Remember Me?
Home Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   Connect2Edmonton > C2E Cafe > The Ask Forum Archives > 2010 Civic Election Forum > Ward 2 - Councillor Candidates
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 21-09-2010, 02:44 PM   #1
Admin
Forum Administrator
*
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edmonton
Default Candidate Thomas Hinderks

This thread is to ask questions of Candidate Thomas Hinderks - Councillor Ward 2.

All members are asked to allow the Candidate to post first in his or her thread. This is to allow the Candidate ample opportunity to introduce their background, platform, and any other information they may feel is pertinent to this discussion.

All decorum expected of members in the C2E Ask Forums will be expected here. An addendum is that posters may ask as many questions as they wish, but they are also politely asked to follow any instructions on posting or reply timelines that the Candidate expresses.

Thank you to all for participating in the 2010 Connect2Edmonton Election Forum!
Admin is offline  
Old 21-09-2010, 06:44 PM   #2
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

When your ready I will answer as time permits

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 21-09-2010, 07:38 PM   #3
Transplanted_Edm
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Hi Tom, thanks for taking the time to respond to questions here. You may have seen some other comments with people suggesting your knowlege/motivation is limited to one issue. Clearly, being a city councillor requires involvement, study, and decision making in a wide number of areas.

My question is: please present a vision for a better Edmonton, under the assumption that the City Centre Airport is closed down. You may address Ward 2 issues specifically or comment on broader citywide issues. In the interests of keeping things relevant, why don't we say this is a vision of a better Edmonton in a 5-10 yr. timeframe. In your vision for the future of the city, tell us what's changed, what's gotten better, why people are excited about living in the city, why new people are moving to the city, etc. As stated above the only stipulation of this question is that we are assuming the airport is closed and the land is being used for some other purpose.
Transplanted_Edm is offline  
Old 21-09-2010, 07:40 PM   #4
Transplanted_Edm
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

p.s. this isn't meant to be a "trick" question or attempt to get you to say that the city is somehow better without the airport. The intent of the question is really to leave the airport out of the picture and focus on everything else about the city.
Transplanted_Edm is offline  
Old 21-09-2010, 09:43 PM   #5
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Transplanted_Edm

As I state and am going to quote from my platform my vision with or without the airport is the same.

To quote
"Developing Community
Schools/Affordable housing
As we have seen in other areas our schools have the potential to be at risk of
closure due to low enrollment. Some have been closed over the years. To keep this

from continuing to happen we need to be developing housing and other
accommodation for young working families. While there are many good examples of
increasing infill in the form of new duplexes replacing older smaller homes, but we
need more.

How can we promote this kind of private investment in a practical manner?
PropertyTax incentives could be a good start. Encouraging revitalization in select
areas with restricted incentive timelines. This would gain revitalization, create
affordable alternative housing, attract new families to the area helping turn the tide
for our schools and make the community more vibrant and interactive reducing
crime as a side benefit.

We also need to monitor and be careful of commercial residential developments
being uncompleted, Bellwether as an example. A large number of affordable
residences have been lost while this project is delayed and that damages
community. Completion dates need to become part of the equation with new
development to be sure this does not happen again.

On one hand we must make the commercial administrative process faster and more
efficient for developers, but we must also see that the commitment and financing
is in place that these project don’t stop half way through. A system needs
developed that allows for faster approvals in properly zoned areas and carries
penalties if the projects are not completed on an agreed time line.

Crime
Small word, big problem and it goes beyond statistics…if people in the Ward
don’t feel safe they are not safe. But simply adding police officers is not going to
solve the problem.

So how do we reduce the problem?
To a very large extent it’s about getting back to working as a community,
embracing programs like Neighborhood Watch, by looking out for our
neighbors, using our cell phone and digital cameras when we see something out
of the ordinary and reporting it, in detail, to our community police stations.
Crime grows because we don’t work together, we don’t report incidents and we
don’t gather the information and detail for our police to do their job.

I truly believe that the EPS does the best job it can, but it takes many hours to
deal with each incident and if the information and evidence is not there they
cannot proceed and time is lost. If we as a community do not work with the police,
gathering images, making notes, calling in tips and working with existing programs
things will not change.
Yes we need to increase police presence and work more on the community
policing model, but we also need to work more as a community with our neighbors
to make the change we want happen.

Which is where our Community Leagues become an important part of the
solution as does the Good Neighbors Programs currently operating through the
City of Edmonton. Activity breeds activity, crime hates active, cooperating
communities and working with these partners we have the ability to not only
reduce the environment crime needs to prosper but to also bring our
communities to life and meet and work with our neighbors to bring about
positive change. But it means we must all get involved to determine where we
want to go and work with each other and these existing programs to achieve the
goals. No one and no level of government can do it for us, they can help, but we
have to make it happen.

Employment
As I understand it, since 1995 Ward 2 has lost over 5000 jobs from the closure of:
- The scheduled service and other forced reductions at ECCA
- SPAR/L-3 Aerospace
- and movement of many of the rail related jobs

While retail level employment has increased within the Ward along 137ave
there has been no replacement of the middle income employment that has been
lost.

Why is that?
Especially when hundreds, up to as many as a thousand jobs are set to be lost with
the total closure of ECCA.

It does not matter if the City Centre Airport remains open or is closed these jobs
must be replaced within the Ward. Firstly to benefit the Ward’s residents and
second to eliminate as much commuting and the resulting infrastructure costs as
possible to the benefit of all Edmontonians.

It is being proposed that should the City Centre Airport close it be developed as a
residential community of up to 30,000+ with an emphasis on “affordable housing”.

Where will these residents work?
A keystone of a smart sustainable community is that residents can live, work and
play with minimal transportation requirements and preferably in a walkable format.
I cannot imagine with the focus on “affordable housing” that the downtown core
will be able to provide the tens of thousands of jobs that will be required to support
a community of this size. The “affordable housing” focus also leads me to believe
the residents will be from all facets of industry, office, trades, manufacturing,
construction.

Are we building a “SMART” community and then forcing the residents to
commute to the fringes to gain reasonable employment?


What is “SMART” about that concept?
Does that not defeat the purpose? Creating a community that is forced to commute
to work increases the demands on transportation infrastructure such as roads and
LRT. It demands the increased use of automobiles, trucks and transit as a method
of transport just to be able to be employed.

Ether as an airport or as a redevelopment site there must be a focus on bringing
long term reasonable and sustainable employment into Ward 2. Right now that is
missing from everyone’s conversation.

Rather than simply add to the commuting for employment issue we need to be
integrating fabricating, manufacturing and high technology industry into the future
of the ECCA site to create a truly “SMART” community. Building on the heritage of
the site we have opportunity to create Educational, Historical and Tourism based
components to create a real North Side destination for both our residents and
visitors.

Simply adding another massive residential community is not a “SMART” answer
for Ward 2 or the City as a whole and a waste of the transportation (rail and road)
infrastructure already in place."



I hope that explains my thoughts and vision...if I have not made myself clear please say so and I will try to re express myself.



Thanks for the question...I appreciate it.



Tom

Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 21-09-2010 at 09:51 PM.. Reason: fix poor wording...oops
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 22-09-2010, 04:33 PM   #6
fryingwoks
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Default Cycling Issues in Edmonton

Strong, healthy communities need to be people-oriented. When youth can walk or bike to school, and when adults can walk to the grocery store or bike to work or school, neighbourhoods come alive. Safe, pleasant, active and fun: good cycling infrastructure connects neighbours with each other and connects neighbourhoods across the city.

Whether they ride once or twice a week, only in fair-weather, or ride every day to work or school, cycling infrastructure matters to citizens.

This infrastructure doesn’t happen by itself. It needs strong support from you. The City of Edmonton has developed a well-designed Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP). It calls for $10-million to be spent each year for 10 years. The result: a complete, city-wide bicycle transportation network, including connector routes and pathways to get around within your neighbourhood and a city-wide skeleton network, fed by the connector routes. The connector system will be on low-traffic roads, suitable for both transportation and family recreation, while the city-wide network will provide direct corridors for bicycle access that moderately-skilled cyclists will feel comfortable on.

