Konanz and Cavallo

twobits
Guru
Posts: 7582
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 9:44 am

Re: KONANZ AND CAVALLO

Post by twobits »

XT225 wrote:
clouseau wrote:I don’t know much about either candidate at this point but I like that they are making a sincere effort to get elected onto Council. At least with these signs they are showing they are organized and serious about the job. This in contrast to an incumbent councilor who recently announced that after three years it was only time to now “start getting serious”. We are guaranteed there will be at least one new face on council and I would not be unhappy to see more, although I really would like to hear a platform.

Where did the concept of having a platform disappear too?


I don't know either candidate but I have serious concerns about electing a Realtor to the council; I fear too many chances for conflicts of interest. Whenever real estate issues/developments are discussed, such a person will have to question themselves on these issues and whether or not they should remain in the room or vote on such issues. A realtor could easily benefit from certain decisions. We saw this before when a mall manager on council would vote against the downtown development. I also have my own feelings that any councillor or mayor should live inside city limits, regardless of their real estate ownership in the city or not. D.A. and others have been nailed on this before many times, justified or not and its an issue that just will not leave many peoples minds. I also am not impressed with the amount of signage for new candidates being placed around the city; its ugly and unnecessary. Any new candidate needs to get out there and make themselves known personally. Re the quote above by clouseau and the incumbent councillor who now wants to "get serious"...many people are serious about ousting him toute de suite! There is change coming to this city, this November for sure.


XT, in a community the size of Penticton there is always going to be the potential for percieved conflicts of interest no matter what the councillors occupation might be. To single out realtors is not fair. There could be percieved conflicts in just rezoning applications in a councillors neighbourhood or that of a family members. We are a small community. We have to trust all of them to declare when they have a direct conflict of interest. If exposed later, there would be consequences.

Perhaps as a realtor we should encourage Ms Cavallo to state clearly now what her position is on such things as high rises/density, adherence to community plan, and expansion based on well established smart growth principals of efficient servicing and environmental sensitivity. With a clear opinion up front, she could avoid being accused of taking advantage of the position if she votes in accordance with those stated positions and is not directly involved either as an agent or owner of subject properties.

As to eligibility to run for council I cannot agree with you. Living within city boundaries should not be a prerequisite. Only ownership. Ownership makes them a taxpayer just like yourself and they should have an equal voice and opportunity as you do. A person can live in a Motel for three months and qualify to run and vote under residency requirments yet you would deny a person that owns property here?
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
Jamesie
Fledgling
Posts: 332
Joined: Mar 26th, 2011, 9:59 pm

Re: Konanz and Cavallo

Post by Jamesie »

Basing eligibility to vote on property ownership and tax-payer status goes back to nineteenth century practices and went out in most democracies between 1900 and 1920. One person one vote based on residency and citizenship is pretty much the norm in most democracies and has been for almost a century. It really is surprising to me that property ownership alone, without residency, should qualify you to vote. That is simply arcane and undemocratic.
XT225
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2854
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 4:37 pm

Re: Konanz and Cavallo

Post by XT225 »

Jamesie wrote:Basing eligibility to vote on property ownership and tax-payer status goes back to nineteenth century practices and went out in most democracies between 1900 and 1920. One person one vote based on residency and citizenship is pretty much the norm in most democracies and has been for almost a century. It really is surprising to me that property ownership alone, without residency, should qualify you to vote. That is simply arcane and undemocratic.


I think a lot of people simply will not buy into voting for someone who does not reside in the town in which they represent. It may be legal yes; but is it realistic in todays world; I dont think so? What would stop someone from Vernon from running in Penticton as mayor or councillor? The commute would be tough but they COULD do it, as long as they owned property here and paid taxes. I believe that at least one of the Regional directors lives in Vancouver for a good portion of his time; this has not gone unnoticed. If we have a choice, why would we vote for someone who didn't live here; it isn't rocket science. Maybe time to change the rules, and require residency in the town in which you choose to run. Re the realtor and possible conflicts, there would be many in my opinion. Our council votes on a lot of rezoning situations which could easily benefit a realtor. I guess the only way I would change my mind on this would be if they would promise to excuse themselves from the room, anytime a real estate situation came before council; however that wouldn't be practical; they would be absent a lot. Again, if we have enough other good choices (sorry, not the incumbents; most are hopefully gone) there should be lots to satisfy everyones views. I won't attack the people running; only their record and/or their chances of being in conflict. I'm hoping for more people from the Industrial area (yes, twobits they ARE right wing business people) but someone from other than the "downtown" section of the city would be a nice change. Plus, if they are not involved in downtown or mall "retail" then there is less chance of conflicts or favoritism. Just my opinion; some will agree; others not and thats just fine by me.
Alex1967
Fledgling
Posts: 117
Joined: Apr 4th, 2009, 5:18 pm

