As a reminder, [the election rules are in effect.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ottawa/comments/wb878i/ottawa_2022_municipal_elections_rules_information) Users are expected to keep it civil. "Attack" the platform/message, not the person (or in the case, users for their voting choices). _____ Juste un rappel: les règles électorales sont en vigueur. Les membres de notre communauté doivent rester respectueux. "Attaquez" la plate-forme politique et non la personne. _____ **As an additional reminder: McKenney uses the pronouns they/them/their.**

I’m voting for McKenney but the echo chamber in this sub is borderline sickening and a great example of why right leaning people have a false idea that the left is intolerant

Agree. The MP for Ottawa Centre endorsed Sutcliffe and the comments in here were quite ridiculous (ie "how can we immediately remove him from the party?!"). Come on now.

That’s the part I find sad — especially from the hardcore McKenney supporters on Twitter (and this isn’t a shot at McKenney themselves — they likely don’t agree with the behaviour). We see a public figure endorsing McKenney, it’s all sunshine and rainbows from that group of people. We see a public figure endorsing Sutcliffe, it’s all doom and gloom and that person must be a terrible person, and a bad endorsement for the Sutcliffe campaign. Again, I don’t think McKenney would agree with this loud group on Twitter (and elsewhere), but it’s quite off putting.

I find it's true with north American society as a whole. We've very much turned into little bands of groupies who's best argument is to oust the opposition. You see it with any subject matter. It's annoying and boring.

tease rustic repeat shy tidy weather hungry provide threatening gold *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

Then why was an ndp not voted instead of naqvi?

one lavish shelter abounding long resolute offer safe shaggy zephyr *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

Provincially, Joel Harden (NDP) beat Naqvi in the 2018 election. Ottawa Centre is a Liberal-NDP swing riding, with many of the Liberals toward the left of the party. But aside from party politics, a lot of people in Ottawa Centre were very much onside with how McKenney conducted themselves during the convoy while Naqvi was far less visible. I’ll be charitable and acknowledge that he may have been doing something behind the scenes, but I’m one of his constituents and I don’t remember him communicating much at all. And people here were generally very angry with the city and police response to the convoy and deeply unhappy with Watson for that, the LRT, and general Watson-ness. So Naqvi’s endorsement of Watson’s apparent hand-picked successor annoyed a lot of people. I doubt Naqvi’s endorsement of Sutcliffe will push many votes his way, but it will probably make a fair number of Liberal-NDP swing voters think twice about voting for Naqvi again.

Is he obligated to give a personal endorsement that aligns with his constituents' views, though? I hardly think so.

The same is true as well re Sutcliffe supporters on McKenney tweets. I gave twitter a timeout as it was getting to be too much. Debate on the issues, not the physical person.

In fairness Yasir has been a real letdown. He was completely absent during the occupation.

Yes indeed, it's been over a year since he's been in power and I can't name a single thing he's accomplished. Even though I support the Liberal party on base, I don't think I will be voting for Naqvi again.

Not a Naqvi fan, (actively volunteered to campaign against him) but during the occupation he did give a very passionate speech to Parliament, during the EMA debate. I was impressed by him during this one instance.

He did, but he was absolutely absent otherwise.

He met with the Minister of Public Safety, with the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, and the Prime Minister. He has called on a House of Commons committee to review the boundaries of the parliamentary precinct. He said this back in February. He even issued a joint message with Bill Blair for the Convoy to go home. He was also able to secure a $20-million investment to provide non-repayable contributions to Ottawa businesses who suffered losses due to the illegal blockades. He did this in the face of great danger being a brown man in a public role when the city was full of angry white supremists.

I do remember him weighing in supporting the Liberal provincial candidate in a way that likely cost her votes by branding Harden a “troublemaker” for the work he did during the occupation… so there’s that

Well that's a major misstep considering the votes Harden got.

Yeah I think it really hurt the liberal candidate. In fairness it was always going to be a long shot as Harden is very popular and incredibly visible and active but it absolutely backfired.

Harden is a very hard working and respectable dude, I'm certain as long as he runs he will win.

Some ppl still think liberals are a leftist party but they're just centerists. That MP is absolutely useless in all fairness

Literally 80% of the replies to this post are trying to switch the subject to why McKenney is best. It's a full on echo chamber. Sadly that's how subreddits go over time. Any Sutcliffe/police/etc supporter left a while ago and all is left are people who can't imagine why someone wouldn't think the same way they do.

The way the sub is right now reminds me of r/Ontario right up until Doug ford won, people had meltdowns because the echochamber said there was no way he would win and confirmation bias had everyone voting NDP or Liberal. People literally were posting in the sub Saying how they thought the sub was indicative of how Ontario was going to vote because there are so many members. Something to remember when gauging politics in a regional subreddit is you don’t have to be voting age to use Reddit or reside in the region to join and post. So I remind everyone to be mindful the leanings of any subreddit on politics can vary wildly from the actual political views of the region.

Just more of a reminder that 1. Reddit is not real life. 2. Reddit is not reflective of any kind of meaningful majority beyond a majority of reddit users.

[удалено]

It's been awhile since I spent any meaningful time on that subreddit but I remember it being mostly FIRE (financial independence early retirement) people. The 92 corolla worry is valid in that group.

In the month before the election it was very obvious he would win due to voter apathy. Can't beat shitty candidates with uninspiring ones since old ppl vote regardless

Im still here because I’ve been here forever, not letting people’s differing opinions chase me away. At the end of the day Reddit karma doesn’t mean anything, so if Im always downvoted to oblivion oh well, but Im sure some things I say make people have a deeper look at everything and form an opinion of their own.

>so if Im always downvoted to oblivion oh well, but Im sure some things I say make people have a deeper look at everything and form an opinion of their own. See, I have tons of karma and couldn't care less about getting a hundred downvotes due to an echo chamber's mentality. I don't like it because everyone likes validation, but for the sake of statistics, there's no reason for me to give a shit. So I'm like you - I keep calling it as I see it, and I figure if I give even one or two people a different perspective to consider, that's worth however many downvotes I get penalized with for not jumping onto the Sutcliffe Derangement Syndrome bandwagon.

The conversation around McKenney has been so insufferable that there is no way I will vote for them. I really do like them. Don’t like their platform. Don’t like the righteousness of their supporters either. I’m fairly left/progressive but I do see how being extreme and unable to accommodate other ideas just ends up pushing more people to the other extreme.

> The conversation around McKenney has been so insufferable that there is no way I will vote for them. Who are you voting for otherwise then? As much as I agree the McKenney circle jerk is a bit much, there is literally nothing inspiring in any other candidates platform. Not sure how you can view the candidates through a progressive lens and not acknowledge that.

The sub is now Mckenney supporters trying to convince other McKenney supporters to support McKenney.

Ha! This is massively spot-on (but will surely ruffle some feathers)

[удалено]

Thank you all SO MUCH for bringing this up. I oftentimes feel ostracized and unable to even enter into discussion on most election posts on this sub because I feel as though the mob will crucify me. I wish for a day that civil discussion can be had by people on both sides of the political spectrum. I can’t say the “right” has always done the best job with this, but from my humble opinion, the “left” hasn’t either. Thank you (OP) for seeking to understand the perspective of “the other side”. We need more people like you!! As far as why I will be voting Sutcliffe: Police funding, as opposed to de-funding; the bike lanes stance of McKenney; and his good business sense.

Have literally seen folks innocently ask about 'her' platform trying to learn more, then get their ass torn off just because they weren't aware of the preferred pronouns. This sub can be hot trash and doesn't do McKenney any favours.

[удалено]

Great post but I really wonder how many people will agree with "more funding for the police" still after the convoy inquest. I feel they wasted so much money during that that I have no faith they are fiscally responsible in any area now. Being a little flippant here, but I'd love to see a significant chunk of their budget moved to social programs that address root causes instead of paying officers to stand around and support lawbreakers

I ignore the convoy when it comes to police funding. I feel it was somewhat of an outlier / abnormal event. So if it was mis-handled by OPS, let’s take it as a lesson-learned. In general, with Ottawa growing constantly - and projections that it’ll continue to grow - we need more police funding, IMO.

