with bylaw 25M2009 - Ald. Chabot's proposed map - having had first reading and everything the Returning Officer has been instructed to do since 1993 being thrown out the window.

Remember that policy given to the Returning Officer in 1993? How much of that do you see in Ald. Chabot's map? It's been a long journey from the high ideals of 1993 to the gerrymander of 2009.

Oh, and by the way: from AOCC2009-58 (the infamous meeting where Aldermen asked the Returning Officer to come up with a proposal showing 5 aldermen on the east side of Deerfoot):

The Committee determined it was uncomfortable with recommending a specific Ward boundary Scenario to Council.

But thanks for the map Ald. Chabot!

And after all that boring blah-blah-blah. How about some maps showing the history of proposals from 2006 until now?


I hope that helps you make a little more sense of it. It's all very confusing. Suffice to say: don't gerrymander, let the Returning Officer do what you asked them to do. Sometimes the simplest things that prove to be the hardest...

PS - A big thank you the the City Clerk for tracking down all 17 documents associated with C2009-12 and C2009-21.

What makes a good electoral district? Not gerrymandering!

What makes a good electoral district? Why group these communities together and not these other ones?

This is something that has been debated at council and elsewhere for years. It’s something that will continue to be discussed. Is it better to create wards that are made up of communities with similar issues or to have wards that are similar to each other in that they have inner city neighbourhoods, suburbs, industrial areas, commercial properties, etc in one ward?

Generally speaking, I think the former is widely believed to be the better option because each alderman can clearly and quickly identify the needs of their ward and defend them at council. (This is what we currently have.) If the latter ward format is used the alderman will regularly find they have competing interests he/she must sort out among his/her constituents before bringing a proposal to council. This creates an added layer of red tape to the process most citizens would no doubt prefer to avoid.

Plus, there are naturally some communities that go should go together. They are neighbours in every sense of the word and the linkage between them should be fostered instead of broken.

This is where my major problem with the “Scenario D” map Calgary City Council approved this past week. I know Highland Park has already passed a resolution against the map because they feel orphaned. This is EXACTLY the same thing that members of the Winston Heights/Mountview CA board (of which I’m the president) feel. Details on why we feel that way can be found in my previous post but it all comes down to the fact from the eastern most house in my neighbourhood to the western most house in the next community to the east is 2.2km. If the creek, valley, two golf courses, two escarpments, or the six-lane provincial highway in that span is not a natural border appropriate for a ward boundary I don't know what is.

And this is the rub of why I’ve previously called “Scenario D” ‘terrible’. There is no respect for physical boundaries in it. It appears as though the map was drawn with only the population numbers and politics in mind. Rivers, highways, expanses of open and industrial areas MUST be taken into consideration ABOVE politics.

Which takes me to my final, and most important, point: the egregious gerrymandering that is occurring in Calgary City Council right now.

It appears a majority of aldermen need to learn that when in the middle of a non-partisan activity you have mandated, you can NOT suddenly make a proposal of your own. That makes the process political, which is EXACTLY what you were trying to avoid in the first place.

The definition of gerrymandering is a process of redistricting that can be PERCEIVED as political. This is why Ald. Chabot – the man who created the “Scenario D” map – has even decried the process council is undertaking as gerrymandering. His complaint however is that it became gerrymandering when Administration asked council’s opinion in the first place. Which in my mind is akin to a child hitting another because “he started it”. It doesn't make you right for committing the exact same wrong yourself.

Council has passed numerous calls for this kind of process to be conducted by an independent body. This is what was happening under the guidance of the Chief Electoral Officer until council disagreed with the proposal being put forward. Instead of turning down the proposal however, and asking for a new recommendation, they began making their own plans, which is where things quickly became textbook gerrymandering.

Perhaps another example will help illustrate my argument: Every so often council needs to review their pay. This process is usually fraught with perceived political conflicts of interest. So council outsources the job of coming up with the dollar amount they will take home annually to an independent organization. Now, when that independent group comes back with a proposal would Council say, “that’s no good! We should make between $80,000 and $90,000 per year. Go back and come up with another solution that falls into that range”? When the independent body comes back with the number of $84,000 would they then say, “that’s no good! Here’s my proposal: it should be $89,000”?

