Common Sense in Life

Election 2012

2012-01-26T14:28:00.000-07:00

In the next few months Alberta will be holding a provincial election, and I have been pondering what to do and who to vote for. For me, the option to not do anything at all,simply isn't viable. I need to be a part of the process, and I can say that I have never failed to vote.

I have learned not to trust, however. Or maybe I should say I have been forced to learn not to trust. Which pretty much sums up how politicians and the political process has evolved. It doesn't seem to make any difference if it's civic, or provincial, or federal.

I have also learned that every party at every level, has their political bullies. You know the ones, they lurk around corners, just waiting to pounce on you and make you feel useless and clueless. Or their favorite ploy, they lip off at you, and then never bother to respond back when you start asking some of those "good questions" or making comments about things that they refuse to discuss. But I get the feeling it's because they know you are right, and they are wrong, and they just can't honestly defend themselves or their parties stances on hot issues.

The following is my personal take on things, coming from the experiences I have received over the past few years, combined with discussions and news reports.

Our current ruling PC party... well, they have a new leader, who seems to have come out of the gate making promises of cleanups and reforms. Some of those have been started, some have been "modified" since the original statements, and some are pending. I see several of the current MLA's that are not going to be running again and you have to ask if they are jumping from a sinking ship. There has been some promises of reviewing what MLA's get when they leave... and for the average person they certainly get way more than anyone else ever will in life. And for the most part, very few of them actually deserve it. As a life long resident of Alberta, I am really very tired of these golden hand shakes and huge payouts. It has to stop, and it has to be retroactive. PC party coat tails have been too long, and if you want us as the general public to really believe in you then you need to clean things up. Taking your time to do that, is not acceptable.

Then we have the Wild Rose folks. Mega amounts of talking and making statements. Many of those have been of an arrogant nature to boot. I am not impressed with that, sorry. You folks talk up quite the storm, but from what I have heard from inside sources, your party is all about control. What makes me skeptical and curious at the same time, is the out right refusal to say where your leaders donations have been coming from. We do know you have major backing from the Oil industry... and that tells me you are going to be "beholding" to them, rather than serving the needs of the public.So many other things over time, have come up as well. The stance and internal flipping on health care is a huge concern. I do however, like the fact that you stood up for the City Center Airport remaining to serve the needs of the medical community, and should be enhanced to bring back our "gateway to the north". How the current government ever let the city close down the only practical runway for medivac services is beyond me... Of course, we all remember the baby that died as a result of that decision.

Next would be the Liberals. Quite the tough time in getting off the ground, and while you have tried you haven't really been effective. Of course, being up against a government that has refused to listen to the people in the past, has not been easy. And then along came Raj... maybe a little lippy at times, and apparently has done some things "for effect", rather than for honesty. I heard that those boxes of documents being hauled out of the car "for show", were really FOR show, and that the boxes were mostly empty with papers being taped so they hung outside for dramatic effect. I don't know how true that is, but... it does make me wonder about the credibility factor for sure.

And then, there is the NDP. Oh, if Grant were only alive... Anyway, they have been trying like the Libs have been, and of course have been running into the same problems. It is what it is, right? But, there is that "attitude" thing again. Ever since I started diving into politics several years ago, I have always stated to every party and every person... "I do not care what party you are with. If you have a good idea then I will willingly stand by your side and fight for it". Yet when I met Brian for the first time during the public protest event over at City Hall about the arena, and shook his hand... and then mentioned that (at the time) I was a member of the Alberta Party... What did you do? You looked down your nose at me and turned away. One never knows but maybe the old "tit for tat" thing will come at election time.

And finally, that leaves the Alberta Party. Above all, you folks have taught me that you are no different than any of the other parties out there. You scream about the "Big Listen" and imply that you actually listen. And I will say that indeed, you do. But only as long as it suits your internal Board of Directors directions. As much as I politely tried to bring the City Center Airport issues up, I was ignored. I have already posted on how I was told it would be discussed, so I won't bother bringing that up again. And I fully expect someone from the party to respond and say "it is a City issue"... Well, maybe the Airport is on City land, but the medical side of that service is under provincial control. You should have stood up to the plate, for the people, to make sure that service stayed until something *acceptable* was in place. You knew about the baby's death as well, and said nothing.That just isn't acceptable.

With all of this said, I will do full disclosure here. Yes, I bought membership in the Alberta Party. I paid my 10 bucks, and because of the PC race a while back, prices were dropped to 5 bucks, and now I have had a year added on. I could turn it in and say 'screw you', but that would be 10 bucks wasted. You could say 'screw you' and cancel it and send me my money back. Meh... like I really care. And yes, I did also buy a membership in the PC party during the 'race', because I wanted to have a SAY in the selection of the replacement for Eddie.

In closing, I will state at this point, I have no clue on the party or the person I will be voting for when the time comes. My desires are for a government that rules for the 99% and not the 1%. I would lean towards a party that promises to create recall legislation for both civic and provincial politicians, and makes the process of doing official complaints and/or referendum type rules easier. For example, the legislation now says you need a certain percentage of signatures, but includes all residents including children. Yet children are not allowed to sign a petition. Logic says this is just wrong. And I would lean towards a party that would severely cuff industry upside the head for things like price fixing. You know.. like gas... and power... all in the name of profits.

I AM the 99%. And I count.My numbers are growing, which could make your numbers shrink faster than you could ever dream. If you can't be open, and honest... then you need to leave. Sooner is better.

Hey Google...

2012-01-24T08:55:00.000-07:00

In this post, I am literally biting the hand that feeds me, because this is about some funny things Google is doing ... and yet here I am posting on a Google blog. It is what it is.

Many who know me, know I tend to be very anal about the security on my computer system. And I am like that because working with computers for over 30 years I have learnt to be wise. Over the past while, watching my internet traffic and various browsers, I have noticed some changes in the way that Google has been working.

Now, I get that Google is on a gathering mission... in many ways we want that to happen. But what exactly IS Google gathering anyway? Not so long ago, you could search on Google, click on a link, and it would take you to your selection. The browser "back" button was never enabled, because you had nothing to go back to, presuming that you opened your link into a new window... That has all changed because Google is obviously adding in some more tracking stats or something, because now you go to Google to pass on "stuff" before being directed to the website you wanted... and... the back button takes you back to Google's re-direction scheme.... Meh... certainly annoying...

And for whatever reason, many websites are now using some form of "Google Analytics", and to be honest, I got so pissed at seeing SO many hits to this service, that I blocked it from working on my computer.

Today, I was looking at a website for a few seconds, and noticed the blocked entry appearing in my list. And of course, I snickered under my breath. I closed the browser after a few seconds, since the page I was on wasn't exactly what I was interested in.

But wait!!! I started browsing at 7:55:25, and I closed the browser at 7:55:30 ... 5 seconds later. So WHY was it, that my system was still trying to "respond" to Google at 7:56:53, almost a full 90 seconds AFTER I closed the browser? Like... what the h***...

But then, it gets even better.

Over a minute AFTER the last attempt made by whatever "leftovers" were still running from closing the browser... Google THEN made several "burst attempts" to communicate to MY system, trying to 'talk' to me on multiple ports.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words...

So... Is Google your friend? Really??

Edmonton Snow Removal Issues

2011-11-22T12:00:00.000-07:00

The following is an open letter sent to Edmonton City Council folks concerning our cities first snow fall removal efforts under a new bylaw. You can take the list of emails for your reference if you wish. They are:

linda.sloan@edmonton.ca; kim.krushell@edmonton.ca; dave.loken@edmonton.ca; ed.gibbons@edmonton.ca; karen.leibovici@edmonton.ca; jane.batty@edmonton.ca; tony.caterina@edmonton.ca; ben.henderson@edmonton.ca; bryan.anderson@edmonton.ca; don.iveson@edmonton.ca; kerry.diotte@edmonton.ca; amarjeet.sohi@edmonton.ca; Stephen.Mandel@edmonton.ca

The email sent:

I have been reading several stories on how the City has handled a new season on snow, in a winter city. Specifically I will refer to this link from iNews880 "1278 tickets and some parking complaints in snow post mortem"

I remember a time when we had signs that indicated a "no parking - snow route", and the City would announce when these were in effect. For the most part, the system worked well, and the existing laws also worked. So I am curious why we had to spend in excess of $600,000 to make new signs for a seasonal ban (with an added time frame) and then after people complained the time frame was removed from those signs? And how much more did THAT cost us? Do we not now have exactly what the existing snow parking ban signs were in place for?

Clearly, this council has failed to provide proper direction to Administration, and has just ASSumed that people in these areas are capable of thinking. Nothing like thinking people can think when they can't. And you continue to employ them as well.

In the above article, Sohi was "spot on" with people going back to parking after the plows went through. That's the way it was done before. Ticketing people after the fact? Really?

For Dunford to say it would be impossible to "un-ban"... I have to ask why? If the plows have gone...

As well, Diotte is "spot on" with his comments.

Sadly, we have Henderson's comments about the alternative. As yes, the brilliant idea that we will just ban all cars from parking on major roads in front of their homes for 6 months. The best friendly idea to residents who pay taxes, ever made.

I get that it's not a "right" to be able to park on the street in front of your own residence. But if you want to really make the residents of this City mad, please... keep on doing what you are doing.

I can't begin to tell you how many comments I have been hearing that equate how this City is being run by a Gestapo like service. The image this City is creating to the rest of the world is "come here to be abused, have your tax dollars wasted and be treated with no respect".

Welcome to Deadmonton.

The 50k tweet trip dedication

2011-10-31T15:17:00.000-06:00

As I roll past the 50,000th tweet, it seems like yesterday when I signed up for twitter. Like many, the reason I came is completely different than the reason I stayed. Yet the reason I stay is the same as the reason I started with.

For decades, I've seen "the system" being broken. Feel free to choose what "the system" is, for it has multiple meanings depending on the issue at hand. Political, medical, legal, social... it's an endless list.

I've followed the "occupy" movement, and I'm pleased it is finding attention all over the world. We really need to get our heads out of the sand and wake up a little. I know for many people, it hurts too much to take that time to learn about the world. Those causing that hurt actually depend on people like you to not care, because that is the only way they can get away with what they do.

The 4 major banks in Canada have been averaging $2 billion dollars per quarter, per bank, per year. That's $32 billion dollars a year in profits... yet they have the 'need' to raise service fees.

Many major corporations rake in billions of dollars in profits, yet pay no taxes.

Politicians waste money hand over fist and expect taxpayers (the non-extreme-rich ones) to just keep putting more and more back to cover their lack of wisdom and intelligence.

I've heard many people complain that the 'occupy movement' doesn't have a clue what they are doing, they can't nail down to specifics what the issues are. Yet it is so easy to see, if you would only open your eyes. If you really have to ask then maybe you have missed out on what has been happening because you are afraid to ask those questions...

What we have now, is a world based on Marketing. It doesn't have to be truthful, it only has to be catchy. And those in marketing will do their best to find that sweet spot to part your money into their pocket. After all, that is what they are paid to do. Don't get me wrong... I am not saying all people in marketing are scum bags, because that is not the truth. Marketing is a good thing, when done with the right intentions.

Something to ponder on... You've probably seen the recent ads on TV that talk about "Why sign into a long term electrical contract... I mean really...". Done with a pretty face and smile so it makes you feel good and strong. Remember, it is marketing... and you should be questioning the reason why.

Perhaps one reason is, they will make more money if you don't sign that contract.

New and improved in today's market place will, more often than not, simply mean that "we changed the product (therefore it is new and now costs us less to produce) and we have improved our profits at your expense."

And with that said, I dedicate this blog post to those in the world who have their eyes open.

Arena Timeline 2010

2011-10-30T22:35:00.009-06:00

The following information is presented by Mimi Williams aka @willmimi on twitter. This is the third part of a 4 part series. A huge effort has been made to compile this, and the work presented is copyright by the author.

Part 1 deals with the 2005 to 2007 time period. Part 2 will handle the 2008 to 2009 period, leaving Part 3 (you are reading it here) covering 2010, and Part 4 (link to be supplied) will include the 2011 year. Please enjoy the read, and remember to thank Mimi for her extensive work.

Edmonton’s Downtown Arena – All the News that was Fit to Print (Part 3)

2010

1/21: NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman visits Edmonton. He is quoted by Joanne Ireland of the Edmonton Journal, "The proposal is very exciting, very compelling and I think it's very important for the franchise. This is the second-oldest building in the league, the smallest market in the league and if this team is going to have success long-term they need a new rink."

1/22: NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman visits Calgary and is quoted by Tamara Gignac of the Calgary Herald, “"There's an economic reality to what new arenas provide. If the Flames are going to continue to be successful and stable, ultimately they are going to need a new arena."

1/23: Retired City Manager Al Maurer tells the Edmonton Journal’s Gordon Kent that the city shouldn’t assume the public supports the new downtown arena proposal. He suggests arena proponents remember the Omniplex proposal which was voted down by voters in a plebiscite in 1970.

1/26: Despite the cancellation of 3 major acts the previous year, Northlands retains Pollstar’s ranking as the 3rd business arena in the country (less than 5,000 seats sold away from 2nd place Toronto), reports Sandra Sperounes of the Edmonton Journal.

1/27: John MacKinnon of the Edmonton Journal reports Northlands has hired “sports consulting firm CSL International and Spotlight Strategies to provide a "heightened level of due diligence" related to a variety of aspects of the proposed arena precinct.”

1/28: Edmonton Journal’s David Staples, citing an unnamed source, reports Northlands is examining at a number of options, including the possibility of putting an arena where the current horse racing track sits. University of Alberta’s Dan Mason tells Staples the Katz Group shouldn’t look at this idea as a threat, but as a Plan B.

1/30: David Staples writes in the Edmonton Journal that Tony Caterina, whose ward includes Rexall, wants Northlands involved in any new arena. “"My concern is for the existing area, the existing arena and Northlands ... to make sure that they are not hurt with anything we do."”

“So far, all the Oilers have said is they want control of all revenue from the new arena and from Rexall Place. Northlands, which built Rexall Place in 1974 with public funds, now takes in millions each year in concert revenue and would have to give up that money

The Northlands and Oilers-led arena committee's plan for financing the arena contemplated that whoever controlled the new arena would put in $11 million per year from arena revenues to pay off the building's mortgage.” – David Staples

2/2: Trish Audette and Archie McLean report in the Edmonton Journal that Northlands issued a press release stating "We feel it's important to clear up any confusion regarding inaccurate reports that have been made in the media recently. Northlands is not pursuing an alternate arena proposal on our site and we continue to support the vision for a downtown arena that is financially viable and in the best interest of the entire community.”

2/4: Alberta Culture Minister Lindsay Blackett, offering the Edmonton Journal’s Trish Audette a “sneak peak” into the provincial budget reiterates Premier Stelmach's previous “refusal to offer any funding for a proposed downtown hockey arena.”

2/10: Katz Group advises their $100M contribution will not go towards building the arena itself but to surrounding development. “The city would pay for a new Oilers arena itself, while the Katz Group would invest $100 million in the accompanying sports and entertainment complex” Gary Lamphier of the Edmonton Journal quotes company VP Bob Black. “The city could borrow money to build the arena, which it would own, then pay off the loan with a "community revitalization levy" using property taxes generated by the rest of the development.”

Lamphier writes the Katz Group expects both the federal and provincial governments to help with infrastructure, including a connection to the LRT station planned nearby, and that the plan “includes shops, restaurants and two office towers linked by a 4,000-square-metre pedestrian bridge to a $400-million arena across 104th Avenue. The enclosed "Winter Garden" walkover, featuring stores and standing eight metres above the road, will tie the district together, Black said. The arena area will include a community rink doubling as Edmonton Oilers practice ice, two hotels, a new casino and new student residences, he told the Building Owners and Managers Association.”

2/11: “Mayor Stephen Mandel said Wednesday he still expects the Katz Group to invest in a downtown Oilers arena, not just the accompanying entertainment complex.

"From what we've been told over a number of years and in an unending number of statements, that's always been our expectation," Mandel said. "One would anticipate that that would be part of the package. I think that's something the public would expect."

But company vice-president Bob Black told The Journal editorial board on Wednesday that while Daryl Katz might put more than $100 million into the surrounding complex, no cash is earmarked for the arena itself.

...Black said the Katz Group is still working out all financial details with the city, province and federal governments, but he now expects the city will own the $400-million arena and pay the mortgage on it. "There really isn't a suitable mechanism in our view by which Daryl Katz could invest $100 million into a building that's owned by the city."

The Katz Group has proposed that the city borrow money to build the $400-million facility, then recover its investment from property taxes generated by the surrounding office towers, hotels, casino, shops and other development.

Edmonton residents rejected a proposed downtown civic sports complex in a 1970s plebiscite, but Mandel said Wednesday morning the final word on the current issue should be left up to politicians.

"I don't believe a plebiscite is in the best interest of the citizens," he told reporters. "We were elected to make decisions and those decisions need to be made by city council."” – David Staples, Gordon Kent, Paula Simons (Edmonton Journal)

2/11: “According to Gary Klassen, the city's general manager of planning and development, a big downtown development like Edmonton City Centre pays 1.4 per cent of its assessed value in property taxes. So even if -- and it's a big if -- all the developments spurred by the arena had a total assessed property value of $1 billion, they'd generate $14 million a year in taxes. At that rate, it would take some 30 years to pay off the arena -- and that's not including interest costs.” – Paula Simons, Edmonton Journal.

2/11: The Edmonton Journal’s Gordon Kent writes, “A proposal to have the city fund a downtown arena with taxes generated by surrounding development doesn't appear to add up... The Katz Group wants the city to borrow money to build the $400-million sports facility, then repay the loan using tax revenues generated by the $1-billion worth of office towers, hotels, shops, casino and other projects planned for the district.

At current municipal interest rates, annual payments on a $400-million loan over a typical 20-year term would be about $31 million, Edmonton's chief financial officer Craig Warnock says.

But commercial real estate assessed at $1 billion generates about $14 million a year in civic property taxes, according to Journal calculations.”

2/11: Journal Straw Poll “What do you think of having the city build a downtown arena and recoup the costs through taxes on the Katz Group's surrounding development?” Sounds like a win-win (28%); Sounds like a lose-lose (41%); I need more details before I can say (31%). There were 1,122 votes.

2/12: “While Katz has in the past pledged to put $100 million into the arena, Black said the company instead wants to invest at least that much in the surrounding buildings to help ensure the work gets done. He expects the city will need to borrow less than $400 million for the arena, because the province and the federal governments will fund some of the infrastructure, such as a connection to the LRT station planned nearby.

But Finance Minister Ted Morton said he doesn't see the province having any money for the project over the next three years.” - Gordon Kent, Edmonton Journal

2/12: “On Thursday, after a self-imposed, 19-month media silence, Oilers owner Daryl Katz was heard from on the NHL team he owns and on his downtown arena proposal. But he spoke by way of a canned infomercial in which he responded to queries lobbed at him by an employee. In a city with a well-known aversion to pretension, real or imagined, that approach is perceived as offensively aristocratic.” – John MacKinnon, Edmonton Journal

2/14: Edmonton Journal runs a letter from Daryl Katz wherein he suggests that people misunderstood his earlier commitment. He writes, “There has been a suggestion that I have somehow broken my pledge regarding a new arena. This is untrue.

Back at the time of my efforts to acquire the Edmonton Oilers, I made a commitment to help build a new downtown arena. Here is what I said in a Katz Group news release issued on March 25, 2008: "Daryl Katz, founder and chairman of Rexall Sports, has pledged to contribute his time, energy and on the order of $100 million toward the development of a new downtown arena following his acquisition of the Edmonton Oilers."

It was impossible then to know what the funding model might look like and who might own the arena, which is why I left the specific nature of the funding open.

Maybe I'm still suffering for having started my career as a lawyer, but I thought the words were clear.

In hindsight, I understand how some people may have read the comment differently, and I'm sure my preference not to discuss these things publicly hasn't helped.”

2/17: “The Katz proposal for a mega downtown remodel anchored by a new NHL hockey palace puts the cart before the horse. It assumes a new $400-million arena will revitalize the city core and, more importantly, that an arena-sparked revitalization will make feasible an associated $1-billion recreation, office and hotel complex, the taxes from which will pay for the arena.

I am unconvinced that downtown Edmonton is short a billion dollars worth of office space and hotel rooms, just as I am unconvinced that bringing fans downtown for Oilers games will be enough to kick off a new era of downtown activity and viability.” - Lorne Gunter, Edmonton Journal

2/19: Mayor says ticket tax could cover $125M of arena cost. The Journal’s Gordon Kent reports that Mandel feels that the Katz Group position that they will not put $100M towards construction as a "material change" that needs explanation. "If they're not going to put the $100 million in, which we assumed they would, then they have to come up with another solution to make that work."

2/23: Journal Straw Poll “Mayor Mandel is proposing a ticket tax on all events at a new downtown arena as one way to help pay for the project. What do you think?” Good plan, users should help pay (47%) Bad plan, ticket buyers shouldn't have to pay more. (8%) Katz should pay for it. (16%) We don't need a new arena. (29%) There were 2,682 votes.

2/24: Mayor Mandel writes about arena discussions in the Edmonton Examiner, “It is imperative that this discussion happen in an open and transparent manner and must include a significant public voice. I would encourage citizens to participate as early and as much as possible.”

2/25: Katz Group launches Edmonton Arena District social media campaign. (David Staples, Edmonton Journal)

2/26: Scott McKeen of the Edmonton Journal reports that Councillor Karen Leibovici, whose husband Stephen Zepp is a Medicine Shoppe VP, obtained a legal opinion that says she has no conflict of interest on arena. McKeen writes, “she'll have to keep a close eye on public reaction. If doubts are raised and the public starts pointing fingers her way, she'll have to re-evaluate the decision.”

3/10: CTV/ACCESS TeleResearch poll: “Should City of Edmonton build a new arena for Oilers?” Yes 22.55% No 55.45% Undecided 22%

3/20: Katz VP Bob Black pens Journal guest column, says arena district will have community rink, student housing, Winter Garden, hotels & office towers.

3/21: Northlands Chair Andy Huntley tells the Journal’s David Staples that Rexall, only halfway through its structural life, could operate “for decades”. "We've got a repair and maintenance plan that keeps this building standing just fine until 2024. Beyond that, I'm not too sure.” Huntley is quoted. "It's not falling down. In fact, it's actually built like a brick you-know-what."

3/25: The Edmonton Journal’s Trish Audette reports that half a dozen members of the provincial government watched the Oilers game from the Katz Group skybox. Along with Katz Group VP Bob Black, MLAs Thomas Lucaszuk, Doug Elniski, and Ray Danyluk were among those present. Danyluk tells Audette the new arena proposal was not raised.

4/7: Councillor Don Iveson writes in the Edmonton Examiner, “I, for one, am not keen on using the city's borrowing power to finance any part of the development. City borrowing power is prudently limited by both city policy and provincial law, and we need all of what's remaining for the next phases of LRT expansion. I also don't think it's appropriate in general for the city to provide financing for a for-profit enterprise. We partner with not-for-profits all the time, but private enterprise has traditionally fended for itself.”

4/10: Josh Wingrove writes in the Globe and Mail, “Complicating the arena campaign is the perception that too much is going on behind closed doors, with too much potential conflict of interest. For example, the city committee that recommended a new arena included the Oilers' chief executive officer and one of the owners at the time. Also, Mr. Katz is a director of the mortgage company that employs Mr. Huntley, chairman of the board of Northlands, the team's current landlord. And the husband of popular Edmonton City Councillor Karen Leibovici is an executive at a Katz-owned company. (Ms. Leibovici did not respond to an interview request, but the mayor says it's up to her whether she votes when the issue reaches council.)”

4/14: Mayor tells the Journal’s editorial board that $450M cost estimates for the arena have been “blown out of proportion” by people who “don't have details”. (Gordon Kent, Edmonton Journal)

4/16: Katz Group issues a news release announcing they have hired former journo Steve Hogle as VP Pub Affairs & Communications. “Mr. Hogle's primary responsibility in this role will be media relations and stakeholder engagement for the Edmonton Arena District to handle arena media & stakeholder relations.” (Canada Newswire)

4/19: Katz Group files formal rezoning application. No plans or designs submitted.

4/20: “With no architectural drawings, no models, no massing studies, no information about the impact on traffic flow down 104th Avenue or the quality of life on the GMU campus, what exactly is city council being asked to rubber stamp? And who's going to pay for it all?

On all these points, Bob Black, the Katz Group's point man on the project, is almost whimsically hazy. The funding model, he says "remains a work in progress." Other key questions, he says, will be dealt with at "a time temporally removed from the present."” – Paula Simons, Edmonton Journal

4/20: “With few details available, no architectural renderings, no funding proposal and a mayor's race that lacks a serious challenger to incumbent Stephen Mandel, observers don't see how the arena proposal could become an election issue.

"The question is, will there be enough information by the time people vote? I doubt it very much ... [otherwise] it will turn into a political football and you'd hate to do that before a civic election," said Chaldeans Mensah, a political scientist at Grant MacEwan University in Edmonton.” – Josh Wingrove, Globe and Mail

4/21: Journal Straw Poll “The Katz Group has submitted a rezoning application to the City of Edmonton for a downtown arena development. Should the project go ahead?” 35% You bet; 11% Nope; 41% Only if there's no public money; 13% Need more info

5/5: "There's an irony here, which is that someone else is designing a building, which we're being asked to fund and own," Councillor Don Iveson tells the Edmonton Journal, “"The last I heard down the (council) hallways, there wasn't a lot of appetite for that." (David Staples, Gordon Kent)

5/7: After the Katz Group hosts open house at Art Gallery, Scott McKeen of the Edmonton Journal writes that a majority of city councillors are not impressed. “But I couldn't vote for this proposal, either. I believe that if Daryl Katz wants to design and operate an arena for his benefit, he should build it. But if public money is involved, Katz can only be the primary tenant. Nothing more. If he throws in $100 million, give him naming rights and free rent for hockey dates for 20 years.”

5/8 Journal Straw Poll “The Katz Group has released more information about its vision for a downtown Edmonton arena district. What's your reaction?” I like it, let's go ahead (37 %); I'll never support the downtown arena (31 %); I still want more info (18 %); I don't care about this issue (14 %) Total votes: 1,264.

5/11: Gordon Kent, Edmonton Journal reports that some councillors think holding a public hearing on the arena zoning at the end of June is rushing things. He quotes Councillor Linda Sloan, "I think it's very premature ... Is their business model reliant on public financing? That's the first question."

5/12: Joelle Reiniger of the Edmonton Examiner reports on the Katz Group arena open house “There was no mention of what each component of the project would cost and who would pay. To be fair, the project is in the concept stage. The Katz group is applying to have the district rezoned, not for a government grant – yet. That's coming. And that debate will be the real test of whether the public truly has a voice.”

5/14: The Journal’s Scott McKeen writes, “Katz, by attempting to fast-track the approval process, reveals either a stubborn streak, or naivety. Does he not realize a civic election looms large? Does he comprehend the awkward position he puts councillors in, with a request for approval now? Candidates will be knocking on doors in June. Imagine the porch lectures if voters think council is giving Katz special treatment, not to mention millions in tax dollars.”

5/20: Florence Loyie, Edmonton Journal reports that a public meeting about the proposed downtown arena drew about 150 residents, many of whom raised concerns about the project including traffic and parking problems, increased public inebriation, and the costs to taxpayers.

5/26: Journal Straw Poll “Do you think Daryl Katz's proposal for a downtown arena will be an election issue?” Of course (40%); It should, but it won't be (23%) Nah, there are bigger problems (16%) You mean we'll still be talking about this in October? (21%) There were 2,076 votes.

6/7: Katz Group withdraws zoning application. Says in a press release that a more detailed funding model is needed. (Canada Newswire)

6/8: An unnamed Katz Group source tells the Journal that the zoning request was put off until after the municipal election October 18th. (Elise Stolte)

6/11: “Much talk this week about the Katz Group's decision to delay its rezoning application for a downtown arena. If I'm them, I turtle until after the October civic election. The last thing arena proponents want is their issue front and centre during the fall campaign. Believe me, candidates will get an earful from tax-sensitive voters. For what it's worth, my advice is to rework the plans, come up with a more palatable funding formula and appear before council when the political climate has cooled.” Scott McKeen, Edmonton Journal.