Re: Konanz and Cavallo

Post by Alex1967 »

First of all, congratulations to both Ms Cavallo and Ms Konanz for throwing their hats into the ring.

As already mentioned, conflicts of interest, both real and perceived are going to be inevitable. The only reason for Cavallo to be in a conflict regarding a real estate matter, is if she as a Realtor represents any of the parties involved. Her knowledge and insight as a Realtor could prove useful around the Council table.
Cavallo has been in the real estate business for a number of years. Several people I know I have dealt with her, they are all very happy with her services, they refer her to others and would use her again themselves. That all speaks volumes in my opinion.

Konanz is an excellent tennis coach, not sure if she still coaches or not. I believe that she paid professionally many moons ago. I've had the good fortune to meet her on several occasions over the years and in different environments for differing reasons. She is a kind, thoughtful, tough, compassionate, speaks her mind and a hard worker.

Without knowing who else is running in this civic election, these two ladies get two of my six votes, and depending on who else runs, maybe the only two who I vote for.

Again, congratulations and thank you both for running.
twobits
Guru
Posts: 7582
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 9:44 am

Re: Konanz and Cavallo

Post by twobits »

Jamesie wrote:Basing eligibility to vote on property ownership and tax-payer status goes back to nineteenth century practices and went out in most democracies between 1900 and 1920. One person one vote based on residency and citizenship is pretty much the norm in most democracies and has been for almost a century. It really is surprising to me that property ownership alone, without residency, should qualify you to vote. That is simply arcane and undemocratic.


Really? And what do you have to say about taxation without representation? It is OK to tax a person based on their property ownweship but deny them the right to cast a vote? That is what I call undemocratic. Residency as a qualifier has it's weaknesses as well. My sisters ex neighbours provided 12 civic votes for one single family dwelling parcel tax. Is that a fair and proportional representation? Bottom line is that there is no perfect system but I think we can improve on practices established in the early 1900's that more accurately reflect the modern demographic, land ownership, and multi jurisdictional tax capturing authorities that did not exist in the early 20th century.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
hoot
Fledgling
Posts: 336
Joined: Jun 5th, 2011, 5:06 pm

Re: Konanz and Cavallo

Post by hoot »

Quick question for both candidates:
And I know I will be flamed for asking it , but in the event the prison issue raises its ugly head again , ( say after a provincial election ) what are your opinions on having a prison in our city. ?

Thanks for your time.
Helena Konanz
Posts: 4
Joined: Oct 2nd, 2011, 7:09 pm

Re: Konanz and Cavallo

Post by Helena Konanz »

The prison issue is done in Penticton. The people spoke (the few that voted) and chose not to bring 300 high paying jobs into our community. The issue now is jobs, and how do we bring in another clean industry, not reliant on the weather, that will allow young families the ability to stay here. It won't be easy, but when an opportunity comes our way in the future I'm going to make sure I do everything I can to grab it!
And by the way, why did so few people vote on such an important issue that would affect us for the next 50 years, one way or the other?
For information on my platform, go to helenakonanz.com.
twobits
Guru
Posts: 7582
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 9:44 am

Re: Konanz and Cavallo

Post by twobits »

Helena Konanz wrote:The prison issue is done in Penticton. The people spoke (the few that voted) and chose not to bring 300 high paying jobs into our community. The issue now is jobs, and how do we bring in another clean industry, not reliant on the weather, that will allow young families the ability to stay here. It won't be easy, but when an opportunity comes our way in the future I'm going to make sure I do everything I can to grab it!
And by the way, why did so few people vote on such an important issue that would affect us for the next 50 years, one way or the other?
For information on my platform, go to helenakonanz.com.



