17 Responses to Mayor Craig’s New Cash Stash

  1. Scotty Moffatt January 8, 2011 at 10:38 am

    Always picking on the mayor, but don’t leave us in suspense, what is his plan?

  2. Allan Dettweiler January 8, 2011 at 11:41 am

    Scotty, I can’t read the Mayor’s mind. But I just know he will come up with something “Grand”.

  3. Scotty Moffatt January 8, 2011 at 2:12 pm

    Or something “speedy”.

  4. Facetious Lee January 8, 2011 at 3:10 pm

    Well there Mr. DettweIler, you have been told. By none the less than the Prince of Peace, Love, Light, Truth & Hope!
    Now, I think I like the Prince. I wish he was in charge of the big Palace downtown – excuse me – at the city centre. But as long as we have what we have, how can we live in the Prince’s nice world where everyone is as nice as he?
    Carry on Gentlemen!

  5. Brian Farris January 8, 2011 at 5:38 pm

    “So craft a vision don’t attack one. come up with some ideas don’t hate them.

    Get in front of issues don’t chase after them

    These are the tricks of change.. unless of course you think everything should remain exactly the same”.

    Those are very good words sir and I commend you for your thinking, unfortunately too many people in this City don’t want to go forward and do not want the City to Invest in the future. Many of the defeated candidates ran under the guise of “Guardian of the public purse” and felt that no new spending of any kind should be done, and they are still preaching that philosophy. Drayton should be canceled, Downtown Galt should get no money and other misguided ideals like that. Our council and the mayor are on the right track and only by investing in the present can the future be bright.

  6. Allan Dettweiler January 8, 2011 at 8:22 pm

    Mr. Bertussi Davies, I commend you for your optimism!
    Now, let’s get real. The Mayor has his vision, and has no intention of listening to anyone who he doesn’t agree with. For example, Drayton Theatre.
    Personally, I’m delighted Drayton is coming to Cambridge. But, it should not be paid for by those residents who can’t afford large taxation increases. Citizens who have to pay higher water bills because Council didn’t see the importance of looking after existing infrastructure, but opted for something more glamorous like Drayton.
    Just as Regional Chairman Ken Seiling has no intention of listening to a very significant number of taxpayers who don’t want to pay for light rail, Mr. Craig has no time for those who say we can’t afford to subsidize entertainment for those who like live theatre.
    You speak about “our 3 fantasticaly #Awesome and ever getting better urban cores” (sic). Huh? Give me some examples please. Oh, there may be a few examples, but for all of Mr. Craig’s years in office, tell me what improvements there have been to the core areas – save a few for which the taxpayers forked out a fortune.
    You say “If your desire is to be left in your suburban sprawl and auto culture then I’ll assert and submit your missing the picture in it’s entire”(sic).
    Mr Bertussi Davies, cars are a part of this area. Wishing that everyone would take public transit or ride bicycles is just not going to happen – at least for a long, long time. That is reality. Limiting urban sprawl is immensly important. I support that whole heartedly. Country estates with huge manicured lawns should become a thing of the past in Waterloo Region. That is land use at its worst.
    Please Mr. Bertussi Davies, do craft a vision of something you would like to see happen in this area. I’m betting you can’t do it without digging into the pockets of taxpayers. Tell me what you propose for this magnificent city that people will like so well that they will dig into their own pockets and pay for it. No money from over-burdened taxpayers. Bet you an apple pie you can’t do it.

  7. Marie Little January 8, 2011 at 10:38 pm

    i am not a political person and do not pretend to know everything but I am happy with what our civic leaders have done and commend them on it. To be a politician takes guts these days as everyone has “better” ideas than them it seems but guess what? They were elected to make these decisions on how to spend the Citys dollar and we should just let them make the decisions.

  8. Allan Dettweiler January 9, 2011 at 3:40 am

    Some politicians start off OK, but eventually they are turfed out by the electorate. Seems too many politicians don’t know when to quit. At the same time, too many people don’t know when to oust a politician. Take Dalton McGuinty for example. He should quit now. Actually, he shouldn’t have run last time. I doubt he will get re-elected this time. I’m guessing the Conservatives will get in next time simply because people are sick of McGuinty. In the next provincial election, Tim Hudak won’t win – rather McGuinty will lose.
    I’m thinking Doug Craig will keep going until he gets voted out. Lots of people are tired of him – less than 50% voted for him last time. Because he had 2 opponents, the vote was split and he got back in.
    Maria, that is why we shouldn’t “just let them (politicians) make the decisions”. The majority of voters from Cambridge didn’t want Doug Craig in for another term.