6/19: Andrea Sands and Gordon Kent of the Edmonton Journal reports Northlands has hired Richard Andersen as President and Chief Executive Officer. Andersen will leave his role as a VP of Major League Baseball’s San Diego Padres and as General Manager of that teams Petco Park stadium.

6/25: “Another setback for the arena came this week when council rejected the idea of private negotiations with the Katz Group to push things forward. Council instead invited Katz officials to present their plans in public. Council also asked city staff to research the merits and funding options for a new arena.” Scott McKeen, Edmonton Journal.

6/26: Dan Barnes of the Edmonton Journal reports Mayor Mandel met with the NHL’s Gary Bettman at the NHL draft in Los Angeles. "We all believe that Edmonton and the Oilers need a new arena and the question is, 'What is the best way to do it?' I think the meeting was very constructive," said Bettman. "We just had a nice discussion about the NHL," said Mandel. "I'd just like to leave it at that.”

6/29: Katz Group spends day denying reports Oilers could move to Hamilton. Rumours triggered by Oilers execs high profile visit to Hamilton during which they made a behind closed doors presentation to that city council about the viability of an NHL franchise in that city. “"I've predicted for years that he'd eventually threaten to move," Brad Humphreys, a professor at the University of Alberta tells the CBC."It would certainly provide him with a little of leverage if he said, 'I'm going to move my franchise, 'cause look, I've already got somewhere to put it.'"

7/3 “Edmonton city councillors aren't jumping to any conclusions after new reports Edmonton Oilers owner Daryl Katz is offering $1 million to lock down NHL rights for a Hamilton arena”, writes Alyssa Noel in the Edmonton Sun.

7/3: Coun Henderson tells the Journal’s Paula Simons, "It's all being played out in headlines & press releases, and that's not building trust." Simons writes, “The problem for Katz and his team is that their PR blunders just keeping piling up. First came the $100 million "misunderstanding" -- the one that saw Katz's original pledge to invest $100 million in a new arena transformed into a vague promise to invest $100 million, over time, in the area around the arena.”

7/6: Councillor Ed Gibbons tells the Journal’s Gordon Kent that estimates prepared for Northlands on the costs to expand and renovate Rexall have been revised and would now come in at about $175 million to $190 million.

7/10: Councillor Don Iveson tells Kevin Libin from the National Post that he's unsure about whether the city can even afford to borrow the $400-million Mr. Katz is apparently seeking as financing for the stadium.

7/14: Katz Group releases a letter dated June 29th, which the Edmonton Journal’s Scott McKeen writes, councillors had not yet seen two weeks later, that puts his $100M contribution for arena construction back on table.

7/15: Gordon Kent reports on councillors’ reaction to Katz’ letter in the Edmonton Journal: “Mayor Stephen Mandel called the letter good news while Coun. Jane Batty said it "does change the playing field." But Coun. Don Iveson said the letter doesn't make much difference to him. "The issue for me has always been whether we should be the bank for this, whether we should own it or finance it," he said, explaining this might put taxpayers at risk and reduce the city's ability to borrow for other work."”

7/21: Journal's McKeen writes the Katz Group’s proposed arena site was ranked 5th and Northlands 1st as recommended sites for a new arena in a consultant's report councillors never saw: “A confidential consultants' report I saw this week ranks four other sites ahead of the Katz holdings along 104th Avenue. Even the Northlands grounds were ranked higher by HOK Sport, an acclaimed sports architecture firm. This news came as no shock to city councillors Tuesday, who seem used to receiving arena updates from unofficial sources, such as the media.”

7/22: In an appearance before council which included Daryl Katz, the Katz Group confirms he’ll commit $100M for arena plus $100M for arena district, but vow the Oilers won't play in Rexall past 2014. Katz Group VP John Karvellas denied this was a threat to move the team. "I will never say such a thing. I will never imply it either ... If that's what's implied with what we have said today, that is not our intention." Gordon Kent and Ryan Cormier, Edmonton Journal.

7/23: “Northlands chairman Andy Huntley says his non-profit society is still interested in operating a downtown arena, even though the Katz Group has indicated it wants to take over that role.” Gordon Kent, Edmonton Journal

7/23: The Canadian Taxpayers Federation Scott Hennig explains the CRL in an Edmonton Journal guest column: “Thanks to the CRL, this shift causes a loss in revenue for the city that means property taxes across the city would have to go up to cover the shortfall for core services. It also means that the CRL doesn't produce "free money" at all. It's just a complicated bit of accounting trickery to get taxpayers to unknowingly buy a for-profit company a new building.”

7/27: Ryan Cormier, Edmonton Journal reports city councillors have submitted 140 written questions about the arena proposal to administration. Answers are not expected until after the fall municipal election.

7/28: The Katz Group says they don’t see a role for Northlands in a new arena, leaving some councillors expressing concern about the organization’s future. Christina Emberley of the Edmonton Examiner quotes John Karvellas, "We tried to come to an understanding with them. We didn't. We moved on."

8/19: Edmonton Journal Straw Poll “What do you think is the biggest issue in this fall's Edmonton civic election?” The City Centre Airport (22%); The downtown arena (33%); LRT (10%); Urban sprawl (11%); Potholes (4%); Taxes (14%); Something else entirely (6%) There were 1,413 votes.

8/26: Downtown Business Assoc. surveys downtown residents, find 46% support arena proposal. The Association’s Executive Director notes “since 1997 there have been an "astounding" 43 residential projects in the core, with more coming on stream soon, and that will increase the demand for restaurants and other services.” (David Finlayson, Edmonton Journal)

9/10: While Prime Minister Harper mused about funding arenas in Quebec, Calgary and Edmonton, the Calgary Herald’s Jason Fekete reports Premier Stelmach’s reaction: “"There won't be any public money going to the arenas. We're trying to catch up with badly needed infrastructure in health and schools.”

9/18: Journal columnist Scott McKeen announces he will be running for City Council in Ward 7. “He voiced his support for a new downtown arena, that is not paid for by existing taxes, and parallels new ideas for the existing Northlands grounds.” (Ryan Cormier, Journal)

9/21: Candidates file their nominations papers at city hall. Terry Demers, seeking a seat in Ward 3, tells the Journal’s Gordon Kent that the airport is by far the most common topic that has come up since she started campaigning in early August. "The only issue I have heard, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times, is the airport. I have heard one person talk about the arena."

9/27: John Geddes writes in Macleans Magazine, “New NHL arenas in Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto were built without federal money. Even more telling is the case of Winnipeg, since the Manitoba capital is roughly Quebec City's size. The MTS Centre cost only $133.5 million, with the province, city and federal government together contributing about $40 million, and the rest coming from private investors.” Edmonton’s city manager responds that the federal government’s consideration of Quebec City arena funding request is “framework-changing”.

10/6: Councillor Amarje Sohi tells Ward 12 election forum "downtown arena can be built and should be built, but it does not need any support from taxpayers." (Edmonton Journal, no author cited)

10/13: “The city needs to do a better job of explaining the Katz Group's downtown arena proposal to the public, says Mayor Stephen Mandel. "We haven't really done enough community consultation," Mandel said during an Edmonton Sun/Examiner editorial board meeting.” (byline Examiner News Services)

10/14: Mayoralty candidate David Dorward tells the Journal’s Gordon Kent he wouldn’t be opposed to a plebiscite on a downtown arena but would hope one wouldn’t be necessary because they are expensive when not held in conjunction with an election.

10/15: David Staples writes in the Edmonton Journal, “But a downtown arena district? The Katz Group and city administrators are now hammering out a deal on financing the project. An agreement might well go before council in coming months so that construction can begin by January 2012. But none of the main details have been finalized. Many are of intense public interest.

Sounds like good campaign fodder, but only Scott Hennig, Alberta director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF), has made a big push to get the arena on the election agenda. Hennig sent all candidates a questionnaire about financial accountability, with half of his questions focused on the downtown arena. Only five incumbents answered Hennig. All of them said they didn't get or wouldn't take any campaign money for this election from the Katz Group.

The Katz Group made a smart strategic decision early last summer, Hennig says, to delay trying to bring forward an arena deal with city council until after this election. "They could see this was going to become an election issue, and they didn't really want this to become an election issue because they could see the (anti-downtown arena) polling on it."

Only two incumbent councillors, Don Iveson and Tony Caterina, told the CTF they would stand against any public funding, including a Community Revitalization Levy (CRL), for a new arena.”

10/16:

10/18: Election day.

10/19: Reporting on Amarjeet Sohi’s re-election, Darcy Henton of the Journal, “Sohi, a former city bus driver who took public transit to work at City Hall during his first term on council, was one of only two councillors who voted against the behind-closed-doors sale of Epcor assets. He has been a big booster of the city's Expo 2017 bid and he has said publicly he doesn't believe taxpayers' money should be used to fund a new downtown hockey arena for the Edmonton Oilers.”

10/19: Re-elected Councillor Tony Caterina tells the Edmonton Examiner that any new taxpayer funded arena should be put to a plebiscite. “"The biggest concern was actually the arena issue, and the many concerns people expressing about not knowing what's going to happen." (byline QMI agency)

10/23: City announces arena open houses and discussion groups, along with an online presentation and survey. Cost: $150K (Gordon Kent, Edmonton Journal)

11/2: David McCalla of Miller Thomson LLP writes to local realtor Gord Stamp, “We are solicitors for Mayor Stephen Mandel.” McCalla advises Stamp that they intend to bring action for damages arising out of an election pamphlet Stamp distributed. It was about the proposed downtown arena and was entitled, “Mayor Stephen Mandel – Manipulating the process from the very beginning.” The lawyer claims the pamphlet was defamatory and demands an apology. (view the PDF of the letter here.)

11/11: First public consultation on downtown arena draws about 50 people the first night, less (?) the second (Conal Pierse, Edmonton Journal)

11/12: Ian O’Donnell of the Downtown Edmonton Community League tells the Journal’s David Staples that they have serious misgivings about the pedway planned to go over 104 Avenue as it isn’t pedestrian friendly.

11/13: 18,000 people have responded to the online questionnaire about the proposed downtown arena district, 240 people have attended 3 in-person information sessions on the arena project. There are two more public sessions left. The online survey will be available until Nov. 19. (Anonymous, Edmonton Journal)

11/19: Demon dialer with Oilers president and CEO Patrick LaForge went out to 350,00 Edmonton area numbers, urging supporters of the downtown arena to fill out a City of Edmonton survey about the project. Respondents were told to press 1 if they support a new downtown arena or 2 if they do not. "All of the people who pressed 1 got a call back (Wednesday) that said, 'You've pressed 1, so now you should go to the website and fill out the questionnaire or call 311 if you don't have a computer,” said an Oilers spokesperson. (Andrea Sands, Edmonton Journal)

11/20: Mary Pat Barry, manager of corporate communications for the City of Edmonton, tells the Journal’s Paula Simons that she “has no concerns about the Oilers' effort to tilt the results of the city questionnaire. "Anything that encourages people to express an opinion is something we appreciate," she says. The questionnaire, she says, was never designed to be a statistically valid opinion poll.”

11/30: Gordon Stamp is sent a letter from Miller Thomson which reads, “Notwithstanding the above matters we are instructed not to commence court proceedings on behalf of Mr. Mandel at this time.” (view the PDF of the letter here.)

12/1: Canadian Press reports Oilers in Quebec talking arenas. LaForge says, "We are not planning to move the Oilers at this time.” Local media speculate and counter speculate for days.

12/4: Councillors receive answers to 140 arena questions and, in a report to city councillors released Friday, the Katz Group said it won’t be opening up its books but "should be able to satisfy city administration" in private that the Edmonton Oilers don't earn enough money to move ahead with the project alone. (Andrea Sands, Edmonton Journal)

12/7: Journal’s Gordon Kent reports that player agent Ritch Winter and partners want the city to use a "sports mortgage" that could fund a downtown arena without tax dollars or $100 million promised by the Katz Group. In a written statement, the Katz Groups says they are not interested.

12/8 The Edmonton Examiner’s Scott Haskins compares Daryl Katz to Peter Pocklington, unfavourably, “At least Puck put his cards on the table. It's impossible to know what game Mr. Katz is even playing. “

12/11: Northlands vows to keep Rexall open. Although studies show having two facilities of similar size isn't feasible in Edmonton, Northlands needs the $6.2 million it earned last year from non-hockey events at Rexall Place and will protect its business, CEO Richard Andersen told City Council.Mayor responds “There won't be two arenas, regardless.” (Gordon Kent, Edmonton Journal)

12/15: Ex-Oiler, Deputy federal Green Party Leader Georges Laraque offers $100K for arena if city will move Lucy the Elephant to a warmer home. He tells CBC News, “"I just want to help. This situation is making Edmonton look bad and Edmonton is my home. This is where I live and I want the situation to stop."

Arena Open Letter

2011-10-16T22:06:00.000-06:00

The following is my open letter to the Edmonton City council, concerning the proposed downtown arena plan. The email addresses this was sent to (feel free to copy and paste these in to your email, should you also choose to send one) are as follows:

linda.sloan@edmonton.ca; kim.krushell@edmonton.ca; dave.loken@edmonton.ca; ed.gibbons@edmonton.ca; karen.leibovici@edmonton.ca; jane.batty@edmonton.ca; tony.caterina@edmonton.ca; ben.henderson@edmonton.ca; bryan.anderson@edmonton.ca; don.iveson@edmonton.ca; kerry.diotte@edmonton.ca; amarjeet.sohi@edmonton.ca; Stephen.Mandel@edmonton.ca

With All Due Respect

I am curious on what to make of this arena deal. It seems there were several past statements by council members implying there would be no tax dollars involved with this, and since this is such a big deal the citizens should have a plebiscite on it. The following is a minor sample of some things said:

2007-Feb-22 HOK Report says Rexall renovation to current NHL standard would cost $225-250M. Mayor Mandel tells the Journal’s Bill Mah, “"I think there's many ways to look at how we can do this. I've several ideas but I don't want to talk about them yet until we get a little further down the road, but we're not going to burden our taxpayers with a $400-million or $300-million debt to have a new facility. That just won't happen."

2007-Dec-14: Counilor Kim Krushell tells the Edmonton Journal’s Susan Ruttan that she’ll call for a plebiscite if arena involves large amount of tax money.

2008-Feb-7: Mayor advises reporters that the Arena Task Force report, originally expected in early January, would be delayed until about a week after the provincial election. Edmonton Journal’s Susan Ruttan writes, “Mandel again emphasized that no property tax dollars or grant money will go toward a new arena...Premier Ed Stelmach has also declined to fund a new Edmonton arena.”

2008-Mar-26: The Premier reiterates he has no intention of funding an arena. "We haven't seen any facts or figures .... but the premier has maintained and continues to maintain that this is an inappropriate use of tax money, that provincial taxpayer dollars will not go towards a professional sporting arena," Premier’s Office spokesperson Tom Olsen told Jason Markusoff of the Edmonton Journal.

2008-Aug-20: Ipsos Reid poll conducted for Global Edmonton asks, “The City should provide taxpayer's money for a new Hockey Arena.” Result: Three quarters (76%) of Edmontonians 'disagree' (46% strongly/31% somewhat).

2009-Sep-2: Edmonton Journal Straw Poll: “How much taxpayers' money should go toward the Oilers' downtown arena?” Not one red cent. (58%) A decent portion. (8%) Whatever it takes on top of Katz's $100M. (10%) Hard to say without more details. (21%) I'll pay anything not to hear about it anymore. (3%) There were 1,431 votes.

I am also curious how a $100 million dollar contribution went from leading people to believe it would be up front, only to find out it's something we have to borrow that will be paid back over time. Rather sweet it also just happened to turn into a tax break for Katz.

Curiosity is still on my mind when I think of the New York City meeting. It seems like the framework got changed without permission? Little slight of hand I think, and quite possibly the MGA might need to be reviewed to see just how legal that deal was. Now who is that Minister with the Alberta Government... :)

How is it that the originally defined "ticket tax" has mysteriously changed into a 'levy'... one that Katz now insists is his money, but the Mayor has turned red in the face saying it is not. I kinda think it is... and that sucks a lot. Not only that, but to add insult to injury... in the premise of being "fair", you now want to impose a ticket TAX on Rexall to make the playing field level. Really? Level? See, in this deal the City gets that tax, and applies it to the downtown arena. Forcing Rexall clients to subsidize the new place. You know.. the one where Katz gets to keep the 'levy' for ever and ever?

I could go on for a good hour with things that make THIS deal just so wrong. Clearly every penny will be borrowed, Katz will end up paying nothing (thanks to the generous advertising allowance granted) and collecting all of the income. Yeah, he pays costs. Big deal. It's a new place, under warranty... and the killer of the framework is it is only good "for as long as Katz owns the team". Which I just bet he will sell in 5 or 7 years, taking the profits, and leaving us holding the bag.

And if I may... getting back to this "no tax increase" thing. Would you please explain how the CRL can take the educational component of tax dollars normally directed to the province... and this will not result in tax increases for all Albertans to make up for the loss? And those new folks that are in or will move into that CRL zone... how is it that you can provide full services to them, when their tax dollars (or increase in tax dollars) does not go towards paying for those services like everyone else does? This can only mean every Edmonton tax payer will have to face an increase to cover this loss. So... how is any of this NOT a tax increase?

Isn't it time you folks got over the hype, and created a deal that works... instead of one that gives away the house. And if you can't make a deal, then "oh well". It is what it is. I doubt we would lose the Oilers over it, there ARE other solutions. The problem is Katz just doesn't want any of them because he won't make as much money. And I am again curious... why is that a taxpayer problem?

Gary

Arena Timeline 2008-2009

2011-10-13T19:08:00.001-06:00

The following information is presented by Mimi Williams aka @willmimi on twitter. This is the second part of what appears will be a 3 part series. A huge effort has been made to compile this, and the work presented is copyright by the author.

Part 1 (you can read it here) deals with the 2005 to 2007 time period. Part 2 handles the 2008 to 2009 period, leaving Part 3 (you can read it here) covering 2010 and Part 4 (link to be supplied) to cover 2011. Please enjoy the read, and remember to thank Mimi for her extensive work.

Edmonton’s Downtown Arena – All the News that was Fit to Print (Part 2)

2008

1/2: Bill Butler, new chairman of the Oilers investors group, says they've been advised by lawyers not to accept Katz's offer of $188 million. Jim MacDonald of the Canadian Press reported that Daryl Katz responded “late Wednesday with a fiery one-page statement denouncing Butler's comments and questioning whether the owners were acting in the best interests of the team.”

1/10: John MacKinnon, Edmonton Journal, reports that Wayne Gretzky supports Daryl Katz’ bid for the Oilers: “"He'll be a great owner here," Grezky said Wednesday about Katz, whose most recent offer to buy all of the EIG shares amounts to a $188-million asset purchase. "He's an Edmontonian, he lives here, he thrives on being in the city, he's proud of being here."”

1/21: Scott McKeen writes in the Edmonton Journal, “I think Edmontonians won't hear a peep about a downtown arena until after the provincial election. The feasibility study must still be completed. But the thing will be kept under wraps until after the next government is elected. The last thing arena proponents want is for their plans to become part of the campaign discussion. Candidates and party leaders could get boxed in by the debate to the point of making promises to oppose public funding of a new arena.”

2/6: Allan Maki of the Globe and Mail reports the Oilers owners have accepted Daryl Katz’ latest offer of $200-million for the team and a $100 million commitment to building a new arena in downtown Edmonton.

2/7: Mayor advises reporters that the Arena Task Force report, originally expected in early January, would be delayed until about a week after the provincial election. Edmonton Journal’s Susan Ruttan writes, “Mandel again emphasized that no property tax dollars or grant money will go toward a new arena...Premier Ed Stelmach has also declined to fund a new Edmonton arena.”

2/10: Journal’s Susan Ruttan reports on Mayor’s 90-day Plan, announced after his re-election. “The first report, on building a new arena to replace Rexall Place, has been delayed until March, the week after the provincial election. One delaying factor may be Premier Ed Stelmach's flat refusal to pay for such an arena.”

2/12: Urban affair professor Mark Rosentraub tells the Journal’s Dan Barnes a downtown arena could be beneficial for Edmonton. ““Rosentraub said he won't be advocating the City of Edmonton taxpayers shell out. "We're not talking about cities subsidizing these developments." When it's done right, a corporation buys the naming rights and the building owner partners with other moneyed corporations to finance much of the project. Mayor Stephen Mandel has said many times that city property taxes and grants won't be used..... The long-awaited feasibility report will no doubt present more financing options, as well as a handful of downtown locations.”

2/13: The Journal’s Susan Ruttan reports on remarks made by UA Prof. Brad Humphreys, a sports economist who moved to the University of Alberta last fall. He testified before the U. S. Congress on the subject of public subsidies for sports facilities and feels that arenas don’t produce jobs or boost the economy but might increase civic pride. “New arenas may attract bars and restaurants around them, he said, but their customers would otherwise have been in bars and restaurants in other parts of town. So, no new economic activity is generated, he said.”

2/15: ‘Edmontonians Against Public Money for the Downtown Oilerplex’ facebook page launched.

3/2: “No person or company will ever move to Edmonton instead of Winnipeg because there is an NHL team here,” UofA Professor Dan Mason tells the Edmonton Journal’s David Staples. He adds that it’s widely accepted among economists that money not spent on the Oilers would be spent elsewhere in the city. "For example, the discourse in Edmonton right now around a new arena in the downtown, it doesn't talk about economic benefits because people generally have a feeling that that's not an argument anymore."

3/15: Gordon Kent, Edmonton Journal, reports that the city auditor advised council “More than half of Edmonton's city-owned buildings are in fair to unacceptable condition and the structures need $44 million worth of roof and other major repairs.” Land and buildings manager Rick Daviss tells Kent that maintenance isn’t as “sexy” as the “fresh, new projects” that everybody’s looking for.

3/24 Arena Feasibility Committee Chair Lyle Best tells CTV News that his committee will recommend that an arena will be built downtown. “ You're not going to hear a design because that wasn't our mandate. And you're not going to hear a location, because obviously the next step is whoever is going to build this is going to make some considerations about where they're going to have it,'' he told the station. (Canadian Press)

3/25: Arena Committee Report recommends downtown arena, with all 3 levels of gov't contributing to $450M cost. Susan Ruttan of the Edmonton Journal quotes the report, "It is highly probable that an Edmonton project will require contributions from all orders of government in order for it be economically viable."

3/26: The Premier reiterates he has no intention of funding an arena. "We haven't seen any facts or figures .... but the premier has maintained and continues to maintain that this is an inappropriate use of tax money, that provincial taxpayer dollars will not go towards a professional sporting arena," Premier’s Office spokesperson Tom Olsen told Jason Markusoff of the Edmonton Journal.

3/27: Journal’s Simons writes “fix was in” with committee, predicts taxpayers will be left holding bag. “What is shocking, though, is the utter vacuousness of the so-called "feasibility study" released with such fanfare this week. This study was 11 months in the making. It cost $250,000 -- a bill split three ways between the taxpayers of Edmonton, the Edmonton Oilers and Edmonton Northlands. But the document unveiled Tuesday morning is long on cheerleading rhetoric and all but devoid of substantive content.”

3/27: Journal Straw Poll “What's your reaction to the report recommending a new downtown arena?” Finally, let's get on with it. (44%) This is going to cost us for sure. (13%) Why can't we put our energies into something important? (43%) There were 2,199 votes.

3/29: Councillors Sohi & Caterina complain to the Edmonton Journal’s Mike Sadava they can’t see arena economic analysis reports partially paid for by city. “"We were told as a council we couldn't be trusted to see those," said Councillor Caterina.

4/2: Kevin Libin of the National Post writes that the Arena Feasibility Committee’s claim that a new arena will "draw millions to the city annually from far and wide" is “contradicted by economic data spanning three decades, typically showing zero tangible benefits to the local economy” according to the University of Alberta’s Brad Humphreys. Humphreys points to “academic studies show that local news organizations, which sell a lot of papers from sports coverage, consistently line up behind new-arena plans. "The media coverage is uniformly favourable, no matter what the terms of the deal."”

4/5: Mike Sadava of the Edmonton Journal recalls how Peter Pocklington wrestled $15million (for Coliseum renovations and to build a ball park) out of city council in 1994 when he threatened to move the team, despite the fact that 80% of callers to the Citizens Action Centre opposed the deal.

4/19: Dr. Brad Humphreys tells the Edmonton Journal’s Susan Ruttan that Edmontonians should brace themselves for an arena sales pitch. “Edmontonians will be told the arena will be an engine of economic growth, he said, and that it will ensure Edmonton's place as a world-class city.” He added, however, "World-class city status does not get conferred by a shiny new National Hockey League arena."

5/7: In a mid-term report card on city council, the Journal’s Scott McKeen observes that the Mayor’s “downtown arena proposal isn't exactly popular.”

7/20: David Staples of the Edmonton Journal reports a UofA Pop Research Lab survey asked if people wanted to use municipal funds to build a downtown arena: 17% strongly supported the idea, 31% supported it somewhat, 50 per cent were against it, with the remaining two per cent not answering or not sure. "You can say with a great deal of certainty that it wouldn't pass a referendum," University of Alberta sports business professor Dan Mason, who co-authored the study, tells Staples.

8/10: Through an access-to-information request, Cdn Taxpayers Federation finds that earlier drafts of the arena committee report draft mentioned TO, VCR, OTT & MTL arenas built with private funds, information omitted from the final report. "Clearly the mayor's committee believed that the fact that all of the new NHL arenas in Canada were built without any tax dollars hurt their case that Edmonton needs taxpayers to help foot this bill," the CTF’s Scott Hennig told the Edmonton Journal’s Lorne Gunter.

8/14: Councillor Tony Caterina tells the Edmonton Examiner’s Joelle Tomek it makes no sens to move the arena from it’s current site: “Everything is there. All the infrastructure’s in place, LRT is right there, the Yellowhead is there, Wayne Gretzky (Drive) is there, parking is there.”

11/14: Economic downturn plus financial uncertainty created by arena talks forces city to guarantee $60M loan for Northlands expansion project, the Journal’s Gordon Kent reports. He quotes a letter from Northlands vice-president Mark Bamford which explains, "given what has transpired in the financial markets the last few months combined with the ongoing discussions around a new arena in downtown Edmonton and how this might affect Northlands financially."

11/25: Architect Gene Dub proposes a $300M arena be built south of police headquarters. He tells the Journal’s Gordon Kent he wants to build it in “copper above the street with the rink on the third level, leaving a space underneath where traffic and pedestrians can pass through and shop during the summer.”

11/26: Councillors tell the Journal’s Jamie Hall that Dub’s proposal is “interesting.” "I'm not sure we were the audience for it, though," Councillor Iveson told her. "I think ultimately the decision to build another rink anywhere is first a question for whatever private entities might want to assemble the rink and pay for it. Certainly, I've been clear that that shouldn't be the city."

12/13 The Mayor tells the Journal’s Gordon Kent that officials from the city, Northlands and Edmonton Oilers owner Daryl Katz's company have been talking "quietly" about the next steps to take on arena. A proposal might be made public as early as March, the Mayor said, without releasing any details.

12/15: Scott McKeen of the Journal reports that the Mayor says that Northlands and the Katz Group have been meeting quietly on the arena project and that costs have been reduced significantly. “"We estimate the cost of the arena to now be substantially under $400 million -- substantially," the is quoted.

12/17: NHL’s Gary Bettman tells a Chamber of Commerce luncheon the Oilers need new arena. Journal’s Dan Barnes dubs his speech a “political drive-by, a financial hit-and-run.” Barnes noted that the luncheon was hosted by CofC Chair Patrick LaForge who “doubles” as president of the Edmonton Oilers.

2009

3/7: Cal Nichols steps aside as chair of the Edmonton Oilers to focus his energy on saving the city centre airport. The Edmonton Journal’s Scott McKeen wrotes that there was concern that his work on that issue might bleed over into the downtown arena issue, “As one councillor put it to me Friday: "If he (Nichols) and the Oilers can afford private planes, they can afford to build their own arena."

