Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Candidate Greg Siver

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Candidate Greg Siver

    This thread is to ask questions of Candidate Greg Siver - Councillor Ward 3.

    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!
    Ow

  • #2
    I am 46 years old and have been living in North Edmonton for the last 15 years. I am originally from Victoria BC, moved to Alberta to be a Paramedic. I have been working as a Emergency Medical Technician and Paramedic for the last 18 years, first in rural Alberta then the last 15 years in Edmonton. I have two children; boys, 12 and 14 years old, and I have been married for 24 years.

    Reason I am running for Councillor:
    I love this City. We have great universities, and sporting teams. The arts are fantastic in our City with live theatre, opera, and our symphony. Multi-cultural diversity all makes Edmonton special. I have a feeling of community living in Edmonton. I am afraid if we do not change the way we think, Edmonton will become an expensive place to live. As a frontline Paramedic I have seen Edmonton from a unique perspective. I have seen firsthand homelessness growing and how drugs and alcohol affects our City. I have seen Edmonton expand at a rapid rate. During the last boom we had a great opportunity to revitalize older communities and our downtown. Fifteen years has passed and we still have communities with the same issues and downtown still has acres of undeveloped land. The new sprawling communities are putting huge financial pressures on Edmonton. Taxes keep increasing, which are directly related to the pressures new communities have on our City. Urban sprawl has to slow down.

    Edmonton as a whole needs to think differently if it wants to control our costs and make our City efficient. Urban sprawl has put large pressures on our infrastructure mainly sewer and water, and our services Police, transit, and fire. I believe Edmonton has to urbanize and to grow up rather than out. If we do not change our thinking on how our city should grow and we keep putting undue pressures on our infrastructures there will only one way our taxes are going to go and that is up.

    Crime:
    I believe in safe streets. I believe it should be the ultimate goal of any City, province or country. Safe streets brings choices and a sense of freedom. It makes a community or city valuable. To stop crime the Ideas are simplistic but the application to the ideas are complex. It takes the willingness and co-operation from all levels of government and multiple agencies. I believe all children have the right to play sports and be involved in the arts. Far too many children in our City do not have the opportunity. Children should have access to tutors; there is nothing more frustrating than to do poorly in school. These are just a couple of ideas to prevent crime in our City. I will do my best to promote prevention, and to co-operate with different agencies and levels of government to succeed to lower crime. I will work hard with our Police force and help them have the tools to succeed.

    Transportation:
    Transportation is the corner stone to any good urban plan. We as Edmontonians should have choices to what form of transportation is right for us. Whether it is walking, riding a bike, taking public transit, or driving a vehicle. Each choice should be assessible and safe to use. Public transit should be frequent and affordable to be successful. Newer communities should be walkable, older communities should have access to bike paths. There needs to be bike lanes on all major road ways in Edmonton. It has been very hard for transit to improve in Edmonton because of the extreme costs of urban sprawl. If we slow down sprawl and the financial pressure on our City then we start improve the services to our City.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0XSmuswXzM
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BgHGKWb8Ls
    www.gregsiver.net

    Comment


    • #3
      What is your stance on the City Center Airport?
      A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

      Comment


      • #4
        I would like to see the airport remain open because I feel if we develope the site it will take away from our downtown being developed and revitalization of the commnities around the downtown core.

        Thank you for your question.

        Comment


        • #5
          Would you attempt to reverse the decision city council made in July 2009 to close the airport in phases, if you were elected?
          A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

          Comment


          • #6
            If there was the opportunity to keep the airport open. I would vote in favor in keeping the airport open.

            Thanks,
            Greg.

            Comment


            • #7
              Greg, what about the ongoing maintenance and upgrade costs to continue operation at the CCA? From memory, and I apologize if I'm off, there's something like 20-30 million dollars worth of upgrades required over the next decade alone.

              http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/st...ure-costs.html

              That gives it on an annual basis, a deficit of 1.3 million dollars a year, which is subsidized by operations at EIA/YEG. Why should the international continue to subsidize an airport that is not financially viable?

