Home builder vs nenshi goes another round

[Sugarphreak]

...

[ercchry]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


My guess is probably like the ghetto’s of Taradale

nooo, its too west... but it sure will fuck up centre street

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by ercchry


nooo, its too west... but it sure will fuck up centre street

They will carve out 2 more lanes for buses and eventually street car. 301 is already a shit show on most days.

[bspot]

Originally posted by Xtrema


It's all about assessment and market value. Your 1000 sqft on 50' worth at least 30% less than your neighbor's redeveloped 2000 sqft on 25'. (Lot's assumption here).

I know how it works, that's why I refer to it as arbitrary

Your example is pretty much bang on of what happens all over my neighborhood.

There's a condo building at the end of the street with pretty nice units. I'd say average price is over $400K for sure. Say there is 100 units in there, and 200' of sidewalk and road frontage.

That's 2' of sidewalk and road per unit. Yet they all pay tax at the same rate as me.

There is likely one water and sanitary service to the complex. Yes they are larger than mine, but still, they are splitting the cost 100 ways, and yet still pay the same rate as me.

I'm being subsidized.

It's not suburbs vs inner city, because there is subsidization going on all over the city. On average it is higher in a suburban neighborhood because of lower assessed values and less population density than my specific neighborhood, but there are lots of communities considered inner city that have really low density.

[Xtrema]

Your $500K 40 year old infield will pay same or less tax as a $500K condo in the same area.

Roads are less, sewer cost less because more share the same footprint.

But they will still have to pay for police/fire and other services that's more per capita regardless where they live. Those cost would not change much.

[Xtrema]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...suit-1.2431118

[sabad66]

Originally posted by bspot


I know how it works, that's why I refer to it as arbitrary

Your example is pretty much bang on of what happens all over my neighborhood.

There's a condo building at the end of the street with pretty nice units. I'd say average price is over $400K for sure. Say there is 100 units in there, and 200' of sidewalk and road frontage.

That's 2' of sidewalk and road per unit. Yet they all pay tax at the same rate as me.

There is likely one water and sanitary service to the complex. Yes they are larger than mine, but still, they are splitting the cost 100 ways, and yet still pay the same rate as me.

I'm being subsidized.

It's not suburbs vs inner city, because there is subsidization going on all over the city. On average it is higher in a suburban neighborhood because of lower assessed values and less population density than my specific neighborhood, but there are lots of communities considered inner city that have really low density.

I understand what you're saying, but I think your argument is flawed because you're saying the road/sidewalk costs should belong to the homeowner - why? All of the people in the condo complex use that road to get to their house so they should be responsible for the road maintenance costs just as much as the guy who's house it is in front of.

[UndrgroundRider]

I haven't seen this posted yet. Here's Nenshi's response via his legal counsel.

http://blog.calgarymayor.ca/2013/11/...regarding.html

We are counsel for his Worship, Mayor Naheed K. Nenshi and have been provided with your correspondence dated October 31, 2013. The Mayor is disappointed with the inflammatory language and hyperbole contained in your letter. Set out below is the Mayor's response to the accusations made by your clients.

Distilling the rhetoric in your letter, it appears that Mr. Wenzel and Shane Homes Limited claim that they have been slandered in three ways:
[list=1][*]Mr. Wenzel is said to have broken the law; [*]Mr. Wenzel told others during his secret meeting how to break the law; and [*]Mr. Wenzel's secret meeting was referred to as a scene out of the movie "The Godfather" and Mr. Wenzel considers that he was referred to as the Godfather.[/list=1]

In respect of the first two matters, I would strongly suggest that your clients review the Local Authorities Election Act, RSA 2000, c.L-21 ("LAEA"). The LAEA now sets out (as of February 3, 2010) specific rules for municipal election finance and contribution disclosure. It sets out maximum contribution amounts in Section 147.2(1). For ease of reference that provision provides:

Limitations on Contributions
147.2(1) Campaign contributions by any person, corporation, trade union or employee organization to a candidate shall not exceed $5,000.00 in any year.

In addition, the LAEA also defines the scope of "Campaign contribution" for the purposes of the Act. Again,for ease of reference I set out that provision below:

Definitions
147.1(1) In this Part,

(A)"Campaign Contribution" means any money, personal property, real property or service that is provided to or for the benefit of a candidate or the candidate's election campaign without fair market value compensation from that candidate but does not include services provided by a volunteer who voluntarily performs the services and receives no compensation, directly or indirectly, in relation to the services or time spent providing the services.