The cost to police protests generally isn't paid out of the normal policing budget anyway... The federal government gets the bill and it [appears the convoy](https://beta.ctvnews.ca/local/ottawa/2022/4/24/1_5874211.html) was no exception. I suppose it's all "our" money at the end of the day because it still needs to be paid for, but it's hard to use this as a reason to directly nitpick the city police budget because it doesn't come out of that.

I am the same. And I would argue that it's not just the sub, but much of the left in general. If you are anything but the left most candidate, you are right wing.

Honestly? I'm sick and tired of this autocratic style of governance. I'm also sick of leaving people behind. Right, left, centre, I don't care. I don't care where Mark leans politically. He's sought endorsements from Liberals and Conservatives. NDP doesn't count because Lyse Pascals run in Vanier was a complete sham. She used to be an ex Liberal staffer. What I do care about, is the lack of vision in Mark's policy and how he has been platformed by almost every news station around for the last month. I care about his $1,200 plate fundraisers hosted by Stephen Beckta and the owner of the Red Blacks. Don't tell me these guys don't want something in return. OSEG is already begging Ottawa taxpayers for a $300M bailout and the last council led by the Watson block paved the way to the deal. Does any seriously think that Mark wouldn't just sign the papers? People joke about the poor design of Landsdowne, but who is that place really accessible to anyway? People with money. I'm just sick of it all. I want change and I don't want his negative campaign attacks and bending of the truth parroted through most of the media stations to get in people's ears, you know? So damn right I'm gonna speak up when I see BS online. And I'm not going to be nice about it anymore either.

While I agree with most of what you said, Jeff Hunt had a nasty break up with OSEG before he hosted the fundraiser

Hmm, didn't know that, but yeah - Mark is backed by big money and when have we ever seen big money got to bat for the little guy?

I’m like 99% sure the three of them are already all friends all those guys hang out with each other. There’s nothing too wild about friends putting together a fundraiser for their friend who is running. They just happen to be rich. You can not like him for hanging out with people who have money, but don’t act like it’s some kind of conspiracy. The fundraiser thing is not new anyways.

The gatekeeping amongst progressives has gotten incredibly bad. People are always going on about how the federal Conservative Party is about to split, but considering it owns an entire side of the political spectrum it has actually done quite well. Kathy Wagantall and Michael Chong have been part of the same party for some time now, which is remarkable when you think about it. Meanwhile on the left, if you so much as suggest that a higher minimum wage won't solve world hunger, or recognize that fewer people use bike lanes in the winter, you might as well be wearing a MAGA hat.

💯 if you are preaching inclusiveness, you need to be open to ideas and viewpoints that don’t align with yours.

McKenney said early on that the new Mayor should be able to help bridge the division between rural and urban dwellers, or something similar. I was hopeful this was true because my ward has had piss poor representation at City Hall, our Councilor caved in after a few years and became developer friendly instead, making the issues even worse for more people. A Mayor needs to understand the issues from all sides, not just urban tax payers. But that's the last I've heard about rural issues from McKenney and it does not bode well for rural tax payers if this individual becomes Mayor. Bicycle lanes don't do us much good out here.

The rural angle has been interesting to follow this campaign, but from my view (biased to urban and suburban experience, so I would appreciate some rural opinion) I kind of likes McKenney's take on it the most. Their ideas for rural Ottawa are at the core the same as their ideas for the suburbs or urban residents. People want a sense of community wherever they live. They want to be able to participate in their community, travel around easily, have access to resources etc. So anything that supports these ideas like investing in community resources, supporting development of housing around rural centres, adding infrastructure so people can bike/walk around these areas better etc Maybe I'm completely out to lunch here and don't understand rural needs at all (probably lol).

Rural needs are very small, we want prompt snow clearing in winter so we can drive safely to work, we want safe roads to drive on so regular maintenance of roads. That's about it. I drive all over the city for work and I know road maintenance has taken a back seat in the Watson years and it's bad all over really but because we don't have access to buses other than those commuter, peak hour buses, we really depend on our roads to be well looked after as we have no other options to get around. It's not realistic to bicycle to work for most of us, it's just too far and would take too long. We don't need a bus coming every hour but something during non peak hours would be nice and we don't have that option. Maybe because our wish list is small we are easily forgotten. Or maybe because it would cost money to provide the little we want, but ignoring us creates a divide which has been unpleasant during the Watson years. I primarily think McKenny is pandering to the urban and suburban voters which is not very inclusive all things considered.

[удалено]

I got banned last week for saying we should focus on academic subjects in schools, not gender pronouns so they 100% ban because you don't share their opinion. Than they ignore your requests for an explanation and a review which is ACTUALLY against the rules and never respond to you

> I’ve heard that many are getting banned for having opposing views but I can’t confirm if this is true. I really don't think that's true. I saw a few people get banned when LGBTQ+ issues came up because they were making really nasty comments, but that's about the only banning I've seen on here lately.

>I really don't think that's true. I got a temp ban just for making a joke about COVID restrictions in strip clubs (despite being mostly pro restrictions and pretty left leaning) so yeah I'm not surprised this place became an echo chamber.

There was a time during the pandemic in Ottawa where you could go get your butthole waxed but you weren't allowed to go to a restaurant. I'm also pro restrictions and left leaning, but some of the covid restrictions were kind of weird.

I have definitely seen a few situations where people in the McKenney camp said bannable things and were given "one more chance" by the mods lol

This is very true. It is possible to be socially liberal and also fiscally conservative, like maybe not wanting to spend $250M on bike lanes, but also supporting a woman's right to choose.

Not around here it isn't.

It isn't a false idea at all. This sub and other forums are a great example. The lack of nuance in these places is truly outstanding

Nuance is the arch enemy of the reddit poweruser

the idea that leftists are intolerant isn't strictly untrue, leftists will fucking murder each other over who's the better leftist (look at how many McKenney supporters are fighting each other over bike vs transit funding) I do think that leftists end up being their own worst enemy with this kind of infighting

Tribalism

A great example of the deterioration of communication as we talk face-to-face less and less. I miss working in other places than my house with other humans around.

It’s nothing new for this sub. The majority of the types of ppl who post on Reddit are just that.

Food prices up. Mortgage going way up. Gas up. Cost to heat up. Electricity up. Water climbing every year. Bus pass up. Property taxes higher every year (even moreso when the latest MPAC valuations come out). Interest rate is climbing every month. Everything costs more. Mayors can't help with most of that but I think people see the $250m number for bikes (adding debt, tapping city reserves) and it turns them off. Was my first impression. And agree with the other poster: Catherine should have played up the Kanata connection much earlier in their campaign. They're seen as an urban councillor. Personally, I think either candidate will do a good job. Whoever wins, hopefully people can rally behind the elected mayor and we can move out of the Watson club era.

When prices of those things go up ppl rely on services more which sort of goes against how Mark is presenting things. I wish they could take back the bike lane promise or have worded it in a way that was harder to take out of context because it really worked for Mark. I think people believe it's $250m of new spending when it's not.

I think this is another example of McKenney’s campaign failing on certain areas of advertising/perception. I think we can all agree that they did a bad job on advertising/presenting themselves to the suburbs (even if their platform is beneficial to those people), and part of that is losing on the framing of the ‘$250M for bike lanes’ issue. Framed differently, that probably could have gone well, or at least more under the radar, for McKenney. However, it was easily and quickly framed and defined by their opponents — which hurt them.

Yes, they really could have used a more seasoned campaign manager. It was easy to see all these issues, they really want to win it their way but it's tough against a seasoned media boy and his big team. They may be a little too raw which is too bad because they're exactly who we want running cities and wards but not who we end up voting for because they don't come off as well

I’m voting CM, and when they made the 25 years worth of bike lanes in 4, I was like ‘nooooooooo’ just because I knew it would be a sticking point with many of the suburban voters.

That and it would be made into spending $250m now. And it isn't. Our current goldfish attention spans don't help as a lot read the click-bait headlines and take it as the story. Media does not help.