5/6: Mayor Mandel tells a Chamber of Commerce luncheon that he expect downtown arena discussions to resume soon. (Gordon Kent, Edmonton Journal)

5/7: Northlands Chair says they’re keen to work with Katz Group on arena. Northlands Chair Andy Huntley tells the Journal’s Gary Lamphier, “"Given our experience and history, we're really confident we'll have a role. Northlands clearly has the core competency."

8/20: Ipsos Reid poll conducted for Global Edmonton asks, “The City should provide taxpayer's money for a new Hockey Arena.” Result: Three quarters (76%) of Edmontonians 'disagree' (46% strongly/31% somewhat).

8/28: Citing unnamed sources close to the Katz Group, the Edmonton Journal’s Gordon Kent & Gary Lamphier report Katz is about to announce a $1B project that will include an arena, a practice rink and student housing, towards which he is willing to invest $100M. Bryan Anderson responds: “I don’t think there’s an appetite on council for the involvement of a whole bunch of municipal dollars.”

8/29: Again citing an unnamed source, the Journal’s Richard Warnica writes, “The source said the new 18,000-to 20,000-seat arena would be part of a $1 billion-plus project that would include a second rink and drive related casino, hotel, condo, retail, student housing and office developments.”

8/31: The popular hockey blog “Battle of Alberta” begins an ongoing Downtown Arena Primer which can still be found here: http://battleofalberta.blogspot.com/2009/08/downtown-arena-primer.html

9/1: Patrick LaForge holds a news conference to announce the Katz Group has reached deals for the Baccarat Casino site and the block east of the Greyhound bus station. (Gordon Kent, Edmonton Journal)

9/1: Edmonton Journal Straw Poll: “What do you think of the ambitious arena project Oilers owner Daryl Katz seems to have in the works?” Great plan, let's do it! (43%) Downtown is no place for an arena.(14%) It's too early to say. (6%) I don't care as long as he spends his own money. (37%) There were 2,705 votes.

9/2: “Katz and company must also come forward with hat in hand. They must not patronize us with wildly inflated estimates of the Oilers' economic impact. The Oilers pay about $50 million annually to migrant workers, who flee town after the season ends.” Scott McKeen, Edmonton Journal.

9/2: Edmonton Journal Straw Poll: “How much taxpayers' money should go toward the Oilers' downtown arena?” Not one red cent. (58%) A decent portion. (8%) Whatever it takes on top of Katz's $100M. (10%) Hard to say without more details. (21%) I'll pay anything not to hear about it anymore. (3%) There were 1,431 votes.

9/4: Premier Stelmach tells the Calgary Herald’s Tamara Gignac Albertans will not be paying for any portion of an NHL rink in Calgary or Edmonton. "It's very clear:we're not putting money into arenas."

9/4: Gordon Kent of the Edmonton Journal reports that Rexall Place has been ranked 10th in the world for concert and event ticket sales among arenas with more than 15,000 seats, 2nd in Canada by Venues Today, a trade magazine.

9/6: Patrick LaForge tells the Edmonton Journal’s David Staples that the Katz Group is looking at casino funding to help fund the arena. The CTF’s Scott Hennig disagrees, “"You'd end up seeing other charities, more legitimate charities, losing out on funding because of it."

9/12: Pat LaForge s Oilers “lost quite a bit of money last year” and Katz Group will need all arena revenues, report the Journal’s David Staples and Gary Lamphier. “"We're interested in being the best in the world. I'm not trying to poke Northlands in the eye here. ... Northlands has done a good job so far. Nobody would have an issue with that. (But) the new world is big operators like AEG, Live Nation and the like. They are creating a new world of preferred outlets that they bring their best Triple-A entertainment to, and we want our place to be one of those stops, and want them probably to be one of our partners."

9/15: Journal’s Paula Simons questions arena location: “The arena's proponents would like to present their bold plan as a fait accompli. But this project will have a radical impact on the shape of our downtown. No matter who pays for the arena, or who profits from it, we citizens should--and do--have the right to decide if this is indeed an appropriate site for this urban megaproject. Just because this particular property deal suits the financial interests of those who are buying the land and those who are selling it doesn't make it good urban planning, or good for the rest of us.”

9/20: Patrick LaForge tells the Journal’s David Staples that the Katz Group is in the process of hiring “starchitect” to design arena. "Visually, it needs to be an icon," LaForge says of the arena. "If you look at certain cities, the arch in St. Louis is a signature piece, the CN Tower is a signature piece in Toronto. My hope is, and for our group is, that architecturally we can come to the table with something like that.”

9/23: Northlands Chair Andy Huntley tells the Journal’s David Staples there’s no way the Katz Group can build an arena without public support. "When it starts to get over $400 million, there will have to be in some form or fashion public support, likely from two orders or more of government to get this accomplished."

9/26: Journal’s Gary Lamphier questions why no private developers/partners have stepped forward. “why has no hotel chain, no casino operator, no condo builder or commercial developer proclaimed his or her support for the project, even in principle?” Proposes that no CRL be approved unless adjacent private development is confirmed.

9/29: Gary Lamphier of the Journal reports his 9/26 column drew a “cranky response” from the Katz Group. An unnamed spokesperson is quoted, “"Daryl has had discussions with (private arena operators) AEG, Delaware North and others about their potential participation, and those discussions are also ongoing. A number of architects have been interviewed, but a selection has not been made. And Daryl has spent many millions of dollars to get the project this far with no assurance of anything from anyone."

10/7: Journal’s Scott McKeen calls Katz invitation to councillors for secret meeting sign of “bungling”. He writes, “Others in the civic administration pointed out potential legal issues with the invitation. Councillors risk violating municipal regulations if more than six of them meet in secret. City solicitor Anne Jarman, in an e-mail to councillors, warned them of the risk and also suggested that if they were to attend individually, they should decline the Katz Group's offer of a free lunch, presumably because no such thing exists.”

10/9: John MacKinnon, of the Edmonton Journal, “Some already have a perception that Katz is looking for a public handout to build a fancy new home for the Edmonton Oilers. End of story. Katz will have to override that perception for this project to proceed smoothly.”

10/24: “On a project this complex, this crucial to the future of the city, it would be helpful for the Oilers to swagger a little less, to share a little more, to collaborate much more with city councillors, on and on.” John MacKinnon, Edmonton Journal.

11/2: Edmonton Journal reports that Daryl Katz and Peter Elzinga met with Education Minister David Hancock at the legislature. “Hancock said he believes Elzinga is working for the Katz Group, but didn't know if he was listed in the province's new lobbyist registry.” (no byline)

11/4: “After neglecting city hall for months, then botching a meeting with councillors -- inadvertently asking them to an illicit gathering --Katz now seems to be listening and learning. For the past couple of weeks he has been sneaking into City Hall for secret meetings with councillors. Katz probably viewed the visits as courtesy calls, or missions of diplomacy. Instead, they ended up as educational field trips on the realities of civic politics and red tape. "It's completely new territory for him," one participant told me. Katz, he said, is used to snapping his fingers and getting things done. "So he's trying to make things happen through the sheer force of his energy and will." Scott McKeen, Edmonton Journal.

11/7: Katz Group hires former Deputy Premier Peter Elzinga and Joan Forge, who ran communications for Premier Ed Stelmach's party leadership campaign in 2006, to lobby province. (Archie McLean, Edmonton Journal)

11/12: Forbes Magazine reports Oilers posted a $9.4M operating profit for the 2008-9 season; LaForge tells the Journal’s Gary Lamphier that Forbes numbers were “speculative”, that they had “break-even year”. Lamphier also notes “Meanwhile, the Oilers'debt load--which stood at zero before the club was acquired by Katz in 2008 for $200 million--has jumped to 60 per cent of the club's current franchise value, or about $100 million, Forbes says.”

11/22: Brad Humphreys of the UofA tells David Staples of the Edmonton Journal there are little economic spinoffs in building professional sports facilities. "What I found was that there is no evidence that the presence of a professional sports franchise, or the presence of an arena or stadium, had any positive impact on local income or local employment." The Oilers Patrick LaFarge responded, "To a large degree, it's people with Humphrey's view that prevents us from building the next Eiffel Tower, the next Peace Arch, the next CN Tower, because people who think like him can't find the economic rationalization to do it.”
11/25: Councillor Bryan Anderson tells the Gateway’s Antony Ta, “I don’t know if there’s enough support on city council to contribute public funds to a downtown arena. No city in its right mind can operate two large venues like Rexall Place and a downtown arena at the same time — they would both go broke.”

12/3: CBC News reports the Katz Group has hired international firm AEG to help with the arena development. "AEG is a world leader in sports and entertainment developments, especially as related to urban revitalization projects," said Patrick LaForge, president of the Oilers.

12/4: The Edmonton Journal’s David Staples writes that the Katz Group has hired AEG to “get into feasibility studies, working with the city and with the master architect. The Katz Group is close to hiring one. "We're at the place were we are negotiating with our first choice (architect) on the deal," LaForge said. "The next move is to wrap up the master architect and then we've got the two key pieces moving together.””

12/7: Canadian Business Magazine names Daryl Katz as 17th on its annual 100 Richest Canadians list. They say he’s worth $2.36B.

12/13: Former Oilers owners group member Cal Nichols tells David Staples of the Edmonton Journal that without a new arena the future of the Oilers franchise will not be secure.

12/17: Citing “confidential numbers” among the info provided by Katz Group along with public information, Economic Development Edmonton tells the Journal’s Gordon Kent the arena could generate $1.25B in wages.

Arena Timeline 2005-2007

2011-10-13T10:20:00.005-06:00

The following information is presented by Mimi Williams aka @willmimi on twitter. This is the first part of a 4 part series. A huge effort has been made to compile this, and the work presented is copyright by the author.

Part 1 deals with the 2005 to 2007 time period. Part 2 (you can read it here) will handle the 2008 to 2009 period, leaving Part 3 (you can read it here) covering 2010, and Part 4 (link to be supplied). Please enjoy the read, and remember to thank Mimi for her extensive work.

Edmonton’s Downtown Arena – All the News that was Fit to Print

2005

10/2: With the NHL lockout history, Journal’s David Staples reports that Cal Nichols, member of the Oilers-owning Edmonton Investors’ Group has a new goal: to build a new arena.

10/3: Journal reports U of A’s Dan Mason says Canadians have little appetite to publicly fund NHL arenas; Mayor Mandel suggests a lottery might be way to fund.

12/5 Oilers Patrick LaForge tells Journal’s Shawn Ohler that the fact they sold out all 66 skyboxes (some for as high as $200,000/yr) is further evidence the team needs a new rink.

2006

1/7: Journal’s MacKinnon muses about downtown arena, “That's not to disrespect sturdy, serviceable Rexall Place,” he writes.

1/7: Journal’s Lamphier writes that the city should “build a sparkling new downtown arena to house the Oilers,” locate it immediately east of the arts district and link it by pedway to Shaw Convention Centre.

1/12: 61% of Journal readers participating in Straw Poll think Lamphier and MacKinnon’s suggestions for downtown arena is evidence the men have had “one too many pucks to the head.”

3/28: Journal’s Gary Lamphier writes “If downtown is going to make a go of it, Edmonton needs a splashy new arena -- preferably east of the city centre, near the Shaw Conference Centre.”

5/24: "This is the best building, the best city to play in," Oilers defenceman Steve Staios tells Jim Macdonald of the Canadian Press during the Oilers’ first serious playoff run in 14 years.

5/27 Postmedia’s Cam Cole reports Oilers “owners are quietly laying the political groundwork for a new, downtown building to replace their 32-year-old arena.”

9/14: Journal’s Paula Simons reports “anonymous backers” float idea for new arena on Canada Post site

11/14: Michael Phair, one of two councillors representing downtown, tells VUE Weekly’s Ross Moroz he has reservations about the arena plan. “At this time I would say that in my mind there are a lot of unanswered questions,” said Phair. “In my experience, buildings like this are dark during the day and on many evenings, plus they tend to be very sterile buildings, so they don’t bring a whole lot of life into the neighbourhood most of the time.” Phair told Moroz he expected “enthusiasm to die down once citizens realize that they will probably end up footing much of the bill for the project.”

11/16: Journal polls readers on downtown arena: 52% say “Great idea.” 48% say “Bad idea.”

12/22: Mayor Mandel on $1B downtown arena proposal: “We need to be creative and not burden the taxpayers.”

12/23: Journal editorial: “Mandel and city council need to answer two key questions before pressing forward: Is an arena, which costs about $300 million to $400 million, the best tool for stimulating urban renewal? And are the economic and social benefits sufficient to justify the spending of public funds on the project?”
Daryl Katz appears as #16 on the list of Canadian’s Wealthiest 100 People. (Canadian Business Magazine, Winter 2006/2007)

2007

1/02:“The former CN Station Lands, north of City Hall, still sit vacant, despite a lot of public wishful thinking about a new hockey arena on the site.” Journal’s Paula Simons.

1/05 Colby Cosh, National Post writes, “It's sports fans, above all, who are familiar with the system of semi- blackmail and bogus economics that has fed the current North American mania for stadium construction; who remember how Edmontonians were terrorized in the 1990s into lowering the Oilers' rent to $1 a year; and who recall that Edmonton built a new ballpark in 1995 that was promptly abandoned in mid-lease by its Triple-A tenant.”

1/13: Awaiting Coliseum renovation cost report, Mayor Mandel tells the Journal’s Ron Chalmers, “It always has been my hope that we will have a downtown arena” "I think, in the end, the city would play a role," and "I think Northlands would be an integral partner."

1/19: Oilers Pres Patrick LaFarge tells Globe & Mail the team is excited by talk of a “new downtown arena megapalace”; declares current barn “tired”. (article ran with Canadian Press byline)

2/22 HOK Report says Rexall renovation to current NHL standard would cost $225-250M. Mayor Mandel tells the Journal’s Bill Mah, “"I think there's many ways to look at how we can do this. I've several ideas but I don't want to talk about them yet until we get a little further down the road, but we're not going to burden our taxpayers with a $400-million or $300-million debt to have a new facility. That just won't happen."

2/23: Mayor says a committee should look at new arena, evaluate locations. Tells the Journal’s Gordon Kent that a decision could be made by summer and the building completed within 3 to 4 years.

2/23: Journal’s Dan Barnes reports the Northlands HOK report was released to city council and “met with predictable negative reaction.” Northlands Chair tells Barnes they would like to be involved in any new building.

2/24: Journal editorial “If the principal goal of building a new arena is to create more boxes and high-value seats for the Oilers, why is this a question for taxpayers? Canada's three eastern NHL teams have each built new arenas in the past two decades and they were almost entirely paid for by investors. Why in conservative, wealthy, booming Alberta would we look to governments for anything more than construction permits?”

2/24: Journal Straw Poll (1,492 votes) Where do you stand on the Edmonton arena question? Renovate Rexall (17%) Build a new arena downtown (47%) Don't do anything, Rexall is fine (36%)

2/27: In a tongue-in-cheek fashion, Ricardo Acuno writes in VUE Weekly about his enthusiastic support for a publicly-funded downtown arena, “Here in Alberta we believe strongly that government has an active role to play in the economy and the business world—and when private for-profit businesses come looking for taxpayer dollars, we are happy to hand them out.”

3/9: Northlands Acting President Jerry Bouma tells the Journal’s Gordon Kent that an committee might take up to a year to make a recommendation, despite the Mayor’s hopes it will be done by July.

4/7: Participants in the annual inner city “Good Friday Outdoor Way of the Cross” walk tell the Journal’s Alexandra Zabjek they fear a new arena and other planned redevelopment will displace the poor living in the city’s core.

4/22: After placing a full page newspaper ad apologizing for the team’s miserable performance, Oilers’ owners group Cal Nichols tells the Journal’s Andrea Sands that if plans for a new downtown arena were to go ahead, it could help Oilers managers attract star talent and free agents.

4/23: Edmonton Journal’s John MacKinnon writes, “Meanwhile, downtown Edmonton continues to evolve and mature, becoming more and more vibrant each year. Something resembling momentum is building, momentum that may or may not include a downtown arena. My bias on that one is clear -- I own a downtown condo. A press box within walking distance would mean wonderful things for my working life and my portfolio.”

4/24: Journal’s Gary Lamphier predicts arena proposal will attract “plenty of banks, private equity pools & major pension funds" looking to invest. Reports that Canada Western Bank’s Larry Pollock and Angus Watt of National Bank Financial both say there would be plenty of options for financing such a facility. And if the province threw its support and blue-chip credit rating behind the project, it would be a slam dunk.

4/25: Mayor Mandel strikes Arena Feasibility Committee. Tells the Journal’s Jim Farrell, "I have got some ideas how it can be financed that wouldn't require any city money, and I think it can be done creatively, with limited amounts of public dollars, but to say no tax dollars -- that would be irresponsible."

4/26: Journal’s Paula Simons on why she’s not yet sold on the idea of a downtown arena, “I've lived and worked and visited in cities with downtown arenas. And in my experience, they effectively sterilized and depopulated the area for blocks around them. It was great when there was a game or a concert. And the rest of the time, the neighbourhood was dead.”

4/27: Journal editorial: “If Mandel believes wholeheartedly, he should make it the cornerstone of his re-election platform -- a vote for Mandel is a vote for a downtown arena that includes however many millions of public dollars. Or, if he thinks such political linkage is a little on the risky side, he could consult the community through a genuine referendum question on the municipal ballot.”

5/1: Paula Simons reports on the response she got from her 4/26 Journal column: “In this hockey-mad town, expressing the slightest doubt about the wonders of a new half-a-billion-dollar downtown arena is obviously an act of black heresy. To judge by the righteous indignation, I've clearly committed an unspeakable blasphemy. Seems I'm a whining, ignorant elitist, a small-town thinker, an idiot, the kind of person who's wrecking this city.”

5/5: In surprise bid, local billionaire Daryl Katz offers $145M to buy Oilers from struggling Edmonton Investors Group. A source tells the Edmonton Journal’s Gary Lamphier Katz “"understands" that a new downtown arena funded strictly by the taxpayer is a non-starter and his participation in fundraising may be necessary."I think he would be prepared, under the right circumstances, to take his share of funding for something like that," the source said.”

5/6: The EIG advises Katz the Oilers are not for sale. (John MacKinnon, Edmonton Journal).

6/2: Journal/Leger Marketing poll re: downtown arena indicates 56% Edmontonians opposed, 67% opposed if tax dollars used. Mayor Mandel tells the Journal’s Mike Sadava that the poll is premature, "I want to be very clear that this is a project that has to stand on its own. The citizens of Edmonton are not going to sacrifice a road, an overpass or a rec centre or anything like that to build a hockey arena. We have to come up with a creative way to do it." According to Sadava, “Mandel said that includes not only property taxes, but infrastructure money from other levels of government.”

7/21: "There's pretty much a consensus among economists and sociologists that these investments don't bear a lot of fruit for the municipalities," Rick Eckstein, professor at Villanova University and author of Public Dollars, Private Stadiums: The Battle Over Building Sports Stadiums, told Kevin Libin of the National Post. Promises of revitalization and economic spin-offs don't live up to billing, he says, one reason why voters have grown jaded about stadium and arena proposals. In plebiscites, he says, "more and more often votes are getting voted down." Even when that happens, "they still go ahead and do it anyway."

7/25: Katz ups Oilers bid to $170M; promises to invest $100M in downtown arena, build training facility at U of A if offer accepted. (Joanne Ireland, Edmonton Journal)

8/2: Mayor Mandel, “Taxpayers are not going to foot the bill for a new arena,” regardless of who owns Oilers. "At the end of the day it's going to cost somebody some money. We'd assume that those who use the arena will help pay for it, whether that's the Oilers, Northlands, or whatever. I've been very clear that the citizens of Edmonton -- the taxpayers -- are not going to foot the bill for a new arena." In other words, absolutely no residential or non-residential tax monies will be used to fund a downtown arena, he says. Full stop. (Gary Lamphier, Edmonton Journal)

8/7: Katz’ $185M Oilers purchase offer rejected. Josh Pekarsky of the Katz Group tells Bill Mah of Postmedia News there will be no more offers.

8/18: Jim Taylor of the Dowtown Business Association tells the Journal’s Ron Chalmers, ““the downtown already is well on its way to being revitalized." With the surge of housing, new storefront retail, and proposed office towers, "we want the arena but we don't need it," Taylor says. "It must fit into the transportation and parking plans."”

9/18: Ben Henderson, Ward 4 council candidate, tells Journal he’s in “wait and see” mode on arena. I am in a wait-and-see mode on the arena. “ I have huge concerns that it might just create a black hole in downtown that would only be truly active when the arena was in use. ... On the other side of the argument I have seen how effective Winnipeg's new arena, built on Portage Avenue right in the heart of downtown, has been ... “ (no byline)

9/19: Ward 3 candidate Tony Caterina tells Journal “Rexall Place being one of the few jewels in Ward 3 -- I believe - - is in the best location possible given that it is operated by Northlands very effectively. The infrastructure is already in place, like LRT stations, Yellowhead Trail and Wayne Gretzky Drive. If expansion of the facility is required, city-owned property already exists to the north of Rexall that could be utilized. ... As a private business, the Oilers are certainly free to pursue a new arena at their expense.” (no byline)

9/21: Gordon Kent of the Edmonton Journal reports Mayor Mandel was questioned by a woman in the audience at an election forum who “asked for a referendum before any tax money is spent on a new arena to replace Rexall Place. Mandel insisted if the project goes ahead, it would be funded by the Oilers owners or some other source that doesn't involve city taxes. "It's not going to impact your pocketbook ... No taxes of yours will go into an arena."”

9/21: Ward 6 candidate Amarjeet Sohi, in a written response to an Edmonton Journal survey of candidates, “I do not support the building of a downtown arena and I don't see city council playing any role is this. What Edmonton needs are community-based arenas to provide recreational opportunities for young people and families.” (no byline)

9/25: Coun Sloan tells campaign forum if public going to borrow money, question should be put to vote. (no byline, Edmonton Journal)

9/25: Coun Gibbons responds to Edmonton Journal candidates’ survey: “My first wish would be for the arena to remain in Ward 3 as many of the employees live in the ward, and because of the direct LRT access. If the decision to move is eventually made, Northlands should continue to run the facility and no city tax dollars should be used.” (no byline)

9/27: Councillor Bryan Anderson responds to Journal survey, “Done well, an arena project can have a positive affect on a downtown area. At this time, we don't have enough information.” (no byline)

9/30: Councillor Linda Sloan responds to Journal survey, “I don't think there is anything wrong with Rexall Place that some renovations wouldn't fix. I do not believe that using public tax dollars to support a private franchise/arena would be responsible governance, particularly when we haven't been able in recent budgets to fund all the road and building maintenance that needs to be done.” (no byline)

10/1: Susan Ruttan, Edmonton Journal, writes that the issue of the downtown arena is flying under the radar during the election, although it will be one of the bigger issues facing new council.

10/2: Ward 2 candidate Dave Loken answers Journal’s candidates’ survey question regarding downtown arena: “As long as no taxpayer money is used. Edmonton has a shortage of ice times because there are not enough arenas, and Ward 2 is in need of a new recreation center.” (no byline)

10/5: Councillor Karen Leibovici responds to Journal candidate’s survey, “I need more information about the proposal for the downtown arena. I need to know what the pros and cons are, what the options are, how transportation will be provided to and from the arena, what we would do with Rexall Place and, of course, who would pay for it. Council's role would be to rezone land if there is a decision to go ahead. As well, I believe that council must ensure that this arena, if approved, is not a liability to the taxpayer.” (no byline)

10/10: Edmonton Journal editorial, “And of course, there's the question of money. Rightly, the mayor insists no city tax dollars will be involved, but voters might profit from a more vigorous discussion of how that can be accomplished, and under what circumstances that firm commitment might be bent.”

10/10: Edmonton Journal Straw Poll “What issue is the most likely to get you to the polls in the civic election on Oct. 15?” Property taxes (25%) Affordable housing (26%) Transportation planning (15%) Infrastructure maintenance (25%) Downtown arena (9%) There were 1,765 votes.

10/11: Susan Ruttan, Edmonton Journal reports that the domestic policy subcommittee of the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C. has concluded that building big stadiums and arenas don't help the local economy of cities. "America's infrastructure is crumbling while state and local officials approve taxpayer-financed professional sports stadiums," the subcommittee stated in a news release.

10/11: Gary Lamphier of the Journal laments lack of debate over substantive issues during the election. He says the downtown arena proposal was “currently consigned to political limbo until a city-appointed committee tenders its report in December.”

10/13: Edmonton Journal Straw Poll “Mayor Stephen Mandel is a big supporter of a new downtown arena, but says local tax dollars won't pay for it. Where would the money come from?” Private investors (26%) Increased oil royalties (7%) Mandel winning the lottery (8%) My pocket, eventually -- 59% There were 1,007 votes.

10/13: Roberta Brandes Gratz, an expert on cities and keynote speaker at the Heritage Canada Foundation conference held in Edmonton says that large projects like downtown arenas don't revitalize inner cities. "Arenas don't revitalize, period," the author of Cities Back from the Edge: New Life for Downtown, and The Living City: Thinking Small in a Big Way, told the conference. (Susan Ruttan, Edmonton Journal)

Note regarding 2007 Election: Records later show Stephen Mandel’s re-election campaign received a $15,000 donation from Katz Group Canada plus an additional $5,000 from Medicine Shoppe Canada. (Source: Office of the City Clerk)

11/2: Jerry Bouma of Northlands tells the Journal’s Nick Lees his organization’s board members have no position on whether a new arena should be built downtown or Rexall Place renovated. "Our issue is not so much where, but our role," Bouma told Lees. "We've proved as operators we are second to none by staging such events as the World Figure Skating Championships and this year's World Curling Championships."

11/20: Northlands takes out a full page newspaper ad trumpeting Rexall Place's recent third-place ranking by Pollstar Magazine for Canadian concert arenas and 13th worldwide in terms of concert ticket sales. Daniel Mason, a professor in the school of business and physical education at the UofA tells the Journal’s Mike Sadava that the ad's purpose is probably two-fold: to show that Rexall is a functioning event centre, and that Northlands has the capacity to operate a new facility if built.

12/13: Katz tables new $200M offer, which includes $100M to build a new arena. In a press release, Katz says, “"I have great respect for everything Cal and the EIG shareholders have done for the Oilers and for the City of Edmonton. I want to continue that tradition with a commitment to strong local ownership and an exciting vision for the Oilers. The centerpiece of that vision is a new world-class arena complex at the heart of a revitalized downtown." (Canada Newswire)

12/14: Coun Kim Krushell tells the Edmonton Journal’s Susan Ruttan that she’ll call for a plebiscite if arena involves large amount of tax money.

12/15: "As I've said hundreds and hundreds of times before, we just can't afford to take our municipal tax dollars and put it into an arena," Mayor Mandel tells the Edmonton Journal’s Darcy Henton. In the same story, Premier Stelmach is quoted: "It's a private-sector arrangement ... has nothing to do with the gov’t of Alberta."

12/16: Coun Anderson suggests building arena near The Meadows east of Mill Woods. Says would spur LRT expansion. (Susan Ruttan, Edmonton Journal)

12/18 Paula Simons, Edmonton Journal, writes “if we build the right kind of sports and entertainment centre at Northlands, it could still generate spin-off benefits for downtown bars, hotels, and restaurants. It might even help the major revitalization of the Fort Road district, now underway. I know, the vision of a shiny downtown arena is alluring. But we should not get wedded to the idea of a downtown site if it's not in the city's best interests.”

Downtown Arena Timeline

2011-10-05T16:24:00.000-06:00

The following is a time line list, generated by the "alternate Mimi". A huge thank you for taking the time to provide such a comprehensive list of information...Since her list will show in the twitter time line "in reverse", I've taken her tweets, fixed a few date formatting issues, and changed her "see tweet below" to "see tweet above". I have also resisted the temptation to put several tweets in bold...