The Edmonton Bicycle Commuters’ Society is polling candidates to collect their opinions on cycling issues. We are a non-partisan, non-profit society with a 30-year history of working to make cycling accessible to everyone in the city–whether they cycle only a few times a year, 265 bike-friendly days a year, or don’t even own a bike yet. We’ll be posting your responses to these questions, as well as any other responses we receive, without further commentary on our http://cycleedmonton.ca website so that constituents can review and compare candidates.
  1. Do you ride a bicycle? For leisure? Exercise? Commuting? How often?
  2. Similarly, do you walk or take transit? How often?
  3. Do you feel comfortable/safe riding on the road with traffic?
  4. What about your family? If not, why? How would you change bicycle infrastructure to make cyclists feel more safe?
  5. How do you celebrate Bike Month (June) in Edmonton?
  6. The number of cyclists in this city grew over 150% between 1994 and 2005, with over 25,000 trips made daily by bicycle, and we’ve seen even more rapid growth since 2005. Last year, City Council moved to earmark 5% of the Transportation Capital Budget toward Active Transportation Projects. This falls short of the 10% required to complete the bicycle and sidewalk strategies, and delays their completion for 25-50 years. What are your spending priorities in relation to active transportation?
  7. The 10-year Bicycle Transportation Plan calls for bikeways to be constructed across the city, making safe paths within neighbourhoods and connecting them to a City-wide network of bike corridors. Nearly 500 km of bikeways, covering the entire city, can be built for less than the cost of a single overpass. Given that cycling reduces the use of single-occupant vehicles, easing congestion and freeing parking spaces, and builds stronger, healthier communities, and is extremely cost-effective: would you commit to fully-funding the Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) if elected?
  8. Which specific departments and branches do you feel have a say in cycling issues? Who needs to be at the table to coordinate an effective strategy?
  9. Edmonton Zoning Bylaw #12800 includes requirements for bicycle parking. Unfortunately, this requirement is minimal, only applies to developments since 2001, and isn’t always enforced, leaving the city with inadequate bike parking. Secure parking facilities are critical for cyclists, as bicycles are easy targets for thieves. About 10 bicycles can be parked in the space of a single car-parking stall. What is your opinion on car & bicycle parking requirements, especially in the downtown and also in new, mid- and high-density redevelopments?
  10. Most cities our size have a municipal education program to help residents, businesses and institutions choose healthy, active modes of transportation. Despite a visible increase in the number of cyclists in Edmonton, the City Transportation branch currently has no education programs for cyclists. How would you (or the administration) encourage more people to choose a bike over a private automobile?
  11. Do you have a recent photo of yourself riding your bicycle? Please send it to us digitally!

Thank you for taking the time to respond to our questionnaire, and good luck in your campaign!

Regards,

Chris Chan
President
Edmonton Bicycle Commuters’ Society
http://edmontonbikes.ca/
fryingwoks is offline  
Old 22-09-2010, 05:15 PM   #7
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

I've got a couple minutes so I will answer what I can.

1. Do you ride a bicycle? For leisure?

Occasionally, my family more often.

2. Similarly, do you walk or take transit?

Neither, my distance to work and travel requirements currently make it impractical.

3. Do you feel comfortable/safe riding on the road with traffic?

Other than major road ways yes.

4. What about your family?

As above.

5. How do you celebrate Bike Month (June) in Edmonton?

I do not, June is extremely busy for me in other areas.

6. The number of cyclists in this city grew over 150% between 1994 and 2005, with over 25,000 trips made daily by bicycle, and we’ve seen even more rapid growth since 2005. Last year, City Council moved to earmark 5% of the Transportation Capital Budget toward Active Transportation Projects. This falls short of the 10% required to complete the bicycle and sidewalk strategies, and delays their completion for 25-50 years. What are your spending priorities in relation to active transportation?

To be honest I feel the allocation is appropriate at this time, but how can we work partnerships with the bicycling community to create a shared funding model to move faster?

7. The 10-year Bicycle Transportation Plan calls for bikeways to be constructed across the city, making safe paths within neighbourhoods and connecting them to a City-wide network of bike corridors. Nearly 500 km of bikeways, covering the entire city, can be built for less than the cost of a single overpass. Given that cycling reduces the use of single-occupant vehicles, easing congestion and freeing parking spaces, and builds stronger, healthier communities, and is extremely cost-effective: would you commit to fully-funding the Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) if elected?

To be honest I would not, there are other priorities that will get greater usage by the residents of my area at this time. I also think we need to be realistic about each area’s commuting habits. Ward 2 has a very high volume of residents that need to commute large distances to their employment unfortunately making cycling impractical. Which is why bringing quality employment back into the Ward is so important. Once we are able to achieve that objective then the bicycling master plan becomes a much higher priority.

8. Which specific departments and branches do you feel have a say in cycling issues? Who needs to be at the table to coordinate an effective strategy? Excellent question!

Transportation obviously, but also Community Development and Edmonton Economic Development and the Edmonton Police Service and of course the Cycling community.

9. Edmonton Zoning Bylaw #12800 includes requirements for bicycle parking. Unfortunately, this requirement is minimal, only applies to developments since 2001, and isn’t always enforced, leaving the city with inadequate bike parking. Secure parking facilities are critical for cyclists, as bicycles are easy targets for thieves. About 10 bicycles can be parked in the space of a single car-parking stall. What is your opinion on car & bicycle parking requirements, especially in the downtown and also in new, mid- and high-density redevelopments?

To start with the obvious we should be enforcing current requirements. Beyond that area specific needs have to be addressed, some areas are going to have a higher need for Bicycle parking (downtown) and should be treated differently than areas with lower needs (Ward 2). I don’t believe a blanket approach will address, fairly, the needs of the areas or cyclists. How can your organization help collect the information that will lead to right requirements for each area?

10. Most cities our size have a municipal education program to help residents, businesses and institutions choose healthy, active modes of transportation. Despite a visible increase in the number of cyclists in Edmonton, the City Transportation branch currently has no education programs for cyclists. How would you (or the administration) encourage more people to choose a bike over a private automobile?

Key to my platform in Ward 2 is reducing the need to commute for employment and that to me is key to starting to educate people to make better choices, smaller vehicles, Transit use, Bicycles and of course walking. Working with related groups such as yours in helping educate employers to locate closer to residential communities and encouraging commuting reductions is the first step. Once that is achieved using existing programs such as Good Neighbours and other resources through Community Development in conjunction with advocates such as yourself we can make headway on changes current habits and providing the infrastructure to make those choices viable.

11.Do you have a recent photo of yourself riding your bicycle? Please send it to us digitally! No sorry I don’t.

Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 22-09-2010 at 05:18 PM.. Reason: spacing
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 22-09-2010, 05:55 PM   #8
Jimbo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Westmount, Edmonton
Default

Thanks for the answers Tom (and thanks to Chris for all of your work on an issue most dear to my heart).

I appreciate that you're giving bike infrastructure some serious consideration. It's difficult to guage community need for bike infrastructure beyond considering how many people live in an area. If there is little or no bike infrastructure in place, it serves to prevent people from riding, so that those who might otherwise do it, can't. I see most people as potential bike commuters, but we've got a long way to go before those people consider it themselves.

Your ward isn't really that far a commute by bike, if there's a decent route.

That said, I still maintain we could make much greater use of the infrastructure we have now (mostly roads) if we concentrated more on educating people (cyclists and drivers) as to the rights, responsibilities, and best practices regarding cyclists.

My question has to do with what you would do if and when the airport is gone. Do you have a vision for that land post airport? I don't really care that much about the issue one way or the other, and I have no problem keeping it as an airport, but I don't see that happening. My great fear is that we redevelop the area but fail to properly take advantage of the opportunity, and end up with more of the same, minus the airport.

Could you see a permanent road that could be used for Indy, and perhaps converted to winter sport use such as a giant skating trail or ski trail? Any other ideas, sans airport?
__________________
aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright
Jimbo is offline  
Old 22-09-2010, 07:23 PM   #9
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Evening Jimbo

Thanks for the questions and comments

" Your ward isn't really that far a commute by bike, if there's a decent route."