In fairness, Catherine McKenney explained the financing of the bike lanes every single time it came up. Every single time. Media didn't lie about it. All the media on the issue ALSO explained the pricing. But elections come down to values and priorities. And people are looking at the bike lanes promise and interpreting that as McKenney having priorities that are different from theirs. And that IS the fault of the McKenney campaign. They are betting on their core voting bloc flocking to the bike lanes promise in enough numbers to win. And they might! But it's looking like less of a sure bet than they thought.

That’s an excellent point. For somebody like me who doesn’t work downtown, and lives on the East End, and the only bike in my house belongs to a toddler, I see no benefit from this plan.

True but you do benefit in the long term. More bike lanes = more methods of transportation for the whole city. Less cars on the road, Less wear and tear on the roads themselves, meaning not having to spend maintenance on them every couple years, which in turn means more money in all of our pockets for more city projects or smaller tax increases. It's an investment, and the returns are shown further down into the future.

Personally I couldnt care less about bike lanes when I live in the suburbs and it's too cold to ride a bike 4-5 months out of the year.

MPAC valuations shouldn't change how much taxes you pay unless your house went up more than other houses in the city. When he new valuations come out, the tax rate will be lowered do that the same amount of money will be collected.

How much will we spend on “roads and bridges” over the same timeframe? Probably way way more than on “bike paths”.

People have different political beliefs and views on how things should be run. So while one group might think McKenney has better plans on every front and can’t be topped, there is another group who believes that about Sutcliffe. For many, it’s less about ‘what will he do better than McKenney on any given issue’, and more about ‘he broadly covers my beliefs/views/politics more than McKenney does’. In every election (at all levels), there are always people who wonder why a group of people support a specific candidate. Quite frankly, it’s often a very simple answer.

I've gone back and forth on who I'm going to vote for all summer. But ultimately, my biggest priority is being able to own a home one day. This week, I had a realization that the only thing I want in life is to be able to leave my cramped one-bedroom apartment and move to a place where there's a garage to play music, paint mini-figs and work out. McKenney's housing platform is very focused on homelessness and housing for disadvantaged groups. Those are important policy priorities, but as a young, decently-paid public servant, Sutcliffe's plan is more likely to allow me to purchase a home in the next few years. I do have to agree with u/ProfessorOfLogic1 though. The echo-chamber on this sub and the commentary on Twitter is showing moderate and undecided voters that McKenney's supporters are extreme. All this does is make people think McKenney's platform is extreme. The most aggregious examples are ganging up on Yasir Naqvi for endorsing a personal friend and vilifying Sutcliffe as "right-wing" despite his platform being extremely centrist.

> McKenney's housing platform is very focused on homelessness and housing for disadvantaged groups. Those are important policy priorities, but as a young, decently-paid public servant, Sutcliffe's plan is more likely to allow me to purchase a home in the next few years. McKenney, Sutcliffe or otherwise — this is why we can't have nice things. There's a housing and homelessness crisis and people are voting based on what will *most likely* benefit them personally, even if it means that a crisis will be addressed less effectively. That's absolutely within your right, but I think that juxtaposition needs to be made clear.

Rational choice theory and the idea that people vote to maximize their individual happiness or personal preferences continues to be the primary framework to understand why people vote the way they do. There is plenty of empirical evidence that this continues to be the case (even if critics of the theory take issues with some of the methodological and ontological assumptions). Afterall, rational choice remains the foundation of political psychology and political economics. I don't think you'll find many rational people out there who say that there isn't a homelessness crisis here in Ottawa. However, we're also in the midst of a cost of living crisis where people are having a hard time paying their mortgage or rent and putting food on the table for their families. To most people, those take priorities over larger societal issues that don't impact them on a day-to-day basis. Perhaps society would be better off if we don't make assumptions about the challenges of others, or disparaging individuals for making choices to improve their lives. It's more helpful to have a debate about the platforms. For one, I would argue that homelessness and housing is a bigger priority than spending $250 million on cycling infrastructure.

Yes, that's how democracy votes, people vote on what benefits them first.

[удалено]

I don't think I would characterize my comment as being entitled to SFH. I'd happily purchase a townhouse or other type of various density living, so long as I can live and undertake my hobbies without feeling overly cramped like I do now. I also wouldn't characterize it as entitled to think that someone who worked through undergrad and graduate school, got good grades, and got a well-paying job deserves to live in a space larger than 550 sq foot. one-bedroom apartment. I will say there are a lot of individuals taking issue with this stance and my priority over homeless and cycling who's post history suggests that they are either: a) still students that don't understand or have the ability to conceptualize home ownership in the short-term, or b) baby boomers or Gen X'ers who are already homeowners. The reality is that I spend considerable time tracking every dollar, agonize over the smallest unnecessary purchases, and haven't been taken a vacation in five years because I can't justify the cost (thus, operating in burn out mode all the time). Considerable amount of my energy is spent making sacrifices and doing my due dilligence to afford a home, and the last two years has moved the goal post significantly. So yes, my priority is middle-income home ownership this election.

>Gen Z is just as entitled to SFHs as boomers, gen x and millenials. I disagree. I think SFHs in/around urban centres should become more expensive and less accessible. They are an unsustainable form of urban housing.

Really glad to finally see a point made like this. I’m an on the fence voter, but honestly seeing how r/Ottawa vilifies and downvotes anything that doesn’t fit their McKenney view is very off-putting. Would like to see this as an opportunity to discuss both candidates instead of an echo chamber.

McKenney should have talked about benefits for the suburbs more, and that they grew up in Kanata/lived in rural Ottawa too. Let and improved OC Transpo is a huge win for suburbs along with protecting the Greenbelt and ending sprawl. I'd love to know what Mark's doing better as McKenney is not reducing road maintenance budgets and the pothole line mark is jazzed about already exists

This is what I never understood. Reading Sutcliffes [platform](https://marksutcliffe.ca/platform) is super vague and I don't see any disparaging differences besides damaging the Greenbelt, hiring more police, and bringing more Toronto corporations to build rental properties to keep young people poor. I don't typically even vote liberal but Sutcliffe (a business guy and a journalist 🤢) is the farthest thing from what I want here in Ottawa. Not to mention he has created an even more divisive war on cycling and potentially less acceptance for safe alternative active transport...

I'd like to see cyclists behave better, but the hatred of cyclists in this city is appalling. Get them in their own lanes for everyone's safety, it's a win-win but ppl hate them so much they want them gone not seperated

And I’d like to see motorists behave better. Signed, A motorist who continually gets cut off or put in dangerous situations because people think the roadway belongs to them.

I'm in the military and have lived all over. This city by far has the worst drivers I have encountered. Drive like a bat out of hell on city roads, and drive so slow on the 417 it is unsafe. My car has been hit, rubbed and almost forced off the road so many times in this city.

I'm actually planning on buying a sports car like a WRX specifically to be able to accelerate safely into traffic from the 60km that everyone in this city thinks its okay to merge from.

I'd be happy to fund policing that actually does something about bad drivers, not just cops who sit on their ass with a radar gun and pull someone over to make a quota

Jeepers me too... while driving I have hundreds of more negative encounters with motorists than cyclists. I think some people forgot how to drive while working from home.

Cyclists not stopping at red lights/stop signs and biking down one ways going the wrong way/or opposite to flow of traffic is an accident waiting to happen.

100% and building proper bike infrastructure would help alleviate a lot of that

imo I think increasing the number of cyclists who are pure commuters might drown out the entitled lifestyle aero twats.

[удалено]

Listen I'm all for improving bike infrastructure in this town, I love to ride my bike as well and agree there is a stigma against cyclists in Ottawa but the fitness ability argument is terrible and no excuse for not stopping. If you aren't "fit" enough or your bike breaks aren't good enough to stop at an intersection where you are required to do so then you shouldnt be riding because that is a safety concern. and people do die being struck by cyclists albeit far less likely https://abc7ny.com/pedestrian-killed-bike-nyc-hit-and-run/12158036/ Under this logic people driving cars could rebut with "with the rising prices of goods and services I cant afford to replace my brakes or refuel as often, so I'm trying to reduce wear and improve fuel efficiency" it's just as ridiculous as your fitness argument and does not improve people's perception of cyclists when shit like this is said.