Platform: Make Penticton a more Vibrant, Dynamic, and Economically Successful Community
We do this by:
1.Make it Affordable for Young Families to Live Here by Creating an Environment That Promotes Higher Paying Jobs While Remaining Fiscally Responsible.
◦Target the Industrial Area to recruit light, clean industry.
How? Tax breaks, grants? What would you do that has not already been tried?
◦Cut down on the red tape and increase customer service at city hall to make it easier for people to do business in our city.
Agree completely but can you please describe what you see as being the red tape currently.
◦Attract a 4-5 star resort to locate in Penticton to enhance both convention industry and tourism.
How and I am curious of just where there is a five acre parcel that a five star resort would desire?
2.Enhance Our Natural Beauty.
◦Remove graffiti, pickup garbage, involving youth groups in this as much as possible.
◦Downtown core and corridor enhancement by increasing artistic murals and turning brown lots into community gardens or dog parks.
Are these brown lots not private property that already have to comply to standards as set out in bylaws. Would gardens and park use create insurance liabilities on private land?
◦Become active in Communities in Bloom.
◦Give incentives to businesses downtown to clean up their buildings with fresh paint and new awnings.
And what of the business owner on Shaka Lake Rd who would like to repaint his building and install a new awning with these "incentives". Are we talking taxpayer dollars to spruce up private property?
3.Making It Healthier.
◦Recruit more MDs.
What do you see as the current barriers to MD's locating here?
◦Embrace our incredible athletic and cultural facilities, market them effectively and fill them to capacity.
Excellent! As a former Nike rep, do you have any contact's you might be able to leverage?
4.Re-brand Penticton.
◦Update and revisit Marketing Schemes and logo.
◦Set up new satellite Visitor's Information Centre downtown during the summer months at City Hall and at kiosks during the Farmers Markets.
Good idea. Have you costed this out (staff and kiosks) and would this come from the Chamber budget or the City's?

Lastly, as you do not reside in Penticton and only operate a small business here, what are your views on your legitimacy of running for a council seat beyond your legal right to do so? For the record, I have no problem with it as I am interested in getting the best candidates for the job regardless of where they lay their head at night but am interested in your view.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
XT225
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2854
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 4:37 pm

Re: Konanz and Cavallo

Post by XT225 »

Twobits, you ask for a lot of responses from Helena. Perhaps you could offer up your own thoughts (I'm serious) on how to improve the city in general. Or...run for council? I would take great pleasure in not casting a vote for you....lol (just teasiing). It's still going to take a lot of convincing to get me to vote for a Realtor and another person who lives out of Penticton. Call me stubborn but just the way I feel. D.A. has been nailed with this "living out of town" stigma and it won't do much for a new candidate, either. Justified or not; people have their rights to their opinions. Now...after saying all that..if we don't get any others coming forward, I may have to vote for the two above, as I want some new blood on council for certain and with a lot of people that I have talked with, its time to get rid of what we have now; not necessarily an entire new slate (as some continuity is necessary) but the fence sitters have to go.
Alex1967
Fledgling
Posts: 117
Joined: Apr 4th, 2009, 5:18 pm

Re: Konanz and Cavallo

Post by Alex1967 »

XT225, would you mind explaining your reluctance to vote for a Realtor?

I had forgotten that Ms Konanz lives outside of the City limits. That shows given the high level of credibility the candidate has in my opinion and the confidence I have in her, residence is unimportant to me in this case. Anytime I have seen Ms Konanz it has always been in Penticton. I just associate her to Penticton.
XT225
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2854
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 4:37 pm

Re: Konanz and Cavallo

Post by XT225 »

Alex1967 wrote:XT225, would you mind explaining your reluctance to vote for a Realtor?

I had forgotten that Ms Konanz lives outside of the City limits. That shows given the high level of credibility the candidate has in my opinion and the confidence I have in her, residence is unimportant to me in this case. Anytime I have seen Ms Konanz it has always been in Penticton. I just associate her to Penticton.


