A local group called Election Action Committee appears to be trying to take a page from the city’s history books with its newest announcement that it has set up an election office to support fiscally responsible candidates, but it is unlikely to have a similar impact.
Almost 51 years ago, another group took a St. Albert election into its very hands and successfully helped engineer the outcome. When the province officially announced it would rescind the city’s new town status in July of 1962 and ordered elections to be held beforehand, a group called the Civic Electors Association emerged. Their role, as they later described it, was to “supervise the municipal affairs on behalf of electors and select suitable candidates for municipal office.”
The group nominated six people to run under its own banner, including future mayor William Veness. Seven independents ran as well. All six Civic Electors Association candidates were later elected to office, with the help of the group’s support, profile and influence.
It’s unlikely this new group will be as successful. While its members might claim otherwise, this new committee is simply an extension of the St. Albert Taxpayers Association, whose loud, repetitive calls for the city to rein in spending have grown tired. Any candidate who seeks the support of this group will be elected in spite of that affiliation, rather than because of it.
The group says its office, located in Campbell Business Park, exists to increase voter turnout and add a little “EXCITEMENT” to the upcoming municipal election. The news release announcing it called for voters to support “FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE” candidates and, ironically, begs for “financial support.”
The taxpayers association has been unable to gain any kind of traction in the municipal sphere, so there is no reason to believe this action committee will do any better. They both want the same things – cut taxes at any cost. Gord Hennigar, who is president of the taxpayers association and speaks for this new committee said new candidates should look at reducing staffing at city hall, a call to action the association has repeated ad nauseum.
That means we can also look forward to more complaints about the Downtown Area Redevelopment Plan, which the association refuses to accept. There will be more complaints about the deficit at Servus Credit Union Place and the Starbucks the city runs in it, though the Starbucks exists to minimize the financial losses at Servus Place. Members and their candidates will complain residents are too highly taxed, then complain the city has spent too much money in its efforts to bring more non-residential development to reduce the residential burden. The arguments will be the same ones the city has heard – and tuned out – for the last four years.
What this new group needs is a less antagonistic approach. It needs to accept that when it comes to growth, some spending is necessary. Given the past behaviour of some of its members, however, that is unlikely to happen.