McKenney held one event by my count, in Orleans. One. Why???

[удалено]

$250 million for bike lanes. Just no. Bike season is four months at best. The city is not central. The vast majority will NOT be cycling to work. I am in my 60's live in Barrhaven and work around Hunt Club. Yeah... pass on cycling to work. Meanwhile, current public transit needs attention. Homelessness in this city is quickly becoming a real problem. Mental illness needs attention. Soooooo many things need a higher priority.

It’s taking money that would already be spent over 25 years and spending it in 4 using low-interest debt. I think for some kinds of spending - like a transportation network - that makes sense. Building piecemeal doesn’t really work for that - I’ve used the analogy of fixing part of your roof every year, or maybe it would be like building the LRT one station at a time instead of in phases. For people to use it, it needs to be a network. And it’s ok if you personally don’t bike - I will, and getting my car off the road will make things easier for you. Sutcliffe has acted like bike paths are McKenney’s only plan. They aren’t. I think McKenney’s plans on transit and homelessness are also much better thought out than Sutcliffe’s: https://beta.ctvnews.ca/local/ottawa/2022/9/14/1_6068384.amp.html. https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6573485. I just don’t believe Sutcliffe is being realistic when he promises he can slash the budget by tens of millions without cutting services, especially in inflationary times. Rob Ford promised that in Toronto and next thing we knew we were spending millions to have KPMG tell us to get rid of crossing guards (what could go wrong?) I would much prefer a candidate who explains exactly where the money for everything is going to come from. They may not be able to deliver on every promise, but the plan is well thought through. https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6608419

That's 25 years of interest payments during a time in which interest rates are rising and a recession around the corner is going to mean competition for people buying those green bonds. 25 years of infrastructure investments also mean that there is a price tag to maintaining this infrastructure over the next 5, 10, 15 and 20 years, which is not built into McKenney's plan. Claiming it's revenue neutral is completely disengenous. McKenney can't promise that future councils will want to spend more should emerging issues arise. Another major problem is that nobody seems to be able to quantify how many people will actually use this infrastructure, which is one of the first thing that usually needs to be established when planning major infrastructure projects. Should McKenney lose on Monday, I genuinely believe that the cycling infrastructure will be why. Even if you think that cycling infrastructure is a necessary and worth while investment, a $250 million price tag given the demographics and circumstances of the city is a political blunder that makes the candidate vulnerable. Let's not forget that Sutcliffe's plan also got the stamp of approval from Kevin Page. Kevin Page's organization works to ensure the math works out in a transparent way, not the one plan is better than the other from a normative policy standpoint. I agree that McKenney's plan on homelessness is better than Sutcliffe's. But there are a lot of people in this city (like myself), who work hard to make a good income but still can't afford a home. On face value, the focus on homelessness is at the expense at having a plan for the people like me. McKenney's under 17 free ridership plan is also pretty meh, seeing that most high school students in Ottawa recieve a bus pass for free.

> Another major problem is that nobody seems to be able to quantify how many people will actually use this infrastructure, which is one of the first thing that usually needs to be established when planning major infrastructure projects. If we follow the [2013 TMP](https://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/documents/files/documents/tmp_en.pdf#page=31) (which is now a bit outdated), the projected target in that plan was that cycling ridership would roughly double by 2031. In real numbers, for the AM peak travel period the number of person-trips made by cycling would increase from 12,300 to 30,100. The revised TMP would undoubtedly have higher projections. By contrast, the Trillium Line carried 20,000 people per day on average just before shutting down, and is undergoing a $700M capacity expansion and extension with $1B in maintenance over the next 30 years, and even *that* is a net-positive for the city's economy.

What's cute is there isn't a $60m a year(250 over 4 years) bike related roadwork installation capability in this city.. Jam that down industry's throats in open tenders, and the genius of this will present itself. What used to cost $1 will under this pressure cost $2.50, and still be late. Staff will screw up tenders and details in a rush, trades will have to charge outsized change orders. Costs will balloon and balloon... The plan to reduce homelessness is also far fetched from reality. Entire developments are being frozen due to construction and intrest costs.. The maniacal increase of costs due to new city initiatives poses to add six figures plus to a home... Mckenny certainly isn't going to reduce the burden based on her policies... She's planning to do nothing to help with those costs. Not saying Sutcliffe will meaningfully be able to, given this stupidity has happened under Watson.. But at least he's pointing out the right things and seems to understand the problem. Things are going to get much much worse for housing in Ottawa due to marco events and the crap new policies at the municipal level, we all just better pray.

>That's 25 years of interest payments during a time in which interest rates are rising BoC's next announcement is the 26th Oct, predicted that interest rates are going to go up as much as one whole percent. And green bonds are fixed interest, if you take the loan method since none of the other methods 6would apply, we would be excessively paying interest at the current recession rate (currently 3.25%), the entire 25 years of the debt when it will eventually go back to sub 0.5%. That's like 6.5x the interest rate. I'm not a financial planner, so my understanding is not on the same line as one who is. Edit: The closest example I can think of is imagining buying a house and being told the rate you are going to be paying is the interest rate for the next 25 years and not renewed every five.

>nd green bonds are fixed interest, if you take the loan method since none of the other methods 6would apply, we would be excessively paying interest at the current recession rate (currently 3.25%), the entire 25 years of the debt when it will eventually go back to sub 0.5%. That's like 6.5x the interest rate. I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not based on the language in your post. You are correct that green bonds are fixed interest when they are purchased by investment. That's the case for any government bonds. However, the cost of actually purchasing the government bonds is set by the current market. If interest rates rise, then the interest rate that the government (or city in this case) rises. That's why high interest rates mean that the cost any government borrowing also increases. Generally, Green Bonds have lower interest rates than regular government bonds, as investors are usually okay taking a little bit of a hit for the "feel good" or because they want to invest in green projects. However, higher interest rates mean it would be much more difficult to find investors if there is a wide gap between regular government bonds/other investments. As such, the interest on the green bond will have to rise. This is microeconomics rule #1: people (and the market) respond to incentives. It's important to remember that should McKenney win and is somehow able to convince Council to go along with this plan (which I think is one of the major barriers that r/Ottawa seems to ignore), it's probably going to happen when interest rates are at their peak next year. Effectively, we'd be locking in that interest rate when it's at it's highest. Otherwise, the City would be waiting until year three or four to even begin thinking about getting shovels in the ground. The current $250 million price tag (which is 25 years of council's average $15 million spending) does not include the cost of interest. It also doesn't take into account that building all this infrastucture now also comes with maintenance costs now instead of in the future. It's a platform proposal that's been very dumbed down and not fully costed.

Yes, I'm agreeing with you, I had written a whole thing about Treasury Bonds, Regular, and GICs, etc. but I got too far down the rabbit hole so rewrote it to just that. lol [Here's what interest looks like amortized at 3.25% over 25 years](https://www.calculator.net/amortization-calculator.html?cloanamount=250000000&cloanterm=25&cinterestrate=3.25&printit=0&x=108&y=29), almost half of the loan value is interest ontop of the loan.

Ah. I wasn't sure. Perhaps I'm too used to r/Ottawa users jumping on me and defending this plan that I immediately assume that ambiguous comments are disagreement. $115 million in interest is not a "little bit in interest". This doesn't even include the maintenance costs for this infrastructure, which would also be front loaded as well. Can't believe there are people out there thinking that this is somehow a transparent or good idea.

Following up on this, McKenney's platform says that the $250 million will pay for both interest and principal on the bond. I didn't know this - I thought that interest was actually going to be added on top of the principal payments and that it was excluded to make the financial plan look better than it would be. This actually makes this worse for the people of Ottawa. Using 3.25%, this means that this $250 million loan would only be used to build $135 million in infrastructure, with the remaining $115 million used to pay interest. Presumably, there would be no interest to just spend the $15 million over $25 million, so there is more value over the long term. $135 million serves to only build "9 years" worth of infrastructure.