  9. Douglas McDonald January 9, 2011 at 12:49 pm

    A good way to spin the numbers sir. Yes less than 50% voted for the Mayor but when only 29 % voted it is hard to use that statement. 11,230 voted for him, 12,264 voted against him, split between the two others. Now if there was only one running human nature tells us that not all the votes would have gone to one individual. Now Andrew received 5,537 of those votes which were votes against both Doug and Linda so it most likely that the a number of those people would not have voted at all and were only voting for Andrew, so let’s throw out 1,500 of those votes so that leaves us with 4,000 votes that Linda did not get, if 3,000 of those voted for Linda that would have left her with 9,727 votes still 1,500 short. So by my spin Doug still would have won. By the way I voted For Linda so don’t think I am a Doug supporter.

  10. Allan Dettweiler January 9, 2011 at 1:25 pm

    Mr. McDonald, your spinning of numbers makes my head spin.
    Now, have you taken into consideration people like me? I voted for Andrew. I originally intended to vote for Linda – her sign was on my lawn the whole time. Andrew convinced me he had the better chance to defeat Doug. Funny, in the end, Linda got more votes than Andrew, so my vote never made a difference. If I could have ticked a box on the ballot that said “Anyone but Doug” – thats the one I would have chosen.
    Anyhow, it seems to me your choice to “throw out 1500 of those votes” is rather abitrary.
    Bottom line is that a majority of voters did not want Doug as Mayor. That sir is how it spins in my head.

  11. Douglas McDonald January 9, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    See, that is the beauty of spinning numbers. Any one group or person can spin numbers the way they want them till they get the result they want, remember I said I voted for Linda, not Doug. And how many people voted just because they knew Andrew? Again using the spin system I could come up with any numbers to give the results I want and many will believe them and you can do the same. But the end result is Doug won fair and square and was short of a majority by only 134 votes and that is not a spin those are the actual numbers and in a 3 way race that might as well be a majority.

  12. scot January 13, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    Allan, you are sadly misinformed. The Hespeler Riverbank Development has long been a pet project of Dougs, and he’s determined to see it move forward before he leaves.
    Perhaps you should call Doug next time before you write about him, you might be suprised.

  13. Allan Dettweiler January 13, 2011 at 4:07 pm

    Perhaps the Mayor does want the Hespeler Riverbank Development project to happen.
    But, it seems to me that Drayton took priority for Mr. Craig. After all, did he not divert money from Hespeler to finance the theatre?
    And now, there are leaky pipes to mend. That will cost a fortune. That would be another reason to put off the Hespeler project.
    If the Mayor wants to see Hespeler move forward before he leaves, how many more terms will he need?
    Anyhow, looking at THE RECORD today, I see the city will have an opportunity to find $500,000 to purchase additional land from Shawky to add to Riverside Park. Money, it seems, they have no idea where it will come from!
    I’m torn on this one. On one hand they should spend some money for Hespeler. On the other hand, money is badly needed for absolute essentials.

  14. scot January 13, 2011 at 6:16 pm

    Allan, I am being serious. Call Doug and ask him. If you are reasonable and rational he will talk to you, and you can let us know.

  15. gail M January 14, 2011 at 9:01 am

    so if you had $500 or 6 Million in your hand, what would you spend it on? The leaky pipes that cost 2 millon a year in water waste or buy a new park or even Drayton.
    Budget talks start next Monday night at council for public input. Speak up now.

  16. Allan Dettweiler January 14, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    Gail, I know those leaky pipes would be one of my biggist priorities. Basic infrastructure type things.
    Police and fire services are very important – those are tricky because the more money you give them, the more they want.
    I wouldn’t give money for outside groups – no matter how wonderful they are. Somethings need to be financed by the public reaching into their own pockets. The public will contribute if it is important. For example, the City should not give a cent to the hospital for the new MRI machine that is coming. I have every confidence the people of Cambridge will contribute as they are able – the $4 Million cost can be raised with no big problem.

  17. instant decision loans May 10, 2013 at 1:41 am

    The check incorporates a figure which can be a total from the original loan principal and an accrued fees and
    bears to start a date that coincides while using borrower’s next pay check. Check every one of the terms, financial charges and pay back options to discover the very best lender. These advances are short term anyway just to the time length of maximum 4 weeks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *