Why I didn’t complete the Gleaner survey
The Daily Gleaner sent out a survey to all candidates. I want to explain my decision not to complete it. Essentially, the questions ask for yes/no or A/B answers on serious topics that aren’t amenable to binary answers. Reducing complex topics to binaries doesn't give voters a clearer picture of where I stand — it gives them a less accurate one. I'd rather be honest about that than fill in answers that misrepresent my thoughts. Here’s the survey and my answers:
Q1: Which best reflects your opinion on reducing the property tax rate?
A) Rate goes down at same pace as assessments (stable tax bills)
B)Rate goes down more aggressively than assessments (lower bills, less revenue)
C) Rate goes down less aggressively than assessments (higher bills, more revenue)
It's misleading to talk about the tax rate without considering property values: when values increase, holding the rate steady means a windfall for the city.
Q2: Would you commit to the city going alone to fund a new pool without funding help from the province, Ottawa or surrounding municipalities? Yes / No
There’s no realistic scenario where the city gets no funding help. The actual question is how much funding help do we need in order to say “yes” to the pool, and how to get it done. I’ve written about this here.
Q3: A dropped murder case last year has put police force governance into the spotlight. Should the city keep the current structure or create a separate police board? Yes / No
There's a 44-page independent review with 19 recommendations that don't distill to "status quo" or "create a board." A board is only one option for improving police governance.
Q4: Do you agree that more private housing development will improve housing affordability? Yes / No
More private development will increase supply – that’s basic economics – but affordability also depends on what gets built and for whom. We need to address that with tools such funding programs and planning incentives and explore non-market solutions.
Q5: Should the city order the dismantling of homeless camps on public property or allow certain areas for camps to give those living there access to services?
A) Dismantle homeless camps
B)Allow certain areas for camps
Fredericton has tried designating and supporting certain areas for homeless encampments. It abandoned that approach when the camps were not safe for the people they were intended to help. Dismantling encampments when people have nowhere else to go isn’t a solution, either. I’ve written about how to approch lasting solutions here.
Q6: Should council press the province to build a third bridge in city limits? Yes / No
Not in the near term. The timing, location, and impact of a potential third bridge compared to other options are discussed the Transportation Study associated with the draft Integrated Mobility Plan.
Q7: Should the city consider buying and maintaining red-light cameras at dangerous intersections even if it generates no local revenue? Yes / No
Yes.
Q8: Did council make the right call to build a new performing arts centre, despite its ballooning cost? Yes / No
This is really two questions. Yes, we need a replacement for the Playhouse, which is nearing the end of its life. Yes, the cost increases deserve scrutiny.
Q9: Given the choice, does the downtown need more parking or better bike lanes?
A) More parking
B) Better bike lanes
Both things can be true. We need better bike lanes, because realistic active transportation options will reduce traffic congestion. However, maintaining downtown parking is likely to be necessary to secure the support of stakeholders such as downtown businesses and residents.
Q10: Are you in favour of the city expropriating the NBEx lease? Yes / No
A better question is, under which conditions would you be in favour of expropriating the NBEX lease. My answer: only if negotiations have truly broken down. I wrote about this here.