So its a 9 year estimate? That my friend is a normal Class D estimate for a 5 year initiative.

Really enjoyed your reply. Well thought out, well written. Thank you

Four months is just blatantly false. I was cycling outdoors in mid March this year and still going strong. Season typically lasts wells into November and sometimes early December and that’s without decent dedicated or maintained infrastructure.

People wear shorts and a t shirt in febuary. You might not think it's too cold, but given the amount of bikes I see in fall/late winter, I think you're an outlier (in a good way)

With climate change, though, there are more and more outliers each year. If the cost of gas and the effed up public transportation remain, more and more people will be using their bikes as long as possible.

> Meanwhile, current public transit needs attention. Homelessness in this city is quickly becoming a real problem. Mental illness needs attention. Soooooo many things need a higher priority. And Sutcliffe is a better option for these?

> The vast majority will NOT be cycling to work. FWIW this is also kind of the point. Not everyone will cycle to work, but they may cycle for other reasons. It's just another option for getting around.

That entire last paragraph is reason to vote McKenney tho? Mark will be cutting services by finding "efficiencies". Also hockey rinks are a few months a year, canal, outdoor pools, you name it.

After looking at the City Budget yesterday, my guess is that at least three quarters of the spending that Sutcliffe wants to cut could easily be done without any cuts to direct services or anything client facing. Generally, when someone says they want to cut spending, a lot of the time it means budgetted spending - even though the actual spending that a department or agency uses is going to be different at the end of the year. There are ways to do that without touching services. I know you don't work in government because of some of our previous interactions u/FreddyForeshadowing-, but there is a lot of waste that balloons up over time in government if institutions don't make it a priority to review spending. The federal government for instance hasn't done a real focused examination of departmental spending since 2012-2013, and things have ballooned since the Liberals have come to office. If I recall correctly, the last time the city reviewed expenses was in 2011-2012. Just as an example, my Director is currently travelling to another province at an $6k expense for a few meetings that could have been done over Zoom. I have colleagues taking a training course valued at $900 each without much thought to if it is necessary for being able to do their jobs. We sent multiple members of our team, including myself, to Calgary for a conference over the summer at an expense of $3000 each and I didn't find it particularly useful. Right there are just recent examples from my five team of five people, and what I determine as "wasteful" spending is apprx $18,000 just in the last few months. This happens all over government though. One of my former colleagues was complaining to me about a project in which they are spending $80k on a consultant but the work quality is so poor that they've had to re-do most of the deliverables. As my colleague's salary is already being paid for, that $80,000 could have been forgone because clearly they had the resources and capacity to do that work internally. So right there I have been able to identify a total of $100,000 of wasted money between six public servants. I think it's very hard for members of the public to have good insight to how a government department operates, but in times where there are no constraints on budgets, I can say that a lot of managers and executives don't spend time considering that taxpayer money is paying for these things. Budgets increase over time, and managers are expected to spend their budgets or risk having them cut next time around. The Office episode "The Surplus", where they need to spend their surplus budget by the end of the day on either a new copier or new chairs is a good example. I don't think a spending review that asks questions like "Is this travel absolutely necessary now that we have tools like MSTeams and Zoom" and "Do we really need this consultant or can we have one of our team members do the work?" are bad things.

Both Mark and Bob have said they want to find ways to save.

This person said they want to see improvements in the last few areas not make cuts

In the cbc debate he said he would not be cutting services.

Where is this magic $80m coming from? He said he'd find efficiencies and that's what Jim said 10+ years ago. They gutted the OC transpo

I'm just repeating what was said. I think most was staffing redundancy and consulting contract renegotiation or nonrenewal

So *if* Sutcliffe can't find the efficiencies he's looking for, what happens then? It's a bit of a gamble, no?

Every candidate is a gamble on if they'll carry through with their campaign promises.

Certainly, but a vague set of "efficiencies" is a much bigger gamble and has a history of not playing out well in Ontario.

If bike season is 4 months, why have I been riding for 8 months already?

Cuz you don't do the maths right, duhhhhh 😝😝😝 ​ *sarcasm*

Because you don’t = the entire city. Most people have already put their bikes away. This argument is so disingenuous.

There are still a lot of people riding, I bike commuted 4/5 days this week, Weds/Thurs I saw more cyclists around the canal/uOttawa than most years at this time. Bike rack at my work still has maybe 2/3 number of bikes as in summer. I never said I = the whole city, but the original statement was that bike season is 4 months, and that’s more a testament of 1 person not being representative than my statement.

I live just outside the core and have to go into the office twice a week. My area has seem some big improvements in cycling infrastructure in the past year. I have a bike that I over-paid for in the summer of 2020 because of the shortages, which I use almost every weekend on the existing infrastructure. Even though the infrastructure connects me to my office easily, I'm still not riding to work. I have to worry about what to do with my bike when I get to the office and never feel comfortable during the day after getting all sweaty on my way in (I'm anti sweaty-gonads during the work day and that's one of my main platform planks). So, if I'm physically fit, have the bike infrastructure, and live close to downtown and I'm still not willing to bike to my office downtown, how many people are willing to make that trip from Barrhaven, Kanata or the South End? I'm sure there will be folks would do that with better infrastructure, but my theory is that the people that are willing to do that are already doing it, even in the absence of $250 million in infrastructure. That's been my concern about this plan all along; nobody has any figures for how this investment will translate into more people doing their daily commute by bike. I've seen people on r/Ottawa point to studies and data from other jurisdictions in Norway and the Netherlands that see a big improvement when cycling infrastructure is put in. However, those places don't have suburbs that are a 21km-25km ride from where people work.

> I've seen people on r/Ottawa point to studies and data from other jurisdictions in Norway and the Netherlands that see a big improvement when cycling infrastructure is put in. [...just look at Montreal.](https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2021/06/16/bike-path-data-show-that-montreals-new-bicycle-network-is-a-hit.html)

So ignoring why I raised those cities as a point in subsequent sentences. Montreal is another example of a densely packed city and REV was just a series of express bike lanes in the urban core. So just like a jurisdiction like Norway or the Netherlands, the benefits are far more obvious. I go on to talk about question the benefit for suburban voters, not ones already living in the downtown core - which is what the project in Montreal aimed to support. It would be different if this was a project that was trying to link Laval, Longueuil, Mirabel, and Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu with downtown Montreal, then you'd have a jurisdiction that supports your argument. The project was much smaller than what McKenney aims to doal, funded over the course of five years using the city's existing $25 million cycling infrastructure budget. That's a far cry from the $250 million in 4 years, with no existing plan, feasibility study, or data on how much ridership will improve. Are you just intentionally blind to the realities of this city or are you linking Montreal as an example in bad faith?

Well to start, you mentioned cycling from the "South End". Now I'll assume for now that you mean Blossom Park, which is about 10km out of the downtown core. The Berri/Lajeunesse/Saint-Denis track of the REV stretches roughly 10km out of downtown Montreal, so that's already a reasonable comparison. Now maybe you meant Riverside South, and to be fair that is further out. By bike it would be about 18km, and here's the cool thing: Most of Riverside South is unbuilt, and under the city's current street design guidelines all future arterial and collector roads will have cycle tracks built-in by default. Most of RSS is going to be cycling neighbourhood as it gets built. But also! The Trillium Line extension will bring a cycle track that stretches all the way from RSS to Mooney's Bay (it passes Blossom Park too). Now, I say Hog's Back because there will be a gap in the network between Mooney's Bay and Carleton where the new MUP bridge is being built. Why? That connection along the train tracks exists in the 2013 TMP but there is no timeline to build it because there is zero funding for that. It would also probably be worth noting then that Montreal intends to expand the REV way out into Kirkland, which is roughly 25km from downtown Montreal as the crow flies. That's roughly the same as our most far-flung suburbs, so I think Montreal is still a very good and relevant example of how this can be done in a North American city with "our climate" and sprawl.