              Also, given the fact that currently the municipal development plan has only set a requirement of 25% for new infill housing, leaving 75% to be greenfield subdivisions, do you not feel it possible to strike a better balance by requiring more infill housing, which would help to develop the CCA lands, warehouse district, and the Quarters simultaneously over the coming decades?
              Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 28-09-2010, 11:44 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                My concern is the effect on the developement of our downtown. If the airport is close as scheduled, how would you ensure that the downtown be uneffected by the developement on the airport sit?. What's the costs of having a downtown not fully developed ? These are some of the question that I have.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Greg - The city is not going to close the airport tomorrow, and then develop it all overnight. This is a 25-50 year process that might not even see the airport closed for 3-5 years.
                  Downtown development can happen at the same time. I doubt very much so that when the airport does finally close, that they'll open all the land to be developed all at once. It will likely happen in multiple phases over a few decades.

                  The airport being open has hindered downtowns development as it is. Keeping it open longer will further hinder it.

                  Do you understand these points? Downtown can grow and prosper as the airport is redeveloped over a long term plan.
                  A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by gresiv View Post
                    My concern is the effect on the developement of our downtown. If the airport is close as scheduled, how would you ensure that the downtown be uneffected by the developement on the airport sit?. What's the costs of having a downtown not fully developed ? These are some of the question that I have.
                    No comment on a greater required proportion of infill housing that would accelerate downtown development? Are you familiar with the municipal development plan and the 75/25 ratio?

                    http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...ment-plan.aspx

                    And again, why should EIA be subsidizing CCA?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Thank you for your good questions. I really enjoy this type of positive debate. Just finshed reading EIA's financial report for 2009, and there was no mention of the cost of repairs for the CCP

                      http://corporate.flyeia.com/media/35...0ar09%20v2.pdf

                      I cannot imagine that EIA will not budget for such a large expence. EIA is a fiscially minded multi-million dollar corporation who I do not think would over look an expense like this. EIA is responsible for the safety of CCP and which has a very good record for.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hello,

                        I just want to finish speaking abour EIA and CCP. EIA is a non-share holder corperation. It is financially independent and does not use tax payers money. NO tax payer money whether it be municipal or provincial is used to finance the EIA. The board of directors do not make any more or any less from the corperation. If EIA has to make those safety repairs at CCP it will not effect Edmonton tax payers. I can say with a 100% certianty that EIA can make the repairs without having too much effect on their operations. EIA is very financially stable at this time.


                        The issue in the nest decade is how we as a city are going to pay for our infrastructure. As of now we have 19 billion dollars infrastructure deficict. The City predicts that we will have a population growth of just over a 100 thousand people for every decade for the next 30 years. Edmonton plans to let develope almost every square inch of land our city. mainly single family homes. I feel if this happens the City will go broke. We have to change our way of thinking when it comes to how our city is built. Zoning practises have to change.

                        I look forward to hear from you again. Thank you.

                        Greg Siver.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Would you press for quicker construction of the NW LRT line and/or a bridge/tunnel across the Yellowhead as some of your competitors will (Oplanich in particular)?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by bootlegga View Post
                            Would you press for quicker construction of the NW LRT line and/or a bridge/tunnel across the Yellowhead as some of your competitors will (Oplanich in particular)?

                            Light rapid transit is a corner stone of any urban planning. Having the LRT come up north would be a priority with me also. Part of the planning for the LRT extension should be planning of other forms of transportation that connect with the LRT. For example, bike paths and biking lanes and sidewalks. I would like see secure parking for bicycles at our new LRT stations. Good urban planning should include all forms of transportation: walking, cycling, public transit or using a car. They all need to be safe and accessible, to be successful. It would also be a priority for me to have the LRT part of a transportation sytem in our ward. I do not think just building a LRT is enough it needs to be a part of a whole system. If we build for the future, Edmonton becomes a better place to live. Thank you for your question.

                            Sincerely,

                            Greg Siver.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I have been a resident of Ward 3 for 26 years; it still amazes me how former counselors can claim to have concern about the safety of the ward they serve (Lago Lindo) and sleep at night knowing that there is ONE primary access/exit road to that district. In the time I've lived here and voted in civic elections, no Counselor has managed to share this ward's concern over the engineering blunder that has plagued the district since it was developed in 1982. Fortunately, my neighbors and I have survived 5 incidents in the neighborhood, most recently a home explosion. You appear to be no more sensitive to the needs of this ward than your predecessors, and this is made apparent in your passionate concern over the development of the downtown core versus the ward you wish to serve. We need an alternate exit to this community - are you prepared to satisfy this - or are you simply a voice like all the rest?
                              LuckyLago
                              Last edited by LuckyLago; 07-10-2010, 08:41 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X