The TwitterRock Opera begins! The year is 2006. #1 on the charts is Justin Timberlake's SexyBack.
9/14/06: Edmonton Journal’s Paula Simons reports “anonymous backers” are floating an idea for a new arena on the Canada Post site.
11/16/06: Edmonton Journal polls readers on idea of a downtown arena: 52% say “Great idea.” 48% say “Bad idea.”
12/22/06: Mayor Mandel talks about a $1B downtown arena proposal: “We need to be creative and not burden the taxpayers,” he says.
1/13/07: Awaiting HOK Coliseum renovation cost report, Mayor Mandel says: “It always has been my hope that we will have a downtown arena.”
1/19/07: Oilers Pres Patrick LaFarge tells Globe & Mail the team is excited by all the new arena talk; he declares current barn “tired”.
2/22/07 Northlands releases HOK Report which says it would cost $225-250M in 2008 dollars to renovate Rexall to current NHL standards.
2/23/07: Mayor Mandel says a committee should look at building a new arena and evaluate potential locations. Predicts a decision by summer.
4/24/07: Journal’s Gary Lamphier predicts arena will attract “plenty of banks, private equity pools & major pension funds" looking 2 invest.
4/25/07: Mayor Mandel strikes Arena Feasibility Committee, says he has ideas for financing an arena “that wouldn't require any city money.”
5/5/07: In a surprise bid, local billionaire Daryl Katz offers $145M to buy the Oilers from the struggling Edmonton Investors Group.
5/7/07: Edmonton Investors Group advises Katz that the Oilers are not for sale.
6/2/07: Edm Journal reports Leger Marketing poll re: downtown arena indicates 56% Edmontonians opposed, 67% opposed if tax dollars used.
6/2/07: In response to Journal poll, Mayor Mandel vows no property tax or infrastructure money from feds or province will be used for arena.
7/24/07: Katz ups Oilers bid to $170M; promises to invest $100M in downtown arena, build training facility at U of A if his offer accepted.
8/2/07: Mayor Mandel tells the Journal, “Taxpayers are not going to foot the bill for a new arena,” regardless of who owns the Oilers.
8/7/07: Katz’ $185M Oilers purchase offer rejected. Katz Group says that there will be no more offers to buy the team.
9/18/07: Ben Henderson, then Ward 4 council candidate, tells the Edm Journal he’s in “wait and see” mode on downtown arena proposal.
9/19/07: Ward 3 candidate Tony Caterina tells Journal the Oilers, as private business, are free to pursue a new arena at their own expense.
9/21/07: Voter at election forum asks about possible referendum on arena. Mayor Mandel replies, “No taxes of yours will go into an arena.”
9/21/07: Ward 6 candidate Amarjeet Sohi tells Journal he doesn’t support a downtown arena and sees “no role at all” for city to play.
9/25/07: Coun Sloan tells election forum that if borrowed public money going to pay for a downtown arena, question should be put to a vote.
9/25/07: Asked about arena, Coun Ed Gibbons says a new arena should be in Ward 3, run by Northlands and cost the city no money whatsoever.
10/2/07: Ward 2 candidate Dave Loken tells the Edmonton Journal he supports the downtown arena “as long as no tax dollars are used.”
12/13/07: Katz Group tables a new $200M offer to purchase Oilers, includes a promise of $100M towards building a new arena.
12/14/07: Councillor Kim Krushell says she’ll call for a plebiscite if a new arena involves large amounts of tax money.
12/15/07: Premier Stelmach asked about funding arena: "It's a private-sector arrangement ... has nothing to do with the gov’t of Alberta."
12/16/07: Coun Bryan Anderson suggests building a new arena near The Meadows east of Mill Woods. Says doing so would spur LRT expansion.
As 2008 begins, there is no sign of the Arena Feasibility Committee report the Mayor figured would be completed by the end of summer.
2/7/07: Arena Task Force report delayed until after the provincial election. Mayor Mandel reiterates no tax or grant money will be used.
2/12/08: UofA Sports Econ Prof. Brad Humphreys tells conference new arena won’t produce jobs, boost economy but might increase civic pride.
2/15/08: ‘Edmontonians Against Public Money for the Downtown Oilerplex’ facebook page launched.
3/25/08: Mayor's Arena Committee recommends a downtown arena be built, with all 3 levels of gov't contributing to the estimated $450M cost.
3/27/08: Edm Journal’s Paula Simons writes that the “fix was in” with arena committee and predicts taxpayers will be left holding the bag.
3/29/08: Councillors Sohi & Caterina complain that they aren't allowed to see arena economic analysis reports partially paid for by city.
7/20/08: UofA Pop Research Lab survey indicates 48% Edmontonians support using tax dollars for a new arena; 50% opposed to the idea.
8/10/08: Cdn Taxpayers Fed reveals committee report draft mentioned TO, VCR, OTT & MTL arenas built with private funds, final report omits.
11/14/08: Econ downturn plus financial uncertainty created by arena talks forces city to guarantee $60M loan for Northlands expansion project
12/17/08: NHL’s Gary Bettman tells Chamber of Commerce luncheon Oilers need new arena. Journal’s Dan Barnes dubs speech “political drive-by.”
5/7/09: Northlands Chair says the organization is keen to work with the Katz Group on a new arena proposal.
8/20/09: Ipsos Reid poll shows 76% respondents (43% strongly) don’t want taxpayer dollars used for new arena.
8/28/09: Coun Bryan Anderson: “I don’t think there’s an appetite on council for the involvement of a whole bunch of municipal dollars.”
9/1/09: Katz Group secures d/t land options; say $1B development cd include 18,500-seat arena, theatre, casino, practice rink, studnt housng.
9/4/09: Premier Stelmach tells the Calgary Herald, “It’s very clear: we’re not putting money into arenas.”
9/11/09: Pat LaForge says Oilers “lost quite a bit of money last year” and, therefore, the Katz Group will need 100% of all arena revenues.
9/20/09: Patrick LaForge tells the Journal's David Staples that the Katz Group is in the process of hiring a “starchitect” to design arena.
9/26/09: Journal’s Gary Lamphier questions why no private developers or partners have stepped forward expressing interest to invest in arena.
10/7/09: Journal’s Scott McKeen calls Katz secret meeting invitation to councillors a sign of “bungling”; city lawyer warns probably illegal.
11/7/09: Media reports that the Katz Group has hired former Deputy Premier Peter Elzinga to lobby province on its behalf.
11/12/09: Forbes reports Oilers posted $9.4M operating profit; LaForge tells Journal they had a “break-even year”. (Note: 9/11/09 entry above)
12/17/09: Citing “confidential numbers” & info provided by Katz Group, Econ Development Edmonton says arena could generate $1.25B in wages.
2/10/10: Katz Group advises that its $100M contribution will not go towards arena but to surrounding development.
2/11/10: Mayor Mandel rejects putting arena proposal to a vote during the October election, says politicians should have the final say.
2/14/10: Journal runs letter from Katz: people misunderstood commitment, says he hasn’t broken his $100M pledge; it's a “new funding model”.
2/1910: Mayor Mandel says a ticket tax could cover $125M of the arena cost.
2/25/10: Katz Group launches Edmonton Arena District social media campaign.
2/26/10: Coun Leibovici, whose husband is a Medicine Shoppe VP, obtains a legal opinion that says she has no conflict of interest on arena.
3/10/10: CTV/ACCESS TeleResearch poll: “Should City of Edmonton build a new arena for Oilers?” Yes 22.55% No 55.45% Undecided 22%
3/20/10: In Journ guest column, Katz VP Bob Black says arena dist w/ have community rink, student housing, Winter Grdn, hotels & office twrs
3/21/10: Northlands Chair tells the Edmonton Journal that Rexall could operate “for decades”.
4/14/10: Mayor Mandel tells the Journal that $450M arena cost estimates being “blown out of proportion” by people who “don't have details”.
4/16/10: Katz Group hires former journo Steve Hogle as VP Pub Affairs & Communications to handle arena media & stakeholder relations
4/19/10: Katz Group files formal rezoning application for a downtown arena. No plans or designs are submitted with the application.
4/20/10: Journal Straw Poll on arena zoning application: 35% You bet; 11% Nope; 41% Only if there's no public money; 13% Need more info
5/5/10: Coun Iveson: "There's an irony here, which is that someone else is designing a building, which we're being asked to fund and own."
5/6/10: Katz Group hosts Edmonton Arena District open house at Art Gallery (to which Coun. Iveson was referring, above).
6/7/10: Katz Group withdraws zoning application. Says greater funding 'clarity' needed. Insider tells Journal put off until after election.
6/29: Katz Group spends day denying reports Oilers could move to Hamilton. Rumours triggered by Oilers execs high profile visit to Hamilton.
7/3/10: Coun Ben Henderson tells Journal, "It's all being played out in headlines & press releases, and that's not building trust."
7/14/10: Katz Group releases Jun 29 letter, which councillors had not yet seen, that puts $100M for arena back on table.
7/21/10: Journal's McKeen reports Katz proposed arena site ranked 5th and Northlands 1st in arena consultant's report councillors never saw.
7/21/10: Katz confirms he’ll commit $100M for arena plus $100M for arena district, but vows Oilers won't play in Rexall past 2014.
8/26/10: Downtown Business Assoc. surveys downtown residents, find 46% support arena proposal.
9/27/10: City Manager Farbrother tells Macleans magazine the federal gov’t consideration of QC arena funding request “framework-changing”.
10/6/10: Coun Sohi tells election forum "downtown arena can be built and should be built, but it does not need any support from taxpayers."
10/23/10: City announces arena open houses and discussion groups, along with an online presentation and survey. Cost: $150K
11/20/10: Oilers use demon dialer to promote on-line survey; city rep says “never designed to be a statistically valid opinion poll.”
12/1/10: Canadian Press reports Oilers in Quebec talking arenas. LaForge says, "We are not planning to move the Oilers at this time.”
12/4/10: Councillors receive answers to 140 arena questions, Council advised that Katz Group continues to refuse to open its books.
12/11/10: Northlands vows to keep Rexall open if shut out of downtown arena. Mayor Mandel responds “There won't be two arenas, regardless.”
12/16/10: Ex-Oiler, Deputy fed Green Party Leader Georges Laraque offers $100K for arena if city will move Lucy the Elephant to warmer home.
City poll: “Do you think CofE shd contribute funds to new d/t arena as long as it doesn't raise prop tax rate or reallocate infrast funds?”
1/13 Poll Results: Strongly Disagree 23% Somewhat Disagree 7% Strongly Agree 41% Somewhat Agree 26% Unsure 3%
1/13/11: City releases arena rpt incl on-line survey results, which Journal's Simons calls “something of a farce” (see demon dialing above).
1/14/11: City commissioned telephone survey: 59% respondents approve of arena if number of conditions met, including a plan for Rexall.
1/17/11: Council refuses to hear from citizens (incl this one!) & Cdn Taxpayers Federation rep registered to speak at arena public hearing.
1/18/11: Council approves rezoning application. When citizen (me, again!) tries to speak about viability of two arenas, Mayor cuts her off.
1/25/11: Katz Group's Bob Black repeats promise that student housing part of Katz' arena district vision; U of A says it's interested.
2/20/11: Watching Oilers game, Gary Bettman declares to media, “There's no question about it, they're not going to stay in this building."
3/3/11: Fed gov’t announces it will not fund NHL arenas. Mayor Mandel tells Journal a decision must be made by the end of the month.
4/1/11: City unveils CRL map; new prop taxes in 29-blk radius to fund arena. Admin says $ won’t B enough to service debt for at least 10yrs.
4/4/11: In a letter to Mayor Mandel, released to the media, Katz Group says the Oilers have not and do not agree with ticket tax idea.
4/7/11: Council votes to proceed with formal arena negotiations with Katz Group, though some conditions from January motion remain unmet.
4/8/11: City reduces CRL contribution & Katz Group agrees to ticket tax; $100M arena funding gap remains.
4/28/11: Council asks Katz Group to look at seat ownership proposal to help with funding; Katz Group declines.
5/19/11: Council votes 8-5 to approve deal framework after late-night closed-door session. Motion empowers City Mgr to finalize details.
5/20/11: Coun Anderson says deal requires Northlands agree to shutter Rexall. Katz sure Northlands will do what's in city's “best interests”
5/21/11: Coun Sloan says tells Journal, “Councillors were puppets, with Mr. Katz, Mr. Bettman & the Mayor pulling the strings."
5/28/11: Contending with Slave Lake fires & High River floods, Premier Stelmach says arena proposal not on his radar.
6/4/11: Journal reports Katz wants $125M interest-free loan (to be repaid with ticket tax) from prov in add'n to $100M provincial funding.
6/4/11: Coun Gibbons tells Journal he felt 'corralled & pushed to the chute" in arena vote. Coun Diotte worried about cost overruns.
6/12/11: Calgary Mayor Nenshi tells the Edmonton Journal he's no fan of public funding for arena-like projects.
7/13/11: Premier says province won’t fund arena, might help w/ infrastructure like LRT. Katz Group tells Canadian Press Oilers losing money.
7/22/11: Journal reports all 6 PC leadership candidates veto idea of province funding arena.
7/23/11: PC leader candidate Ted Morton pitches referendum to ask voters to voluntarily add 1% to GST for 2 yrs to pay for arena.
7/26/11: Premier Stelmach meets w/ Mayor Mandel, says province might find MSI funds for arena; Muni Affairs Minister pans Morton's tax idea
8/5/11: CBC reports Katz Group asked MLA offices to redirect constituent calls about arena to them for response. MLAs not amused.
8/6/11: Local media report Katz Group met w/ Enoch Cree re: locating arena there. Coun Iveson quips threat 2 move regionally shows progress.
8/23/11: Self-declared arena supporter & Journ Biz Editor Gary Lamphier writes, “downtown arena project badly needs some adult supervision”
8/26/11: City expands CRL zone to encompass 60 blocks with $100M to arena and $266M to 9 other catalyst projects.
8/29/11: In ode to Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Metro News' Terence Harding writes “In Edmonton did Khubla Katz a pleasure dome decree.”
*9/9/11: City admits $1.2M arena costs after VUE reporter (me again!) reveals (via twitter) councillors upset the info deemed confidential.
9/13/11: Local media reports that Oilers owner Daryl Katz has been living in Vancouver since April.
9/14/11: City council announces a Special Meeting will be held Sept 23 for arena update.
9/15/11: PC leader candidates grilled on arena funding at final debate in Edmonton. Crowd boos loudly at any suggestion of public support.
9/20/11: City council agenda for 9/23 Arena Update Special Meeting released; turns out the update will not be held in public after all.
9/20/11 Katz Group issues press release in which it demands council come to a decision on arena by October 31
9/23/11 Council told arena will cost city b/w $57M - $72M to buy land, build LRT station and pedway. This is on top of arena contribution.
9/27/11 Admin tells council working capital fund could be used to purchase arena land; Edm Sun reports add’l costs cd be as high as $100M.
9/28/11 Journal quotes Coun Loken: "The $100 million isn't the crux of the conversation. We hear from the province that's going to happen."
9/29/11 NDP Leader Brian Mason issues press release telling prov to come clean on arena funding, cites Loken’s comments.
9/29/11 Katz Grp issues stmt re: deadline; indicates it’s city’s responsibility to get prov funding & get Northlands to agree to no-compete.
10/3/11 Oilers Pres Patrick LaForge sends out an e-mail urging people to put pressure on city council to approve arena deal by Oct 31.

Unfriendly Future

2011-09-06T00:40:00.000-06:00

I have such a strong passion for wanting things to be done right. Not only right, but with honesty and pride and ... well, it's pretty much an endless list.

When the Alberta Party was "re-born" and "re-formed" I took an interest, I believed the hype, and despite very restricted finances, I got involved... looking to help in making a difference. Along the way, talking with organizers, family, friends... feeling the hype and the promises of listening to the people, and doing whats right for the people... Hell, how can you not fall in love with the idea?

Sadly, as time has passed, it seems to be just that. An idea. What's worse is that it is turning into a selective idea, and because of that MY morals have told me, no matter what, when you bark up a wrong tree, you are still barking at a wrong tree. For me, that wrong tree is dealing with the medical side of the Edmonton City Center Airport. No matter what I do, who I talk with, tweets I make, and posts I make... I get literally no where. If this is supposed to be a party that stands up for doing things the right way, for fixing things that have been done wrong, then I guess I must have missed something along the way.

I spoke with all of the leadership candidates before the vote time, and the one main question I had for all of them had to deal with the medical on the airport. We all know what Edmonton City Council did was a joke. They went through the process so they could say they went through the process. They never listened nor cared what people said. They did their best to interfere with an attempt at democracy, to put the question to the people of Edmonton. And in the end, they choose to ignore them as well, and to even take it one step further, they choose to ignore the Airport Authority and specifically closed the runway most critical to the medical community. You know.... medical being under PROVINCIAL control and all.

And we know the results of that. Many flights have already been diverted and at least one human (a baby at that) has died because of it. The clear need for the province, or those looking to represent the province, should have been to take a stand on AT LEAST getting the needed runway back in operation. Of course, it never should have been allowed to have been closed in the first place. If City Council were so insistent on nuking one runway, they should have nuked the other one.

Anyway, all of the Alberta Party people expressed that perhaps that needed to be addressed in some form. Then Glenn was voted in and I waited. Some policies on Health Care came out, but nothing on the airport. I made several polite tweets and never got any responses. Until a couple of tweets from Chris came in (you can read that post here), and eventually a DM came from Glenn where he promised to call me and also respond to the blog. That never happened, so I sent him a friendly DM reminder, and he did eventually call me. The basics of the conversation was the it was pretty much a City decision. Well, maybe closing the airport could be a city decision, but closing the critical runway and jeopardizing the health of Albertans (and others in BC and the NWT etc) is a provincial side. Sadly, we could not complete that conversation because my daughter came in "call waiting" and we needed to discuss family things before she left on holidays. Glenn understood, and we were to "try again" later.

During all of this, Sue Huff also responded that it was a City decision. So we have Chris and Sue and Glenn pretty much refusing to get involved. And I'm sorry but that simply is not good enough. I am not saying the Party needs to tell Edmonton "you can't close it"... I AM SAYING the party needs to stand up and defend the closure of the wrong runway, critical to medical. Yet, they don't see it.

Well, maybe the Alberta Party is comfortable with people dying, comfortable with extended travel and wait times with over 40 diverted flights.

I am not. And I will no longer pretend in fictitious unicorns and rainbows. Mere marketing toys to make something that isn't pretty, into something that is.

The truth is pretty. If actually standing up for what people want, is the truth. And in this, the Alberta Party has failed. Every other Party gets it. Except one.

With that said, I am done.

Fool Me Twice

2011-08-25T08:44:00.001-06:00

As the saying goes, fool me once - shame on you... fool me twice - shame on me.

It's once of those quaint English expressions you hear from time to time, and the City of Edmonton is trying to pull another fast one over your eyes, with the pre-planned assistance from the Edmonton Economic Development Corporation.

Yes... this very same organization, which is owned by the City of Edmonton, which issues a press release just prior to the last Edmonton civic election touting how great Mr. Mandel is... is at it once again. The EEDC is hosting a FREE BBQ downtown, hoping to lure your body so they can use you as a pawn in order to promote the advantages of the proposed downtown arena.

The plan is to announce a new CRL zone (read the report from Mack Male here), worth in excess of 300 million dollars, from which they will be using a good portion of those funds so that Mandel can finally say "Hey, we have the money now to rob the taxpayers and put huge sums of taxpayer money into Mr. Katz's private billionaire pockets".

I mean seriously... using taxpayer money to lure people for a free bbq, all in order to have bodies at a press release announcement about the CRL funds... Hey... feel free to be used as a pawn which the Edmonton Media will be showing "look at the number of people we can get downtown and have fun". After all, according to the City of Edmonton's own website promoting this free event, they state:

Join EEDC for a free BBQ lunch to celebrate the vibrancy of Edmonton's downtown - and organizations like ATB Financial that choose to play a key role in making downtown Edmonton a vibrant place.

Yes, even the ATB will be there. After all, they are the "proud sponsors of the Edmonton Oilers".

I hope you enjoy being used as a pawn... after all, Mandel must think you are all nothing but a bunch of suckers. Remember that as you woof down your (cough) free food today.

Alberta Party - City Center Airport

2011-07-28T09:28:00.000-06:00

With a Provincial election looming, any where from within the next few months to a year, some of the old topics are once again coming up for discussion. The other day, Danielle Smith from the Wild Rose Alliance posted this video on youtube from High Level, pointing out some reasons on why the CCA is so important.

On June 27th, I wrote a blog post (you can read it here)which contains a link to the report created by the Health Quality Council of Alberta which clearly shows that nothing can beat the greatness from having medivac services provided by the downtown airport.

For some time, I've been gently asking the Alberta Party, of which I am a member, to publicly take a stance on this issue. I know this was raised with the candidates during the recent run for the leadership of the party, and I even had a good chat with Glenn Taylor over this issue the night before the leadership vote was done.

Yet... the Alberta Party as an entity, has failed to respond. However a tweet I posted using the #abparty hash tag on July 27th at 9:49:

I hope the #abparty takes the same stand as the #wra does on #ecca. http://bit.ly/pdJ5Ip #yegcc #ableg

did provoke a response from Chris LaBossiere, the current Alberta Party president.

I don't know if this is Chris's personal views, or if they represent the party's view. He stated:

Gary, I am afraid that you won't see any #abparty on #ecca. It's an issue for #yegcc and the citizens of #yeg to navigate.

followed by another tweet saying:

Until #ahs ensures safe passage and medivac amenity at @flyeia, medivac stays at #ecca. That's certainly a priority.

I responded with:

If medivac is a priority, and it belongs under #AHS, then that makes #ecca a provincial issue. Not #abparty issue? I'm sad.

and Chris responded back with:

AHS and Medivac is a priority. A DT airport, 1 of 5 in the region, is less so. But alas... we will always disagree on this.

Let me state... I like Chris, he is a decent person. We have never really seen eye-to-eye on this issue, but I like to think there is still a good personal respect for each others views. After all, the Alberta Party is a party where members can disagree on things without losing respect for the persons involved, and I like that.

SO much has already been said on this issue, repeating the bulk of the logic would be nauseating... Yes, there are alternatives. No matter how you cut it, there is simply nothing else available that will serve the needs of the medivac services or the EPS copters quite like the City Center Airport does.

Any other alternative will result in longer, and potentially dangerous, patient safety and transfer times... with increased costs not only for medical but for the EPS as well.

We are willing to give all of that up... just to make a few extra dollars WAY down the road by getting more taxes from residents who want to live in some form of Taj Mahal?

I'm no financial wizard for sure, but I would suspect that by the time you add up all of the costs of building some inferior service at the EIA, staffing City of Edmonton "employees" outside the city limits, along with the costs of re-developing CCA, and increased costs of Edmonton staff and Edmonton equipment, there will be no magical tax savings for probably a good 20 years or more.

There is also no question, the longer times and "alternate landing zones" will cost lives. It already has... The medical community knows it has and Edmonton City Council knows it has.

I wonder how making some potential money decades down the road is better than saving lives. Don't we owe it to the citizens of this province, and those we serve not only in BC but the NWT ... to examine this issue with some truth, instead of the bull shit City Council used?

Phone Lines - 101

2011-07-21T21:38:00.000-06:00

After some twitter conversations, I decided to share some basic phone line information to help people understand exactly how "twisted pair copper" phone lines work. And when folks like Telus say "there is no hum on your line" or "that long distance call came from your number and you are responsible to pay it" or other such things you can smack them upside the head and tell them you know better. It will also help you understand why services like ADSL (asymmetric digital subscriber line) works the way it does.

With that said, the best way to show this is by a series of pictures... please, don't smack me... a graphics artist I am NOT, as the following series of images will clearly prove. :P Remember, this applies only to 'twisted pair copper lines', and not the newer forms of fiber optic lines that some areas have been converted to. The best way to start, is at the beginning, yes?

The Beginning

When a telephone exchange is designed, the phone company will calculate out how many customers it will need to service, and then they will install several sets of feeder lines to various "groups" of locations, and then split the master feeder into chunks of smaller feeders. For example, a master feeder might be a 500 pair circuit and sub-feeders might be 100 pair lines, which could further branch out into 25 or 50 pair circuit sections.

THE most important thing to remember is that each sub feed and smaller feeds, or any 'drops' made along the way in the system, are all called "taps". And each 'tap' is a "parallel" connection. Think of it as a set of Christmas tree lights, when the light in the middle goes out but all of the other lights remain on.

It starts like this:

500 pair lines are run from the phone exchange out to several drop points within the designated service area. From there, the master feeds could be split up into several smaller ones (for residential distribution) or feed directly into an office of corporate area to serve a large business group. Naturally, 'life rules' will generally be all of the above potentially being a mixture of the two main classes of users.

The middle break down would look something like this. Simple concepts being what they are, yes?

This is the point where it gets more interesting. Picture this in your mind if you will, where you are driving down a street or a rural road, and you see all of the telephone polls with phone lines (and power and cable) running from pole to pole, and then as a pole gets close to a house, a phone line cable comes out of a junction box and runs into the house. The theory for underground service is exactly the same, the only difference is you can't see it. :) Replace what ever mixture of homes and business complexes as you wish, it doesn't really matter. When you deal in the "drops" to houses, quite often you will find a line coming in that can handle 2 phone lines... or... 4 wires... or 2 twisted pairs. Lets say the phone folks want a 20% safety ratio, to cover when lines go bad and for some people who require more than 2 phone lines. They will put in a 100 pair cable which will service 40 homes with 2 lines each, and have 20 lines left over for "spares". In order to insure that all of the phone lines are available to all people in the drop area, each connector block (usually located on the pole in the back alley) at each house must TAP into each of those 100 connections, so the service at the start of the area drop is the same as the service at the end of the area drop. And of course at the connector block, would be the wire that runs into the house. No silly, all 100 pairs don't run INTO your house, just the two pairs for you...

The "end"... of the beginning. Sorry to say it's not the end end. You will see why shortly.

If you are stuck with the Xmas tree light concept, then use an extension cord with one of those 3 plug ends on it, and on each end, plug another cord (you now have 1 cord feeding 3) and... repeat... often. A most stupid thing to do in real life, but the point is no matter where you plug your drill into, the same power at the start of the cord is available at the end cord.

Multiple End Points

At this point, you need to know there are some rather technical things involved. Phone lines are low power devices, that operate on a DC voltage versus your AC type house power. You can usually hold both of the phone wires in your hands and not get zapped. (Oh yeah, compulsory YOU ARE STUPID warning here. Don't do that with any part of a wet body... and *pray* the phone doesn't ring while you are holding the wires... because you will get zapped!) With the line being low voltage, the distance it can travel is limited. The more copper you put in place, the more resistance the distance of wire adds up to, the less "power" there is at the end of the run.

End point #1. So now you understand that the farther you are away from the exchange, the lower the quality of service might be. Normal voice phone usage isn't generally affected by this BUT services like ADSL and TV over the phone line ARE affected.

Remember, this is just a simple explanation.. Another critical technical matter is called "capacitance". This comes from having 2 (or more) items running close to each other. In this case, the items are wires. Now capacitors can do several things. Depending on the value of the capacitance, and the frequency of the transmission on the wire (voice band, Internet band, TV station band) it IS possible for any capacitance value in the lines to leak or bleed or maybe even short out one type of signal. Needless to say this is a HUGE problem for the phone companies, since the normal twisted pair copper wire system was NEVER designed to handle more than just the normal voice band. And each "leg" of the wire run, no matter if the other end of the wire is connected to anything or not... will change the capacitance value of the line. Where do you get more "legs" attached? Ah yes... those nasty drops that people have added into their homes (running a small business in their house, maybe need 5 phone lines) or a new strip mall that might need 50 lines.

You see, if you need say 5 lines well, the phone company won't run in 3 separate lines of 2 pairs each, they will probably run in a 25 pair cable. And in this case, when they run the new cable into "the house", all 25 pairs WILL be hooked up at the connector block. And in the real world, this happens over, and over, and over again.

So in order to deal with a capacitance issue, the phone company MUST send someone out, and check every junction point. IF "your" phone line happens to be 'tapped' into something else then they have to remove that tap. Kinda like unplugging that extension cord. Once it's no longer plugged in, there is no power at the end, and nothing to pick up or cause any electrical interference.