You would be right if most people in the Ward worked downtown, but far too many are working on the fringes of the city including the Southside...my neighbor as an example commutes 30km each way every day and a high percentage of Ward 2 is facing that.

That said I completely agree with you on education on both cycling and making better choices both for the environment and the pocket book.

" My question has to do with what you would do if and when the airport is gone. Do you have a vision for that land post airport? I don't really care that much about the issue one way or the other, and I have no problem keeping it as an airport, but I don't see that happening. My great fear is that we redevelop the area but fail to properly take advantage of the opportunity, and end up with more of the same, minus the airport."

My vision for the area, with or without the airport (my choice is with) combines much of what you talk about in your question. Yes we can have an auto racing facility for 1-2 major events each year, plus a venue for cycling competitions, skiing and other uses on a scheduled basis. We can have a North end entertainment and outdoor sports/festival area. With an concentration on construction/fabrication and advanced technologies we can have an employment centre that economically fuels great change and maximizes the use of existing heavy transport infrastructure.

In addition with a restricted, but fully operating, airport we can cater to industries like Business Jet completions centres and service centres while sharing aerospace technology for use in Wind Turbine, Solar and other alternative developments.

As a residential community its just houses, maybe efficient green houses.

My vision is a place that creates employment to create infill development in Ward 2 and downtown protecting our schools with increased enrollment, short commutes with the option of high use LRT, cycling, walking to work reducing infrastructure loads and building community. A high employment, high technology centre that creates options of things to do and places to work that showcases what Edmonton can really do.

Thanks for the question

Tom Hinderks
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 23-09-2010, 05:18 AM   #10
fryingwoks
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Default

You have an anecdote from your neighbour, and I don't doubt that a good number of ward residents commute 30km to work. I know people that commute 100km to work. Anecdotes are just hand-waving. Here are some facts:

Weekday Daily Trips, 2005

Origin: Northwest
Destination:
Central: 48,900
Northwest: 159,900
Northeast: 66,500
Southeast: 25,400
Southwest: 13,600
West: 44,400

Total: 358,700

That's a pretty similar distribution compared to trips originating in the central region.

It's about 13km from 137 Ave and 127 St to West Edmonton Mall, which is about a 35 minute bike ride. Distances would be shorter to the downtown core, but let's not get caught up in arbitrary points--7 to 15km is a fairly average commute distance between these regions.

If we accept that cycling trips from NW to NW, West, or Central are reasonable by bicycle, then we're talking about 253,200 of 358,700 daily trips originating in the Northwest are within biking distance.

Perhaps the stories you've heard have overshadowed the remaining 71% of your electorate. The residents of Woodcroft, Inglewood, Spruce Avenue, Westwood, Prince Rupert, Prince Charles, Sherbrooke, Dovercourt all reside relatively close to central Edmonton. Where do they shop? Where do they go to school? Where do they work?

On average: 11 km from work, 4km from school, 5km from shopping, and 8km from social/recreation activities.

You can double-check the facts here.

Cycling matters, most especially because we don't see enough of it now thanks in large part to a lack of infrastructure. Education is wonderful and necessary: I'm a certified CANBIKE Instructor and just completed conducting another course last week.

But to get the numbers, you need to build the infrastructure. In cities all over the world, including winter cities, as soon as the infrastructure is built, it fills with cyclists.

Minneapolis (which has a climate pretty similar to Edmonton) has the second-highest number of bicycle commuters in the US, second to Portland. Ottawa has the highest number of bicycle commuters in North America. Madison, Wisconsin has bike lanes on every major street, and also happens to average below freezing for as many months each year as Edmonton.

If you go ride a bike around Montreal, you'll often find yourself slowed down by the sheer number of cyclists using that city's bike lanes. And that city gets a lot more snow than we do, too.

I'm hoping to hear some forward-thinking, Mr. Hinderks. What do you think?
fryingwoks is offline  
Old 23-09-2010, 06:51 AM   #11
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Good morning

A quick response before I have to go to work.

"You have an anecdote from your neighbour"

No not a single anecdote, dozens from across the Ward.

And we are assuming the data you provide still reflects the commuting distances.

I do not disagree with the desires you are promoting, just the priority.

Putting jobs into the Ward, attracting families, affordable housing, increasing school enrollment, building community and reducing crime as well as cutting commute distances and promoting smarter choices in commuting are my top priorities.

That is an ambitious list for a three year term, but if enough advancement is made on those priorities I would be willing to revisit other projects.

So again, we don't disagree on the ideas, just the order of priority.

Tom Hinderks
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 23-09-2010, 09:26 AM   #12
Edmcowboy11
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Hello Tom

Thank you for your official particiapation on the candidate forum.

I am aware of course of your position of wishing the airport to remain open, but I would like to thank you for being one of the very few who has approached this topic rationally throughout this very long debate.

Anyways two questions I have for you are the following.

1. Where do you stand on the expansion of LRT to NAIT and then to St. Albert. Do you feel that there is a need to fast track this and other LRT projects in the city and if so how do you propose to help facilitate this?

2. What do you define as major issues that pertain to your ward and to the city?

Thank you again for your time.
__________________
LRT is our future, time to push forward.
Edmcowboy11 is offline  
Old 23-09-2010, 02:55 PM   #13
fryingwoks
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
Good morning

A quick response before I have to go to work.

"You have an anecdote from your neighbour"

No not a single anecdote, dozens from across the Ward.

And we are assuming the data you provide still reflects the commuting distances.

I do not disagree with the desires you are promoting, just the priority.

Putting jobs into the Ward, attracting families, affordable housing, increasing school enrollment, building community and reducing crime as well as cutting commute distances and promoting smarter choices in commuting are my top priorities.
Then I will accept that you have a bias towards a reliance on "dozens of anecdotes" over evidence-backed, rigourous, and recent hard statistics.

Your stated priorities: attracting families, increasing school enrollment, building community and reducing crime are all advanced by increasing support for cycling infrastructure. Families want to live in communities where their children can walk and bike to nearby amenities, including school. Communities are strengthened and crime is reduced by getting people outside and active in the community, instead of just speeding through in a car.

Last edited by fryingwoks; 23-09-2010 at 03:01 PM..
fryingwoks is offline  
Old 24-09-2010, 12:15 AM   #14
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Edmcowboy11

If you don't mind I would like to reply to fryingwoks last post before addressing your questions.

fryingwoks

"Then I will accept that you have a bias towards a reliance on "dozens of anecdotes" over evidence-backed, rigourous, and recent hard statistics."

You should likely reassess your if you and your organization are looking to win allies.

Maybe if you understand how I arrived at my point of view and the decision to run we will have a better understanding.

Running for a political position was not on my "bucket list", but after giving serious thought to my concerns in Ward 2 I spent months talking with many dozens of residents through out the Ward about their concerns. To my surprise overwhelmingly they were the same as mine.

I then looked at what the known candidates prior to my announcement were addressing and again to my surprise few were addressing the common concerns shared by myself and those I had spoken with. This is what lead to my campaign platform which I consider my priorities if elected, you can view it on this thread.

http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...290#post318290
post #36

No one brought bike paths up as a concern or issue in the Ward.

That said I do think beyond the current rather daunting list of priorities that bicycling and bike paths are part of the overall solution which I why I support the current initiatives and would not support reducing them, but based on the issues and priorities residents of the Ward have expressed I am not about to move your initiative up the priority list until the other objectives are reached.

If I am elected however I am open to discuss City of Edmonton and Edmonton Bicycle Commuters’ Society partnerships:
1) To further education on cycling
2) To speed implementation of the bike paths you are promoting
3) Implement suggestions and ideas into new developments

So I am not closing the door on options, nor I am I in opposition to your goals but they are not in the top priorities at this time.

I hope this leads you to better understand of my point of view and how I have arrived at it...if it does not that is unfortunate.

Thank you for the questions and responses.

Tom Hinderks
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 24-09-2010, 12:36 AM   #15
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Edmcowboy11

Thanks for the questions

"1. Where do you stand on the expansion of LRT to NAIT and then to St. Albert. Do you feel that there is a need to fast track this and other LRT projects in the city and if so how do you propose to help facilitate this?"