Of course not! Because that is ridiculous! Citizens would scream bloody murder! The media would be killing them in print!

And ridiculous is exactly what we’re getting with this process right now.

And please consider this post me screaming bloody murder.

All aldermen – and the mayor – need to take their hands off this process, stop making gerrymandered proposals, and respect the mandate they gave the Chief Electoral Officer previously by letting her do the job they asked her to do in the first place.

Process of approving new Calgary wards is what needs an overhaul

I don’t know where to begin with my questions/issues around what transpired at last night’s Calgary City Council meeting. The whole thing is just so bizarre and unfathomable. How about with a summary of what has happened up until this point in regards to re-drawing the ward boundaries in time for the 2010 election?

1. As outlined in previous mandates the Chief Electoral Officer for the City made a proposal for new ward boundaries as scheduled/planned. (Here's my thoughts on them at that time.)
   
2. The proposed boundaries moved Ward 10 to the north of the city – where more people live – to give a more balanced number of residents in each ward. (Currently Ward 1 has 94,000 people and Ward 3 has 90,000 people, while Ward 14 has only 58,000 and Ward 5 has 60,000.)
3. The alderman for Ward 10, concerned about retaining his seat on council if his ward moves, cried foul and asked council to increase the number of aldermen from 14 to 16.
4. Council said no to this proposal because no proper study had been done on its potential impacts. (Although you can see my thoughts on this issue here.)
5. The alderman for Ward 10 began complaining to anyone who would listen. Eventually council agreed to send the issue to an Aldermanic Committee to reach a decision. (Warning bells should sound at this point.)
6. The Aldermanic Committee instructs the Chief Electoral Officer to re-draw the boundaries while keeping 5 wards east of Deerfoot Trail. (Another warning bell sounds.)
7. The Chief Electoral Officer makes another recommendation to council. The Alderman for Ward 10 makes a recommendation as well. (Yet another warning bell.)
8. Council votes to turn down the Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendation so they can take a look at the proposal from the Ward 10 Alderman. (Warning bell, again.)
9. Council votes to approve the proposal by the Alderman from Ward 10. (A BIG final warning bell.)

Does anyone remember from their Social Studies classes what this is called? It’s called gerrymandering. Something politicians SHOULD do everything in their power to avoid. However, in this case they did everything in their power to ensure it was the route selected.

As if this wasn’t enough to get me riled up, I do have a secondary issue: the hastily tabled and approved Ward reorganization is TERRIBLE. It shows no respect for natural boundaries and seems to be based only on political posturing instead of physical, on the ground, relationships.


An example: My community sits above Deerfoot Trail. I live five blocks from Centre Street. If this approved map goes forward my bus stop is no longer in my ward. But the city limits – over nine kilometres away on the other side of Deerfoot and Barlow and 36 Street and 52 Street and 68 Street – are. It makes no sense to me how our neighbours, who we share so much in common with, are in a different ward, while communities like Forest Lawn, that no one in Winston Heights would even DREAM of walking to if they wanted, are grouped together. The issues each of these communities are looking for their alderman to deal with are completely different. So why lump them together?

This was the major issue we were looking to have fixed by the redrawing of ward boundaries. Currently we are in Ward 9, which makes equally little sense. Any glance at a map and you’ll notice we should be in Ward 7. The new map once again ignores the physical realities of the real world (like the fact there isn’t even a sidewalk connecting Winston Heights/Mountview to the east side of Deerfoot) in favour of political trading.

Seriously. Ald. Farrell and Hawksworth were actually trading communities. How is this helpful? How is this not gerrymandering? How is this not wrong?!

But, I’m not just blustering here – although I’ll forgive you if you think so.

Instead I’m speeding up a project I’ve been working on. A project that may offer potential solutions to the problem Calgary is currently face with. More on that early next week.

In the meantime I ask that council slow down and consider their actions. These aren’t chess pieces. They are real people. These decisions affect more than just the 15 of you. It’s time to open the process up and take yourselves out of it.