The above paragraph also describes End Point # 2, which is *exactly* how someone can potentially access your phone line. Because in the 25 pair case above, one of the "non used" sets could have been attached to the same connection your line is on. All someone in the house has to do is stick a phone on each of the other pairs, and see if they get a dial tone.

With all of this known, we are left with End Point # 3, which deals with static, hum, cross talk, line buzz or other similar situations. The copper wires are small, with a thin plastic surrounding the wire. The cables are strung on poles outside subject to weather. When it gets really windy, the cable can stretch, and cause lines to break. The plastic rubs on things and can get worn out to the point where it causes a short making the line dead. The cables are protected with ground shield lines, which can cause ground faults and ground loops (aka hum on the line). The last person servicing the line may not have sealed the connector box properly allowing moisture to get in, which causes hum and capacitance issues. Really, the list is endless.

So depending on your problem, your distance from the exchange, how many tap points there are involved... the phone company might be trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Or maybe they just don't want to put in the effort and expense.

Always remember when you deal with anything other than VOICE over your phone line, the distance to the exchange will control your quality. You may find that surfing the net slows down when the phone rings or is being used. Maybe your television channels go a little flaky under the same conditions.

This is of course, all just food for thought... a *very* simple explanation. Real life says there are a lot more taps and drops than this picture paints.

Downtown Arena - Slanted Numbers

2011-07-19T12:10:00.003-06:00

I have to start off by allowing a few kudos to the folks running the City of Edmonton twitter account. They get various forms of "abuse" while trying to give Edmonton's twitter population information. And "information" is a good thing but only providing it's accurate and truthful. This is where the problem comes in however because there are times what you get, is only a biased truth. And as a taxpayer, I admit I am getting sick and tired of being legally lied to.

The City has been trying to shove their biased "truth" down my throat and I am seriously insulted. The line of "I am madder than hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" has been crossed. If it's a war you want then by all means it's a war you are going to get. This post will provide truthful information, most of which is provided BY the City. If all you ever hear is just the bottom line... the totals... and you accept that as truth, then you are really being blindsided. Take a moment... and look at what those totals actually mean.

For example, the City will tell you that according to the calls placed to 311, there are a total of 2,501 calls for the arena and 1,769 calls against. So clearly the citizens of Edmonton are demanding this arena so come hell or high water we just have to build it.

BUT... out of those 2,501 calls for the arena, 2,435 came in during a two week period (March 27 to April 9) when the Oilers were doing their promotional "call 311" during the last few home games. And wow, that's a lot of numbers, right? BUT... lets say those two home games had 16,500 people each, for a total of 33,000 supportive Oilers fans.

This works out to just under 7.5% of the people attending the games who called in. That also means that just over 92.5% of the supportive fan base did NOT call in saying "hell ya".

It should be noted that the 311 survey tracks a 19 week period between February 1 and July 5, 2011. So for out of 19 weeks ONLY 2 weeks had ANY form of support. That's about 10% of the time there was support and 90% of the time there was not support.

Let's look at some other information, because we can't just base something on this alone. A City document (link opens in a new window) about the Arena Telephone Survey (page 3) describes how 24% say public transportation is important followed by 17% who think "The Arena Project" is important. Subsequent pages show how 96% of the people are aware of a project, 82% can perceive benefits, etc etc. One a single question by biased question basis, one can only conclude yet once again, that this project should proceed. If you participated in this phone survey, you could not question the question, you could not sub divide it... your only option was to select a single choice mostly based on a single question. Questions designed by the City to enforce a positive outcome to proceed.

I mean after all, we do love our Oilers, we want them to stay. So when given single question choices we like to give positive answers for things we like. For example on page 7 of the above report, we can generically say we don't mind contributing to this. But when did "Having a mix of private and public funds to build the new arena" question turn into "Oh, did we forget to tell you that MIX would be about 80% taxpayer money?". Page 8 talks about having plans and we agree we need to have them. Yet we never agreed to have BAD plans as an end result. Page 9 talks about 'doing it' as long as taxes don't take a hit or infrastructure funds are used to pay for it. Yet we know that the CRL will increase the tax load for every resident in Edmonton because the services those taxes pay for that get sent to the CRL instead of general revenues, will have to be made up. For 30 years or more. And page 13? I mean really! Again pointing to a mixture of private/public funding, which was NEVER to be assumed we were giving away all of the profits as well.

Now that you know more about the above report, and clearly how biased it is, here is more proof for the pudding. The City's own report on community consultation on page 9 it clearly states that "At the time of public consultations, a funding model to support the Katz Group proposal had not been proposed to City Council." This means the City wanted to do all of these surveys and get a positive outcome to proceed, without the people knowing what the full deal would be. Very cool slight of hand, I must admit.

If you want some really interesting survey information, check out the Speak Up Edmonton site which provides link information on a 2009, 2010 and 2011 Ipsos Reid polls, which clearly show a more balanced truth where 70 plus percent of people just don't like what's going on.

I really want to know when Council will actually start to represent the truth rather than trying to conjure up some rubbish to support giving away all of the profits yet paying all of the costs.

As a note, there is the i880 news report that has a link to Ed Gibbons questions and that PDF document seems to have disappeared from the City's site. In that document it described a list of things that had formed the basis of the agreement. I seem to recall it was perhaps item F where it stated that all forms of revenue would be in place before this project is proceeded with. I remind those on City Council that both the Provincial and Federal governments have stated "no funds". You've all read the stories. And since it takes an average of 2 years to get CRL approval, and you can't proceed until those funds are IN PLACE as per the agreement... I have to ask what other slight of hand you are going to come up with now. But then, it's also kinda cute how all of the stories say Katz will put in $100 million, but now we hear it will only be 80 or so, and additional funds will be "down the road".

*cough*

EDIT: July 20... the missing report re: i880news is located here

EDIT: July 23... the missing report above, has gone missing yet again. One simply has to love how the truth keeps getting lost and hidden and shuffled around by the City.

EDIT: July 25... and the missing shuffled report is now located here. The City says it's never been moved but look at the links, see for yourself...

ECCA - Was it done right?

2011-06-27T11:41:00.001-06:00

The Health Quality Council of Alberta (HQCA) released a report in April of 2011, titled "Review of the Safety Implications for Patients Requiring Medevac Services to and from the Edmonton International Airport". ... phew.. long title huh? The report was requested by the Minister of Alberta Health and Wellness and you will note that at the bottom of each page in this report, are the words "Promoting and improving patient safety and health service quality across Alberta".

Reports are a cool thing. You ask for something, they give you information on what you asked for. And now that you have all of this cool information, you can run with it. BUT... WHAT IF what you asked for, wasn't what you were really wanting. Or even worse... what if you asked for a report to only give what you want so that any decisions based on that report, are slanted in the direction you want them to go in?

We have seen this all before. Electrical deregulation, selling Epcor stuff, the need to have new power lines (aka Bill 50) and oh yes, how to handle closing the City Center Airport. The truth of the matter is ... the reports are meaningless. They never used to be but they sure are now, in today's politics. Both the City of Edmonton and the Province of Alberta have abused the "report" thing so badly we just can't really believe many of them.

With that said, this report actually starts to bring out some of the truth about just how BAD moving medevac services to EIA is. As you read through the report, you almost get the feeling it's saying "those arrogant idiots in the City are putting lives at risk". And you would be 100% right.

Lets go back to September of 2010 where an article titled "Stelmach 'Nothing moves' on closure of municipal airport" appeared in the Edmonton Sun.

"Nothing moves until all options are discussed to make sure that there is no compromise of the Medevac services that we have in the province of Alberta, and I'm serious on that point," Stelmach said.

I suspect there may be more truth to that, than expected. Because you see, "nothing moves" even means that the medevac flights themselves have been grounded. And why is this? When the City stated they were going to close one of the runways, the Regional Airport Authority (those folks who failed to do their jobs over the years in dealing with this airport) specifically stated to City Council... DO NOT CLOSE THE MEDEVAC RUNWAY. And the City never listened. They wanted to prove THEY were God and could do what THEY wanted to, and closed the only runway best suited for medevac services. And where was the Provincial Government, and Stelmach when this happened? Clearly, they were hiding.

Another quote from the same Sun article...

"The province has authority over where Medevac flights go. Medevac flights in the Edmonton-area currently use both the City Centre and International airports, but there is a long-term plan to consolidate services at one airfield."

Someone from the Alberta Government should have stepped in and stopped this runway from being closed, and they did not. And in the Fall of 2010, Edmonton was strapped in with some bad weather. If you follow Murphy's Law, then you know that the Hospital in Grande Prairie had an urgent need to transport a critically ill baby to Edmonton. A call was made to dispatch that flight, and due to weather conditions the medevac flight was not able to leave immediately. It took several hours before the weather allowed the option for the flight to leave, and when they called to say they were on their way, the doctors had to cancel the request. They knew that by the time the medevac flight arrived, it would have been too late. The windows of opportunity to save this baby's life, had disappeared. Had that runway not been closed, the medevac flight could have taken off, due to different rules allowing that runway to have been used. Would the baby have survived if it had been taken in time? Sadly, we will never know. The baby died. And YES, several city councilors WERE informed of this.

Now, considering the above, one would think that both the City of Edmonton and the Province of Alberta could be culpable in the death of this child. I have been trying to determine who the parents are, without luck. I strongly suspect they were only told "due to weather conditions in Edmonton, the medevac flight was not able to depart in time" ... ... if they only knew the truth.

If Stelmach had ANY guts, he would have called Mandel when he KNEW they were going to close the medevac runway. But no... So now the question is, with this new HQCA review will the Alberta Government now do the right thing and force the City to re-open this runway? It seems like they have the legal power to do so. But then... that would take guts. Doing the right thing...

Take a read through the HQCA report. Are we going to let our medical services go from being one of the best around, to being one of the worst around? The City Center Airport should have never been closed. Had the Regional Airport Authority done it's JOB there would be a lot more activity at the CCA. Not necessarily from increased flights either. And don't think for a minute that you won't need those services because you live in Edmonton. You do drive, travel, visit... same as your friends and family and their friends and their families.

Oh... one more thing to think about. At the start of this I stated the "thing" about reports. Do note, this recent HQCA report does NOT include the number of medevac flights that were missed, and the reasons and results. Careful what you ask for...

Downtown Arena - By the Numbers plus CFR Thoughts

2011-06-06T09:16:00.000-06:00

For the “311” numbers, I was told that there has been a steady number of callers that have opposed the arena, with very few calls in support. That is, until the Oilers last two home games, where announcements were made asking people to call into 311, at which point spikes happened for the first few days (about 1200 calls), and then went way down, came up again for a few days (with about another 900 calls), and then went way down again. With that said, there has been about 2500 calls in support of the arena, and 1700 calls against. In addition, there have been approximately 300 calls that might support it, but only under certain conditions. For the people who think that perhaps the Oilers tried to “buy” a few votes, those caller numbers were about 2100 of the 2500, leaving really only about 400 who are in favor. Allowing for “grace” for people who might have normally called in to support the Oilers, say 10%… lets add in another 250 which makes those values around 650 in favor, compared to the steady stream of 1700 against.

From calls made directly to councilor offices, and since the numbers from the 7 members or assistants that I spoke with are consistently the same from those 7, it’s safe to presume the remaining folks would likely be close to the same. The overall numbers of the calls have been in the range of 95-100 percent who have been against ANY taxpayer funds going into the arena. (Truth be told, the lowest figure I was given was 98% but to be "fair" I stated 95%.)

The contract with the Canadian Finals Rodeo event, between the Canadian Professional Rodeo Association and Northlands, expires after the 2016 event. The CFR will continue to be at Rexall no matter what transpires with the proposed arena complex. Here are some things you should be thinking about...

1)    It is common knowledge that the animals involved, are housed at Northlands during the evening, and “as required”. This is a short trip of a kilometer or less and as a result, the stress on those animals is kept to a bare minimum. Clearly, the welfare of the animals is of great importance to everyone.
2)    IF… the CFR were to be held at a new downtown arena, the transportation of these animals would be considerably more difficult. With only 350 parking stalls available, the space these large track trailer units need for maneuvering, the additional distance these big units would have to travel through city streets to gain access to Northlands to house them… think about how that can be accomplished, think about how the CFR considers the animal welfare, and ask yourself, if you were going to decide who would get the next contract... “is this where we want to be”.
3)    Calgary will certainly bid AGAIN to host the CFR. You have to know they will bid strongly.
4)    Other events in the past, for the World Championships (which is the National Finals Rodeo), had been held year after year in Oklahoma City. When their contract came up, they lost it to Las Vegas. This is just a reminder that having the CFR here in Edmonton, under a new contract to start in 2017, is no where NEAR a “sure thing”.
5)    The Canadian Professional Rodeo Association is currently pleased with the locational proximity of the event being held in Rexall, and the animals being housed at NorthLands. They also like the setup in Calgary, where the animals can be held in the Stampede grounds infield area.

Arena Plebiscite Question

2011-05-22T15:54:00.003-06:00

There are a lot of unanswered issues on the proposed downtown arena "complex" for the Oilers and others use and development. So many, that it begs for the truth to come out. I honestly have no clue if it is even needed. My main concern is how the facts have been presented, and more importantly the facts that have not had the complete truth told, and even more so, the facts that the City have hidden citing "Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy" as mentioned in the post on May 22nd on thecharrette.ca site.

The number of articles written by many who know sports and economics (those with degrees in these areas, working at Institutions and Universities all over North America) have repeatedly stated that the type of thing that the City of Edmonton is doing, has never worked in the past. The horror stories of how taxpayers have ended up on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars seems to be endless.

Unless we know the full truth, all of the good points and all of the bad points, there is no possible way we can really know for sure if this really is a good thing or not. So with that thought in mind, it seems like the only way to get at the truth is to force a plebiscite. Because the issues ARE so complex, trying to come up with the appropriate legal wording is a huge deal. I have no idea of what would be right or wrong, but I am going to propose something along this line...

I believe that the amount of relevant information has not been properly presented to me, and as a citizen of the City of Edmonton, I am formally requesting that the current arrangements for the proposed downtown complex be placed on hold. I am requesting that all information on the costs of the project, including who currently owns the land, the costs to purchase the necessary land, what the service costs would be, how the Community Revitalization Levy impacts services and education taxes, and any other information that is known or critical to finalizing this deal be made public, including how this would affect the taxpayers of Edmonton and the Province of Alberta. Once all of the information has been presented, I ask for a public vote to be held, and that the result of that vote determine if the City shall proceed with this development.

Please feel free to offer alternate suggestions... Thanks for your time.

The Shell Game

2011-05-20T11:24:00.000-06:00

This will be a simple, yet I think realistic post, on the CRL shell game the City of Edmonton is trying to sell you on for the new downtown arena. This is the basic scoop on what the CRL does. A "zone" is created, which is just an area on a map that says "this is the area we are going to deal with". The idea is that any tax increases from those who are currently IN that area, would go towards the CRL, and any NEW business's that move into the area, 100% of their taxes go towards the CRL.

Remember, city taxes include the provincial educational component, and that component as well ALSO goes towards the CRL. The Alberta Government says that education will be funded, and they will no longer get that education component from the CRL zone, which means ALL other Alberta taxpayers will get increases to cover the amount required.

Existing places in the zone, their increases from "before and after" will go the the CRL. New places, all of their taxes go to the CRL. Those taxes are supposed to pay for the services provided in that area and they no longer will, which means that ALL of the residents in Edmonton will have to pay additional tax dollars to make up for the loss of income that should have been directed towards providing those services they get.

This isn't free money folks. Everyone will have to pay more, and all of that revenue income from this new complex goes into Katz's pocket. I pity the folks and seniors on a fixed income, who barely survive now. The extra taxes will force some of those out of their homes, because they can no longer afford to pay the ever increasing amounts. People renting in the area will also be faced with higher rents because the landlord will pass the tax increases along.

Not only will the residents of the City have to pay, they have to pay "twice" to cover the loss. And the rest of the province will also have to pay more, to cover the lost revenue from the education tax. I have to wonder how any of this could be considered "good".

One other thing you should ponder on. Edmonton currently has, I believe, two existing CRL applications in effect for the Quarters and Fort Road area. A lot of that work has already been done and paid for. The province has yet to approve either of these. I can't speak about the Quarters, but I live a few blocks away from the Fort Road area. The design is a disaster, and no one has stepped up to actually build anything yet. What happens if the province says "no"? Well, that's another $125 million (at the least) that also comes from your pocket, into Katz's pocket.

Edmonton Arena

2011-05-19T11:42:00.001-06:00

There are some things that are very practical, and there are some things that make you sit up and go HUH. It would seem that the new "agreement" on the Edmonton downtown arena (#yegarena), for many, is one of those HUH moments.

A news item posted by iNews880 has in part, the following statement:

"I'll go to the other orders of government, in particular, the province and talk to them," says Mandel. "This arena, this facility, this NHL team, is not an Edmonton private property - it is the property of northern Alberta. People come here from all across northern Alberta to go to the games, they come to Edmonton to go to concerts, people from the region use this."

I find it a little comical that Mandel is now running to the people stating how much the people of Northern Alberta have such a huge part in this. Yet those same people were shunned from having any value when it came to the City Center Airport, where the most critical runway for medevac services was closed, and a baby from the Grande Prairie region may have died as a direct result of a medevac flight not being able to leave in time to bring this child into Edmonton for critical medical treatment.

A blog post from John MacKinnon on the Edmonton Journal's site has this statement:

"Mandel said once the framework agreement was concluded, he phoned Katz, who was sitting with NHL commissioner Gary Bettman at the Canucks-San Jose Sharks game in Vancouver, and shared the news with him. He said Katz was elated."

I wonder how that phone call went (and isn't it nice to know that Mandel has Katz's private cell number), maybe it was "Hey guess what... we were able to shaft the people of Edmonton just like you wanted and now all of those suckers are going to make you even richer!"... Oh, the number of people who have suggested there is a lot of pocket padding going on... Kinda makes one think, right?

Then we have one of Edmonton's most respected bloggers, Dave Cournoyer, stating in his post:

"I am a big supporter of Edmonton’s urban core and have written a few blog posts explaining some critical questions about our City’s future that have been largely skipped or ignored in this debate:"

I can only encourage Dave to re-state those questions and pursue some answers.

With that said, the clear smell of rotten fish is in the air. As typical, most of the critical information and "words" by City Council has been done in-camera, which is the way secret things happen that the public isn't allowed to know. We aren't even being asked if we want this, it is just being shoved down our throats. If the City has any honour at all, they would see this is of major concern to a huge number of residents, and would be truthful with the facts. Not just part of the truth but the WHOLE truth. I promise you that will never happen because.. well... rotten fish... you know.

Some things to think about...

Traffic congestion, police and medical navigation when that traffic congestion is there, trying to get into or out of downtown when you have other things to do while an arena event is happening.
Taxes... your property taxes will go up to cover the shortfalls (you just KNOW there are going to be some) plus the increases needed to finance the debt you are responsible for. You pay all the money and Katz gets all the profits.
Education taxes, anything from the increases in the current tax base, and all future new taxes (providing the Province even approves the CRL... and it's interesting to note that the current two CRL's that are "in place" have not yet even been approved by the Province, which means all that money has been paid out but nothing has come in yet) go towards the CRL side. The Province says "education will be funded, this is the cost, it's shared equally between all Albertans". Since the province will no longer get the education portion of the taxes it would normally have collected, the dollars LOST, going into Katz's pocket, will then have to be added back into the education component, which means that all Albertans will face increases to cover the loss of "what would have been".

One other thing... "those who have"... the people with solid jobs, nice cash in the bank, affording all of the toys life brings... You may not care about paying an extra 20 or 30 bucks per person per ticket per event. You may not care that your taxes are going to go up by say another 200 bucks a year.

You... are the ones that are getting to be rare. The number of families and seniors who can not afford this is a lot more. From the concept of "hockey", the days are gone when it was a family entertainment because people just can't afford the current seat prices, let alone the increases to cover this. And concerts? Yet another family event that will be restricted to the richer crowds. A family of 4 will probably see an increase of a hundred dollars just to take the kids to a concert.

Yes indeed, the City of Edmonton is slowly turning into the city where only the rich folks get to have fun. And at the expense of the poor.

I am not convinced we need this, done this way. Do we need a new arena? Maybe... Could the old one be made more workable? Maybe... Should 80% of the costs be covered by taxpayers, while literally 100% of the profits go into a billionaire's pocket? Hell no.

Edmonton Decore

2011-04-26T11:54:00.000-06:00

On April 19th I attended the preliminary meeting held by several Alberta Party "Edmonton Decore" residents to discuss forming a Constituency Association (aka CA), even though I don't live in that riding.

I bet you are thinking "Huh? That's a weird way to start a blog post... what the hell!" .. ... Well, you see, this not the first of these types of meetings I have gone to, while trying to find my political home. I've been blessed by various organizations within the current Alberta Government, that control the boundaries of where riding's reside. My current riding is Beverly-Clairview, but when the writ drops for the next provincial election I am in another riding. I thought that other riding was "something else" but upon further investigation it seems that about a 2 block area where I live, has some how been shuffled over to yet a different riding. After speaking to some folks that deal with those areas, and even after having my address... they were also unsure of exactly where I would be at election time so the boys in the mapping department had to get involved. And thanks to them, I finally know where my home is. .. .. Yep, you guessed it. Edmonton Decore. But only after the writ drops. Needless to say, where I am and where I will be complicates what CA I can be involved in and what I am capable of doing.

And it is frustrating because I know I want to do something, I want to get involved, I want MY voice to be heard, along with the other voices. As I look around the area I am in and I talk with the people in "the hood" or with people I run into while shopping or having coffee... I hear the same stories. "... and they just don't seem to listen..." .. Well, to be perfectly honest, I wasn't sure any of the political parties would cut the mustard. But what really hooked me into knowing I was in the right place, was the single policy of the Alberta Party that stated how elected representatives must communicate with their constituents on a regular basis and must present those values to government. They are to vote on issues based on the people they represent, regardless of the Party position (unless it's on a budget issue type of thing, which seems fair). Another huge issue for me, was the releasing of information about funding. Unlike other parties who won't tell you who is backing them financially, the Alberta Party seems to think none of that information should be kept secret.

I like that. I really REALLY like that. ... Anyway, getting back to our first Decore CA meeting, there were enough people there to form the CA but we agreed to hold another meeting and to get even more people involved in the process. Which is certainly a good thing. Maybe there is an urgency to get this done (which I can understand) but it's more important to do it right the first time, and we want to make sure that it is done right.

One thing I do want to comment on... one of the folks attending is a member of the Alberta Party. And also a member of other parties. He made it perfectly clear about his associations, which showed he has honor. You know the really great thing? Not one single person there tried to shun him. We had nothing to hide, all topics were discussed... Which is all about politics being open and transparent.

From a "politics" aspect, I don't have a desire to be "a" politician. In some aspects, it's a dirty word. Provincial and Federal parties alike, have grown into this habit of wanting to "rule" and seem to have forgotten the part about "serving" those they represent. I was making a few comments in Twitter, using the term "being a public servant". One of my friends said back to me "Public service is that not servants..." and I get that. They are not butlers or maids, etc...I didn't want to imply that, but I do think elected officials need to be a servant, or a voice, for the folks they represent. Yes, they are supposed to be providing a "service to the public"... and many seem to have forgotten that simple fact. With that said, I do have a strong desire to help bring "service" back to what it needs to be.

I'm not sure just yet how I can help with that... The next step is another meeting after the Federal election, in which to form the CA, and get the ball rolling. And I will try to help in whatever areas that need it.

Quality of Life

2011-04-22T11:43:00.000-06:00

If you are an investor in oil, or an oil company... you are not going to like this post. And that's perfectly fine with me because I am kind of not liking you right at this point in time. You see, you are the folks that are starting to make the lives of millions of people on fixed incomes... a life without a future, a life without hope.

Here in Alberta, we love oil. We love the fact we have it, and for the longest time it has helped us survive. The income we made from it has paid for a pretty decent place to live, for the most part. And it clearly has saved us from paying provincial taxes. We classify oil as a commodity... one of those things in life that we need, like food and water... and as such it's a "supply and demand" issue. But unlike other commodities such as oranges which can be grown until the end of time, oil is one of those non-renewing items where there is only so much available. We can't grow more. And herein, is the issue.

The rich folks, those with money... purchase stocks in oil, and the law requires investments to make money. This drives up the price of oil, and more rich people see this as a good investment so they too buy more oil stocks, which creates the vicious circle of the ever increasing price that oil sells for. And lets face it... the actual cost of the oil has not gone up, just the price that is paid for it.

The trickle down effect of this touches every part of life. Corporate costs go up because they have to pay more to deliver the services, people want more wages because their costs are going up, property taxes go up because it costs more to provide public services, oil companies say they have to charge more now because they have to pay their staff more, food prices go up ... and... and... and... If there every was a self-serving industry... oil would take the cake. And the rich folks are totally loving it because they are making huge profits from it. They could care less about the results of what happens.

Economics is not my area, but I think it's safe to say that a lot of it is based on or determined by percentages. The way gas is sold, is by a price that includes taxes. So when the selling cost is supplied to a gas station, it excludes taxes. From there, a percentage is added on for this tax, and for that tax, and for.. whatever else. And then the station adds on a percentage for profits. In the case of taxes, this is not "we need 10 cents per litre" but again a percentage. So as the price goes up, the actual value of the taxes collected on the same volume of gas, is more. Now that makes both the provincial and federal governments very happy. They get much more of your tax dollars to waste on red tape and other fun stuff that they love to squander our money on. (That discussion is way beyond a blog post so I won't even go there.)

All these costs go up, by hundreds and hundreds of dollars, per section, per area. Food, taxes, retail costs. The proverbial endless list. Oh.. wait... in the list is also a thing called income. You know, what you get paid to live? And remember, "fixed income", the type where the key word is fixed. Your increased costs to live, taken in total, are easily in the thousand dollar range. And you might see an increase in your "fixed" income by a hundred dollars. Which means you have $900 less available than last year. And what are your choices? Well, you can eat less, or turn down the heat, or find a cheaper place to live (HA! Good luck with that.) For those fortunate enough, as in some seniors... it means selling your home so you can live. For those who do not have their own place... I shudder at the choices left for them.

I know the following suggestion has issues. Especially for the rich and the rich wanna be's. We HAVE to do something to create stability. Perhaps the world leaders need to ponder on setting a fixed price on oil. I'm sure there can still be huge "profits" made for the industry if oil was set in the 70-80 dollar range. And yes, lots of investors would pull out, some probably at a loss. Some extra tax allowances can be made to assist with a small percentage of that, and maybe some other things as well. I have no issues with the rich people losing some money, when the majority of the world will reap the rewards. Rewards that are kind of important, you know... like being able to eat or stay warm.

So take the crazy idea, and tweak it. Do something with it. And if something doesn't happen soon, and I do mean very soon... the price on the quality of life for many, will not be affordable. Clearly the laws that control the investment side of 'life', needs some changing.

Alberta Health Care Review 2011

2011-03-31T12:34:00.000-06:00

I think it is pretty clear a review of some type is needed. I constantly say I am not an expert in these and other political type things so I tend to go with the idea of "let those who know... do...". As a human being, one should be able to see there are many things within the system that are not right, and have not been right for a long time.

I also suspect that many of the problems within the system come from so called "reports" that the system itself generates. We have painfully seen in recent months, how these biased reports create situations that are just not good for anyone, in the long run. The people are generically not "dumb" and we look for honesty and integrity. We know mistakes happen, and the key for everything to work out can only be determined from the accuracy of the information presented. THAT information MUST be unbiased, even more so if it points out flaws in the system. If we do not know the truth, no matter how painful it is, we can not fix what's broken.

As some of you are aware, one of the things I have been fighting for is to get information on the truth behind a baby's death. The indications are that this baby may not have had to die, if the City of Edmonton had not interfered with the runway operations at the City Center Airport. I have tried to deal with many political type folks, including the Wild Rose Alliance, along with many of the Edmonton and Grande Prairie political and media people. And it seems along the way, everyone has not been successful in getting the details.