Expansion of the LRT to NAIT is in progress and while I disagree with some details I support the plan as it now stands including the timing.

Going from NAIT to St Albert I do have concerns.
The location of the line and station puzzle me with relation to the airport lands when no determination of a plan for development has been forward...I would have thought that would be needed before laying out the line route.

So far I can find no agreement to be able to cross the CN yards, I stand to be corrected. If there is not just how do we plan to cross? Over/Under and how will this effect the route?

At the top end where it curves to St Albert I again have questions of the route as it seems to cater to St Albert residents rather than those in Ward 2/3.

So fast tracking with these questions, particularly those regarding the development of the airport lands makes me very hesitant to recommend fast tracking the route till they are answered.

Overall the concept of fast tracking in other Wards I can support if the dollars are attainable and the community supports the planning.

I believe long term a well thought out LRT/Transit system is important to the city but lets not forget other methods of reducing commuting issues such as reducing commute distances for employment, encouraging smaller cars and other smart choices so education is also important.

"2. What do you define as major issues that pertain to your ward and to the city?"

Jobs...long term sustainable house buying employment, it fuels everything in my platform from protecting schools through increased enrollment, affordable housing infill in Ward 2 and downtown. For more see my platform as noted in the above post

Diversification...Jane Jacobs book, Economies of Cities", as I read the parts I have had time to digest so far, points clearly that "the city" is to be the economic driver of a region, right now we are not doing that. We are being driven by the oil sands and the oil business and now is the time and opportunity to get serious about change and start moving to bring new and more industry to Ward 2 and Edmonton as a whole returning us to be being the economic driver and stabilizing the employment base.

Marketing Edmonton...detail in my platform but frankly right now we do a lousy job and the image we present is not the one of the City I know and it reflects in how we are perceived across the world and the kind of business we can attract and retain.

I hope that answers your questions, if not please comment and I will try to fill in the blanks.

Thanks again

Tom Hinderks
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 24-09-2010, 12:39 AM   #16
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

fryingwok and Edmcowboy11

I apologize for not responding earlier but it has been a work day and I was not able to till late tonight.

Appreciate your waiting.

Tom Hinderks
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 24-09-2010, 02:10 AM   #17
fryingwoks
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Default

I am not trying to change your point of view nor your priorities so much as discern them. You've done a fine job with this last post (I say that without sarcasm). My contention was not that your point of view is "wrong" (a point of view simply is, without rightness or wrongness). My contention was with the specific statements that you made: that a "high percentage" of people commute distances too long to take transit or bike, and that you used "dozens" of anecdotes to support this statement.

The first statement is factually wrong. The second is fallacious. If you want to focus on the concerns of the 29% that do commute long distances, I don't have a problem with that. It's as commendable as any other particular cause. But I must clarify and object to such misinformation.

The reason that you don't want to prioritize cycling infrastructure may be based on your values, and it's perfectly acceptable to make decisions based on your values. But, again, it's disingenuous to provide fallacious reasoning behind your priorities. When you make a value judgement, you must boldly say so without trying to justify it with misleading statements. You are, after all, trying to win the votes of people that agree with your positions. Not trick people into thinking that they do.

I myself am happy with your own clarification of your views and why you hold them, as they don't rely on the objectionable statements in question.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my (likely unpleasant) needling. Taking all of 9 hours to respond to something you'd probably rather ignore is nothing to apologize for! There are plenty of candidates that I personally support that are taking far longer to respond to queries.
fryingwoks is offline  
Old 24-09-2010, 04:57 PM   #18
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Well I happy to announce that my website is now debugged.

For more information on my campaign or platform please access...

www.HinderksWard2.com

or CFRN TV has a great site on the candidates at
http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...b=EdmontonHome


Thank you

Tom Hinderks

Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 24-09-2010 at 06:02 PM..
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 04-10-2010, 11:57 AM   #19
norwoodguy
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Where ever the pilot takes me
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
The airport needs to change...that I will agree on, and if/when it closes it needs to be a centre of employment.
If the airport were to remain open how do you see the airport evolving? And what sorts of initiatives to you see the city government undertaking to help the airport achieve success in that evolution? In terms of ECCA providing employment opportunities, do you have a sense of how many jobs could potentially be created?
__________________
Did my dog just fall into a pothole???
norwoodguy is offline  
Old 04-10-2010, 12:47 PM   #20
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by norwoodguy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
The airport needs to change...that I will agree on, and if/when it closes it needs to be a centre of employment.
If the airport were to remain open how do you see the airport evolving? And what sorts of initiatives to you see the city government undertaking to help the airport achieve success in that evolution? In terms of ECCA providing employment opportunities, do you have a sense of how many jobs could potentially be created?
Thank you for reposting the question, I do appreciate having it in this thread as it seemed wrong to make platform statements in the other.

If the airport were to remain open how do you see the airport evolving?

The active airport section would evolve as a advanced air ambulance centre, an advanced training centre, a business-corporate centre and a convention centre.

As an advanced air ambulance centre we could not only serve the rest of Alberta but also develop new systems and technologies that would increase efficiency across all borders. Systems improvements, patient transfer improvements and with such a concentration of expertise we would be able to attract (or hopefully see locally developed) companies that design/create/install the medical conversions with aircraft and helicopter locate right here. It is a growing market with very high demand and would create high technology Edmonton employment with products having a world reach.

As an advanced training centre the active airport is a site that can be developed as an all encompassing site for commercial aviation training...from the pilots seat through to food services, baggage handling and ticketing/customer relations. Much of the infrastructure is already in place to make this possible and combined with the historical weather of Edmonton is provides a unique opportunity. In addition by attracting this type of client we add the opportunity of becoming a recurrency centre for both actual flying and simulator recurrency training, both huge markets.

As Business-corporate it can be Edmonton's reception hall for major business and a centre to encourage Edmonton as the business face of the Oil developments. But beyond the obvious with the increased attraction of business-corporate aircraft the opportunity to become a service/maintenance and overhaul centre with a central location becomes a reality. The business of busniess aircraft is large, covering everything from regular checks to overhauls, custom refitting of everything form avionics to interiors and upgrades to airframes and engines.

As an aviation convention centre, another historically successful use of the site, we can be attracting conventions and conferences from around the world. Ranging in scale from the Canadian Business Aircraft Association annual event right through to events such as the Cessna 10 conventions (the last Cessna 170 convention in Edmonton hosted several hundred aircraft and thousands of attendees)

All businesses we have a historical track record in and many potential employees within the City that are currently under employed or now employed in other markets.

On the airport lands but off the active aviation area exists additional opportunity. Being adjacent to aviation and aerospace industry creates the opportunity of technology transferring to non aviation but related industries. Wind Turbines, Solar Power, Composite construction along with the related hydraulics, pneumatics and electronics all have non aviation uses and adapting and cross pollinating these technologies can move business forward in new areas. Using infrastructure that has been unused since installed in the 70s/80s.

As a transportation centre the site is ideal, adjacent to both heavy rail and a major trucking route it offers advantages in location for all industries as well as transportation itself. A Port Edmonton if you will.

Other lands on the airport site but off the active airport portion can be adapted as a Northside Entertainment and Cultural centre using much of the existing infrastructure as a home.

The Edmonton Indy could continue to be hosted on the existing site by altering existing runway plans so the two can live together and work together to increase visitation. With co operation of all parties additional events such as bicycle races, marathons, alternative fuel vehicle completions could be hosted on the site adding to Edmonton’s attractiveness and advancing new technologies.

Finally lands could be used to create the Edmonton Museums Complex, a heritage centre of Edmonton in the 20th Century, not competing with Fort Edmonton, housing existing smaller museums as well as museums that need a facility to be able to reach the public.

If the airport does close all but the aviation opportunities continue to be possible…which is what makes the site so important as an employment centre using existing infrastructure to the maximum extent.

As to numbers…

The site historically has had as many as 5-7000 workers in aviation based industry alone.(that included all airline, service and related jobs as well as peak of Northwest Industries/CAE/SPAR/L-3)
With addition of the non aviation opportunities it could be much higher.