UPDATE: I made a minor error about the number of people living in each Ward in this post. It has been corrected now. Here is the full population breakdown of each Ward according to the 2007 Civic Census:

Ward 1 94,281
Ward 2 76,749
Ward 3 90,987
Ward 4 73,207
Ward 5 60,434
Ward 6 80,688
Ward 7 67,294
Ward 8 71,259
Ward 9 78,103
Ward 10 68,139
Ward 11 68,841
Ward 12 86,698
Ward 13 80,054
Ward 14 58,801

UPDATE 2: I just wanted to clarify I'm not slagging Forest Lawn in this post by singling them out as someone accused me of. (Why do so many people assume if Forest Lawn is mentioned by name it must be a slight?) I used them as my example because they are the largest community in the new proposed ward on the east side. The fact of it is: they have very different community concerns than Winston Heights/Mountview, which shares more concerns in common with Tuxedo Park or Renfrew - who are not in the proposed ward. The other half of the comment is about it being so far away from Centre Street. If you were heading to Forest Lawn from Winston Heights only a crazy person would dream of walking. It's so far way you pretty much have to take a car. So there you go, no offense intended. Apologies if you read it that way.

Lack of representation on Calgary City Council and the New Wards

Yes, it is true - despite much protesting from Alderman Andre Chabot - the City of Calgary has decided to change it's Ward maps for 2010. This was done, from what I understand, to create a more balanced work-load among alderman, as some Wards have grown larger than others in recent years.

Personally, I really liked Ald. Chabot's suggestion that maybe it is time for the City to add two more alderman to the fold. The city has grown by leaps and bounds since the number of aldermen was expanded to 14 in 1976. (Here come the numbers!) In fact the population has more than doubled in that time! (470,043 people in 1976 to 988,193 in 2006.)

Council barely batted an eye at Chabot's suggestion however. So I thought I'd do a little research to see what the top 25 most populous Canadian cities let pass for democratic representation. Here's my chart in all of it's Wikipedia researched glory:

Municipality	Population 2006	# of Councillors (not incl Mayor)	# Citizens Represented
Toronto	2,503,281	44	56,893
Montreal	1,620,693	64	25,323
Calgary	988,193	14	70,585
Ottawa	812,129	23	35,310
Edmonton	730,372	12	60,864
Mississauga	668,549	11	60,777
Winnipeg	633,451	15	42,230
Vancouver	578,041	10	57,804
Hamilton	504,559	15	33,637
Quebec City	491,142	37	13,274
Brampton	433,806	10	43,381
Surrey	394,976	8	49,372
Halifax	372,679	23	16,203
Laval	368,709	21	17,558
London	352,395	19	18,547
Markham	261,573	8	32,697
Gatineau	242,124	17	14,243
Vaughan	238,866	5	47,773
Longueuil	229,330	26	8,820
Windsor	216,473	10	21,647
Kitchener	204,668	6	34,111
Burnaby	202,799	8	25,350
Saskatoon	202,340	10	20,234
Regina	179,246	10	17,925
Richmond	174,461	8	21,808

So is City Council just rearranging the deck chairs on their democratically challenged Titanic?

A quick look at these number and the first thing that should jump out at you is: in the entire country, Calgarians are the most under-represented on their City Council. In fact, the second most under-represented citizenry are about 10,000 people shy of our mark. That's 15% less representation we have than the second worst offending city in the country?! That number is surprisingly high.

Another way to look at this would be to say our aldermen are that much more overworked than their colleagues elsewhere in the country. Or our aldermen have that much less time to work on local issues.

No matter how you look at it the time has come to address the number of aldermen on council. With the population growing more that 100% since we added any additional representation of Calgarian's to our own council. And isn't easing the work-load what prompted Council to take a look at re-zoning the Wards in the first place?

I only hope we're not too late, and that Council hasn't closed the book on this topic yet. This situation must be looked at and taken into account.

(PS - The second thing that may jump out at you is that boy howdy! do Quebecers love them some big government! Almost every Quebec city is at the top of the list for number of councillors per capita. That might explain a lot about their closely guarded cultural identity. But that's a topic for some grad student's thesis.)