One of the more recent people I've talked with has been Doug Griffiths. Now I may be an Alberta Party member and supporter, but I've always said that I will stand behind any politician, regardless of party, who is willing to do things right. I happen to be one of the many who think that Doug is this type of person. During my discussions with Doug, the topic of medevac services (over this issue) was discussed. He told me he had talks with the medevac folks, and they didn't have "issues" with the closure of the airport and supporting services it provides. And I was shocked! So I asked him... "Was it just STARS that you talked with" and he responded with 'yes'.

Now my understanding was starting to take shape. As much as STARS provides a needed service, they are NOT the actual medevac folks who deal with things. I asked Doug to expand his knowledge and learn the real truth, by talking with the pilots who actually do these services, and not "just" the STARS administration folks. I made a few contacts, who were (reluctantly) willing to discuss this, and passed some information along to Doug.

I believe more of the truth will come out during these Health Care meetings, and I firmly believe the roll of the Edmonton City Center Airport needs to be completely re-evaluated, considering the situation and new information that has come to light. Failure to include this, will be an insult to the parents of the baby that died, probably needlessly. I've never been able to contact them, and I wonder if they know the truth...

I have to say a big "thanks" to Doug, for his willingness to listen. It speaks volumes...

Intelligent Politics

2011-03-22T11:24:00.000-06:00

In reality, the title is probably an oxymoron. No matter where you turn, whether or not it's civic or provincial or federal... politicians have sealed their own fate. The public simply does not trust them anymore. They lie to get elected, they seldom keep their promises, and they suck up to corporate greed because the corporations have the power. And what do you do about it? Nothing. You keep your head in the sand because it hurts too much to think about changing it. Ignorance IS bliss after all. So what is it going to take for you to stand up? I don't have that answer for you. But I can guarantee you that life for you... your kids... and your kids kids, is going to turn into hell in a hand basket. The world events now happening should be your wake up call.

IF I WERE...

Prime Minister of Canada

- Revamp the CRTC so that rules would be created that would prevent telephone scammers from even accessing Canadian phone lines. Many of these calls come in "via the Internet" and come from places where the services being offered (such as extending your vehicle warranty) couldn't even be possible. Seniors get target scammed all the time, and these are illegal. But we turn a blind eye and don't protect our own people.

- Encourage the G7 and G20 nations to restrict or eliminate the "investing" in commodities that we need in life (such as oil) from being of the "profiteering" aspects. Clearly the price of oil going up is driven by the rich folks who want to get richer. The cost of taking that oil out of the ground sure as hell hasn't gone up...

- Bring back Justice, so that it means something. Enough of the 'letter of the law' being the rule. We have law courts in Canada and we need Justice Courts instead. Yes, people need to have their rights preserved, no illegal search and seizures etc. But criminals get away with way too much, and the sentences given are usually not within the rhymes or reasons of what is right. Criminals are getting more rights than the people they commit crimes against.

- Eliminate the BQ as a Federal Party. As it stands now, the Canadian people in Quebec get (essentially) two votes compared to the rest of Canada. This is not fair, and it's time that we stop trying to politically pander by buying the people of Quebec. If this thought is too distasteful for you, then maybe each Province should be allowed to do what Quebec has been given. (Oh, would the cost of the political system ever go through the roof for that eh?)

- Restructure the tax system, so that folks who are into "excess profits" get their houses in order. For example, the 4 major Canadian banks continuously post profits of $32 billion dollars a year. Banks could easily eliminate service fees, which make up about 15% of their profits, and still make more than adequate dollars.

- Re-think the "percentage" rule. Dealing in percentages is getting more and more misleading every day. "Oh, Joe only made 5% more this year. But 5% of what? There is a huge difference between 5% of $10,000 and 5% of $100 million dollars.

- Eliminate the extravagant wages and severance packages of MP's. Fair wages yes. Fair severance yes. It's almost to the point now where you can be an MP for 4 years, and dang near retire in the lap of luxury.

- Eliminate the taxes on essentials like heat, electrical, water... and even basic phone.

- Institute a national "recall" legislation for all politicians at all levels in civic, provincial and federal areas.

- Reform "election promises" to ensure what you promise, you keep. And if your 'promise' was one of those impossible to do things, you get criminally charged with fraud, and removed from your job. Applies to all levels of Canadian politics.

Premier of Alberta

- Perform a complete inquiry and overhaul of the Ministries. Get rid of the waste factors, tune up the "red tape" areas, and be honest within the dealings of those Ministries.

- Make sure our resources are properly protected, and a fair value is gained from those using them.

- Create accountability for the medical and "family care" professions. This would include things like bringing the WCB out of the "oh you cost us too much for insurance factors" and back into protecting the rights and health of the workers, not just the employers. And of course, the rights of the medical profession to bring forth errors and faults within the system, by using a private and protected reporting system. Complaints in these areas would be immediately investigated for a 'truth factor', and those results brought forward for the government to bring to the "public attention".

- Work with the Fed's, to bring about required legal changes for justice, rather than law.

- Require the City of Edmonton to re-open the closed runway at the City Center Airport, so that medevac services are not hampered as they are now. Also to launch a full investigation into how improvements could be made, and if these services can realistically be handled in another manner. Only when a complete and proper un-biased conclusion has been come to, would the City of Edmonton then be allowed to continue on with their plans (should the outcome say it would be ok to do so).

- Return the control of computer IT services back to provincial employees and encourage more in-house development of the programs needed. Farming out this type of service opens up the potential for abuse of data, at a minimum...

Mayor of Edmonton

- Place an immediate stop to urban sprawl. No additional development would be allowed to happen.

- Order a complete review of traffic light timings. The huge environmental footprint from driving a block or two and stopping again negates all other perceived values of Edmonton being an environmentally friendly city.

- Stop asking for, and accepting "consultant reports" that are clearly biased towards the point of view that the City is trying to use as a basis for moving forward on a project.

- Bring back integrity within the City departments by reducing red tape and demanding more accountability.

- Recognize that times are tough, and the pockets of tax payers are not deep. Concentrate on essentials, not the 'nice to have' things.

- Rethink transit plans so transit remains affordable as an option. This could include putting a hold on expensive LRT styles and using more eco-friendly bus choices to provide the same level of service at a reduced cost.

- Remove pay reviews from being an internal process.

- Demand competency from city planners. Projects laid out in a fashion similar to South Edmonton Common should never have been allowed to happen using the 'road design'. A true traffic nightmare.

And with all of that said, there could easily be hundreds more points that should be mentioned. I offer these as suggestions only, for your local discussions. Some of these items mentioned could easily be put in place and some would need much more consideration. And some are probably just plain stupid. I am not a politically correct person, and I'm not an economist. But I do see the way that things are going, and as a world, we can no longer afford to work against each other and just do things "for us". The disparity between the rich and poor is growing, with more and more of the middle class sifting down into the poor bracket.

Is this what you want for your kids kids futures?

The Alberta Party and Political Trolls

2011-01-30T11:45:00.014-07:00

First things first. Anyone that knows me, will tell you I am no where near "knowledgeable" when it comes to things of a political nature. I have never belonged to a Party before, I have never really 'cared' that much before. Yes, I am the fella who just mumbles under my breath at what the politicians (civic, provincial and federal) have been doing, when they have been doing something that makes me mad. And over the years, all three levels of these groups have been making me madder and madder and madder. I have decided that it is way over due for me to get involved, to learn, to discuss, to understand. Thankfully, I've been blessed with many life experiences during my almost 57 years of existence. I am the handyman kinda guy, I take things apart and put them back together... anything from watches to car engines. I can visualize the mechanics of things, and understand the cause and effects of doing things. I've also been blessed with a mind that lets me see things just as if I were a computer. I can analyze stuff, think of the "stupid" things one might do, and what I can do as a programmer, to prevent those types of hiccups. Needless to say, I'm really very very good at what I do. Yes, I DO make mistakes. And I do my best to learn from them.

I have to wonder at this point, if getting involved in politics is really the sane thing to do. I did join the Alberta Party, and I am keenly interested in seeing the generics of what this organization stands for, develop and grow. Being the computer geek I am, watching things within Twitter under the #abparty hash tag has left me totally astounded... .. .. I mean seriously, is THIS really the way politics works?

The supposed "professional and intelligent" people that TROLL this area blow me away. I thought that watching Question Period from the Legislature was comical at best, and insulting to my intelligence at the least. Politics seems to be about trying to bash and belittle anyone and everything that stands in the way of what someone else desires. And personally, to me... if YOU are one of those types of people then I feel sorry for you. In my books, you are nothing short of a bully.

Let me state, I clearly will always support your right to freedom of speech. With that said, it would be really nice if your speech was an attempt to help, rather than to insult. I'm sure that the Alberta Party people would still listen to you, because they believe that everyone deserves a voice, even trolls. But consider how much weight those words will carry... For me, I have lots of ideas. And it could very well be that maybe 85% of those ideas are just silly. Life may have blessed me in many areas but I am certainly not an expert. With the 15% left in my idea 'base', maybe 10% of those will be very worthy of more consideration and discussion, and the 5% balance could be within the "right on' category (aka holly crap that's a great idea).

I know I will be listened to. But what about you? Good ideas come from all people. ALL PEOPLE. Belonging to a Party, no matter WHAT party that is, doesn't change that. Even if that party is "no party at all".

So my question is... Do you want to be a part of the problem, or part of the solution. I choose to be part of the solution.

Do note, these are my own personal statements. I am only a member, I do not at this time sit on any boards etc.

25,000 - Where has the time gone...

2010-12-15T16:20:00.000-07:00

A lot has happened since I joined Twitter back in September of 2009. Some good, some bad... but through all of it, there has been a lot of fun and enjoyment too. I'll start with the good, of course... they say it's nicer to be positive (which is very true) so I will give it my best shot.

There are simply WAY too many people that I have met over the past year, where "awesome" is only but one word to describe them, clearly for various reasons.

With that said, I want to start out with a most kind hearted man, known by the twitter name of @lonesomebilydad. John has dedicated much of his time to caring for, and helping to educate the people of Edmonton and Alberta, about the wonderful world of Greyhound dogs. His love for all animals is without question, very true. Who else do you know that would put his life in danger, to comfort a dying wild coyote? It's a story only he can tell, and I urge you to get to know him more.

On the other end of the "spectrum" if you will, is a lady who has a warm heart and soul... someone who cares about the art of the screen. Twitter member @dream2screen, or "Carol Anne", uses a substantial amount of "wise words" within her tweets, combined with a great wisdom. You must check out her website, which is Dream2Screen Entertainment. It's really quite easy to see how this wonderful person has acquired such a huge following, both locally and internationally. I must also include another lady with similar characteristics, and that is the remarkable @DancinginLife. Diana has this zest... this passion... for wanting to eat things that are good for the heart and soul. A person who does not judge others, nor does she step on toes. If you have that zest for life, and want to put a little 'zing' into your step, then I would suggest that you visit her "Real Food For Life" website.

For a "sappy" moment, I also have to single out two people, who's rationality and dedication to being some of the nicest people around, I give #kudos to both @Tucktovich & @XelaEpop. I'd also like to give them a kick in the ass for moving to Ontario in the next few weeks. How dare you move away.... (said in the nicest way and with love, of course.)

A big "wave of the hand" has to go out to literally dozens of people, just because they are fun and friendly... or nut cases...or just have something really valuable to offer. I'll have to let you decide :) In no particular order are... @DebraWard, @SaySandra, @graceawong, @PoisonLolita, @Cokebear17, @GuitarKat, @shezug, @TrinaMLee, @TamaraStecyk, @habanerogal, @carebaer322, @Wildsau, @KikkiPlanet, @Calgarywriter, @fusedlogic, @SirThinks, @suehuff, @ScottHennig, @hurtinalbertan, @SenMitchell, @britl, @joshclassen, @kabluey, @crnkylttlmnky, @ChrisHayden1142 and @BrentWelch.

With all due respect, I could go on literally for pages. Everyone that I follow and/or deal with in one form or another, I do so because I am interested in what you have to say. Sometimes I may not like what you say, but I generally still respect you for who you are. And the only reason (seriously) that I 'drew the line' where I did, is because my fingers were getting really freaking tired in doing all of the cutting and pasting of the names and links. Hey, I'm getting old... gimme a break. :)

I also want to acknowledge someone who, at such a young age, has a huge understanding of the meaning of life, and caring for others. Darla (@leavesofmemory) and her entire family are passionate about life... specifically the saving and caring of. It's been quite a humbling experience to know you and your family.

Which leads me to probably the one thing that has pissed me off the most, and that is without a doubt the cold hearts of the majority of the Edmonton City Council (aka #yegcc in twitter) and that of the Health Services section of the Provincial Government. Why the NEED to close down the airport is beyond me, and even more than that, the arrogance to close THE most critical runway makes no sense. I guess that's the way the City shoves something down your throat. The province has been less than supportive on this critical issue as well, because they have done everything within their power to make sure the people never hear about the "bad" things within the health system, by providing blanket gag orders.

Both of your "cover ups" have, in my humble opinion, added to the conditions that may very well have been the ultimate cause of a baby's death... not even a month old, this child might have been able to have lived, if that runway had still been operational. In my books, a lump of coal is too good of a present for you folks this Christmas. Sleep well...

Doing it right

2010-11-24T13:24:00.000-07:00

I've been 'working' on this blog post for many months now. I can't honestly remember how many times I have started it, edited it, and deleted it. This is without a doubt the most painful post I have ever done because it dredges up painful memories of being abused and bullied by the political system, a process that drove me into some serious depression. In order to understand where I am coming from, it is important that you know where I've been.

Not that long ago I was excited to have been working for the City of Edmonton, specifically the Edmonton Police Service. I was ultimately responsible for all desktop database applications... creating new ones and fixing old ones...literally having the time of my life. You see, I rock at what I do. Building new complete applications, often in a matter of a week or less... being at a sections area within a matter of minutes to respond to problems and creating fixes on the spot. My "reputation" within EPS was being the "go to" guy when you needed something done.

You learn a lot working for a large organization like the City, and a lot more when you work for the police. Over the years I saw consultants sitting on their butts professing to be doing something, when most of what they did was to be 'buddy buddy' and drink coffee. I can't tell you the number of times when I had to help a consultant do their work because they couldn't do it right or figure it out. Rather annoying when they are being billed out at $75 per hour and you are making $23 per hour.

One of the other things you learn is how much politics plays a role, especially internal politics of the police. I was told on many occasions by many people over the years to "be careful" of so and so, but one of the most heard 'stories' was told about a 'group of 3'(Go3) who apparently all started around the same time and supposedly there was a 'pact' in place where they all agreed to pull each other up the ladder. Over the time I was with EPS, several Chiefs came and went... and eventually one of those three made it into the Chief's position. One of the other 'group of 3' members was a Staff Sergeant who I will refer to as Mr. SS. Throughout my days with EPS I was "warned" over and over about Mr. SS and the Go3. Indeed, Mr. SS had been placed in many positions and could never seem to manage them in a manner that would allow for his friends to pull him up that ladder.

At one point, my daughter had been verbally sexually harassed while walking back from a trip to 7-11, and I got the address of where it happened and asked the folks in Sex Crimes to see if this was someone to watch out for. They investigated and brought me a fairly thick file. My simple question was "is the person there going to be a problem or have they been a problem in the past", and the answer was 'no'. I never bothered to read the file, and the detective and I walked to the shredder. I was also dealing a lot with the Crime Analysis section and the officer in charge of that section suggested that I go up onto the internal website and take a look at the new 'sex offenders' web page, and get a list of the people in our area to see if perhaps one of those folks were 'visiting' the address in question. The web page had photos and some other information, and I printed out the ones in our area, and took them home to show my daughter. As it turned out, none of those people were "the one" from that house. So I dropped the matter, knowing it was probably just some idiot being an idiot.

While working for EPS, I was still doing my job as a volunteer Probation Officer, dealing with young offenders. EPS hired me knowing that I was doing this work. Anyway, some time passed and Mr. SS was put 'in charge' of the IT section, probably with the intention of using that position as his climbing the ladder thing. You see, thanks to me, the IT department turned from being a "submit your request and two years later you will get it" into one where programs were literally flying out the door in a matter of days. Just as a tidbit to toss in, I even re-wrote an application from scratch for the Property and Drug Exhibit unit. The one that took 4 people 2 years to write, I did it in just over 2 months.

Well, it appears that I was wrong in one aspect. Mr. SS's placement into IT was more into catching me. You see, I was placed under investigation by Internal Affairs as a result of Mr. SS... I was charged with releasing confidential information (the stuff for my daughter) and associating with known criminals (my work in probation)...

Needless to say, my world had been shattered. I had been working my ass off, doing everything right, helping sections that were desperately in need of assistance. Maybe I was doing too good, maybe I was putting the jobs of the others in IT in jeopardy because I was so good at what I did. There are lots of things that could be "maybe" things, but I'll never know for sure. But the bottom line in all of this was... I cooperated with Internal Affairs completely. I told the truth about everything, and I mean everything. But Mr. SS kept the pressure on. It didn't matter that 75% of the police vehicles parked out front of main headquarters were left with their new laptop computers still turned on and their last screens still had piles of information on them that anyone walking down the street could see. This happened for months and months and months. Yep, I was still the bad guy, and Mr. SS made it clear he was out to get me. When you get told, over the years, about how Mr. SS consistently stabs people in the back in order to advance, well... I was fighting a system, one that I thought at the time that I had no chance at winning. I was essentially forced to resign. EPS Human Resources department told me they wanted to transfer me to a different area of the City but Mr. SS refused to allow it. Internal Affairs thanked me for being completely honest with them, and that everything I had told them was indeed the truth. But of course, that didn't matter. I was tossed out the door. And of course, those charges against me were dropped. But the damage was already done. The people who were my family had no hesitation in throwing me under the bus because after all, Mr. SS HAD to climb the ladder... you see, the new Chief was in the Go3.

Shortly after, Mr. SS was promoted to an Inspector. And shortly after that things happened in the well known drunk driving sting. The result was (in simple terms) the Chief was fired. Mr. SS spoke out and apparently was given a gag order... which he promptly went in front of the TV cameras with the order in his fist, showing it to reporters and saying something like "you can't do this to me"... Now, you never see him anymore. And when you do, you will notice he never says a single word. I suspect he was probably told to sit in a corner and shut up otherwise his job would be toast. And of course, the disposed Chief launched a lawsuit with the City. You will remember never hearing another word about that... But if you had your eyes open, you WOULD see him again in front of the TV cameras because... the City hired him as a "consultant". Rumor has it that he was paid about $500,000 to settle the lawsuit, and it would seem that part of the agreement was to re-hire him in the consultant position. Do note that this IS nothing more than pure speculation on my part, and some of my conclusions are just common sense. Clearly something happened, of that there is no question.

So we have two of these "Go3" folks who are of... shall we say... strange character... and please feel free to jump to whatever conclusions you want to. One of my personal conclusions is that the politics of politics wins over what's right. I was saving the City literally millions of dollars and providing extreme outstanding service. And I was a stepping stone for someone else... In a world of black and white, I would have to say I was one of the good guys... the others are... well... questionable, considering all of the events. Perhaps good intentions, but maybe driven by power rather than by doing "it" right. I don't know...

What I DO know, is that my eyes were painfully opened to the world of 'dirty politics'. The world where you can be legally right in what you do, because you follow the letter of the law. But what about Justice? What about doing things RIGHT?

City Council followed the legal side of handling the City Center Airport talks. I have serious questions about just how "right" that was and the true purpose in my mind, was just so they could SAY they followed the law. I think many people were shocked about how this was handled, and there seemed to be a lot of dirty pool going on.

Yes, I've been hard on the City, and even on the police service at times. When you take a good person and toss them on the ground and kick the shit out of them like what happened to me... you learn that the politics of politics can be very painful. In my case, probably about 5 years of being in a deep depression caused by a system that didn't care. You see, I went to the Mayor over this. I went to the Alberta Government over this... Guess what... no one cared. Why? Well, you have to protect your own, right?

So for the folks in the Alberta Party... and especially to Chris and the rest of those on the Board... Maybe now you will understand my passion for wanting to do things RIGHT and that I am not willing to settle for being "legally correct". I am all about true JUSTICE, and for trying to fix things that are wrong within the system. No one deserves to go through the hell I have been, and the way I was treated by "the system".

Some of you have said that my morals leave a lot to be desired. I think that you should desire the morals that I do have. Would I personally make a good politician? Probably not, because I won't stand for any bullshit and I will speak my mind. Despite what some of you may think, my mind is actually VERY open to new things and explanations. But be warned, they have to make sense... justice type of sense, not legal type of sense. From a "peoples" aspect, I am the type of person that should be in politics because I will and do, stand for doing things right. My failure within politics however, is clearly that I am not polished... I don't care about saying the politically correct thing...

To the Mayor, EPS, and to the Alberta Government I say that you are bullies... you let bad things happen to good people, and you didn't give a flying rats ass about doing anything about it. Just remember, what goes around comes around...

Pet Deposits

2010-10-29T11:10:00.002-06:00

I love pets... all kinds. Dogs, cats, birds, fish... Of course, having a pet requires one to be responsible for them as well. I would like to think that most people are, however sadly, there are some that are not. When you have your own pet, in your own property, then any potential damage that pet could cause is your problem.

However when you have a pet and live (aka rent or lease) on someone else's property, an entirely new "can of worms" comes into play.

Let's face it. Being a landlord isn't an easy task. If you have your own property up for rent, or managing someone else's property... you have to follow the rules set out under the Landlord and Tenancy Act. This act should equally protect both the landlords rights, as well as those of the tenant. Seems reasonable, right? People are required to pay a security deposit, which is normally the same as one months rent, and according to the law it isn't allowed to exceed one months rent. So it doesn't matter if you are a single person, or a group of people (with or without children), you pay the same price. Seems reasonable too.

But if you are a pet owner, those rules go out the proverbial window. Clearly, the possibility of the pet causing damage (urine etc on carpets and floors, scratching of doors and floors and walls and carpets, and any other thing that a pet could do...) to the property has increased. And landlords should have the right to require additional assurances to allow for those times when things happen. But since the law says that a security deposit can not exceed 1 months rent, landlords are now charging a "pet deposit". The problem with this is... it's not really a deposit, because the landlord is not required to refund it.

This is WRONG. The legislation needs to be changed, and it needs to be changed NOW. Allow for an increase within the legislation, that permits landlords to exceed the 'maximum one months rent' limit so that pets become part of the security deposit, which makes those fees refundable when the tenant moves out. Responsible pet owners will then be taken care of. If the pet causes no damage, they will get those amounts refunded. There doesn't need to be any "differences", as in "part 'A' of the deposit applies to normal things and part 'B' of the deposit applies to pets". So even if the pets caused no damages, but the property is trashed, the landlord still has the right to use the entire amount of the deposit to make repairs etc.

As it stands now, pet owners are being abused by the process, and in fairness to responsible pet owners (which I submit are the majority of the people) the Government needs to stop allowing landlords the right to rip people off.

YOU must speak up, and let YOUR voice be heard. You can send in a letter or email or fax, and tell the Government of Alberta to stop allowing landlords having a license to print money.

Snail Mail:
Investigative Services
Attention Consumer Programs
3rd Floor
10155 - 102 street
Edmonton, Alberta T5J 4L4

Email to nfs@gov.ab.ca

Fax to 780-422-9106

By the way, in my humble opinion, the legislation should be made retroactive to cover all people that have paid "pet deposits"... It's only fair!

So This is Democracy?

2010-10-20T09:57:00.000-06:00

Democracy... one dictionary definition is "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."

The recent Edmonton elections were indeed a democratic process. Approximately 1 out of 3 people choose to exercise their democratic right to vote and I wonder why the other two thirds of residents choose not to. Where they confused with the issues? Did they care about the issues? Perhaps the better question is were they informed about the issues in an unbiased manner, or from balanced reporting?

Edmonton's print news media folks were certainly very vocal on things for several months leading up to the election, of that there is no question. I am not sure how honourable they were, in hindsight. The Edmonton Journal would place articles done by columnists on the front page of a section of the newspaper, giving the appearance of the item being a news story and not being clear they were opinion comments and not actual news. The Edmonton Sun and The Examiner also created articles or editorials that never provided the full facts on issues.

Edmontonians were also subject to the influence of campaigns run by Envision Edmonton and Share The Facts. Perhaps more importantly, in amongst all of this, were the things the people of Edmonton were not told. I am not going to bother with diving into accusations over the Mayor and Council race, but I will bring up one point for people to ponder on...

As I have stated before, I am just starting to finally pull my head out of the sand when it comes to civic, provincial and federal politics. Better late than never I guess. With that said, I really wonder where the voices of the School Boards were in this campaign. The reason why I say this is simple. From the school board aspect, I live in the Ward B area. The incumbent for EPSB was Ken Shipka. According to the ARTES (Association for Responsive Trusteeship in Edmonton Schools) report card, Mr. Shipka was the worst possible choice. Talking with many who know a lot more about the Trustee side of things than I do, they are also of the same belief.

According to the election results, Mr. Shipka received a total of 5,013 votes. The ARTES report card also lists the best choice as being Darryl Lagerquist. Darryl received only 801... the lowest number of votes. I am deeply saddened, and if past performance is any indication, then EPSB has another rubber stamp added to it's collection.

I wonder how people are supposed to make informed decisions, if the information provided in the media is continuously biased and/or one sided... or if the School Boards don't tell you about what is going on with the people who were previously voted in?

Democracy can only be true, if you have TRUE facts to base decisions on.

In my humble opinion, the residents of Edmonton were let down in knowing the truth.

Vote2010

2010-10-17T21:01:00.001-06:00

This will be longer than my usual blog posts. I hesitate in doing posts that are long because most people tend to skim the first few lines and then wander off. I also said on twitter yesterday, that I was done with things until after the election. However with the Edmonton election happening tomorrow, combined with recent articles posted in the Edmonton Sun entitled Mandel deserves another term and some surprising comments from Chris LaBossiere in twitter, combined with a review of the public forum web casts by the City of Edmonton, I've decided that there were a few things I needed to say, and to clear up. I will start off with the article by the Sun first.

"First, the city held a plebiscite 15 years ago to consolidate all scheduled airline service at the international airport, dramatically reducing the traffic at the muni."

Yes, an accurate fact. But what's your point? No one was expecting consolidation to increase air traffic at the CCA. It only makes sense to take the big planes and move them to the International. The reasons for that part are, I would think, pretty obvious to most people.

"Second, city council held public hearings and open houses on redeveloping the airport more than a year ago. Where were the opponents then?"

Um, this is really the core key issue for everything else, at least in my opinion. The majority of people who spoke at the public hearings, along with a majority of people who wrote in, were in favor of keeping the CCA open and operating. Some also had ideas about limited expansion of services. The real question here should be "Why did the City appear to have NO intention of even listening to what citizens were saying"?

One should also ponder on the timing and the reasons for calling this public hearing process in the first place. Several have suggested that the closure of the CCA had been on the drawing board for some time but they had to wait until the plebiscite from 1995 had expired. (Or was that a referendum...anyway) And if that part is true, then someone (or perhaps several someones) had clear intentions of what to do and when to do it, and probably knew they were going to "do that" once they were elected (or re-elected). This type of situation isn't one that comes up over night and then have someone go BOOM, I need to change this. Then again, maybe that's what happened too. It's probably one of those little mysteries we may never know.

The bottom line here is... there was never any intention of actually listening to the public input requested. If you are going to ask me to "prove it"... then talk with the people who were there. Go to City Hall and get the names of the people who wrote in, and ask them. "Hindsight" would give the indication, knowing what we know now, that the only reason these hearings were held was so that the City could be legally "correct" by saying they held the required public hearings in the matter. After all, I think all of the reports the City tabled during the hearings had to deal with what can or could or will happen WHEN the CCA was closed. I am not aware of one single report done by the City that showed any of the good things about keeping the airport open.

"Third, according to provincial law, the petition had too few signatures and was filed too late with the city."

Did it really? We honestly don't know, because the City refuses to allow anyone access to the signatures that were deleted by the examination process. And was it filed too late? Well, those are questions that would have to be resolved in court. I am certainly not a lawyer, and the majority of any legal experience I have is within the Criminal law side of things, which I acquired while working as a volunteer probation officer, along with some generic stuff while working for EPS for 3 years as a Systems Analyst.