City initiatives to make it happen:
a) Commitment
b) A focused drive by EDCC working with the Alberta Aerospace and Defense initiative and related provincial departments. Not new ground, the same way Alberta has attracted the Canadian Unmanned Vehicle Centre, Viking aviation and other related…hard work.
c) Rezoning the lands to allow for the sale of all properties and those funds generated dedicated to the redevelopment of the site.

In a nutshell…visit my website for the reasons I think it is important for driving the community, infill and reducing transportation infrastructure needs.

Now the elephant in the room...why ECCA?



Because it creates Edmonton employment, tax base and many of the opportunities can only happen here.

In addition it does not eat up valuable time slots at the International allowing EIA to concentrate on what it has proven it does best...scheduled service.

Sorry for the long post but this is a summary not the full thoughts and plans.

Tom Hinderks
www.hinderksward2.com

Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 04-10-2010 at 12:57 PM.. Reason: Insert website
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 04-10-2010, 03:40 PM   #21
norwoodguy
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Where ever the pilot takes me
Default

Thanks for your thoughtful and considered response.
__________________
Did my dog just fall into a pothole???
norwoodguy is offline  
Old 13-10-2010, 09:54 AM   #22
edmonton daily photo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Thomas... I feel you need to answer your own Question that you posed to everyone else.
__________________
"Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi
edmonton daily photo is offline  
Old 13-10-2010, 10:00 AM   #23
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Morning EDP

To clarify...

Not my question I was directed to ask as Executive Director of the facility and was faced with the same question in a separate meeting.

My answer will follow when I get my morning break.

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 13-10-2010, 10:23 AM   #24
Sonic Death Monkey
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Downtown
Default

Actually, Tom, that raises one question: if you are elected to City Council, would you be able to retain your position at the Aviation Museum? Would there be any conflict-of-interest issues if you are both a city councillor and Aviation Museum director?
__________________
“You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012
Sonic Death Monkey is offline  
Old 13-10-2010, 10:39 AM   #25
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

SDM

I could not continue at the Aviation Museum and I do not believe it is a matter of conflict of interest so much as practicality.

As Executive Director of the Aviation Museum I need to put in 200-300hrs per month to keep the facility operating and growing.

As the Councilor for Ward 2 I anticipate it would require 200-300hrs per month to keep up with the meetings, reading, research, events, meet with residents and deal with other related issues.

Physically impossible to do both. As such I have an interim replacement on hand that would step into the gap and allow the boards to have the time to decide how best to replace my position.

I would ask to be involved in the Heritage and Tourism portfolios (as well as several others) but right now there are issues in Ward 2 and the City that are too important to the future to not stand up and address.

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 13-10-2010, 11:09 AM   #26
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

EDP

My answer:

As a decision by Edmonton City Council has created the situation it is the responsibility of the City deal with the outcomes. These fall into (2) parts.

1) Continued interim operations:
- Immediate financial assistance as required due to the decrease of revenues caused by the decision. (Discontinuation of Historic aircraft visits, discontinuation of related events, additional costs associated with increased costs of acquisition and restoration, increased costs of marketing as a result of loss of noted events and other active aviation activities that currently offset marketing expenses).

- Cost of relocating select member organizations, approximately (4) of the current member organizations are active flying operations such as CASARA (Civil Air Search and Rescue Association) an all volunteer organization which the front line of search operations until the military is on site that will be forced to relocate with closure. I believe that as this is a result of Councils decision that these organizations should be compensated for relocation and provided with similarly economical facilities at an appropriately equipped airport to allow continued operations for the benefit of the community.

2) Long term effects:
- Creation of the Edmonton Museums complex by the City of Edmonton, this is likely the only method of continued relevant operations open to the continued existence of the Museum and the creation of such a complex will benefit the Heritage community as a whole. Meeting the needs of an “Edmonton Museum” and creating a critical mass of Heritage tourism on the airport lands offers a “chance” of keeping the Aviation Museum a long term self sustaining operation.

- If this is not possible the City will need accept responsibility and absorb the cost of an appropriate budget for the operation of the Museum according to its current mandate, educational, operational goals and acquisition lists as well as provide for expansion to meet those goals in perpetuity including the addition of staff and contractors to replace the loss of volunteers caused by the effects of the decision.


While there are other factors that will need to be addressed these would be the main points.

Tom Hinderks
Ward 2 Candidate
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 13-10-2010, 05:09 PM   #27
JOA
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Default

Tom,

If elected, how would your affiliation to and/or duties with the Alberta Aviation Museum change?
__________________
"A doctor can bury his mistakes but an architect can only advise his clients to plant vines." - Frank Lloyd Wright
JOA is offline  
Old 13-10-2010, 05:26 PM   #28
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Here was my response to SDM on the same topic I hope it covers your question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
SDM

I could not continue at the Aviation Museum and I do not believe it is a matter of conflict of interest so much as practicality.

As Executive Director of the Aviation Museum I need to put in 200-300hrs per month to keep the facility operating and growing.

As the Councilor for Ward 2 I anticipate it would require 200-300hrs per month to keep up with the meetings, reading, research, events, meet with residents and deal with other related issues.

Physically impossible to do both. As such I have an interim replacement on hand that would step into the gap and allow the boards to have the time to decide how best to replace my position.

I would ask to be involved in the Heritage and Tourism portfolios (as well as several others) but right now there are issues in Ward 2 and the City that are too important to the future to not stand up and address.

Tom
Thanks for the question

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 13-10-2010, 05:29 PM   #29
JOA
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Default

Can you clarify what exactly you would expect to be doing with the museum?
__________________
"A doctor can bury his mistakes but an architect can only advise his clients to plant vines." - Frank Lloyd Wright
JOA is offline  
Old 13-10-2010, 09:04 PM   #30
photogirl67
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
SDM

I could not continue at the Aviation Museum and I do not believe it is a matter of conflict of interest so much as practicality.

As Executive Director of the Aviation Museum I need to put in 200-300hrs per month to keep the facility operating and growing.

As the Councilor for Ward 2 I anticipate it would require 200-300hrs per month to keep up with the meetings, reading, research, events, meet with residents and deal with other related issues.

Physically impossible to do both. As such I have an interim replacement on hand that would step into the gap and allow the boards to have the time to decide how best to replace my position.

I would ask to be involved in the Heritage and Tourism portfolios (as well as several others) but right now there are issues in Ward 2 and the City that are too important to the future to not stand up and address.

Tom
Interesting. So why is it you are posing questions on the other candidates forums about the museum? Is that not already a conflict of interest?
photogirl67 is offline  
Old 13-10-2010, 09:24 PM   #31
photogirl67
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
On the airport lands but off the active aviation area exists additional opportunity. Being adjacent to aviation and aerospace industry creates the opportunity of technology transferring to non aviation but related industries. Wind Turbines, Solar Power, Composite construction along with the related hydraulics, pneumatics and electronics all have non aviation uses and adapting and cross pollinating these technologies can move business forward in new areas. Using infrastructure that has been unused since installed in the 70s/80s.
Tom Hinderks
www.hinderksward2.com
I'm quite interested in this. How do you know those industries would be interested in using that space? Have studies been done as to its suitability for these purposes? Have they expressed interest in that land already?

I'm all for research on alternative energies and if it creates jobs in our ward, all the more. The thing about jobs though is the people have to go where the jobs they are qualified for are located. So saying someone that chooses to live in Ward 2 has to commute a long way and we need more jobs isn't painting the whole picture really. What if that person is an oil worker, or a factory worker, or in manufacturing? We can't really have all types of jobs in all wards and we cannot control where people choose to live. So there will always be commuting issues unless you force people to live next to their job site which isn't realistic. Do you have any thoughts on this?

I find that your ideas on uses for the airport are interesting and unlike other candidates have some thought put into it. My question though is - have any of your ideas ever been discussed by city council? Have any of them ever been suggested or put on the table?

thanks for your time
photogirl67 is offline  
Old 13-10-2010, 11:32 PM   #32
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JOA View Post
Can you clarify what exactly you would expect to be doing with the museum?

Nothing direct...

I would, as I would for other attractions in the area, promote and advocate, if invited (as I personally did with Michael Phair) I could sit as a Civic representative to the board.

