If your not an incumbent give up hope

In the last week of the 2010 Ottawa municipal election campaign the Ottawa Citizen is releasing a series of editorial pieces identifying their choices for council in the various wards across the city. If their choices continue to favour incumbent councillors for re-election, as they have today (October 18) then newcomers don’t stand a chance and change in Ottawa will never happen.

 

 In almost every case the Citizen cites lack of experience as the main reasons for rejecting newcomers, even though in some cases they have some new ideas. If we don’t vote some of the newcomers in how will they ever gain experience and how will we ever see any improvement in the way council behaves and performs?

 

 The Citizen accuses candidate Clinton Cowan of talking in platitudes. This is interesting because Hume’s campaign is almost entirely based on platitudes. In an October 5 press release Hume claims that he has created a comprehensive development program to position Ottawa as a world class city:

• Firstly he wants to “pre-zone” areas to introduce fixed height restrictions. It is surprising that he has been chair of planning and environment committee for so long and is only now suggesting that changes are needed.
• Secondly he says that Ottawa has the potential to be one of the most aesthetically pleasing capitals in the world if the planning process is overhauled. Has Hume seen some of the strip mall and big box mall development that is taking place on every open space and suburban development across the city; development approved by planning committee under his watch? How can Hume miss the fact that Ottawa is one eyesore after another for miles along Carling, Richmond and Baseline? Now he wants yet another eyesore on the canal at Lansdowne Park.
• Hume picks up on one of Larry O’Brien’s ideas, citing Sparks Street as an example of poor development in the city centre. Existing and past municipal councils, of which Hume has been a member, have failed to communicate effectively with senior levels of government on this and other issues for years and years. Why should voters believe him now?
• Hume quotes urban designer George Dark’s praising of Hume’s planning initiatives. Interestingly, Dark is being paid by the city for work he is performing on Hume’s portfolio. No wonder he sings Hume’s praises!

As a resident of Ward 18 (Alta Vista/Canterbury/Riverview) I was particularly incensed by the Citizen’s rationale for supporting Peter Hume. I happen to support one of Hume’s opponents, but for the first time ever all of the three candidates opposing Hume are viable and have good platforms. The only thing any of them lack is the level of financial contribution needed to mount a large campaign. This is no problem for Hume, having a war chest from past campaigns – a war chest built largely by the developer community.

 

Cowan is right in saying that troublesome areas have crept into the culture at city hall; the power of special interest groups; and the failure of councillors to consult the community regarding past developments. “People now feel that special interest groups have hijacked our seat at council and at the Planning and Environment Committee….” says Cowan.

 

The Citizen editorial writer cites the televised debate on Rogers. My recollection of the debate is that Hume blustered and interrupted at every opportunity, attempting to put his opponents off-base. Any credibility Hume may have had before that debate, which was zero to precious little, completely evaporated and left him looking like the small, aggressive bully he is.

 

Had the writer attended the all-candidate event hosted by Riverview Park Community Association last week in Ward 18 he/she would have seen a high level of enthusiasm for Hume’s opponents and Hume’s handling of questions from the Riverview Park community was pitifully off-base.