Mayor Shepherd & Kelowna's Economic Growth (or Decline)

[exFarmerS]

I believe Kelowna also received a large whack of federal stimulus funding compared with other areas over the past year or two. That alone kept us somewhat sheltered from the downturn.

[grammafreddy]

I believe Kelowna also received a large whack of federal stimulus funding compared with other areas over the past year or two. That alone kept us somewhat sheltered from the downturn.

Yup- and we built a bridge and added onto the hospital with a new state-of-the-art cardiac unit and created a new school of medicine at the uni and an overpass and a new aquatic centre and ... a few more bridges and fixed some roads and created a new park and put a bear in it and a skating rink, too. We've committed to a new RCMP station and are building some housing for transitional folks out in Rutland, too.

[EdCase]

I believe Kelowna also received a large whack of federal stimulus funding compared with other areas over the past year or two. That alone kept us somewhat sheltered from the downturn.

An excellent point. Shepherd has worked hard to foster strong relationships with her federal and provincial colleagues; this has indeed paid dividends in terms of their recognition of Kelowna's status and its access to funding.

[richardtaylor1973]

It is highly disingenuous of you to suggest that the motive for this thread is any other than a Gray v Shepherd debate, except you would prefer the focus to be strictly on Shepherd.

What on earth makes you think that you understand my motivations or have the knowledge or right to brand them as 'disingenuous'?

I have absolutely no interest in starting (or partaking in) a Gray v Shepherd debate.

I liken this Mayoral race to having a choice between being punched in the face or kicked in the groin - only I don't know which candidate is which.

Do I want to debate the merits of being punched in the face? Do I want to debate the merits of being kicked in the groin? NO and NO.

There is absolutely no way I could vote for Walter Gray given his apparent homophobia and mixing of religion and politics.

Similarly there is absolutely no way I could vote for Sharon Shepherd given her record of poor leadership and judgement.

I had one motivation, and one only in posting my question - to work out what our Mayor was referring to - because she's the only one talking about economic growth in this city in the last few years.

I think you and 'GrammaFreddy' (given her repost & agreement) - owe me an apology for the 'disingenuous' comment - it attacks my integrity and I resent that.

There has been growth in our tech sector with companies such as Club Penguin (Disney), Vineyard Networks, Vericorder and others bringing new high value jobs to Kelowna, so it is fair for the Mayor to say there has been economic growth since 2008; she did not lie.

I'm very aware of the growth in the tech sector, including the three companies mentioned. Their growth has, from what I know, been achieved with absolutely zero help from our Mayor.

If the Mayor wants to qualify her statements that is fine. She can say she has presided over growth in the tech sector. She can also try to take credit for other initiatives (driven by stimulus) that would seem to be much more down to the work of our MP and MLAs.

She didn't qualify her statement. It was a general statement regarding 'economic growth'. And in general our economy has declined not grown since her reelection. It was at best misleading. At worst a lie. Having read her response, I'll settle on 'misleading'.

Overall, I find it disappointing that nobody from current council stepped up to challenge our current Mayor - or that no other qualified candidate stepped forward to give her a run. If that had happened, we would not be in our current situation with an impossible choice of Mayoral candidates: one that is ineffective and lacking in leadership and judgement, one with unsavory undertones - that I hoped we had consigned to history and three that might be nice genuine people but that are completely unqualified.

[grammafreddy]

Guess you should have tossed your hat into the ring, eh? Then, if you got elected, you could maybe get what you want. Maybe. The Mayor only get gets one vote and the rest of council gets 8.

[richardtaylor1973]

Guess you should have tossed your hat into the ring, eh? Then, if you got elected, you could maybe get what you want. Maybe. The Mayor only get gets one vote and the rest of council gets 8.

Had a few people say that to me. If I acted on it I'd be joining those that are passionate about our city, but are, unfortunately not qualified to be Mayor (or even on Council).

What it does highlight is the importance of the council election. Personally I'm hoping for at least 3 changes on council - ideally 5.

[richardtaylor1973]

Dear Richard- this is Sharon's response as posted on her facebook page- you are also welcome to contact her directly through her website for futher clarification, other questions, etc. at sharonshepherd.ca.

Actually - I can't see any such response on her Facebook page.

