Thanks for sharing. I cant figure out what reason there is to vote him in again, although it looks like the other candidates will just split the vote and he will win again.
So far this is my opinion of him.
-Wants to collect more taxes so that we can build a more progressive and inclusive city.
-doesn't get along with the mayor or other right leaning councillors, or anyone at the provincial government
-Has not built any or vary little social housing in his ward
-Housing availability and affordability has diminished immensely in his ward while he has been in office
-Opposes all development and has no desire or ability to negotiate community benefits for extra density
-His Twitter comments are mostly focused on provincial and federal matters (shouldnt he have run as provincial NDP candidate by now?)
- He advocates for lots of social causes
-He has great attendance at city hall
-Gives good speeches
-Is very procedural and know lots of the city rules and procedures.
What do people think? and is there a chance for someone to unseat him in the new ward?
-
That's a pretty fair assessment, I reckon.
So, let's look at the point about the opposition to development and his inability to work with developers to induce benefits to the ward. That right there, whilst going on about raising taxes from land owners for the sole purpose of paying for "affordable" (he didn't define what this meant, but I can guess it didn't include people like me) housing which would lead to increased rents for the working class middle such as myself, is part of why I discounted him....hey,
@bobbob911
I bloody well hope there is a chance for someone to unseat him. In a perfect world, all these incumbents would go for a retraining (aka career change) and be replaced with sensible people who don't have a vested interest in retaining or attaining power.
He literally told me that property taxes should be higher for the sole purpose of paying to build more "affordable" housing. That's it. Fair and inclusive city? Nah, I don't think he's necessarily about that because a fair and inclusive city, by definition, doesn't foist burdens on one socio-economic segment of the citizenry in order to better the lot of another.
Can and should landowners pay more? Sure, I'm not against that in principle. But don't pretend to me that building more shitty council estates is going to help everyone find a more affordable place to live when those same landlords who are asked to pay more will pass the cost on to their tenants. We'll end up with more council estates and less people like me. I mean, sure, maybe that's all fine and good, if that's what we want, but don't call it a fair and inclusive city.
I'm not impressed with him. Simply starting our chat with "I'm the progressive candidate in our ward."? Poor form. Meaningless piff, that is. I didn't think any of the candidates here were regressive, to begin with. Then, even if "progressive" is used in the lame way that people misappropriate its meaning and use it to stand for socialist, or neo-Marxist, or what-not, then it's still a bullshit thing to say to people because by that definition it's also not true that he's THE "progressive" candidate in the ward.
Time for him to go back to teaching at UofT, or working at Greenpeace, or whatever else.
PS: As a fellow environmentalist of sorts, I would like to present this as a prime example of how not all environmentalists can be shoe-horned into some vague pre-conceived notion of similarity.
PPS: I did wish him well and best of luck and shook his hand and all that generally polite stuff. The best of luck may have been for all of us in the case that he's re-elected though.
