Comment 50643

By realitycheck (anonymous) | Posted October 27, 2010 at 13:43:09

AEGD's adoption was not a significant contributor to Eisenberger's defeat. If it was an influential factor, we would have seen that reflected in a vote downswing on all incumbants. On the contrary, most incumbants saw an upswing in support. AEGD may have been a issue in play for Ward 11 specifically, but it really wasn't a city-wide issue.

Regarding Ward 11, it is interesting to note the polls that delivered the votes for the anti-sprawl candidate were in fact from the sprawl neighbourhoods that have recently developed in this ward. The polls in the ward which are still predominantly rural in nature were won by Mitchell. Are the proud owners of new suburban sprawl development endorsing Johnson's anti-sprawl platform, or are they rejecting the rural-centric incumbant? If the loss of agricultural land to AEGD was a influential factor in this vote, why were the rural polls in the ward still supportive of the incumbant who voted for AEGD?

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds