Mayoral Poll

[fisherking]

Given we now have a field of 6 running for Mayor, I thought it would be fun to see what folks on here think. Where are you leaning?

Sorry folks I added in Diana Van Beest and it reset all the numbers

[thehansenbrothers]

Sharon got my vote, Kim needs more time, Gray is too fricking old to do any good, Sharon is the good balance of inexperience with Kim, and man trying to pump his ego on tax payer dollars. Gray gets in, a mayor cannot accomplish much in one term, and he wont be able to do 2. Cannot stop aging.

[The Green Barbarian]

Sharon got my vote, Kim needs more time, Gray is too fricking old to do any good, Sharon is the good balance of inexperience with Kim, and man trying to pump his ego on tax payer dollars. Gray gets in, a mayor cannot accomplish much in one term, and he wont be able to do 2. Cannot stop aging.

So which is more politically incorrect - to say you won't vote for someone because they are old (ageism) or because they are a woman (sexism). Just curious.

[fisherking]

I disagree. First, since when is 71 old for a leadership position in politics??? Second, almost anyone can get more done in one term than Shepherd's done in two. Three, the guy'll only be 74 if he gets a second term. Personally I want a political leader who's been around. Has the years to have stockpiled some experience and wisdom to fall back on when making decisions, rather than some newbie who was playing with Lego last time the economy went through a major slide, or someone who needs to set up a committee just to decide whether to buy single or double roll toilet paper for City Hall. I'm sure Sharon Shepherd's a nice person, but with the economy the way it is, people losing jobs, businesses closing, tourism down, property taxes on the rise, I think I want something more than a 'nice person' steering the ship.

[Relentless]

We need a Mayor who cares about the average person, not only the rich and business owners.
Sharon has failed as leader, Walter may be a better Mayor, but I do believe we need some new blood with some common sense.

Running the City of Kelowna isn't an easy job, but, common sense hasn't been protocal for the last 10 years.
We need a new face that is willing to listen to people's concerns, not an existing politician who is set in their ways.

Sharon Shepherd and our council have spent, spent, spent, the taxpayers money foolishly.
Changing Kelowna's City Logo and expensive "work of arts" convinced me that we don't have a good leader.

Quality of life is very important in this City, a concern that our present Mayor and council could care less about.

[fisherking]

I can't believe how simplistic some people are. Care about the people means against business - for business means not caring about the people. lol

Do you own a house? Do you pay credit card bills? Do you pay utility bills? Do you pay for the gas in your car? How do you think you get the money to do that? Through having a job. Where do you get a job? Through a business. How do you ensure the AVERAGE PERSON can pay their bills, put their kids through school, etc, etc... unless you have a healthy economy where businesses can survive and prosper so people can get jobs.

Yes, that means business leaders will prosper too. What's wrong with that???

Unemployment here is over 7%. Why do you think that is? It's because businesses are closing or cutting back and there are no jobs. It's because tourism is down. It's because the cost of living here is too high. It's because there are fewer and fewer opportunities for young people and young families here so many of them are moving elsewhere. And as each person leaves the workforce through being laid off, or closing their business down, that's one less person with money to spend to support all the other businesses. And so on and so on.

Remember Dragon Boats, Wakefest??? Gone, because the city would rather lose the economic benefit these opportunities bring and charge so much money and tie up the process with so much red tape that event organizers pack up shop and leave. That's SMART business.

This council, while very nice people and good for a chuckle over 'tea', has absolutely no idea how to handle the economic climate we're in or how dangerous doing nothing can be right now.

Unless we create an environment here that supports business, not ALL business, but business that is good for our economy, there will be less jobs, less money to go around and less money to support our city services, and the AVERAGE PERSON won't be able to pay their bills, will have their property taxes go up (because, believe it or not, if the city coffers decline, the money has to come from somewhere), and will be anything BUT cared for.

Supporting business and growth is NOT a bad thing.

[Logitack]

I can't believe how simplistic some people are. Care about the people means against business - for business means not caring about the people. lol


Supporting business and growth is NOT a bad thing.

i agree with MOST of that sentence. I would add, Supporting busines and growth is not a bad thing provided the overall PUBLIC interest and PUBLIC land is protected for ALL citizens of kelowna!

[fisherking]

I wholeheartedly agree.

So let's examine your comment and in particular the word protected.

We want to protect the land for the PUBLIC. What does that mean? Well, to me it means the land has to be maintained and preserved, that costs money. It also means there have to be people to take advantage of the land, hard to do when you don't have a job, and might have to even leave the community to find employment. The PUBLIC, almost all those to whom that refers, rely on jobs to pay the bills. No jobs, no PUBLIC. Parks don't create jobs. Business creates jobs. When the PUBLIC is gainfully employed, able to maintain a home and a healthy lifestyle, raise a family, etc, the PUBLIC can get the most out of the land. But when the PUBLIC dwindles because electricians have to move to Alberta to work on oil fields because there isn't work here for them, or restaurant owners have to close up shop and lay off a dozen employees who now have to battle with the already 7.3% unemployed to get whatever few jobs are still available, or when college students can't afford to go to school here because they can't afford to pay the extra several hundred dollars rent they pay in Kelowna over other communities because our cost of living is too high, or because downtown businesses can no longer attract customers because the downtown has become so rundown it can no longer compete with other shopping areas in town and there's not enough money to police our downtown streets so nobody wants to walk downtown at 9 o'clock at night, except save for a couple of blocks by the waterfront, then the PUBLIC isn't being served, regardless of what land may be protected.

Development is another one of those words, like business, everyone likes to slam. Do you live in a house? In a condo? In a townhome? Guess what, it's there because someone developed it. Before it was there, it was land. A hundred years ago people may have said the same thing about protecting the land, referring to the site where your home is now situated. We live in homes, we shop in stores, we work in offices, all of which are 'developed'. Development isn't ALWAYS bad. If it wasn't for development, in all likelihood you wouldn't live here because doubtful you'd be satisfied living in a pitched tent in the middle of a field.

Should we have endless development everywhere and eat up every last piece of land in town? ABSOLUTELY NOT. You know how you protect the land? You don't use all of it. But you still need people. People to shop in the stores to keep businesses afloat. People to raise families and take care of the community. So how do you NOT use all the land but encourage people to come here, live here, work here and play here? You build high density residential centres, where several hundred people can live on a footprint that right now only houses a dozen or so. Drive through Glenmore. Every one of those .17 acre homes is lived in by 3 or 4 people. To populate an area with 300 people you'd need 17 acres of land to pack a bunch of homes onto. Build a high density apartment building and you can house those same 300 people on a one acre square. Guess what, now you've earned back 16 acres. Build three high density buildings that take up less than 5 acres of land, you can house all the people it takes nearly 50 acres to house in Glenmore. Take 10 or 15 acres and build a beautiful park next to your apartment buildings where people can gather, walk, eat lunch, socialize and you still save 30 acres of what you'd be using in Glenmore, AND you have a park as part of the deal. Oh yeah, I almost forgot to mention, all those people live in one spot, not spread out over street after street and neihgbourhood after neighbourhood, so they don't need to drive everywhere. That's a good thing for the environment.

Do I think we should have high density towers all over town? ABSOLUTELY NOT. What I think is we need a council that isn't so afraid of the word 'business' and 'development', that they throw the baby out with the bathwater and refuse to support either. I think you need a council that recognizes the value of both IN BALANCE. Some development, some economic/commercial growth. That's smart local government in my view.

That's smart for the ALL the PUBLIC.

[Logitack]

development and developers who attempt to "develop" on prime PUBLIC lands, such as the lakeshore which is to be enjoyed by ALL of the public is quite different when a developer buys and develop PRIVATE land. I could care less what they do on PRIVATE land, for the most part. What I cannot accept is developers AND civic politicians and city planners and the city manager doing the bidding of developers on PUBLIC land, such as the lakeshore! Civic politicans work for KELOWNA, not the developers!