My sole reluctance to vote for any realtor is due to the fact that council continually deals with rezoning, developments, etc that any such person could easily benefit from. In MY (maybe I'm wrong here) opinion, such a councillor should have to leave the room when real estate deals are voted upon...which isnt practical. I recall council had a realtor before and it did create some questionable situations. However, even with the present council members, they often vote on things to do with "for or against the downtown" and they could be in conflict in some peoples eyes. However, after saying all that, I would much rather have a realtor in place AND someone who lives in Kaleden than deal with the same ol, same ol that we presently have in place. So, I CAN be swayed you see. Just don't ask me to "slump" to putting an X on that ballot (lol...should she even run this time). I believe it was Beth Campbell who also lived outside city limits; she (in my opinion) was a good mayor but she did take some flack for her place of residence. The mud will be slinging a lot more, I'm sure, by many others as we get closer to election day.
twobits
Guru
Posts: 7582
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 9:44 am

Re: Konanz and Cavallo

Post by twobits »

XT- How bout just looking at it as it is just people applying for a job with the city. The positions are to conduct the business affairs of the city and we should strive for the best qualified people regardless of where they sleep at night. That is our best interest. Why not restrict all city positions to city residents then? Many of our city employee's do not live wihin the city. I want the best Lifeguards, the best Engineers, and the best Parks people that applied to be hired and I don't care if they come from OK Falls or Duncan Ave. I don't think you should either but you are most certainly entitled to your view.
The vast majority of people that run for these council positions that do not live here are connected to Penticton either through business or strong family ties. I believe they must be connected and passionate about Penticton else they wouldn't run for what amounts to a low paying thankless position that they have to reapply for every three years.

PS-Did you think there was something wrong with the questions I posed to both candidates here on this forum? I'm just trying to pull some specifics out of them rather than broad generalizations.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
XT225
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2854
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 4:37 pm

Re: Konanz and Cavallo

Post by XT225 »

twobits wrote:XT- How bout just looking at it as it is just people applying for a job with the city. The positions are to conduct the business affairs of the city and we should strive for the best qualified people regardless of where they sleep at night. That is our best interest. Why not restrict all city positions to city residents then? Many of our city employee's do not live wihin the city. I want the best Lifeguards, the best Engineers, and the best Parks people that applied to be hired and I don't care if they come from OK Falls or Duncan Ave. I don't think you should either but you are most certainly entitled to your view.
The vast majority of people that run for these council positions that do not live here are connected to Penticton either through business or strong family ties. I believe they must be connected and passionate about Penticton else they wouldn't run for what amounts to a low paying thankless position that they have to reapply for every three years.

PS-Did you think there was something wrong with the questions I posed to both candidates here on this forum? I'm just trying to pull some specifics out of them rather than broad generalizations.


Good comments, twobits. I agree re the rest of the city employees being residents, etc; you make good point. I can deep six my problem with residency, espeically if it means getting some new blood onto council. Your questions you posed were good ones; it will be interesting to see if the candidates answer them. I look forward to public forums for mayor and councillors. Thank you (see....I CAN be nice once in a while...lol).
hoot
Fledgling
Posts: 336
Joined: Jun 5th, 2011, 5:06 pm

Re: Konanz and Cavallo

Post by hoot »

Quick question ;

Can a person that owns property elsewhere have more than one vote in municipal elections?
Can our mayor, for example , vote in Summerland as well as Penticton , just because he owns property here ?.
In fact, could a person run for election in both areas, and sit in a dual capacity if elected in both ?

Just wondering.....

Supplementary question , is there a conflict of interest if a teacher runs for school trustee?.
XT225
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2854
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 4:37 pm

Re: Konanz and Cavallo

Post by XT225 »

hoot wrote:Quick question ;

Can a person that owns property elsewhere have more than one vote in municipal elections?
Can our mayor, for example , vote in Summerland as well as Penticton , just because he owns property here ?.
In fact, could a person run for election in both areas, and sit in a dual capacity if elected in both ?

Just wondering.....

Supplementary question , is there a conflict of interest if a teacher runs for school trustee?.


Very good questions, hoot. I believe that D.A. could indeed vote in Summerland and in Penticton but RUNNING for positions in both cities? I don't think so. Maybe the resident expert on everything could comment. 2bits? What is interesting, however is that if D.A. loses the mayors chair, he is automatically out of the RDOS. Now..how good is that! ps: I dont think a teacher could run for trustee as they would be an employee of the district. Perry only did this after he retired. Kinda getting off subject here; this is supposed to be a thread about Konanz and Cavallo.

Return to “C.E. Penticton”