Just hear me out for a minute:

Instead of having non-binding plebiscites, how about #yyccc just change the residential speed limit to 40 kph and put fluoride back in the water, b/c the empirical evidence clearly shows those are the right things to do?

Similarly, why doesn't #ableg just acknowledge the obvious about how the financial arrangement between it and municipalities is fundamentally busted and needs an overhaul? And then just do it?

It's not like a non-binding plebiscite will do anything there, either.

Much of the upcoming campaign for #yyccc will be framed around "fiscal responsibility" and what we can/cannot afford.

Here's the thing: non-binding plebiscites are EXPENSIVE. Being bold? Making a decision that's within one's power to make already? That's cheap! Free, even!

My favourite part of this "debate" -- and by fave, the part that makes me groan in exasperation -- is the idea that #yyccc can't act and must spend on plebiscites to delay b/c it would be a problem for #yyccc to assume it knows what Calgarians think and want

Again, hear me out here: maybe, just maybe, some of this policy needs to be driven primarily by something other than the vagaries of public opinion.

Don't get me wrong: I profoundly reject the idea that "good" reps are always "elites" with sparkling credentials. There's lots of great theoretical and empirical reasons why this is, IMO, a very wrong way to look at democratic representation

But, the whole point of diversity in representation -- making our elected institutions LOOK like those of us it represents -- is to fill the things with those diverse lived experiences, so that the choices they make take more crucial info into account

At the end of the day, #yyccc's work = making these decisions and choices.

Paying to delay that with a bunch of expensive, non-binding plebiscites? While saying we can't afford to maintain (let alone expand) things like transit? It's BS in my books.