With that said, I do want to comment on the Envision Edmonton side. Yes, I was one of the people gathering signatures. I didn't care then nor do I care now about who was behind EE, who paid the bucks, or anything else. I was simply happy that someone had stepped up to the plate to address what was going on. Other than getting a few signatures, and helping to cook at the various BBQ's that EE had, I have no other knowledge of the internals of the operations. It didn't matter to me.

I will skip over the Chris issue for the moment, and deal with a point I noted from the web casts.

The Ward 2 forum event was, as expected, mainly dealing with CCA issues, however a few other items were also brought up. The one comment that I found most curious, was with reference to Epcor being "sold off". According to Kim Krushell, the city wanted to 'grow two businesses' and in order to mitigate the potential problems with power deregulation. She says the city is growing the Epcor waste/water business, and what they did was create two separate companies, one that is owned solely by the City. ... ... So does that mean that we only gave away the bad part and kept the good part? This is another one of those complex issues that I am no expert in, but many people think this was a bad deal. Unless of course, you are in that new company that was just given to you... you know.. the one built and paid for with tax dollars? Like I say, I'm no expert in this. It sure would be nice to know what this all really means.

I have saved the worst, for last. I say worst, because out of everything, this is the one that personally pains me the most. I don't know a huge amount about Chris, we have only met once for a brief period of time but we have had the odd conversations from time to time over the phone. He is certainly an intelligent man, very "in the know" from the political side of things, which is probably the reason why he was put into the position of President for the newly revamped Alberta Party, a party that after careful review, I decided to take out a membership in.

Over the past few months, Chris and I have butted heads over the CCA issue. I do not want to speak for him, and all I can say is that from what we have discussed in twitter, it seems like he is taking the stance that public hearings were done and the City did the 'due diligance' part of things so therefore the rest of the situation (whatever you figure that out to be) is correct, and the airport should be closed and redeveloped.

My position is that the hearings were a sham, only done so the City could fulfil the legal obligations required under the MGA. In MY mind, from a MORAL aspect... if indeed my belief is correct, then anything that came as a result of the process, really isn't (for lack of better words) "valid". Yes, I will be the first to admit that I am not a politically "smart" person. That has been made painfully clear within twitter. I have, like many, had my head in the sand for all too long, and I am *trying* to understand, *trying* to become involved, *trying* to become engaged. Just because Chris and I happen to be within the same political party, does not mean we have to share the same views. Nor should we. Of course, it would be nice for everyone to agree with everything. Politics is never "nice". So we have politely agreed to disagree. I can live with that.

Yesterday in twitter... things got pretty ugly. It started off with Chris sending this tweet: "Transparency is the new gold standard. @VoteDorward, sadly, has hitched his wagon to the least transparent out there, @EnvisionEdm." His opinion, which is fine. I happen to strongly agree with the first part, and I responded with the following: "@ChrisLaBossiere Transparency SHOULD be the gold standard... Something Mandel has not done."

Well at that point I guess the gloves came off. I know Chris is upset with me, because after the Alberta Party AGM that was recently held (one that I could not attend, and gave my proxy vote to Sue Huff) I had sent off an email to the party, expressing some concerns about his new position in the party. My concern has to do with the "legal vs moral" issue that I've noted above. Now, maybe I am totally out to lunch, but let me explain my reasons. Many moons back I gathered a keen interest in the Reboot Alberta thing that was going on. I loved what they were trying to create and I had very strong agreements with the political process, and that of politicians, where they were looking for more honesty, transparency, openness and all of the other goodies that Reboot was suggesting. As many of you are aware, Reboot Alberta had done a spin-off on things and Renew Alberta had been created, with many of those people being a part of Reboot. And of course, down the road Renew folks "merged" with the Alberta Party, and new things were happening. Now maybe I am even more out to lunch in my thinking but I had ASSumed that the Alberta Party was also taking on the concepts of what Reboot was all about. (As a side note, for what it's worth, the party sent my concerns to both Sue and Chris, seeing that I had given my proxy to Sue.... Sue responded, the details of which are not important here, Chris did not.)

Again, for ME... the big issue here is the moral aspect of what the City did, and that part of things doesn't seem to be an issue with Chris. And that's where my concern came in.

Anyway, things got more heated between Chris and I in twitter. The following is a list of tweets that were sent, time line ordered as close as possible. Just to clarify, these tweets are "to" the person.

@CommonSenseSoc your conspiracy theories are running thin. When smearing people's integrity, maybe man-up & share some facts. 10:28 AM Oct 16th
@ChrisLaBossiere I've "man-up" where ever I could have Chris. Example, Ann emails. Public hearing sham.. 10:31 AM Oct 16th
@CommonSenseSoc Read those emails Gary. Cite me one excerpt about the Mayor acting even remotely underhandedly. you can't scream a lie true. 10:36 AM Oct 16th
@ChrisLaBossiere I've said it over and over.. being legally correct does not make it morally right. I'm PROUD my morals are of higher value
@ChrisLaBossiere I've read as much as I could have. As much as what has been made available. Logic tells me the process wasn't clean.
@CommonSenseSoc If your relentless method of unmerited smearing is the moral high road, I'll stick to the back alleys.

... Earlier, I had also sent out this tweet:

@danformayor2010 This latest issue is only to create vote splitting. I can't stand the thought of being raped by Mandel for 3 more years.

For a 'parting comment', Chris sent out this tweet:

Then again, you think you will be "raped" for another three years. That sounds so honest, and filled with integrity. http://bit.ly/9hIRnI

I responded with:

@ChrisLaBossiere there's more than one meaning to rape... are you done attacking me now? good..

So what did I mean? Let's look up one of the definitions of 'raped'. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/raped
It mentions "To plunder or pillage". It's not sexual. However the appearance from Chris is that I am lacking honesty and have no integrity.

My friend, with all due respect... you have no right to judge me. You've taken no time to get to know me. I don't cut you down for the things you say, albeit I question what you are thinking because I'm trying to understand. Strange, how I am so evil for wanting a just political setting. Strange how you don't cut down everyone else that makes snide comments over the election stuff. Strange... how its so OK for you to say to me, what you rake me over the coals for saying.

As I said... I think we are done. I doubt there is little I can say that will change your mind or educate you on how I feel and believe. I have, up until now, tried very hard (out of respect for who you are and your experience) to listen and understand what you say and why you say it. I am still of the belief, that the "process" sucked. And I stand firm in that.

Naturally, I expect you to be pissed. Sadly, I don't care. I also suspect that a few, maybe even a lot, of people within the Alberta Party will be pissed with me too. That is something that I do care about. IF one looks at my basic beef, which is the process not being with honor, and the Alberta Party actually stands for honor...

To all:

But then again, what do I know. I am not a politician. Perhaps I expect too much. Perhaps I have no understanding of the political system. If so, then educate me. Just know that I will always try to read between the lines and see the truth and the bottom line. I may not be "intelligent" when it comes to the internals of politics. I may not be able to let big fancy words fly off the tip of my tongue. I guarantee you however, I am no where near dumb.

This post was made with all due respect, I've been pondering and reading and pondering for 5 hours in creating this. It's not perfect. I am not perfect. There are times when one feels the need to defend what they believe in, and this was one of them.

Close City Center Airport?

2010-08-27T10:19:00.001-06:00

Some of the Edmonton "news" media folks are really pushing hard with stories that appear very one sided. Both news articles and Columnists have been trying to bias you with little innuendos that are geared to make you go "what the fuck!". So, ok.. what the fuck! Believe those stories as being true.

But consider this.

Add in the estimated $90 plus million to buy out the leases that run till 2052. Add in the costs of cleaning up the land after decades of aviation contaminants getting into the soil (this must be done before a single structure of residential type has started) plus the costs of upgrading the entire infrastructure (this means making the sewers larger in the core area, to handle the extra connections that would be needed to "house" 30,000 people, added water capacity, electrical capacity etc) and I bet you could easily be looking at another $300 million total. Add in the projections that it can take 20 years to do these types of things. Also know that the tax base that "fills" these residential units will most certainly NOT be all "new" residents, so the figures saying "oh we will make millions in taxes" does not necessarily mean it will be NEW income but some of it will be SHIFTED income coming from another area of the City.

Even if we forget ALL of that, and can have an 'instant hit' on our hands, what about the medivac portion of the role that the CCA plays? Oh yes, you've already read all of the reports that say we can time the lights better between EIA and Edmonton (I would imagine that would be done just the same as all of the wonderful timing we have on the lights in the city now) and that we can just as easily transfer people from EIA to the two primary hospitals (UAH and RAH) by helicopter. You do know helicopters can't fly in the rain or snow, right? And we never have big downpours of rain, and the snow is always polite to us here so for sure we can always use helicopters...

OH WAIT! But we can *eventually* make more MONEY! After all, some say the CCA costs us money (it doesn't but I won't go there either) so why keep it?

Hospitals cost us money. Doctors cost us money. Health care in general costs us MONEY. So, do we close and terminate all of those services too? If we don't have the will to invest in this issue alone... for a huge role that the CCA *does* provide is medivac services... we will certainly be the cause of doom for someones family in the future. Oh, I can hear the words coming already... FEAR MONGER!!! And for those people who believe that to be true, I feel sympathy for you, because you just can't see the truth.

They say that about 80,000 actions take place at the CCA, and around 4,000 of those are medivac related. They say that about 10% of those medivac transports are classified as "critical". They can be accident victims, they can be neo-natal cases, they can be transplant organs... they can be someone you know. So 400 critical cases a year, that's over 1 per day.

Let's hope that when all of the medivac is sent to EIA, that every day is a perfect day without rain, without storms, without blowing snow... And don't forget, when the weather OUTSIDE of the City is that bad, the *chances* of landing at the City Center will be higher. Weather conditions (for aircraft) are generally better within the City than outside of the City.

Let's also not forget some of those other "hidden" costs. EIA based 'everything' will mean adding in a 24/7 presence of city police (Yes, Air 1 and 2 will be at the EIA... ops, longer flight time for the air cops to respond) and ambulance staff and vehicles. Let's not forget that if the weather is bad, these medivac transports by law, will be required to carry additional fuel to make it to an alternate airport (just in case the weather is bad). Medivac pilots say that alternate is Calgary.

But of course, all you really want to do is make money right? So ya... let's just close the airport and be instantly richer.

I trust you aren't going to choke on the sand that you have your head in... The medivac transport is going to take 30 minutes longer under the best of conditions. And if it's done via STARS well hell, that's only $2,500 per hour.. So um.. exactly how much are we saving again?

Runway Closure Impacts Medivac

2010-08-14T12:56:00.000-06:00

The audio file enclosed in this post is the full one hour broadcast of the Lesley Primeau CHED talk show from August 12 at 7:00 pm. The file has not been edited, therefore you get the news, commercials etc as well. The audio has been "reprinted" (if you will) with permission from Lesley.

The audio file is being hosted here. No matter what I say, you will have your own opinion so I'm not going to bother you by saying anything more...

The issue is

2010-08-11T10:22:00.001-06:00

Within the "twitter world", the debates and comments regarding the Edmonton City Center Airport (hash tag #ecca) are going back and forth. This blog post is not about if you are FOR or AGAINST closing this facility, it IS about the honesty of the process used.

The real bottom line here is... have our elected officials been honest with you.

Anyone who attended the "public hearings" held could clearly see that City Council was leaning towards closure. Many of the experts in the aviation and medical areas gave multi reasons why it would be bad, but it didn't seem to matter. When you look at the media report from the National Post that exposed some of the "behind the doors" activities, especially the influence from the Board of the Edmonton Regional Airport Authority...

There are a lot of things that happen behind closed doors within all areas of Government that the public is not aware of, and the politicians make sure that you don't hear about them. And this is simply wrong. But they all use the technicalities of the laws, many of which have been designed or re-worded specifically to keep you out of "the knowledge" so they can hide behind them and honestly say to you "sorry, we can't discuss that".

Remember when the Chief of Police was fired? The details of that were not released (oh it's a private issue right) and the person tossed from this position filed a law suit. Which you also never heard anything about. But down the road, some details were leaked which suggested that the matter was settled out of court for a sum that was suggested to be between $250,000 and $500,000. And if you watched news stories on from the local TV stations, you would occasionally catch a glimpse of this person who was fired. Why? Well, the City hired him as some type of "consultant". Citizens of Edmonton should be thrilled that their taxpayer dollars were used to settle this law suit, and they should be thrilled that he was re-hired (as a consultant for what, and at what wage?) but of course, the figures can't or won't be released due to "privacy" or "legal" reasons.

Don Iveson, whom I have a lot of respect for, has stated in a response letter (read it here) that "we were acting on the basis of advice from the Airport Authority". Drawn your own conclusions, knowing that there appeared to be back door activities (referencing the National Post article).

The real question here for 'the people' should be... Am I willing to let (what appears to be) this type of dishonesty of process continue?

There is real truth behind the expression "Ignorance Is Bliss". Think about it when you vote, and stand up for and start demanding honesty and integrity within our elected representatives at all levels of government.

Life Celebrations

2010-08-05T19:17:00.000-06:00

The strangest people under the strangest circumstances, can yield the strangest results.

A long time ago before the Internet ever became "alive", there were Bulletin Board Systems (otherwise known as BBS's) where people would gather in teleconference channels (tele meaning a dial up connection) to chat with strangers via text. Strangers would meet up with other strangers, resulting in friendships. Some of these 'chats' would involve calling long distance over the phone lines, and hooking up with another BBS site (often outside of Canada and even at times outside of North America) and groups of strangers would meet other groups of strangers... and just talk!

During one of these 'hookups', the BBS I was on was in a chat conference with another site in Boise, Idaho. And this happened many times. So many times, that it was decided that a 'camp out' meet would happen, where folks from all across Alberta would meet up with folks from the Idaho area, in a camp ground in BC. Actual face to face conversations would be had, along with huge amounts of food and drink, resulting with a friendship bonding that in many cases would last a life time.

I had the honor of meeting an outstanding American couple, Bob & Marti Cooper. I could go into details, but suffice to say that many more meetings, camp outs, and get-together's would happen over the years including home town visits in both countries.

This blog post is to honor my dear friend Bob, who passed away too early in life, on August 4th of this year. I was fortunate enough to be able to see him this past summer, and although he wasn't looking in the best of health, he still had his cheery bright smile and humor.

Bob was a short person and afraid of heights. But you just could not help but get taken in by his zest for life. While his full time job was working for the State of Idaho, he was extremely active in many social areas such as scouting. Everyone who came in contact with him and his wife Marti, well... there are just some charms in life that you can't seem to get enough of, and both of these people made you just want more and more of them.

I can only encourage the people of today's Internet world of Twitter and other social mediums... take the time to get to know who you are dealing with. Don't get lost in "just typing", meet the people behind the text and natter that goes on. Because if you don't, then you will miss out on the huge opportunities to meet some really great folks.

I did, and I'm damn glad too! We may not have lived next door to each other, but the door was always open. Bob and I were never "mushy", but we always hugged. We had this bond, this understanding of what a real friend is. You will always be in my heart, and in my mind. Rest in peace my friend...

For Marti and family... what can I say that hasn't been said or felt before. I join you in your celebration of Bob's life, even though I am a thousand miles away.

City Center Airport - Personal Feelings

2010-07-30T17:12:00.000-06:00

This blog post will contain many references. I'm not going to post links, because places like the Edmonton Journal and other media sites have a wealth of information. If you want that, please dig it up yourself (no offense, this is just a "not enough time to dig everything up" issue for me.). No question this issue is passionate and controversial.

What gets me the most, is the arrogance of Mr. Mandel and those on City Council that have ignored what the people of the city have spoken for in the past. Yes, we allowed the "big guns" to be changed to the International (which was a needed thing). The second time we voted, the wording was SO confusing many people who wanted to maintain things, accidentally voted the other way. I really hope that Envision Edmonton will make sure that the new wording (hint, I'm fairly confident the required signatures will be gathered in time) CLEARLY states what the vote is about. So for me, most of this has to do with the way the City has handled it, and the clarity that is in my mind on the hidden things that were done in the background. For example, it's recently been found out that Stantec in Edmonton has been working on re-development plans for the airport for at least the last 2 years. Long before so-called public hearing were held. In my humble opinion, those hearings were nothing more than a way for the City to say "hey, we held hearings now piss off". All of the reports prepared for these hearings were DESIGNED to lead to the reasoning to close the airport.

There is the issue of costs. Mr. Mandel and crew have been saying "hey, we can make piles of money off this land" yet they aren't telling you the entire story (as if you aren't surprised by that). There have been articles that state we will have to pay out something like $91 million dollars in cancelled contracts. There have been suggestions of estimates that it might easily cost another $100 million (and way more) to re-claim the land from years of contaminants. One person on twitter stated that other land they are aware of that is way smaller has cost over $10 million dollars, it's been 10 years in the making, and the process is still not finished.

Where is the money going to come from to pay for this? YOUR pocket. Oh, yes, sure.. "down the road" there will be taxes paid that will *supposedly* replace and recover those costs. But who gave you that information? Yes, the City did. The same people that have said "we can make really good on the Indy", but we are at what is it so far, a $9 million dollar loss to date. The same things will happen with Expo 2017 too, but that's a totally different story. So, we have some easily seen costs that we will have to pay for and I am more than confident there will be tens of millions (perhaps even hundreds) of dollars that we have NOT thought about, that the taxpayers of the City will be on the hook for.

Ok, so let's take all of the financial data out of the picture. What about the human data side? Employment lost, businesses closed... People have said "no big deal, if the economy is good enough they will find other jobs". Cool... if that's the way you feel then PLEASE make sure you have a job to GIVE them. The key factor here is... the economy is NOT good, and the chances of these people getting something else in their same field is NOT good. Oh by the way, don't forget that if the airport is forced to close then while all of the shutdowns are happening, while all of the reclamation of the land is going on, there will be NO income to the City from taxes, there will only be COSTS that we will have to pay.

And let's also take the above "human side" out of it, employment wise, and think about the medical and police side of things. I was listening to some of the medical professional comments at the Envision open forum, and the medical community seem to be deeply concerned about potential delays of treatment for critical patients. Some responses have been "oh screw off with the fear mongering", and "what data have you to prove that". Well, if you can't "envision" the fact that winter snow storms will plug up the delivery of patients to hospitals from the International Airport then you have no understanding of what it's like to live in this city. When one of YOUR loved ones needs that critical care and can't get it... and if you don't think it will happen then you really have your head in the sand, or you don't care about *people*. Even IF that person that needs the treatment is not know to you, remember that we ARE the "Gateway To The North", and we have a responsibility as human beings to allow all of our northern friends the gift we can provide to them for health care issues. Unless of course, you could care less about anyone who doesn't live in a "big city".

Mr. Mandel and crew have shown in my mind, that they do NOT care, and many of them don't deserve to be a representative of the people.

My previous blog post contains the 3 images that Envision Edmonton has, which does allow for some NAIT expansion, and LRT access. From my eyes (and everyone knows I'm not a professional in this area) the information they have presented looks pretty decent. It allows for some expansion and development consistent with what the land has been designed and used for. It allows for the continued use by the medical profession, and it allows for the police helicopters to remain HERE in the City. If EPS is forced out of the City Center, then they have to be at the International. Oh, that's right... we need to create an office for them to be there, with a 24/7 presence too. More of those "hidden costs" that your elected officials have failed to mention to you.

For me, this matter is simple. Let the City Center Airport do what it should be doing. It exists, it's "paid for", and with proper management it can thrive and support the people that need to do their jobs their, but more importantly... it will provide the citizens of this city and our northern friends, with a SERVICE that we need, closer to WHEN we need it, and it has the best possibility to provide the urgent medical care for those who need it, when they need it.

One more thing you should ponder on. You are an "Edmontonian", you don't care about people outside the city. Or maybe you do. At some point, you... or a friend... or a relative... will be taking that little trip to Leduc, or Spruce Grove, or out to the cabin for the weekend. Something will happen on the drive, or while you are there. When STARS comes to get you, and you end up at the International Airport, and have to take an ambulance trip from there (oh... we staff ambulances there? DANG.. add that to the list of additional Edmonton support people that MUST be located there)... well, do you get the picture yet?

Envision Edmonton City Center Airport Redevelopment Plans

2010-07-29T19:34:00.000-06:00

I took a little time to visit the public open forum held at Hanger 39 tonight, sadly some things came up and I had to leave early. I won't take any time to state the issues or what folks said, but I thought people who missed it would like to see the follow THREE documents provided. Enjoy. :)

Police Abuse

2010-07-11T13:28:00.002-06:00

Sometime either late Saturday night or early Sunday morning (July 10/11), Edmonton City Police responded to a 'gun shot complaint' in our area. Admittedly, earlier on there was a loud "bang" heard, which could have been a car back firing, or maybe indeed a real 'gun shot'. Either way, someone reported it as coming from our back yard.

EPS responded, and officers were ringing the hell out of the front door bell, and helped themselves to opening our back door on our deck (which caused the internal house alarm to activate), placing both my brother and myself into one of those "what the hell is going on" modes. My brother was sitting on the can at the time, and I was in the basement. He was trying to finish up his 'business' and I was rushing up the stairs to figure out what was going on. When I opened up the main back door in the house, I saw "people" and immediately shouted out "who's there", and proceeded out into the deck area. The response was "police", and I could see the uniforms. I hollered out to my brother that it was the cops, and both of us are going "what the fuck now???".

You see, we have the unpleasant privilege of living next door to an old man who is clearly mentally unstable, and that old man is constantly calling the police on us to complain. EPS has been out at least a dozen times in the last while, listening to this old man babbling on about something we have supposedly done, and constantly have been "interviewing" us about issues.

Naturally, nothing has EVER been found where we have done anything, and EPS has piles of case files pop up on their computer when ever they respond to his address or our address. The old man, by the way, has been taken at least 2 times for what we believe is a psychiatric evaluation, because he's 'disappeared' for 30 days at a time. The 'natural conclusion process' for us, was this mentally unstable person had complained again.

Anyway, the cops demanded to know who was in the house, and insisted on coming in to look. There was no warrant and when asked for one, we were told they didn't need to have one because it was an emergency (cough, ya, right). The (guessing) lead officer was a female, who has been at the house a few times before and knows both my brother and myself. I told her several times that there was NO ONE else but she was still demanding to come in to check. WHY they needed to "look" and exactly WHAT they were looking for still remains a mystery. (Upon checking this morning with the neighbour, we learnt that EPS didn't do the same at HIS house, so we were the only ones targeted.)

So the cops came in, all six of them... and walked through the house "looking". During this time, one of the EPS male members saw a hunting knife, latched up in its sheath, hanging on the bathroom door knob, located right next to the back door. He grabbed the knife from the door handle, which was a present to my brother from his best friend who passed away several years ago. My brother grabbed the tail end of the sheath, and told the cop "you can't have that" and the cop told him to let go. He said "no", at which point a gun was drawn on him, and he let go, with the cop then saying "wise move". So EPS felt threatened?? By an over weight old man with grey hair and a broken back. I guess the two cops that were standing right there felt they had to use excessive and threatening force, by drawing a gun.

They checked the living room, and tried to turn on lights from a rotary dimmer switch. Of course, the fan and light combo this switch was wired to, was turned off at the unit itself. You see, you can't use a dimmer switch on a fan, because it will either burn out the fan, or the switch. And here I thought that when you are at a "crime scene", the first rule is DON'T TOUCH ANYTHING. But no, this cop decided to fiddle with the dimmer control. After they left, we tried to turn the light on and it didn't work. Thankfully, we found that the control was turned all the way down (hey dummy, UP is usually 'on' you know) and were able to prevent damage to the fan and dimmer by turning it all the way up before turning the light back on. Stop playing with other peoples property. If you wanted the light on, just ASK. We turned all of the lights on in the basement so you could "search" to see if someone else was here. And you were almost ready to LEAVE without searching the basement until I reminded you it still needed to be done.

Who complained, we have yet to find out. The one neighbour we talked to said he thought the shot came from across the street by the 7-11, which is the same general area that my brother also thought it came from. We still are waiting to hear why this all happened, and trust me... a formal complaint WILL be launched over having a gun drawn on my brother.

EPS, especially the female lead cop, KNOWS us, we have NEVER done anything wrong, and its been proven over and OVER again that we have never done anything wrong. WHY was the need to force your way in, without a warrant, to search, and to search for what? More importantly, why did you draw your GUN, when there were several other options available? I guess two young cops just can't handle a fat grey haired old man with a broken back...

TELUS doesn't give a damn...

2010-06-22T13:29:00.000-06:00

I've been bugged by this for some time, so... here goes.

I've been "lucky" to be bombarded by all sorts of marekting scam calls lately, and thanks ever so much to TELUS and the rest of the telecommuncation giants such as Shaw, Rogers, Bell etc... for allowing this to happen.

This latest call came from 250-930-9988, coming into call display as "Brit. Columbia". When the phone was answered, a rather crappy computer voice stated "Since you are a respected TELUS customer, press 1 for 3,000 air miles free". Of course, I never did... and I waited to hear more... and the call was disconnected. Since the phone number is flagged within TELUS as 'no not even telus is authorized to make marekting calls', I did call them to complain. I will leave the matter of being frustrated beyond belief in using Telus's assinine automated system, and state that eventually I was finally able to reach a human.

I explained, they checked the number but it wasn't theirs... it was registered to SHAW. I was then passed to the Telus privacy office to confirm some things. And this is what I found out.

Several phone numbers are set aside (TELUS here in Edmonton uses.. I think... 424-5841) so that 'network routing calls'... those from computers around the world, services like Skype, etc.. have a place to dial into so their internet calls can be passed through to the local exchanges for connection. TELUS says they have no control over who connects, and they can't track this either. (Now thats a huge crock of bullshit.. ops.. I mean El Toro PooPoo.)

This one from BC was one of those types of numbers, but its under Shaws control. Anyway, I had a huge discussion, which turned into an arguement, with the Privacy Commissioners office. Anyone who isn't within the realm of being gullible will instantly know that there is NO way that some company from the USA can extend your vehicle warranty (hey, the caller said it was about to expire, right?) or can offer you lower rates on your credit cards. And of course, this is JUST the surface of these scams.

I tried to explain to TELUS that it could EASILY be controlled but they say that the Government.. aka the CRTC, won't let them. Um.. excuse me?? WTF! So ok, TELUS has no balls, and as usual, could really care LESS about customer support (like you already didn't know that eh?). So here is the 25 cent solution. All it needs is for all of these carriers (Telus, Bell, Shaw, etc) to get off their asses and use their industry voices to MAKE it happen.

1) TRACK the calls coming into the network.
2) When customers start complaining about calls coming from these network routing numbers, LOOK at the logs of the network.
3) DENY access to any further incoming calls "from that network".
4) LOBBY the CRTC for rules that will ALLOW these types of scams to be dealt with IMMEDIATELY.

Hey.. ya know if ya don't... chances are it's going to be the seniors that will end up getting scammed the most. Course, that would mean that the Government and the CRTC and the various carriers would acutally want to care.

A New Way of Education - part 2

2010-05-16T11:27:00.001-06:00

Friday's tweetup sponsored by the Edmonton Public Teachers Local 37, discussed in part 1, was a definite hit. The organization created new standards of excellence in how people can become more engaged not only in Education, but also within the community. Patrick Johner added in a comment in part 1, which is quoted below (just in case anyone missed reading it) that clarifies the two official statements.

Just to clarify for your readers, about the reference of "The first two are official statements that our total membership agreed to last year." This refers to two of Local 37's Public Vision Statements. They are stated below for easy reference:

By 2012 the Edmonton Public Teachers Local will be:
1. A leader in promoting member (Teachers) engagement in the Local, the ATA and the COMMUNITY.
2. A respected voice that advocates for policies that address issues, trends, and conditions affecting public education.

Now that you are up to speed on the previous post, I think that it is important for readers to know that Education and Community were definitely discussed! The gathering of people was impressive, and folks sat in various little groups carrying on their own discussions. I was centered between two groups, listening to words from @stolenfire and @Tamara_Stecyk on my right..and @ChemCath and @britl on my left. There were also a few others in the two groups that I didn't get to know. (No one knows this about me until now, but I had measles as a kid, and my left ear was infected and the inner ear was destroyed, making "dual conversations" difficult for me at times.)