But as far as direct operation I would not be able to be involved.

Hope that clears things

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 13-10-2010, 11:34 PM   #33
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by photogirl67 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
SDM

I could not continue at the Aviation Museum and I do not believe it is a matter of conflict of interest so much as practicality.

As Executive Director of the Aviation Museum I need to put in 200-300hrs per month to keep the facility operating and growing.

As the Councilor for Ward 2 I anticipate it would require 200-300hrs per month to keep up with the meetings, reading, research, events, meet with residents and deal with other related issues.

Physically impossible to do both. As such I have an interim replacement on hand that would step into the gap and allow the boards to have the time to decide how best to replace my position.

I would ask to be involved in the Heritage and Tourism portfolios (as well as several others) but right now there are issues in Ward 2 and the City that are too important to the future to not stand up and address.

Tom
Interesting. So why is it you are posing questions on the other candidates forums about the museum? Is that not already a conflict of interest?
No it is not a conflict.

I am currently employed by the museum and as a function of my duties I was directed to ask the question.

My running for office is a personal decision as a Ward 2 resident and within my right.

If elected I will have to resign, once elected it would be a conflict in my mind.

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 15-10-2010, 09:09 AM   #34
Medwards
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default

thomas, you've asked this question to several candidates... now its your turn to answer your own question.

The Alberta Aviation Museum Association, in 2006 a small community museum now the 3rd largest aviation collection in Canada, is a feature tourism attraction in North Edmonton currently serves (5) veterans organizations, (3) Heritage organizations, (2) Youth organizations as well as a series of (6) modern aviation volunteer organizations such as the Civil Air Search And Rescue Association. The Museum also has the most advanced K-12 aviation education programming and is currently an operationally self sufficient not for profit operation that receives no operational funding from any level of government.



This is a facility that currently receives over 150,000 individual uses per year and attracts visitors from around the world.

What do you, as a candidate commit to specifically doing to insure the ongoing success and expansion of the Alberta Aviation Museum with the closure of the City Centre Airport and the damage it will cause to the facility?

If I may also add on another question, if you state closing the City Center Airport would cause damage to the facility, would you work with the aviation museum to help it relocate to the International airport where it would have much more traffic pass by it, and also be able to use the runways, hence removing the 'damage to the facility'??


A Concerned Citizen asked me to ask you.
Medwards is offline  
Old 15-10-2010, 09:17 AM   #35
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

From post #26 above where I have previously answered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
EDP

My answer:

As a decision by Edmonton City Council has created the situation it is the responsibility of the City deal with the outcomes. These fall into (2) parts.

1) Continued interim operations:
- Immediate financial assistance as required due to the decrease of revenues caused by the decision. (Discontinuation of Historic aircraft visits, discontinuation of related events, additional costs associated with increased costs of acquisition and restoration, increased costs of marketing as a result of loss of noted events and other active aviation activities that currently offset marketing expenses).

- Cost of relocating select member organizations, approximately (4) of the current member organizations are active flying operations such as CASARA (Civil Air Search and Rescue Association) an all volunteer organization which the front line of search operations until the military is on site that will be forced to relocate with closure. I believe that as this is a result of Councils decision that these organizations should be compensated for relocation and provided with similarly economical facilities at an appropriately equipped airport to allow continued operations for the benefit of the community.

2) Long term effects:
- Creation of the Edmonton Museums complex by the City of Edmonton, this is likely the only method of continued relevant operations open to the continued existence of the Museum and the creation of such a complex will benefit the Heritage community as a whole. Meeting the needs of an “Edmonton Museum” and creating a critical mass of Heritage tourism on the airport lands offers a “chance” of keeping the Aviation Museum a long term self sustaining operation.

- If this is not possible the City will need accept responsibility and absorb the cost of an appropriate budget for the operation of the Museum according to its current mandate, educational, operational goals and acquisition lists as well as provide for expansion to meet those goals in perpetuity including the addition of staff and contractors to replace the loss of volunteers caused by the effects of the decision.


While there are other factors that will need to be addressed these would be the main points.

Tom Hinderks
Ward 2 Candidate
To your second part
"If I may also add on another question, if you state closing the City Center Airport would cause damage to the facility, would you work with the aviation museum to help it relocate to the International airport"

That would be the choice of the Museum and its member organizations..not mine. But it would likely pretty tough to justify to the residents of the Ward.

To what I see as the third part
"where it would have much more traffic pass by it, and also be able to use the runways, hence removing the 'damage to the facility'??"

Interesting I would suggest you forward your research proving this theory to the President of the Museum 11410-Kingsway avenue, Edmonton Alberta T5G 0X4.

Tom

Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 15-10-2010 at 09:18 AM.. Reason: spelling
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 15-10-2010, 09:24 AM   #36
Medwards
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default

So if the airport is closing, and you feel this would do damage to the facility, isn't the onus upon the museum to ensure that any loss is mitigated?

Research is done. highway traffic counts are much higher along QE2 than along Kingsway blvd, and certainly, a lot more aviation related folks use YEG than YXD.
Medwards is offline  
Old 15-10-2010, 09:28 AM   #37
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

This has now moved form a candidate discussion to a Museum discussion...there is already a thread on the topic and these very topics have been discussed by you and I extensively.

If you have research that supports your claims please forward it as noted above.

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 15-10-2010, 10:03 AM   #38
grish
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

Hi Tom,

In her twitter page, Roxie Malone-Richards has accused you of adopting her platform. I had asked her this question:

Quote:
Originally Posted by grish View Post
Speaking of twitter:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roxie's twitter page
Is concerned how my platform has suddenly become koziak and hendriks platform, Hey u2, who writes your stuff? oh, wait, that would be me.
Do you really believe that two of your oponents routinely steal your platform?
to which she replied

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roxie Malone-Richards View Post
And to grish; Do you really believe that two of your oponents routinely steal your platform? I didn't say "routinely" did I? At last nights forum, both Don and Tom jumped on my platform bandwagon, with statements that are directly from my brochure, statements that incidentally, neither had previously mentioned in any manner, until last night. At one point I actually thought there was an echo in the room as one candidate consistently repeated my platform almost word for word. Coincidence? I think not. Perhaps if they were more secure in their own positions and platforms, they wouldn't have to steal from others.

Thank you for your question.
my question is: Did you?
__________________
My name is Gregory B.
grish is offline  
Old 15-10-2010, 11:07 AM   #39
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Good morning Grish

Interesting, thanks for the question.

No I have not.

Of course I encourage those interested to review my platform as per my website
www.hinderksward2.com
and compare with my comments and positions from the webcast forum http://events.statusfirm.com/browse/.../ward-2-forum/

so that they may draw their own conclusions.

But from my position I have not adopted anyone's platform and have been consistent to my own positions since the start and will continue to be.

Appreciate the awareness and the question.

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 15-10-2010, 12:46 PM   #40
kcantor
Addicted to C2E
Mr. Reality Check
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

perhaps if roxie was prepared to actually engage and discuss with others she would be less inclined to claim "ownership" of ideas and language. she would learn that much is shared and recognize that's what democracy really relies on.

while tom i don't agree on what is currently the elephant in the room neither of us is foolish to think that we "own" our respective positions or our respective sound bites for that matter.

outside the elephant, there is much that tom and i could manage to agree on and one would think that would be what roxie should be looking for rather than bemoaning the theft of "her" platform ideas and language. unfortunately, until the elephant is finally addressed and finally put to bed, we will all be forced to tip toe around in hard hats and steel toed boots watching people who should be able to agree sniping at each other instead of moving forward on common ground.
__________________
really just cranky, miserable and disagreeable on principle but happy to have earned the title anyway; downtown arena fan; edmonton 2017 world's fair and edmonton indy supporter; proponent of "edmonton works"
kcantor is offline  
Old 15-10-2010, 01:25 PM   #41
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Eloquent as usual Mr. Cantor.

Regardless of Elephinks in the room you and I have met minds and worked together on other issues and projects to benefit the city.