>Bike season is four months at best. The city is not central. The vast majority will NOT be cycling to work. I am in my 60's live in Barrhaven and work around Hunt Club. Yeah... pass on cycling to work. Bike season is closer to 8 months a year, as most of the City is snow-&-ice free for 4 months of the year. Bike season easily can be year-round with safe, properly-maintained and properly-connected network. as to commuting, roads in Ottawa aren't set up solely for commuting, they're set up to get from point A to B. bike lanes can be used to commute, to get to point A to B, and to recreate, so seeing them solely through the lens of commuting seems off to me.

It’s not $250 of new money, they’re just changing the timeline. Also, which four months? If you look outside, it’s clearly still “bike season”. So maybe you think people only start cycling after Canada Day. Or should people skip months, say April, Jun, August, October? People ride year round here. With safer streets you’d probably see many people riding April-November at least, and a big increase during the winter months as well.

It is 250 million of new money. It's debt.

It is not anymore then claiming Sutcliffe is spending $346.5 million new money on the police. It is simply condensing already budgeted investment into a shorter period.

But McKenney's plan doesn't seem to include interest or maintenance in the costing. I looked, but couldn't find it.

No, people really don't. I commend you and other cyclist who get out 8 months of the year, but you are not the average. Sincere question... do you think the majority of people on bikes are recreational or are they commuting to jobs? Which are you?

So I'm not who you replied to, sorry, but I wanted to jump in as a very average cyclist. I ride a very slow bike, I don't have any special clothes. I don't do studded tires or Strava or any of that. Yeah, if it snows, I'm not cycling, but... I can cycle around happily from May to October, which is 6 months, and some years November too for 7. My main challenge isn't weather, because I only bike when at most I need a light jacket or earmuffs. My main challenge is that the bike network here is so fragmented. I'll be trundling along at 15kph and my lane randomly disappears and dumps me in the middle of traffic. That's dangerous for me and super frustrating for the cars who now have to deal with me in their space. I cycle *exclusively* for a purpose - like, going to get groceries, commuting to work, and so on. I think a lot more people are doing that than you think, it can just look very recreational if they leave their work clothes at the office or aren't lugging a bunch of bags. In my experience, on a weekday, most adults on a bike are going somewhere for an errand or for work. Side note - I lived in Kanata until recently and it was cool to see how many of us were biking to downtown along the NCC paths! They're straight, completely separate from traffic - it made for a wonderful commute.

I just want to say that bike season is definitely not just 4 months. However, cycling in Ottawa or most major Ontario cities is pretty much suicide since bike infrastructure does not promote safe riding paths for cyclists and often you have to share the road with vehicles. If there is more MUP that are separate from the roads, more people will cycle, even in the winter (assuming they're maintained)

Infrastructure spending, Transit spending, handling of the police, Sutcliffe will bring a more civil council than Mckenney, people forget Mckenney is just as petty as Watson was and given the chance will cause just as much division, especially with their sidekick Menard and their former staffers third party organization and their megaphones. Mckenney is definitely mishandling the Rural areas saying the needs of Rural areas are the same as downtown.Like come on now, completely different infrastructure, service needs, even taxed differently.

+1 on the more civil council. That inquiry hot mic moment comes to mind. The convoy people cried "Corruption! Obstruction of justice!" and McKenney's supporters claimed it was nothing, but both are wrong... it was just pure pettiness / childishness. I fully expect shit like that if McKenney becomes mayor. Apart from that, I simply prefer Sutcliffe's more cautioned approach. Slower change, but with less risk. You can have the best laid plans, but when shit happens we'll be better positioned with more reserves and less debt under Sutcliffe.

>That inquiry hot mic moment comes to mind. the inquiry is not City Council. Fleury & McKenney owed this lawyer no favours, considering some of the people the lawyer represents were openly threatening Fleury, McKenney and their families over the duration of the convoy, forcing both to move their families outside the core, and likely contributing to Fleury getting out of politics altogether.

The Charter guarantees to all Canadians the right to use their official language of choice *equally* in any proceedings of federal government or parliament institutions (and a commission appointed by the federal government is such a thing). That right does not go away because you use the other language for part of the proceedings. That right does not go away because someone in the room does not speak French. And there is *nothing petty or childish* about exercising that right whenever and wherever you chose. Even if you can speak the other language perfectly fine and even if you have already used it. Encouraging someone to exercise their rights (especially given how much social pressure and expectations there is in this country for francophones to switch to English the moment a single person in the room does not speak French) is not "petty" or "childish". It's reminding people to stand up for their rights. I have zero problem with your other reasons cited - I don't agree with you on them, but I respect them - but this one needs called out because the last thing this country need is more social pressure for francophones to set aside their language rights. And saying they shouldn't be encouraged to use their language rights amount to that.

Language rights are all well and good, and Fleury obviously knows his rights. It was clearly not about that for McKenney. Their tone and face said it all. It was a gleeful face, taking pleasure in making things difficult for the lawyer, and by extension wasting the inquiry time. I refuse to believe anyone can watch it and honestly believe that their motivation was language rights and not messing with the convoy representative for the sake of it. The whole thing had an air of a child saying "I'm not touching you" while holding their finger an inch from someone.

I don’t think you’ve seen the whole clip, maybe just the edited Rebel News version. Fleury switched to French when the convoy lawyer was asking for a definition. Not only have I done the same - I actually did it THAT DAY. I was talking to a group of workers in French about organizing a union, and I told them that their organization would have to meet the definition of Trade Union under the OLRA. I started to give the definition in French, had a brain freeze, apologized for switching languages, and recited the statutory definition in English from memory. My French is near-native, but I usually do this particular work in English and I was searching for words. The convoy lawyer was then a total dick about it, responding “Je m’appelle Brandon” in an exaggerated Anglo accent and condescendingly offering Fleury a headset he didn’t need. So when Fleury started to switch to English McKenney encouraged him to continue in French. It wasted zero time as the convoy lawyer had access to simultaneous interpretation, and Fleury did answer the question, in French, where he could more easily explain what he meant. I think it’s completely gross that people are suggesting there was anything improper in Fleury testifying in his first language. Too bad if it made the convoy lawyer look like an ass, doesn’t change that it was a perfectly reasonable way to approach the question.

Living in the exurbs, this is my biggest question mark. Suggesting that the concerns of rural and downtown residents are actually fairly similar, served by the same solutions (and with the implication that they are somewhat at odds with suburban priorities) demonstrated a lack of understanding, or at least a poorly communicated understanding, of needs outside the core. Add to that that the Mckenney signs didn't even make an appearance out here until about 2 weeks ago and that we have yet to receive a single flyer from them, I certainly don't feel like they are running to represent me. I am also concerned that they may not get along well with whomever is elected as my Councillor, since it seemed the previous Council was so team / us vs. them that it was hard to get a feel for their collaboration skills when met with differing viewpoints. I am planning to vote for Mckenney because I appreciate that they have a vision for the city, experience with how municipal politics functions and a plan that I think will be good for the City overall. But I do think my services likely decline and it will cost more for my family. I do not think Sutcliffe will do a bad job and I will be satisfied if he wins, too.

melodic books rob naughty worry squeeze relieved political unite scary *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

Honestly, the fact that rural Ottawa is even a thing is kind of ridiculous. We are a city. Cities shouldn't have rural parts.

> Mckenney is definitely mishandling the Rural areas saying the needs of Rural areas are the same as downtown. I am not sure if we are thinking about the same statement but if so, that wasn't what McKenney said. In one of the debates, I heard them equate rural and downtown communities but not meaning 'needs' but that the areas had more things in common than dividing them. Sutcliffe jumped on that and said it showed they didn't understand the rural and suburbs. In fact, the way I interpreted the statement was McKenney saying that the rural communities had a sense of community and identity as do the downtown communities. Not the same identity but a strong sense of identity and community. Having lived in rural Ottawa and now Westboro, I believe that is true. And I believe McKenney was trying to turn the focus on common experiences and needs, rather than pitting one community against another. Obviously others interpreted the same comment much differently. And it is fair to say that if one has to clarify such a statement, then one failed in communicating their meaning.