[sbeecher10]

You've been making unfounded attacks towards Ms. Shepherd and people are supposed to be apologizing to you Mr. Taylor? You twist the context of a statement and then fail to qualify 'poor leadership and judgment'? I imagine you are on the side of 4change- maybe not 4Gray, but you certainly fall on the old boys side from everything I've read so of course you're going to find fault (even if you have to bend things to find it and make it fit) in what Ms. Shepherd does or says.

[richardtaylor1973]

You've been making unfounded attacks towards Ms. Shepherd and people are supposed to be apologizing to you Mr. Taylor? You twist the context of a statement and then fail to qualify 'poor leadership and judgment'? I imagine you are on the side of 4change- maybe not 4Gray, but you certainly fall on the old boys side from everything I've read so of course you're going to find fault (even if you have to bend things to find it and make it fit) in what Ms. Shepherd does or says.

I called a politician out on a statement made at a public forum that appeared to be an 'untruth'. I have not, in any way, twisted the context of the statement. Is is NOT an "unfounded attack". Her statement was sweeping, unfounded and needed to be challenged. I challenged it. That is how democracy works.

Having read the response posted from our Mayor (or her team) above, and as previously stated I'll classify it as 'misleading' rather than an outright lie.

Overall, I find it rather disappointing that by challenging a politician's misleading statement (or their record) I open myself up to personal attacks. A great case of 'shooting the messenger'.

Our politicians talk about 'being held accountable' - well guess what - that means challenging their sweeping, misleading statements.

For the record, I have not made personal attacks on anyone - no participant in this discussion - no candidates. An attack was made on my character (specifically my motivations were branded 'disingenuous'). The attack on my character was unfounded and incorrect. The person making that attack can show their character (or lack of it) in their response to my suggestion that they should apologize.

I also have nothing to do with 4change. I'm able to educate myself and make my own judgment calls without guidance from a special interest group.

Re leadership and judgement:

Leadership: "The action of leading a group of people or an organization."

Judgement: "The capacity to assess situations or circumstances and draw sound conclusions; good sense."

My opinion, which I believe I have the right to express without risking personal attack, and is completely related to the Mayor's RECORD, is that our Mayor has neither led council well or demonstrated good judgement. The time, effort and energy wasted on CD21 is a prime example.

[Logitack]

Overall, I find it rather disappointing that by challenging a politician's misleading statement (or their record) I open myself up to personal attacks. A great case of 'shooting the messenger'.

dont take it so personally. you have an opinion, you are giving it. others apparently do not agree with you. if they are attacking your character, as you claim, I havent seen that myself, then just ignore the comment. I find your comments quite good and you actually do post, after I requested it, your sources for your claims made. while your claims are open to interpretation and some might even go as far a cherry picking, for the most part, what you said is quite accurate.

I personally cannot vote for Gray. I believe he will sell out kelowna to the developers and that isnt always a good thing. allowing CD 21 to proceed clearly shows where his priority is/was. allowing a development on the public shoreline only benefits the developer with the taxpayer picking up the costs on infrastructure and upkeep and restricting access to a public beach/park.

I am also uncomfortable with Shepherd's leadership, but if it was a choice between her and Gray, well I would have to choose her. The only other candidate I see running for mayor that might be able to win over Gray or Shepherd is Kim Ouellette, and even then I am not sure she has enough experience. maybe she deserves another look though.

[watchingfromthesidelines]

uote="richardtaylor1973"]

Overall, I find it rather disappointing that by challenging a politician's misleading statement (or their record) I open myself up to personal attacks. A great case of 'shooting the messenger'.

[/quote]
Richard, what I find amazing about your thread, is that you started this attack against Mayor Shepherd earlier tonight and then; when people don't rally around you in support of your comments, act offended. Seriously, I've read a number of your comments on different posts and wonder s if you really are just trying to rile things up, or just don't have anything better to do. It's obvious from a number of posts that you don't like Mayor Shepherd but really, like I tell my staff, when you critique someone, always offer something up as an alternate solution. It's easy to be an arm chair critic but when you want people to value what you have to say, offer something of substance. From the sidelines, I see your input to this campaign as very negative. I hope you start offering something more other than stirring the pot

[richardtaylor1973]

dont take it so personally. you have an opinion, you are giving it. others apparently do not agree with you. if they are attacking your character, as you claim, I havent seen that myself, then just ignore the comment. I find your comments quite good and you actually do post, after I requested it, your sources for your claims made. while your claims are open to interpretation and some might even go as far a cherry picking, for the most part, what you said is quite accurate.