Roxie's position on her platform does not bother me at all. She may chose to believe what she wishes...I have made my platform and the web cast forum accessible on this thread and those wishing to pursue it have information easily available and will make their own determination, as it should be.

Thank you for the post Ken

Tom

Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 15-10-2010 at 01:30 PM..
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 15-10-2010, 02:07 PM   #42
kcantor
Addicted to C2E
Mr. Reality Check
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
Eloquent as usual Mr. Cantor.

Regardless of Elephinks in the room you and I have met minds and worked together on other issues and projects to benefit the city.

Roxie's position on her platform does not bother me at all. She may chose to believe what she wishes...I have made my platform and the web cast forum accessible on this thread and those wishing to pursue it have information easily available and will make their own determination, as it should be.

Thank you for the post Ken

Tom
tom,

i'm glad we can still like each other and can work together on other issues and projects but as you know it's been blown up to be an awfully big elephant...

ken
__________________
really just cranky, miserable and disagreeable on principle but happy to have earned the title anyway; downtown arena fan; edmonton 2017 world's fair and edmonton indy supporter; proponent of "edmonton works"
kcantor is offline  
Old 15-10-2010, 02:22 PM   #43
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Ah yes Mr. Cantor

But as you said about elephants on another thread....properly fed and taken care of...

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 15-10-2010, 02:27 PM   #44
Sonic Death Monkey
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Downtown
Default

I'm still waiting for someone to raise Lucy as an election issue!
__________________
“You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012
Sonic Death Monkey is offline  
Old 15-10-2010, 02:41 PM   #45
etownboarder
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Old Strathcona
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
I'm still waiting for someone to raise Lucy as an election issue!
Dear Thomas,

What is your stance on Lucy the elephant at the Valley Zoo? What do you propose the City of Edmonton do with the facility?

Thanks,

etownboarder
etownboarder is offline  
Old 15-10-2010, 03:02 PM   #46
kcantor
Addicted to C2E
Mr. Reality Check
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default Qa

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
Ah yes Mr. Cantor

But as you said about elephants on another thread....properly fed and taken care of...

Tom
properly fed and taken care of yes. and properly housed in a proper place both for the elephant and those that sleep with it...
__________________
really just cranky, miserable and disagreeable on principle but happy to have earned the title anyway; downtown arena fan; edmonton 2017 world's fair and edmonton indy supporter; proponent of "edmonton works"
kcantor is offline  
Old 15-10-2010, 03:06 PM   #47
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Thanks etownboarder
(I'll get you for this SDM bah hahahahah)

All joking aside it is a good question.

I have followed the issue here on C2E, in the papers and as my wife and daughter are huge animal advocates I feel reasonably well informed.

All advice from what I would consider veterinary "reliable sources" indicates undue risk to Lucy's well being if a move is attempted.

As such and as I believe she is getting the best care possible it is my opinion that she should be left in current care until her health issues are dealt with.

But there is a second issue here...
Based on the information available to me it is my opinion that the "out of country" advocates are not the least interested in Lucy's health but only in creating a precedent as a means to their own end and proving publicity is a useful tool in getting their desired result. Something I abhor and find it difficult to bow to.

If the opinion of Lucy's health was different, if the lobby group was local and worked with the Zoo instead of attacking it my opinion would likely be much different.

So until the time there is a substantive change in Lucy's health issues that would allow her to be moved I suggest and would support her current care.

I would also suggest that the "out of country" advocates solve problems in their world first as there are much more serious issues I have had the mis pleasure of seeing in the USA that should be addressed before coming to Edmonton.

To local advocates for moving Lucy may I suggest working with the Zoo co operatively until such time as Lucy may be moved to come up with options to make it possible and palatable for everyone.

Thanks again for the question.

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 15-10-2010, 03:10 PM   #48
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
Ah yes Mr. Cantor

But as you said about elephants on another thread....properly fed and taken care of...

Tom
properly fed and taken care of yes. and properly housed in a proper place both for the elephant and those that sleep with it...
Enough with the elephinks Ken,,,see what this conversation has lead to (lol)

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 15-10-2010, 03:24 PM   #49
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Sorry etown for not finishing the question...

I had another issue make me take a short break.

The facility...

I am a huge advocate of the Zoo and a past Zoo parent.

It is in need of renovation and the current plans and models look very good to me.

It's a great first step.

I also appreciate the native animal focus that seems to be coming more prevalent and the injury/rescue component that seems to grow larger each time I visit.

For the long term I believe that the native animal/injury/rescue direction is the correct one to head in. Over time and in consultation with Zoo staff and local experts in the field arrange for releases to more natural settings (large scale wildlife parks) for the exotics to be moved to. Those exotics where it is not safe or practical allow to live out their lives in comfortable surroundings with proper care and continue to move to the native animal/injury/rescue model adding a larger education module working in conjunction with other local programs such as John Janzen and others.

Most important to achieve these goals is to determine and provide a long term budget sustainable (both for the zoo and the City) to work with while encouraging increased revenues through greater admissions, attractions and partnerships.

Edit (added after): The budget retrictions may require this to be a very long term project, but done in well thought out small steps one I think is attainable.

Hope that covers your question etownboarder.

Tom

Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 15-10-2010 at 03:29 PM.. Reason: spelling
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 15-10-2010, 03:37 PM   #50
etownboarder
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Old Strathcona
Default

It certainly does. Thanks.
etownboarder is offline  
Old 16-10-2010, 02:41 PM   #51
photogirl67
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Default

And what about these questions I raised earlier? In the big discussion with kcantor you seem to have missed this one.

thanks

Quote:
Originally Posted by photogirl67 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
On the airport lands but off the active aviation area exists additional opportunity. Being adjacent to aviation and aerospace industry creates the opportunity of technology transferring to non aviation but related industries. Wind Turbines, Solar Power, Composite construction along with the related hydraulics, pneumatics and electronics all have non aviation uses and adapting and cross pollinating these technologies can move business forward in new areas. Using infrastructure that has been unused since installed in the 70s/80s.
Tom Hinderks
www.hinderksward2.com
I'm quite interested in this. How do you know those industries would be interested in using that space? Have studies been done as to its suitability for these purposes? Have they expressed interest in that land already?

I'm all for research on alternative energies and if it creates jobs in our ward, all the more. The thing about jobs though is the people have to go where the jobs they are qualified for are located. So saying someone that chooses to live in Ward 2 has to commute a long way and we need more jobs isn't painting the whole picture really. What if that person is an oil worker, or a factory worker, or in manufacturing? We can't really have all types of jobs in all wards and we cannot control where people choose to live. So there will always be commuting issues unless you force people to live next to their job site which isn't realistic. Do you have any thoughts on this?

I find that your ideas on uses for the airport are interesting and unlike other candidates have some thought put into it. My question though is - have any of your ideas ever been discussed by city council? Have any of them ever been suggested or put on the table?

thanks for your time
photogirl67 is offline  
Old 16-10-2010, 04:50 PM   #52
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Photogirl67

I do apologize for missing your questions earlier.

- "I'm quite interested in this. How do you know those industries would be interested in using that space?"

Actually it was done for us in the late 70's by the City but is not on line.
The location for industry is ideal, on a major truck route, adjacent to heavy rail, close to housing etc.

So good in fact that in the late 70's/early 80's the city paid to put the infrastructure into the NW corner of the airport for an industrial park. Yes indeed the access roads are there, the fire hydrants, man holes, sewer etc. so in order to implement the first stage of industrial land sales we just need to do some maintenance and a asphalt recap and then sub divide and add for sale signs.

So for most industries the work is done. For the higher tech (wind turbine etc) it is going to be a matter of courting them as has been done in targeted industries in the USA. But the site, transport systems and climate work for their interests and with the number of former aerospace workers in the area there is little reason other than effort that they can't be attracted.

- "Have studies been done as to its suitability for these purposes?" See the above please.

- "Have they expressed interest in that land already?" A question I can't get answered, but considering no development has been permitted in year on the lands I would assume we are starting fresh. Which just means more hard work.