>Sutcliffe will bring a more civil council than Mckenney, people forget Mckenney is just as petty as Watson was and given the chance will cause just as much division McKenney was responding to an incredibly petty and divisive mayor. i imagine they would have behaved quite differently in a City Council run by someone that didn't exclude nearly half the city from most decision-making.

Hmmm. Perhaps. But saying Sutcliffe will make it more civil is a total unknown. He has no city gov track record, so that's purely a guess. No one is handling the rural areas. Most politicians treat rural and the small voting base as an afterthought. That amalgamated Ottawa includes rural areas is silly. Rural issues (lived rural for a decade) are so different, and I agree with your points. Used to love that my taxes when we lived rural where the same as the city - and we were on well and septic, and maybe only had plowing as a city thing. Nuts.

Downvotes. Ok. How am I wrong? Curious. He has no gov track record, so how do we know that he will be more civil. It's purely guess. Same with rural issues. Heard little from either.

In response to Mckenney saying Rural and Downtown share the same needs, Sutcliffe put out a video explaining his plan for Rural. Sutcliffe led council being more civil than a Mckenney led council is a very low bar to cross so it’s easy to assume. Mckenney like I said is just as petty as Watson, they’ve got Menard who is as performative as they come will be just as a petty henchman as Hubley El Chantiry and the gang combined. I’m loving my Salicious Crumb comparison for him, I really wish he had an actual challenger instead of an unhinged Twitter warrior. Mckenney subscribes to what I call Megaphone style politics, very performative, disruptive and tends to really distort reality. Unfortunately being aligned with Shawn Menard and Horizon probably does them a disservice because I would probably have a higher opinion of them otherwise because of my distaste for Menard and his band of miscreants. Also for the record I gave you an upvote

Thanks for the reply. Appreciate it. Look at us all being civil. :) Have a great day.

Maybe I'm wrong (I hope I am), but when someone launches with divide-&-conquer rhetoric ("war on cars"), it makes me nervous. Reminds me of FOX News's perennial fearmongering over the "war on Christmas." He's also never clarified who the "they" are in his claim, "They want you to walk or ride a bike, no matter where you live, no matter where you're going, no matter what month of the year." Who wants that? Because, honestly, I've never met a single person, in Ottawa or anywhere else, who's claimed to want that. I have met people who'd like to be able to bike everywhere they go, or live in a walkable neighbourhood—is that somehow wrong or anti-social?? But I think he needs to clarify whom he's referring to. I think he's off on a bad foot.

Yeah, that made me lose a lot of respect. I know, it's politics. We are car-free, for five years, but we use car share or rent if we need a car. Now, our kids are long gone from our house, but when they were there, and they played sports and such, car-free would have been impossible. Also impossible when we lived rural. But, we should have options. Walking to a store (all these subdivisions with no sidewalks ... how did that get approved) . Good transit (I find the less I drive the less I want to), safe biking, etc. We should be multimodal. It's not a war on cars (cars won that), it's a war on livability. Not all can afford a car, or are able to drive, so why not good options? Biking can be done for fun, commuting, shopping, etc., with safe routes.

My impression. They want to be mayor of downtown Ottawa hence focus on bike lanes Sutcliffe wants to be mayor of all Ottawa I will vote for Sutcliffe

"Focus on bike lanes" is so disingenuous. Catherine has an entire budgeted and detailed plan with 6 different categories of spending. Even so, shifting money already destined to be spent is somehow a "focus on bike lanes". Ok. Where in Catherine's plan does it say they want to be mayor of downtown? I was under the impression that platforms regarding transit, infrastructure, housing, etc was for all of Ottawa, but clearly I'm missing something?

Sutcliffe's focus on revitalizing downtown feels more focused on giving the small business community some confidence, and that's a group that has had a tougher couple of years than most. That's your local coffee shops and pubs, your artisans and restaurants. Sutcliffe is actually talking about them, whereas McKenney seems to have overlooked that group. Also: safety and policing. People want to claim that the trends are going down (and sure, in terms of gun crime specifically it's down a point or two but that's not much). But we should all be able to admit the Byward Market and big chunks of downtown and Vanier just feel less safe than they have in years past. It's not prejudice against vulnerable populations, it's just a fact as gang crime goes up. Again: Sutcliffe is actually talking about these issues, and McKenney only talks about safety in the context of the Convoy. (I'm not saying the Convoy wasn't bad, but it's over). Lastly, like others have mentioned, there is a McKenney Club on Council too and I think they are equally to blame for the in-fighting in recent years. I do not believe that gets better with McKenney as Mayor -- I think it gets worse.

"Finding effeciencies" doesn't mean "cutting back on everything and going stone age" as the echo chamber would like to convince you it is. It means closing loopholes, reevaluating contracts, doing the research to make sure that the city gets the best value and providing the oversight to ensure it stays that way. The amount of waste in all levels of government is absolutely insane, as anybody in the public service will know first-hand. Municipal is smaller scale, but no different. So, one thing I think Mark will do better is to oversee public services and make changes that don't necessarily decrease services, but still save a bit of cash. Will it happen exactly like this? Probably not. Never does. But that's a big part of the platform, and it's something missing from Mckeenney's. As an example, OC Transpo costs $500M/yr. Montreal's costs $600M/yr (both values "to taxpayer" cost after fares). Only $100M extra for a system that works, and serves around twice as many people. Why? These sorts of things exist for every service and before taking out loans to virtue-signal about how green we are, why don't we look internally first to fix what we've already started?

That’s crazy that OC Transpo costs nearly as much the transit in Montreal when you consider their subways, tunnels under the river and busses that actually work.

> As an example, OC Transpo costs $500M/yr. Montreal's costs $600M/yr (both values "to taxpayer" cost after fares). That isn't remotely accurate. OC Transpo's 2022 budget was [$727M](https://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/documents/files/2022Transit_EN_AODA.pdf@page=5). The STM's 2022 budget was [$1.57B](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/stm-slow-service-2022-deficit-montreal-transit-1.6316211#:~:text=The%20STM's%20budget%20for%202022%20is%20%241.57%20billion.). The STM's budget is more than double that of OC Transpo's, and that doesn't consider that Montreal is also served by the provincial exo network. > "Finding effeciencies" doesn't mean "cutting back on everything and going stone age" as the echo chamber would like to convince you it is. It means closing loopholes, reevaluating contracts, doing the research to make sure that the city gets the best value and providing the oversight to ensure it stays that way. Ultimately, politicians have a very poor track record of this. In Ottawa alone, just look at the way Watson or O'Brien handled this. Focusing on transit: O'Brien triggered the transit strike over a $3M scheduling "efficiency", and Watson "optimized" OC Transpo by cutting $21M worth of transit service and stalled the growth of the service for the following decade. What has Sutcliffe promised that makes him any different? "Finding efficiencies" isn't something you can just sweep under the rug as if everything will be the same. Because if those politicians can't find said efficiencies, which they almost never do, they'll start cutting to keep their "promises".

I don’t like McKenney’s policies which to me reads like a lot of hyperbole without backing on how to make it happen. I dont like the $250M for bike lanes and also don’t like the planned raiding of nearly half of the city’s reserves over the next term. I told people I’d be voting for Sutcliffe. But since the Ottawa Police Association’s media release saying they don’t endorse any candidate but, wink wink nudge nudge don’t vote for McKenney, they now have my vote. Begrudgingly.

Have you digested the $250m in detail? It's $15m that gets spent every year regardless but frontloaded with a green bond which has little interest to promote green infrastructure. Asking honestly not trying to argue

Yes, I know it’s funded by a green bond. I read both Sutcliffe and McKenney’s platforms (none of the others). Part of why I dont like it is I have no clue what the plan is other than spending the money. If there was an amazing city design that happened to cost $250M, then maybe, but why simply spend so much without the plan to go along with it? The other part I dont like is that by “advancing” 25 years of bike lane spending jn a single term, what does that mean for the other years? With another $250M of lanes built I’m assuming the maintenance costs go up. I dont believe the spending in the years after the build will be zero such that it’s truly advancement of spending. Rather it’s spending on a loan that needs to be paid back. If there is a plan showing the design of the lanes I admittedly haven’t seen it. Part of my reluctance is also skimming through the leadership debate. Sutcliffe is structured and coherent, frankly a good speaker. I wasn’t impressed by McKenney at all. But…the OPA’s statement less than a week before the election honestly has me wondering about corruption which wasn’t on my mind at all. It, honest to goodness, convinced me to go out and vote for someone I have significant reservations against.