Thanks - appreciate the support. This is what I have an issue with - the way I see it, it attacks my personal integrity:

It is highly disingenuous of you to suggest that the motive for this thread is any other than a Gray v Shepherd debate.

Regarding...

I am also uncomfortable with Shepherd's leadership, but if it was a choice between her and Gray, well I would have to choose her. The only other candidate I see running for mayor that might be able to win over Gray or Shepherd is Kim Ouellette, and even then I am not sure she has enough experience. maybe she deserves another look though.

From: http://forums.castanet.net/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=34100

"As a newcomer, Ouellette garnered just 115 votes in a five person race for mayor in 2005 before picking up 4,056 votes (24%) in a head-to-head race with Shepherd in 2008. Ouellette also sought a seat on council during the 2009 by-election, finishing 13th in a 15 person race with just 45 votes."

The statistics would indicate that a vote for Kim (or Ken or Cal) will be nothing more than a protest vote.

I really can't predict which way it will go between Walter and Sharon though. I do have a hunch that whoever wins this time will get one term before Mayor Zimmerman storms to victory.

[grammafreddy]

I do have a hunch that whoever wins this time will get one term before Mayor Zimmerman storms to victory.

Oh, pleeeeeeze ... nooooooooooooooooo

[richardtaylor1973]

Richard, what I find amazing about your thread, is that you started this attack against Mayor Shepherd earlier tonight and then; when people don't rally around you in support of your comments, act offended.

Many thanks - appreciate the comments.

Not looking for people to rally round - happy to debate the point made. My issue is with my motivations being challenged and called 'disingenuous'. That infers that I support Walter Gray. I do not. It infers that my previous post was untruthful. It was not.

It's obvious from a number of posts that you don't like Mayor Shepherd but really, like I tell my staff, when you critique someone, always offer something up as an alternate solution. It's easy to be an arm chair critic but when you want people to value what you have to say, offer something of substance. From the sidelines, I see your input to this campaign as very negative. I hope you start offering something more other than stirring the pot

I'm a strong believer that "The credit belongs to the man/woman who is actually in the arena". I get that my input here may be seen as negative. In scope of this election, it is. The choices in front of the electorate are not good. A long time ago, I made it be know to a number of local business and public sector leaders that if a strong, serious challenger to Sharon Shepherd were to step forward I would be glad to contribute services to their campaign. It didn't happen.

The positives in this campaign are there. But they are all in promising council candidates. I've spoken about them in other forums (Facebook, Twitter) - and have emailed some candidates directly with questions. I've not done so here, so can see how I've come across as negative and a stirrer.

The positives:

1. There are some good passionate young candidates who, while perhaps not fitting the bill this time may well become great councillors and mayoral candidates in the future - especially if they gain more experience on City committees and/or non-profit boards - the likes of Bobby Kennedy and Scott Ross.

2. There are also some well qualified, straight talking individuals that I was not familiar with before the campaign started that look like they would be very good for the city e.g. Colin Basran, Rob Maybe, Simon Shaw.

3. There are also some other candidates that I'm really looking forward to hearing more from in the campaign and discovering the substance behind their well-recognised names: Maxine DeHart, Gail Given, Mohini Singh, Gerry Zimmermann.

4. Carol Gran seemed to make solid decisions in her previous term so I'm glad to see her running.

5. All the current candidates are re-running. While I hope we see significant change I'm glad to see their experience in the mix - especially Stack, James, Blanleil, Rule & Craig.

[Relentless]

The statistics would indicate that a vote for Kim (or Ken or Cal) will be nothing more than a protest vote.

Personally, I don't understand why anyone would even think of voting for Sharon or Walter, neither have a clue of the right approach.

We basically need a clean slate, with fresh new people that are not set in their ways and want to learn and work for the people of this City.
Kelowna is a real mess in every way and needs a new approach by new people.
What we have now is a bunch of arrogant people who haven't got a clue of what reality is.
And, they do whatever they like, even though the taxpayers don't agree.

Get the shovel out