Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Mad as Hell

A couple of days ago I read that Lenore Swystun was trying to broaden the public's perception of her (SP Oct. 15/09). I'm not sure why as Lenore has a good reputation for fighting for causes she believes in. I didn't always agree with her causes or her tactics, but I respected her commitment to her beliefs.

She accomplished her goal. My perception of her has been broadened and, at the same time, my respect was diminished when she said: "What we have today is an empty parking lot, a building that's been knocked down and a park that was started when I was on council." (SP Oct. 20/09) In reality what we have today is a beautiful theatre, outstanding linkage between Friendship and Victoria Parks, a Farmer's Market/Square, Ideas Inc., kiosks, space for a eco live/work village, to name but a few amenities and we are rid of the unsightly AL Cole property and its environmental contaminants. The planning for this did not occur when she served on council. Her GIG proposal was an election issue in 2003. The GIG war has been fought and lost. Get over it. The existing River Landing, and its cost, belong to this Mayor.

What should be questioned is what are candidates willing to spend to see their dreams/legacies come true. The growing debt is a concern. Escalating taxes are a concern. When is enough enough? And when are we the taxpayers going to say: "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore."


  1. From the looks of this post compared to the broader public debate of the civic election to date, I don't think it's Lenore Swystun who has to get over the past. It's civicmistress.

    Swystun's campaign (and even, to some extent, Atch's) has been focused on the future... it's moronic blathering like this that tries to drag us to the past.

  2. Speaking of moronic blathering...what on earth was your point anonymous? I think civic mistress made a legitimate point.
    We tax payers are concerned about our growing debt and increased taxes. Ms. Sywstun lost her debate on this issue and its time to move on. I for one think River Landing is a beautifully functional community place for all of us to enjoy!
    I for one want to see more self sustaining projects...we do not need anymore projects that rely solely on tax payer subsidies. Get over it& move on !

  3. Oh, Anonymous - I am looking ahead and into the future. And I see a sea of capital and operating debt.

  4. So blame Atch for the sea of debt.

  5. Civicmistress -

    You should broaded your understandings before making such narrow accusations about candidates: Swystun addressed this precise issue of capital and operating debt at the mayoral forum - head on. It was Atch who dodged the issue.

    Your post evidences that you were not even at the forum, but instead used shoddy coverage in the StarPhoenix to guide your opinions. Accusing Swystun of being bogged down in the past is a patently false statement void of evidence (except to naive readers of the SP).

    It's no secret (as much as the SP editorial board tries to hide it) that Atchison has buried this city in debt - well profiled at atchdd.blogspot.com and owlsandroosters.blogspot.com. We don't need a civic soothsayer to establish that.

  6. If "we tax payers are concerned about our growing debt and increased taxes" as politicaljunkie2 claims, then why are you defending River Landing? It's been a black hole of money and the whole scheme is contingent upon selling land parcels to the private sector and taxpayer subsidies from other other levels of government. Y

    eah, yeah - Atch claims it will turn a small surplus... but that half-baked plan is contingent upon him selling public land to the private sector at inflated prices... and nobody's buying.

    Well... Lake Placid, maybe - but Atch virtually loaned the money to Lake Placid and granted a zillion extensions to this loan they can't pay.

    The whole River Landing development to date is taxpayer subsidized. For a political junkie, you sure have a selective view of the political environment.

  7. "methinks the lady doth protest too much" Are you trying to tell me if Swystun was mayor she would encourage private development on River Landing? I agree that the Mayor and this Administration has gone off the rails spending on River Landing and to date I have not seen the private development revenue that was to support the public features. And that is my concern. Check my comments on Zircon in this blog.

    I harken back to the financial dilemma Ms. Swystun left Nightcap Productions (Shakespeare on the Saskatchewan)in. It hardly bolsters my confidence that she would manage the city any better.

    As much as I enjoy your stilted views, this may be one of those elections when we're looking at the lesser of two evils.

  8. Civicmistress:

    Fair comment - I will agree that to many, this election has two polarizing figures in the running.

    Believe it or not, I supported Atch in the past - justifying it partly through Shakespeare on the Sask... it took nearly six years to realize how wrong that was. One failure doesn't neutralize a string of successes. With Atch all it is is spend, disrespect, and mismanage. Three more years of this is unacceptable.

    And isn't stilted what opinion blogs are about??? ;)

  9. Marvin, You are going to get a hernia getting so worked up! If you read my commment, I said I find RiverLanding beautiful & functional. I did not say it was an economically self sustaining project...I hope it will be! I want our civic leaders to consider tax payer dollars first before embarking on any projects...my wallet is getting light!

  10. Atch is in fact the Mayor and as such he has ONE vote exactly the same as all of the councilors. To lay some kind of blame on only him is just unfair. Council votes on things based on recommendations made by the administration and hopefully input from constituents including speakers at council. The Mayor is the Chair of the formal meeting and ALL coucilors take turns Chairing the first part of each meeting. When it comes to budget it is extensively debated with input from virtually all coucilors and ultimetly is passed by all of Council! The Mayor has no power to LEND to anybody,approve projects or levy taxes on his own or approve rebates,abatments or developements, all must be approved by council.

  11. So if the mayor is so powerless, why does he get the big corner office and is paid over twice what a councillor makes?

    And why little ol'Atch so anxious to take credit for literally everything that has happened in Saskatoon EXCEPT cost overruns and mismanagement if he's so unimportant?

    Perhaps tiny Atch should take a massive pay cut if his voice is oh so tiny.

  12. Yeah, but it is completely fair that Atch take credit for every positive item council has done that he initially opposed, right?

  13. I used the Mayor in the sense that he is captain of the team. Indeed the whole of council is responsible for the decisions made.

  14. And as the capitan of the team he has increased the cities debt.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.