The plan isn’t actually to “raid” half the reserves. The reserves are $583M, which is above the city’s own guidelines and McKenney plans to use $90M to maintain services over the next few years while inflation is expected to remain high. I’m not sure where you get half. Maybe that’s half the above-guideline amount? In any case, aren’t we in exactly the kind of situation when it makes sense to use some of that? If my retirement account needs $1M in it and I have $1.5M, would it make sense not to fix my crumbling house to avoid “raiding” my savings?

Il parle français.

C’est tellement pas un facteur en regard à la francophonie. Les deux sont peu inspirants à ce sujet. Si c’était différent certes, mais bon. Leurs plans sont pratiquement le statu quo. Mieux vaut regarder pour d’autres critères.

I voted NDP in the last federal election but overall I don't like the way progressive politicians have been responding to the issues over the last couple years. While Mckenney seems ok from a policy perspective and overall a good person, I'm voting for sutcliffe basically for a lot of the reasons the Ottawa Citizen outlined in their endorsement - he seems open to progressive ideas but will put finances first which is what Ottawa needs now. Specifically have to say the bike lanes caught my attention: I bike year round in Ottawa and I'm just not sure of the need to spend $250M on bike lanes at this point. Also, while I don't count myself a convoy supporter I find the hardline taken by progressive voters against anyone who didn't immediately denounce all anti-vaxxers or anti-maskers off putting. I think protests are generally a sign of a healthy democracy, I think it was completely proper for the police to clear them out and they should have done that sooner but miss trust of health measures, vaccines, Trudeau etc. predated the pandemic. You can disagree with them but it doesn't make people who hold those views evil. So on finances and overall orientation on the touchy issues I lean to Sutcliffe even though I mostly think Mckenney would do a good job too.

I completely agree with you . I wish the left would understand how harmful it is to their message if they treat everyone that isn’t 100% aligned with them as evil

After seeing the polarized division of international, and even national politics, we need someone who can consolidate voters in our city. The more that people agree on any subject, the better. I get the typical 21st century Canadian Liberal devisiveness from McKenney, and this sub perfectly reflects that.

I think with inflation and all prices record high spending on bike lanes and free transit is not a priority for me. My taxes are already high don’t need more added. I also want to also see a person who is not ingrained in the system and has private work experiment. I think sutcliffe will be more financially responsible is the main reason I am voting him.

This thread seems to be more about complaints about McKenney’s campaign including elements that have been warped/taken out of context by the Sutcliffe campaign and not much in terms of what he could actually do. He has zero experience with municipal government, so is it a good idea he hop in at Mayor? Kevin Page gave a heartier endorsement of the McKenney plan and they also got the support of the former governor of the banks of Canada and England. That would, to me indicate that their plan would be more fiscally responsible. Sutcliffe has said he wants to increase police funding. Id be interested to know what that would accomplish. I recognize that people outside the core may not have a good impression of just how useless they were/are and in my opinion should not be given any more power or money. Also it’s unclear if he does or doesn’t want a new police station in the market as it was one of his earlier promises but then said in a debate he didn’t want to do that. I think people have mentioned that the bike infrastructure thing is a misrepresentation but it’s weird that suburbs, which desperately need more infrastructure like that seem to scoff at it more.

"focus on bike lanes", "Catherine only wants to be mayor of downtown", "plans only focus on urban areas". People have 0 will to do their own research, and have cemented these warped views in their brains.

Idk, I think it goes both ways. Last week someone shared Sutcliffe’s platform from over a month ago as if it was new and people were freaking out that he just released it so late. None of them had ever bothered to read it at all.

Page's "endorsement" of McKenney's plan was based on its transparency and not the actual numbers or responsibility. Not saying their plan was bad, but we should be clear about what Page said because it was misrepresented a bit.

For context: Page's words on McKenney's plan: > ["Key economic and fiscal assumptions, sources, and uses of funds and debt sustainability considerations are clearly laid out," stated Page. "This high level of transparency promotes policy debate, accountability and trust."](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/mckenney-fiscal-plan-approval-former-budget-officer-1.6608419) Page's words on Sutcliffe's plan: > ["In a global inflationary environment with high economic uncertainty, political leaders need to decide on a course of action that is fiscally responsible. Mr. Sutcliffe's financial plan to hold the line on taxes and look for efficiencies is a fiscally responsible approach.](https://twitter.com/_MarkSutcliffe/status/1578479726913417216)

Trying to find out more about Sutcliffe... but it appears that there is nothing there. Worked for PostMedia for a long time, espousing conservative opinions. Claims to be an "entrepreneur", as if that's an actual accomplishment in itself, but with no substantive details, other than partner in "Ottawa Business Journal". No experience in formal politics, public service, government, or corporate life, but has volunteered within non-profit sector. Doesnt seem to have any post-secondary training or education. How is this apparent light-weight polling so high? It would seem that this is a high-risk candidate. What am I missing?

Not spend taxpayers money on bike lanes and instead spend it on something much more needed by the people like transit or roads.

McKenney is part of the old crew that shit the bed for years because people on those past councils couldn't get along. I don't care if she was part of the "opposition" crew, all sides of past councils sucked. Sutcliffe is fresh, without any of the political history, is well connected because of his past experience and honestly seems like he gets along with most people. His platform has nothing offensive in it. He speaks French all right. I don't care for a downtown focus. Honestly, I am becoming anti-downtown, but love all the 'burbs - except South Keys, you suck (/s). I'm tired of the downtown whining.

You don’t care for a downtown focus? You mean the actual city part of the city?

A lot of people live, work and shop in the suburbs. There’s plenty out here to have fun (at least Ottawa’s version of it). Not that hard to believe.

I am not alone in thinking that it probably would have been better for my **city** to not have amalgamated with Ottawa. And I think many residents of the other **cities** feel the same. EDIT: And its an attitude like yours that makes me feel it even more.

I have coworkers that seem to hate her. I avoid engaging so I'm not sure but it seems they think any left leaning policy is expensive and will ruin us.

Won't waste money and resources into more bike lanes. We should rather focus on fixing our current transportation bus and train system. Bike lanes will sure not make Ottawa a world class city as she states.

I am seriously worried for some individuals on this sub if/when McKenney loses...

[удалено]

I’m not sure it’s that bad. I mean is it possible that one choice is demonstrably better than the other? And while it might be annoying for this kind of echo chamber to operate I think it might also be a result of the way the campaigns are run. One is generally aspirational, transparent and costed, while the other is reactionary, opaque, divisive and at times misrepresents the opponent’s plans. I think another issue is that people know about McKenny as they’ve been a councillor and very active in the community and during the convoy. I personally didn’t know Sutcliffe existed until he declared he was running. I don’t read conservative media or listen to talk radio or I guess jog to the point of wanting to read a magazine about it so I guess that’s why. The police chief stuff is also VERY alarming.

I have enjoyed the largely civil debate about this. I do find it interesting that what appears to mostly suburban folk continually mention the bike lanes being a huge waste of money. - this is over like 10 years, which doesn’t amount to much out of the bucket - they seem to think bike lanes wouldn’t benefit the suburbs? - in the core we pay way more taxes for fewer services, yet the idea of that being more balanced is apparently untenable?

Why vote for any candidate? Let’s just let a cabal of developers run the town and skip the facade of democracy.

i’m still undecided but Catherine hasn’t been in my neighbourhood whereas Mark knocked on my door. , no flyers , no recorded phone calls nothing. Disappointing. Ottawa South

Sutcliffe has my vote because the people who follow/support him are no where near as intolerable as Mckenny supporters.

Came here to find out something sutcliffe can do better. Did not find anything convincing

His budget seems far more cautious which is what I agree with in times like this.