I am all for developers earning a profit on THEIR own PRIVATE land. I am NOT in favor of developers getting speciail treatment, tax advantages and reduced infrastructure costs when it is the citizens who will have to pick up that tab!

[JBoyd]

I agree that it may be Sheppard's time to go, but Gray? seriously? Do you all forget the years of stagnant growth that Kelowna had while Gray was Mayor? He kept Kelowna small with that silly skyline bylaw, he is a stodgy old dinosaur and is worse for Kelowna than Campbell was for B.C. We need fresh blood in the council, Gray had his shot, so has Sheppard, step over and let someone else have a go at it.

[Mtn Biker]

I am sorry but are you people for real? We’ve just come through one of the worst recessions, down turn in the economy in 2 decades and you’re all b-n about job creations and nothing getting down. Despite the economic climate, current council has still be able to make the improvements needed, improve the quality of life through expansion of parks, bike paths and hospital expansion. If you all were actually honest, opened your eyes and listen to what has been done and on the slate to be completed over the next 3 years, any change to council now would throw that all back on the table – Wally wants the City Green to go back to square one . . . not that’s dumb and useless. No, Shepherd deserves far more credit than what your armchair politician display.

[boardersara]

Wow, people are willing to vote for someone who received national attention for having lost a human rights tribunal... and you think that's going to help bring more young people to Kelowna???

There is a GLOBAL recession going on- and yet we've still managed to have a number of development projects go through, along with much needed infrastructure (which was never done when Gray and the boys were in before), along with a number of social housing projects. The CD-21- a dozen or so 30+ storey highrises on the waterfront within a 4 block radius- first off, do you really think Milroy and the boys would hire locally to complete those projects? second, where are these people coming from who are going to actually go into these condos when we have already have a ton of empty ones throughout the city because we're in a GLOBAL recession?

Another frequent comment on these threads are about bringing/keeping young people in Kelowna- one of the reasons my family left Kelowna was because of the small-town mentality which dominated city council- I also had no desire to raise my children in a place with a mayor who not only loses a human rights tribunal, but still to do this day has not recognized/admitted his mistake. We returned to Kelowna because the mentality, although still conservatively dominated, appeared to be progressing on a number of fronts- particularly with the growth of UBC-O and KGH- along with an increased recognition of arts, culture, social issues, the environment, parks, recreation, infrastructure, affordable and social housing, and yes, sustainable development. The idea of Gray getting back in makes me want to pack up my family and move again which makes me sad because Kelowna has so much potential and is finally progressing in so many areas, but I just can't imagine going back to the way it was- and frankly, I'm surprised anyone would want to.

[boardersara]

Sharon got my vote, Kim needs more time, Gray is too fricking old to do any good, Sharon is the good balance of inexperience with Kim, and man trying to pump his ego on tax payer dollars. Gray gets in, a mayor cannot accomplish much in one term, and he wont be able to do 2. Cannot stop aging.

So which is more politically incorrect - to say you won't vote for someone because they are old (ageism) or because they are a woman (sexism). Just curious.

To me it's not about Gray being old, it's about his mentality being old. There are many young people with old and outdated views, just as there are many older people with young and progressive thinking.

[Ub2]

I hope you guys realize that a vote for anyone else except Sharon Shepherd will put Walter back in. It's not that someone else couldn't do a better job, but in this election cycle it's too risky . . . the vote could easily split and ensure a Gray win.
I'm willing to give her another chance, and if she does not perform better, I would be willing to look at someone else next election.

A protest vote at this particular time, in my opinion would be irresponsible and could have unintended consequences . . . especially due to the fact that the fourchange group is prepared to hijack city hall if they can and they're very well organized. I can see the line-up already.

This election could easily turn out to be one of the most unsettling , and if you want change just for the sake of change, I think that would be the wrong approach . . . just my opinion.

[thehansenbrothers]

That is it bang on. Why do you think Walter Gray waited until the deadline to file his papers. To ensure his only real competition would be Sheppard. He will get iin by default of wasted votes, then kelowna is in for another term of wasted tax payer dollars