- "I'm all for research on alternative energies and if it creates jobs in our ward, all the more. The thing about jobs though is the people have to go where the jobs they are qualified for are located. So saying someone that chooses to live in Ward 2 has to commute a long way and we need more jobs isn't painting the whole picture really. What if that person is an oil worker, or a factory worker, or in manufacturing? We can't really have all types of jobs in all wards and we cannot control where people choose to live. So there will always be commuting issues unless you force people to live next to their job site which isn't realistic. Do you have any thoughts on this?"

You are right but you can heavily influence the choices.

Spokane, Bellingham and several other American cities did just that in the 80s and 90s. They targeted select industries and focused on attracting them. Part of the attraction was being able to locate where housing was in close proximity...it worked well. Here we have an additional advantage that rather than starting fresh we have much of the infrastructure in place and can start faster at minimal expense.

People can and are influenced by both employment and housing, we have opportunity to create short commute options on both on Ward 2. By attracting new businesses that bring new residents we can be more effective.

- "My question though is - have any of your ideas ever been discussed by city council? Have any of them ever been suggested or put on the table?"

They have been presented to council in various forms since 2007/8 but I cannot say if they have been discussed, to the second part of your question they have been suggested and put on the table as noted above and some to Scott Clements when he was CEO of Edmonton Airports.

Again sorry for missing your questions earlier (must be getting tired) and I hope I have now covered them all.

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 16-10-2010, 06:23 PM   #53
Jimbo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Westmount, Edmonton
Default

Good luck Tom. We may disagree on some issues, but I truly appreciate you stepping forward to run for councillor.
__________________
aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright
Jimbo is offline  
Old 16-10-2010, 07:06 PM   #54
Medwards
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default

Thomas Hinderks, If elected to council, and the decision to close airport remains (as it likely will) will you work to ensure that the best (non-aviation) vision for these lands are developed and help lay the foundation for this area? Will you be willing to work with other businesses in the city and in particular the ward you are in to invest and help build and redevelop the airport into a thriving bustling area that many of us on Connect2edmonton.ca believe these lands can transform into?
Medwards is offline  
Old 17-10-2010, 08:28 AM   #55
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
Thomas Hinderks, If elected to council, and the decision to close airport remains (as it likely will) will you work to ensure that the best (non-aviation) vision for these lands are developed and help lay the foundation for this area? Will you be willing to work with other businesses in the city and in particular the ward you are in to invest and help build and redevelop the airport into a thriving bustling area that many of us on Connect2edmonton.ca believe these lands can transform into?
In consultation with the residents of Ward 2, yes I would.

But I would not blindly follow the current Master Planning Principals without considering all possible options and would not blindly follow any recommendations without taking the time to use our Community League system and other methods to consult with the residents of Ward 2 to include their direction on the development.

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 17-10-2010, 08:28 AM   #56
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
Good luck Tom. We may disagree on some issues, but I truly appreciate you stepping forward to run for councillor.
Thanks Jim
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 17-10-2010, 09:48 AM   #57
Medwards
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default

Tom,

Being as the decision is fairly firm to close the airport and reversal of that decision is highly unlikely, what key items would you like to see in the redevelopment of the former airport lands? I'm hoping to see a bit of vision in your reply, not a fluff answer like "I will consult the community". A leader should have a vision for the city and all areas of the city. Can you share a bit of your vision(s) while respecting the decision made in council in 2009?

Thanks,

Matt
Medwards is offline  
Old 17-10-2010, 10:07 AM   #58
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Medwards:

For additional detail please take a look at posts 5, 9,15,20 on this thread or my campaign website www.hinderksward2.com.

But in short my personal view of the best use with or without an airport remains consistent.

A place to create diverse long term sustainable employment using the maximum amount of existing infrastructure to reduce costs and create an economic advantage.

With that we also have the ability using existing buildings and area to create a Northside entertainment complex that could include both sports and arts facilities as well as a good sized outdoor public gathering/events area.

With this style of development we can also maintain the existing "Track" for the Indy Car events and expands its weekend uses to include other closed course events such as marathons, cycling races, alternative energy vehicle events and have the option to add 2-3 more major auto racing events each year. The "Track" site would also be a way of bringing winter competitions to the site, Skating, Snow Machine and other non powered winter competitions. The balance of the year the track surface would be part of the roadway system servicing the the employment area.

I also see the idea of the Edmonton Museums complex being included into the site as a way of creating a living history of Edmonton in the 20th Century complementing the current Fort Edmonton operations by picking up where they leave off.

Thank you for the question
Tom

Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 17-10-2010 at 10:09 AM.. Reason: spllng
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 18-10-2010, 02:20 PM   #59
Alex.L
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

Tom, I also wish you good luck. In the event you are not successful tonight, I hope you do not let it discourage you from running in a non-airport-issue year. That being said, you've given me a lot to think about between now and about 5pm when I mark my ballot.

I think you will make a fantastic councillor, whether it's in this election or the next one.
__________________
Maker of Something(s) Edmonton - http://tinyurl.com/YEGFRAME & http://tinyurl.com/ThriftThraft
Alex.L is offline  
Old 18-10-2010, 03:45 PM   #60
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Thanks Alex

I do really appreciate the kind words and while always an optimist I am also a realist and know that my chances this year are thin.

Anyone who knows me knows that not being elected will not discourage me, worse...If I am not elected who ever is will have someone that will push for the Ward elected or not.

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 18-10-2010, 03:53 PM   #61
Gemini
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Edmonton
Default

Tom, always the Gentleman. Even though you are not in my ward I do wish you well in the election. It's always an asset to see new faces on council.
__________________
Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. (Ricky Gervais)
Gemini is offline  
Old 18-10-2010, 03:57 PM   #62
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Gemini

Thank you I consider that a very great compliment!

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 19-10-2010, 07:41 AM   #63
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Well that was an education

Thank you everyone

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 19-10-2010, 09:25 AM   #64
Leendert
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Folsom, CA
Default

Thank you for taking the time to run. I hope you will continue your contributions in making Edmonton a better place to live.
Leendert is offline  
Old 19-10-2010, 10:36 AM   #65
Jimbo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Westmount, Edmonton
Default

Thanks for running, Tom.
__________________
aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright
Jimbo is offline  
Old 19-10-2010, 10:46 AM   #66
kcantor
Addicted to C2E
Mr. Reality Check
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
Well that was an education

Thank you everyone

Tom
tom,

you should take some pride in the fact that it was an education (even if that's perhaps not what you really meant in your post) and in the fact that you were one of the prime teachers when it came to identifying some of the issues and some of the potential solutions to them. not everyone will have agreed with all of your potential solutions but they were well thought out and well articulated.

all of the above may not have gotten you elected but you will certainly have left a legacy of a better educated electorate that has a greater understanding of many of the issues affecting much of the city and not just ward 2 than there would have been without your efforts.

ken
__________________
really just cranky, miserable and disagreeable on principle but happy to have earned the title anyway; downtown arena fan; edmonton 2017 world's fair and edmonton indy supporter; proponent of "edmonton works"
kcantor is offline  
Old 20-10-2010, 09:17 AM   #67
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leendert View Post
Thank you for taking the time to run. I hope you will continue your contributions in making Edmonton a better place to live.
Thank you for your kind words

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 20-10-2010, 09:17 AM   #68
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
Thanks for running, Tom.
Thanks Jimbo

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
Old 20-10-2010, 09:21 AM   #69
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
Well that was an education

Thank you everyone

Tom
tom,

you should take some pride in the fact that it was an education (even if that's perhaps not what you really meant in your post) and in the fact that you were one of the prime teachers when it came to identifying some of the issues and some of the potential solutions to them. not everyone will have agreed with all of your potential solutions but they were well thought out and well articulated.

all of the above may not have gotten you elected but you will certainly have left a legacy of a better educated electorate that has a greater understanding of many of the issues affecting much of the city and not just ward 2 than there would have been without your efforts.

ken
Morning Ken

I was serious in saying it was an education...unfortunately not all of it positive.

If I was able to raise awareness, involvement and understanding I consider the effort a success and with each concern I raised I also presented a potential solution which I believe is important.

Now we live with the results of the electorates decision and the ramifications of the decision, its how the system works.

I am considering this thread closed as the election is completed and once again thank everyone for their questions and comments.

Time to deal with change.

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.