What really caught my interest, and what I wanted to bring up in this post, was the conversation I had with ChemCath. It evolved around the idea of what kids today know... or maybe more importantly do NOT know, and I have to wonder why. We talked about many things, such as community involvement, parents, camping, cooking, exams, and learning. Our children for the most part, have lost the art of many of these topics. The chances of these kids knowing about sifting flour, making dough, baking... are pretty much zilch. The kids have been saying they know little about camping, etc, and I wonder why these family type events don't happen like they used to when I was growing up. Unless they have a calculator, the mental math skills seem lacking, and they don't seem to know how to survive without electronics.

We also had a good talk about exams, and the NEED to have written answers instead of everything being multiple choice. Unless our children can explain HOW they got the answer, we will never really know if they truly understand the question. Yes, it takes more time to mark those types of questions, and we seem to be leading towards making things easier for the teachers. With all due respect, this is the WRONG reason to remove written answers in exams.

As I write this, with twitter opened in the background, a very timely comment appeared from @DaveHancockMLA at 10:07 AM... "Students say they learn best by seeing and doing". I can't agree more, so my question is... When will teachers be allowed to do what they do best. Are we SO caught up in the minuscule finances, that we can't re-organize structure to allow the teachers to teach, and the children to learn?

There were several groups I didn't have the time to sit in with, the time went by SO fast. Sadly, there were also a few people I didn't introduce myself to (shame on me) and for that I deeply apologize. So many people were there, so many discussions going on... Perhaps a "suggested format" for future tweetups might be something along the lines of the 'speed dating' concept, where people can get into groups of 4 or 6, and then after 20 minutes or so 1/2 of the group can move to another. I admit, it is a rather insane concept to try, especially when you get such quality discussions going on like those of this event, you just don't want to break away!

A New Way of Education

2010-05-15T10:55:00.000-06:00

On Friday, May 14th 2010, something new happened in Edmonton. At least, I think it was new. According to a tweet from Walter (@fusedlogic on twitter), he is not aware of an event like this either. So what was so earth shattering, so new, so un-tried?

Some might say "nothing". Unlike the famous line from a 1967 movie called Cool Hand Luke ... "What we have here is a failure to communicate", was an organization stepping UP to the plate by sponsoring a tweetup. (For those not aware, a "tweetup" is generally an informal gathering of people, usually from twitter and friends, where lots of coffee is consumed, and huge amounts of talking happens.) And who were the hero's? A group of people with the forethought to see and use the power of Social Media, to get engaged and provide a means and a place to communicate.

The group might surprise you, for clearly they are not "big business" looking to promote their wares. The agenda was simple... just come on out, have a good time, and talk. No stage, no speakers... just people. Yes, this event was sponsored by the Edmonton Public Teachers - Local 37 (@EdPubTeachers on twitter). Again, one would think that this was no big deal... but then one would be wrong. The amount of effort it took to arrange this was no simple task! Quoted below, with permission from @Patrick_Johner..

Edmonton Public Teachers- Local 37 is a democratically elected group of volunteers that are all teachers (example - classroom teachers, consultants, principals, etc). The Local voted to pay and host the tweetup for a few reasons. The first two are official statements that our total membership agreed to last year. But in a direct and very real way the teachers who sat on the committee that supported my request for $ realized that there parents, community people, advocacy groups, who can see the importance of allowing a grass roots citizenry activity that would allow all of us to engage in some dialogue that was not institutional, or political....BUT real. Allowing us to listen to each others idea, opinions, questions, concerns, stories, etc that was neutral.

Patrick went on to say

As well, we wanted to help inform the social media community that our local has become a part of social media, to develop community networks for people who care about our community in many areas. Not just in education. I believe so deeply in our community being a sustainable one for all our citizens. Maybe we helped a few feel they can get involved, and feel more empowered to get involved. I know I do.

Now that's what I'm talking about! Not only did this group of people, this organization... have the desire to do things better, they also went above and beyond what any other tweetup has done before. They supplied not only a most impressive array of food (buffet cold plate style) but also refreshments, including a glass of wine! At no cost.

While there was no "requirement" to discuss education issues, the desire by the people attending was clear. Education problems, goals, the things that worked that we need to do more of, and the things that don't work and need fixed... were definitely the major focal point in the various chats I was having with several of the people there.

I came away with new insight, new determination, new friends... but most importantly, I can "feel" the need to get more involved, and to stay involved. I could go on for literally hours, in writing this blog. But I know most of you will never put the time into reading everything. So with that said, I will close this by saying a HUGE THANK YOU to the teachers and individuals from Local 37. You have the wisdom to see the future, a better future, not only for the children... but for the communities that you deal in. You understand that as an organization, your need to be involved is critical. And in my opinion, what you achieved in last nights tweetup was a complete success.

Bare Naked Ladies in Edmonton

2010-04-15T15:18:00.001-06:00

BNL is on a most massive road trip right now, and from looking at their list of shows one can only guess at how tiring and stressful this will be for them. As I write this, they are preparing to perform in Vancouver, after playing in Edmonton, with previous locations in the last few days for Regina, Saskatoon, Las Vegas, Calgary and Victoria (April 6th to 14th). All I can say is they must have an awesome road crew! With that said...

Ed Robertson (shown here in an illegally taken picture from last nights performance) and crew (Jim Creeggan, Kevin Hearn and Tyler Stewart) did their "best" to wow the crowd as best as possible. As best as one could be, minus the exceptional talents of Steven Page. Yes, we know Steven was a bad boy. Yes, we know at the time that BNL was concentrating on doing their "kids release" and it made it difficult to keep him around. As a side note, I think that most people would probably presume that any rock and roll type band is doing some form of drugs from time to time. And I have to say that if we can "forgive" others who have done bad things, then I would suggest that the band may want to look at asking him back.

Getting to see the band, was a challenge that came about within the twitter community. I simply love groups who are starting to embrace this form of Social Media (check out the BNL Twitter page here) and I was in a state of awe, as I read two of the tweets sent by them. These two tweets are quoted below:

Thx to everyone that played. Dn't forget to upload ur videos + pictures you take at the show and tag them so they can be seen on bnl.com (5:50 PM Apr 9th via TweetDeck )

Go to the link for your show here http://bit.ly/dvYkwJ to find out how to tag them so they can be shared (5:53 PM Apr 9th via TweetDeck )

Like many of you, one of the things you really want, is to have those "memories" of having been-there-and-done-that type of thing. And to have a band saying what they did... well... blissful is the word that comes to mind! But wait! Arriving at the Jube you were greated by signs saying that no recording or picture taking was allowed! I asked one of the ticket takers what the scoop was, and even mentioned that BNL had said they wanted to see the pics and videos... and was emphatically told "no way". And of course, during their performance, you could see the security staff literally running up and down the aisles, getting folks to stop taking those pics etc. Well, I came "camera ready", but it was impossible to really use it because I had to keep the camera lcd screen close to my chest to stop the glare (this is what security was watching for), which meant I could not focus, and had to do my 'best guess' at where the lens was point. This makes for bad memories, not good ones. I just don't understand why this no-picture policy is in place. After all, we all want our memories and we all did pay the price to be there.

Um, ok, so.. I lied. Not everyone paid-the-price. And that's because BNL was doing ticket give aways using twitter. From following the BNL timeline, you could see what they were going to ask, and knew their tweet would be coming the day before the next performance. So, I watched.. and waited... and waited... AND waited. Finally, there came the following: (I just happened to be in both tweetdeck and on their twitter webpage, when I refreshed the web page, this appeared)

Here we go: first five people to respond to this tweet with #BNLEdmontonTix gets a pair of tix (7:13 PM Apr 13th via TweetDeck )

So the natural response was to just re-tweet it... after all, isn't that a "response"? Well, I was the first person to respond, and I waited and waited. But I got nothing. :( A note to those who read this, BNL does not deem this as a response! So if you are looking to win tickets for your area do NOT re-tweet it because you will not win!

Thankfully, I was also tweeting with GuitarKat and somehow along the way, a person from South Carolina (sumrthyme) picked up on things, and also had tweeted back to BNL about the tickets, and actually ended up winning a pair. She was trying to get them for friends in Vancouver, and didn't quite realize that Vancouver and Edmonton were not as close as she thought, and offered them to GuitarKat, who then suggested that I would be more interested. Well, bless GuitarKat, and bless sumrthyme. Thanks to both of those folks, those tickets were passed on to me. I so love social media!

Ok, so now you folks reading this are clued in about winning tickets... but, what about the actual performance? The opening warmup was done very nicely by Joel Plaskett, followed by a short break before BNL performed. The Bare Naked Ladies kind of rocked. I mean, it was "good". But I was disappointed. The following review posted in the Edmonton Journal entertainment section pretty much sums it up, at least for me.

To Ed, Jim, Kevin, Tyler... and especially to your road crew... I love you guys. But I'd love it a bit more if you used the twitter social media a bit better, and if you brought back Steven. :) As another side note, the videos I got were obviously terrible, considering the cirumstances I was trying to perform under, but I have other... ummm.. sources... and I will be looking at those to hopefully provide some better pics and maybe some videos.

School Closures

2010-04-12T10:08:00.000-06:00

I have been following the school closure issue with some interest, albeit not nearly as much as I should. The latest article in the Edmonton Journal dated April 12th has some very interesting reading, including the comments posted from people. From the 'twitter' side of things, I have been quite fond of the job that Sue Huff has been doing (you can read her blog and follow her on twitter) and her ability to think out-of-the-box has been most impressive. With all due respect to her fellow trustees, many of them should be looking to Sue to learn some insight and lessons.

With that said, the politics of the school system really needs to be fixed. It has been said that the formulas used are out of date, but what really kills me is the (paraphrased) "oh we can't do anything until the system changes so we are bound by law to do it this way" crap. You, the trustees, are supposed to be there to think, and not to just rubber stamp things. One of the comments posted within the Journal at 3:25 pm on April 10th says

Seems to me that seven rubber stamps costs less than 140 bucks, so why are we paying in excess of 300 grand?

and I have to agree with that, to a point. Now, I am certainly no expert, but one would tend to think that a fair amount of the "wasted" school spaces can be leased out to all sorts of worthwhile entities, such as day care, community services, etc. Just because the current rules say "this" should not be an indication of what you should be doing, especially when it's obvious the rules are flawed. Take a stance, say to the public and to the Government "these rules ARE flawed, and we refuse to make decisions based on errors".

From what I can see, there are only 2 trustees that are interested in really doing the job, the rest seem to be just along for the ride. Which is really very sad for the children.

Pardon me?

2010-04-07T11:47:00.000-06:00

There has been a LOT of comments and discussions about the recent news of the pardon given to Graham James, who was convicted of sexual assault back in 1997. The latest 'tiff' seems to be coming from the Prime Ministers office, as reported in this Edmonton Journal article dated April 6th, 2010.

Rather than getting into the specifics of this particularly nasty offense, let's look more at what the purpose of a pardon is, and when they should be allowed or not allowed.

If you have been convicted of a crime, then the law states that after 5 years from the end of your sentence, you can apply for a pardon. This effectively "seals" your conviction away from the public eyes, and it allows for the person to get back to leading and living the proverbial "normal life". And in simple terms, this is a good thing. After all, lots of people make stupid mistakes and deserve the chance to put it in the past. No one wants that mistake to hound them until the end of time.

The real issue here, is what types of offenses should qualify for a pardon, and how many other convictions does the person have? Clearly, some crimes (and even more so some criminals, especially those with multiple convictions) should have much more stringent conditions to determine if a pardon is to be allowed. Perhaps crimes need to be grouped into "types", where some will never qualify, and others will be allowed if you have been a "good person" for 15 years, or 10, or 5.

This is just another example where the old ways and outdated laws have not kept up with the times. Add in that the court system is so seriously flawed where the Letter of the Law allows the entire concept of Justice to fly out the window, it begs for some serious work to be done by both provincial and federal levels. The current Canadian Government has done nothing more than provide lip service in this area, and it is up to the people of Canada to send a strong message that words mean nothing, and that taking action to clean up the legal system to bring Justice back is needed now more than ever.

Foster Parents and Politics

2010-03-27T11:44:00.000-06:00

I do try to put some effort into understanding what is happening within the political world, albeit from time to time I do tend to jump to "mini conclusions". Most of the time the conclusions I come to are pretty close to reality, but not always. In this post I am not going to link the hell out of the various articles and blogs done concerning the Alberta NDP's and Governments dealings with the recent funding issues with foster parents. Instead, I want to comment more about the politics of the politics.

After several days of prodding the NDP for some answers on twitter, I was told that they got news of the issue late Thursday night and the legislature was not sitting on Friday. They had to verify "things" and broke the story (per say) on Monday. And of course, we all know what followed.

I was told by the NDP twitter person that "in this business it is extremely important to be accurate otherwise you get burnt". And I can understand that, after all politics is an incredibly dirty game. When you deal in the "public" side of things, you best have the i's dotted and the t's crossed. But with that said, most people that know something about me, know that I love to think out of the box, rules be dammed, and let's put some common sense into issues.

Had I "been" the NDP, I would have been pounding on Ministers door first thing Friday morning, stating what I had found out, saying nothings been verified, and wanting some answers and insight. Is this against the politics of being a politician? Is it against the rules? Well, if THAT'S the case, then change the rules! Even if those WERE the rules, I would still have pounded on that door. This would have put the Government on immediate notice of the issue. Had action not been taken at this point, then by all means take it public. Why wait because it's the weekend?

During the twitter discussions yesterday, I also received a tweet from @CupeAB (we don't follow each other by the way) asking, "Do you also agree with @premierstelmach that foster parents should have spoken up, on Friday?". Well, that's really a very good question. Put yourself in the shoes of being a foster parent for a moment. If you are one, then I am sure that you are painfully aware of how frustrating and complicated it is in dealing with the politics of being a foster parent. Do you go running, screaming, and hollering (or any other form of complaining) to the Government, risking getting your hands slapped and cuffed upside the head, knowing that perhaps if you say too much or the wrong thing, that in the end, you might very well be investigated, and have the kids you love and care for, be removed? Now I am NOT saying that this happens, but I am fairly comfortable thinking that this might very well be what a foster parent would think.

To me, the bottom line here is that you, the politicians that represent the people, seriously need to STOP playing the game of politics. STOP making it a dirty game, STOP with the prissy rules, and get BACK to reality.

I know it can be done when it needs to be done, because I have done it. When I worked as a volunteer Probation Officer dealing with Young Offenders, I had a situation where a youth under my supervision was in a situation where he had violated his probation, and the potential of harm coming to a baby was potentially a reality. I tried dealing with the police, and was told "you are his probation officer, you need to deal with it". So I did. I talked with the youth, he agreed things were bad and agreed he needed to go back into custody. I took him down to the 'system' in the wee hours of the morning, spent several hours arguing with government paper pushers, woke up the Crown and insisted a warrant be issued, so he could be taken into custody. The Crown *finally* agreed, I signed the warrant, and the youth was taken. In court, the warrant was upheld, and the youth was able to receive the services he needed. And as a side note, you will all be happy to know this youth was able to change his ways using that help, and I understand he has been successful in getting on in life.

Thinking out of the box works some times, perhaps those in charge should try doing it a bit more.

And the winner is...

2010-03-23T11:57:00.001-06:00

So Mr. Mandel has decided to run for office again. Does this mean "third time lucky" for the people of the City of Edmonton? Or are we in for yet another 3 years or so of being smiled at, while behind your back someone is sticking the proverbial knife into you. There are several little things that I want to touch on, and of course the list is not limited to this, but they are points that maybe people should be thinking about.

A few years back, Edmonton (and many other areas) went through the 'boom period', where housing prices literally double and tripled over night. And since the amount of tax you pay is based on the value of the property, many people found their tax bills doubling, or more. Certainly a huge bonus for those selling property, certainly a nightmare for those looking to buy property, and outright disastrous for those on a fixed income. But with that said, the amount of additional revenue going into the City coffers was huge. Where did all of that (guessing) doubling of income for the city go to? Perhaps those answers will start to come a little further down.

So now there was a massive increase in what the City was bringing in, and along the way, the amount of tax people are paying continued to climb. So lets get creative! We can keep the tax "increases" lower (as in you are still going to pay more tax, but just not as much) by doing "this". Well, one of the "this" things was "Hey, lets take garbage collection out of the tax base, and add it on to your utility bill!". This change came about, if I recall correctly, so that in January of that year, garbage (collection) charges appeared on a separate bill. But if you think about it, the City double-dipped that year, because taxes are due I think around the April mark or something. So the taxes you paid that INCLUDED garbage collection, were not given back, but the City got several extra months of revenue by charging you twice for the same service. And now this 'fee' is around $30 per month, or $360 per year... and your taxes STILL went up on top of that.

Then we have the Consultants scandal. In just one area examined, many millions of dollars were wasted in paying consultant fees. I even wrote to the City Council suggesting there were issues with Consultants long before this came out, and Mandels response was that of a shuffling off rather than wanting to know more. Only one member of City Council wrote back to get more information. Bottom line is that the City pays for consultants and programming needs that exceed multi-millions of dollars, when the same services can be provided "in house" for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

There is the Airport issue, where the urgent need to close the airport and sell off the land seems to be going against the wishes of the citizens of the city, at least from reading many of the comments posted in the Edmonton Journal's article about lawsuits over closing the airport. I have to wonder WHY this has been pushed as hard as it has been by Mr. Mandel? Many people seem to think there are issues with some friendly pocket-type-padding-potential as one reason. I would think that this election time should be the perfect opportunity to add this item to the civic vote so that it is CLEAR what the citizens of Edmonton want. And this must be done before any contracts have been signed.

Let's not forget the Indy as well. Sign a contract that pays people a huge amount of money so we can host the event, because we can make a profit from it and it will be SO cool to have!. Opps.. it turns out that someone made a mistake and it ends up costing us millions of dollars instead. But hey, we signed a contract so too bad so sad, right? How many more contracts are we going to sign, that in the end, it ALWAYS ends up costing more than we were told, but of course it's too late to do anything about it, because after all it WAS a contract, right? Remember that when you talk about LRT and EXPO2017. (Note that I am not personally against these ideas, but I am suggesting that we are being blind sided yet again on the truth of the matter.)

And of course, the famous downtown arena. People and polls everywhere have said "no" to tax payer dollars, but the impression I get is that Mr. Mandel seems to be pushing to find a way for this to happen, and continues to appear to ignore what the citizens have been saying. Some people have even suggested that the reason for this push has to do with the huge donation Mr. Katz has made in the past to Mr. Mandel. I can only shrug my shoulders and wonder why.

Recently, there were media stories on the completion of a bridge project, and the "requirement" to spend $600,000 on "art", because "city policy" says you have to. I am not opposed to "the arts" by any means but sheesh, don't you think it's time for that policy to be reviewed? Six hundred thousand dollars... for a freaking bridge! *sigh*

Now we are told there is a substantial surplus left over from the last budget, and guess what... our taxes are going up again. And it makes me wonder why those who are in charge have not stepped up to the plate and done something to fix this.

Puffballs and Seals

2010-03-22T10:31:00.000-06:00

Most know I am not politically savy, but I am trying to learn. A recent article in the Edmonton Journal about puffball questions made me a little curious. If the idea of the Question Period in the Alberta Legislature is to bring forth questions to the Government, then I guess in theory, all MLA's should be able to ask questions. As with many things in life, "in theory" is a very subjective term.

I would like to think that the 'order' of those questions should be from any opposition parties first, and the time allowed for those questions should be greater than those of the ruling party. I am kinda thinking that isn't the case, and thats pretty sad.

Question Period only works when you have good questions being asked, but then what defines a good question? Certainly the folks that communicate with their MLA would think their question is a good one deserving an answer, even if their MLA was in the ruling party. So how do you decide what should be asked and when? As I said, I'm far from politically savy, so I don't know what a good answer would be.

What I do know, is what flippant and snotty is. Questions asked with respect should be answered with respect. And of course, if you are not in the ruling party, the trend seems to be that of bashing. When you have a government that tends to be non-responsive, questions of that nature seem to appear more often than not, which is of course another issue to resolve.

Part of the Journal story also has a comment from Rob Anderson, who jumped ship. I've had the unfortunate pleasure of watching QP on TV from time to time, and I've seen Rob work. He makes it quite clear he is not happy with his former party, which I guess is his right. But the arrogance he shows in the gestures and body language is "hey, look at me... you guys suck and my shit doesn't stink". This seems to be backed up by the snotty remark about back benchers and others being seals. And that leaves me wondering what kind of bait his leader is holding over his nose, and how often he flaps his flippers and barks for his trainer.

Alberta Government out-sources IT

2010-03-15T12:53:00.000-06:00

According to a story in the Edmonton Journal, our provincial Government has decided to clean up and standardize their computer desktop systems at a cost of $70 million dollars, over a period of 7 years. Simple math tells you that is $10 million dollars a year.

Rather than hiring more IT staff to deal with this, they have decided to reduce the size of the IT department, touting "oh look we are cutting back" and then turn around and (most likely) pay a lot more than they would have saved, by farming out the work.

There is a time and place for consultants and contractors, of that there is no question. I would suggest to you, that this is not one of them. The "odds" of the cost of this contract going UP in price is huge. The classic example would be the Federal Gun Registry program, that went from some "millions" of dollars originally (which was beyond absurd to start with) to over a billion dollars.

As the old story goes, you can pay me now... or you can pay me later. Paying me now, means having employees who work for a resonable wage, and will deliver performance. Paying me later means letting someone else do the same work, and guess what... paying a lot more in the end to get the job done.

I for one, am getting pretty tired of the lip service.

Sanity in recycling

2010-03-11T15:08:00.000-07:00

Some twitter discussions today raised some intersting questions about parties and policies, and what if all parties had similar policies. Certainly an excellent question to debate. I am making this post from the seat of my pants, and I would have to "dig" to get the referencing links, so this example is more to show that just because you have a good policy, the way you use it may not be the smartest.

About a week ago or so, the Edmonton Journal had an article about changes the Alberta Government was looking it, with respect to "left overs" from the construction industry, and how they wanted to make a new section that would deal with charging developers a fee of some sort, and then giving them back a portion of that fee depending on what made it into the land fills etc. Again, do note that I am going from memory here and this may not be "exact" in nature...

While the concept of the idea, of reducing landfill is certainly in the right direction, I can see this as being nothing more than a waste of money, and here is why I say that. It will cost a huge amount of money to set this up and maintain it, and there will be fights over the fees, and additional costs not only to the developers who build, but also to the folks buying new development (housing, office space etc).

Would it not be better... if the larger "leftovers" were donated to one of the building recycle locations, so that others can buy them at reduced prices... and for the smaller ones, why not hold a "come get free pieces to finish your construction projects" event, so that folks who only need a couple of chunks of 'this or that', can swing by at a monthly event (example only) and grab a few missing pieces?

I am sure that places like Habitat for Humanity would love this... Course, what do I know.. maybe I'm way out in left/center/right field...

And the money went to...

2010-03-11T10:21:00.000-07:00

Warning.. if you are a "consultant", you probably won't like some of what I have to say...

I've been in the "computer industry" for about 30 years now, my links going all the way back to a Commodore PET 2001, with a cassette drive for backup and loading. Building, fixing, support... being a programmer, systems, and business analyst. When I program, I write really good code, and generally speaking it works the first time with minimal bugs (if any). So when I started working for the City of Edmonton several years ago, I thought I found my dream job and I could offer some really great apps combined with years of knowledge in support and setup of systems.

And I did. Often completing programming requests in 2 weeks or less, sometimes even in a couple of days. The largest project was a re-write of an existing application that, I was told, originally took four people two years to create. This re-write took me just shy of 3 months to do, all by myself... and had probably 10 times the features of the original program.

With out a doubt, the biggest "eye opener" I had while being with the City, was the use of consultants and the incredible cost and waste of time that was within the consulting process. There was one consultant in particular, who had acquired their MCSE by reading books and then taking the tests. They were being charged out at a rate of $70 per hour. I was often approached by this consultant, and asked "how do I do this?" and I would explain the process, even at times assisting with creating the code. I saw their little project when it was done and to say the functionality and design was about as equivalent to a first year programmer with zero experience is.. well.. being polite. Basically a 3 or 4 day job at best, took about a month. And the department was more than happy to pay for it.

Why is that? Well, the answer is pretty simple. Meetings and discussions... lots of them... over coffee... and chatting with people in the hallways. 80% socialization, 20% work.

Now there is the Canadian Taxpayer Federation saying that the money spent on the City website was (my words) "excessive".

When you look at the site, it is pretty, with lots of graphics and videos. But with todays RAD (rapid application development) tools, the time it would take for an experienced web programmer to build this application is pretty short. Guessing perhaps at a couple of months, and maybe a wage cost that's certainly less than $50,000. Hell, even having 2 people working on the project, that would be $25,000 each for a couple of months of work. Something we all wish we could make, I am sure.

So why did this project cost so much? I can only guess... and I think if you apply the above situation, you will see how the City uses those tax payer dollars, way too often. I for one, would love to see the true cost break down on the time spent, what was paid and to whom, the cost of the graphics, equipment, etc.

Of course, this is not the only example of waste, because when you think about it... this is exactly the process that drove the Federal Gun Registry program from what should have been at best, 3 to 5 million dollars... into something that I believe was well over a billion dollars.

Don't you think it's time to clean up this waste? I do...

Jaffer gets a wrist slap...

2010-03-09T12:07:00.000-07:00

Quoted from the Edmonton Journal Jaffer pleads guilty

Former Alberta MP Rahim Jaffer plead guilty on Tuesday to one count of careless driving and was fined $500 in an Orangeville, Ont., courtroom.
Jaffer, 37, was initially charged with cocaine possession, impaired driving and speeding stemming from an incident last September in Palgrave, Ont., about 60 kilometres north of Toronto. Those charges were withdrawn Tuesday by the Crown, who said that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.
"I'm sure you can recognize a break when you see one," Judge Doug Maund told Jaffer before fining him.

Well, isn't this just wonderful news! One has to wonder... if you were charged with cocaine possession, then certainly the officers making the arrest would have some form of "substance" that was found. What was the quantity of that, and was it tested? Will those "facts" ever be made public, or are they going to be buried as part of a political coverup?

Seems to me, the door is now open for everyone charged with this offence to qualify for exactly the same treatment given to Mr. Jaffer. And he certainly has been one very lucky person too.

After all, who else can arrange for a friend to pretend to be him on an open-line radio talk show (630 CHED), and then claim that it was him and not an imposter, and then say "ya ok so it wasn't me... tell someone who cares" and not get charged with fraud?

Who else can retain their MP seat when fraud was clearly the intent of the deception? Who else can be called "the laziest politician in Canada" and still get a pension of over $40,000 a year.

Methinks some extreme make-overs are needed within the political system... and it can't happen fast enough for me.

Directional Changes

2010-03-08T11:45:00.000-07:00

A few years back I created a registered Society, in the hopes of promoting common sense values and to assist people in need that have been caught between the cracks of life. I have had the opportunity to "walk a mile in your shoes" in many areas, some of which were a lot more fun than others.

I won't bore you with those stories, simply because most of you would gasp from the shock of how one person could survive such travesties of life. I will however say that I have been blessed in knowing that I have been able to help a few people.

Sadly, the original funding request made through the Alberta Lotteries Commission was turned down, and a request to have the application reviewed received only a canned email from the Minister, that didn't even bother to address the questions and comments I was asking about. But I am a stubborn person, and I forged ahead to do what I could.

I am not the type of person that can just ask for money and donations. My "marketing" skills are certainly lacking. Despite those issues, I did what I could. The money to fund this venture has ... simply put... vanished. Considering it all came from my own personal account and from a line of credit, I think I did not bad! I am proud to have been able to help where I could, and naturally, privacy issues dictate that I can't tell you who was helped. The folks who were, know... and that's all that is really important.

With all of that said, I can no longer afford to maintain the registered society, website, post office box, telephone, etc. On March 21st, the domain will expire... and shortly after that the website hosting service will also expire. But this really is not a "bad" thing, because I have learnt a lot, especially from the great folks who are in twitter, and social media in general. I will continue to strive towards standing up for those in need, and to promote more accountability, honesty, and transparency from those in charge.