On a plain reading of the LAEA, "Campaign Contribution" would include any goods and services that are provided to the candidate at less than fair market value compensation from the candidate, including things "donated" to be used during the campaign by the candidate. By contrast, the exception for "services provided by a volunteer" appears to contemplate services (and not goods) that are "performed" personally by a volunteer and may not have separate fair market value. Indeed, a review of Hansard Debates at the reading of Bill 203, which amended the LAEA to include the maximum limits on campaign contributions in Alberta municipal elections, the Honourable Mr. Lukaszuk of Edmonton — Castle Downs made the following comment on the definition of contributions for the purposes of campaign expenses:

So if somebody gives you an office to use for the duration of the campaign, that actually has a market value. You should declare it as a donation. That's what we do in provincial elections.

Returning to the secret meeting convened by Mr. Wenzel of his colleagues and supporters, I quote below verbatim the statements made by Mr. Wenzel:

Cal Wenzel:

"Druh Farrell — In case anyone doesn't know — she doesn't like me and I don't particularly like her. I had 13 trucks out last election delivering signs and assembling them and I got called by Druh in the elections because they said I'd given $5,000 in cash so therefore my trucks that were out delivering put me over the $5,000 limit so they were going to take us to court. So Druh and I don't see eye to eye obviously."

"Now, one of the things you know, when you're looking at getting rid of an incumbent you know, such as Druh Farrell or Pincott, the candidates that you know, Kevin Taylor and James Maxim, are suggesting that they need somewhere in the area of $150,000 to $250,000 in their campaign funds. Now that could be maybe a little bit less, because Chris has promised every United truck to be made available and he's going to print the signs on their computers, and so you know, maybe he can get by with $125,000. That's how much money these guys think they need. Now the other thing is, keep in mind you can only send them $5,000 per year, and that means you've 35 days to send in this year's tranche and then next year you can send in an additional. So it's really quite important that you know,that you get on that."

"So how much does it really cost you? So if we have to sit here and say, you know, we have to fund maybe ten candidates here for $5,000 — that's $50,000 this year and $50,000 next year. Keeping in mind, in order to bring Preston on board, eleven of us put up $100,000 — so a million one. So its not like we haven't put up our money, you know, and we're going to be there to put it up again and yet we're also supporting the candidates. So I'll leave you with that."

As your clients are probably aware, justification is a complete defence to any claim of alleged defamation. That is, truth is a complete answer. The law provides that it is sufficient if the substance of the allegation is justified. Based upon the definition of "Campaign Contribution" it is difficult to understand how Mr. Wenzel's confession to a group secretly called to a meeting that he had donated $5,000 and then in addition had thirteen trucks out delivering signs and assembling them would not be a clear violation of the law. Indeed, it would appear that Mr. Wenzel is fortunate that he was not pursued or prosecuted under Section 147.2(5) for contravening the LAEA. In addition, during the course of his statements to his various friends during that meeting, he was clearly explaining to them how they could provide services such as "every United truck" or printing signs for the candidates as a way to obviate the $5,000 limit. That, reasonably construed, again would be a violation of the LAEA.

Therefore, your letter is accurate that Mr. Wenzel did not admit to breaking the law. However, based on his confessions in the meeting, it is difficult to understand how he did not break the law.

In addition to the defence of justification, all three allegations (i.e. the accusation of breaking the law, telling others how to, and the reference to the Godfather) attract the protection of qualified privilege. This defence protects statements made in the protection of the public interest and in furtherance of a duty to the public. In this context, the importance of the communication outweighs any potential harm to a Plaintiff. The interview given by Mayor Nenshi to the CBC was done in the course of a public debate during an election campaign. It is without doubt in the public interest for there to be a full airing and debate about policy issues from a mayoral candidate. As such, a qualified privilege attaches to all of the statements made by the Mayor during his interview.

Thirdly, aside from justification and qualified privilege, the statements made by the Mayor of which Mr. Wenzel now complains are fair comment. The comments made by the Mayor regarding Mr. Wenzel's secret meeting were based upon fact as recorded and published by an attendee at that meeting. The matter at issue, an attempt by Mr. Wenzel and his friends to drum up electoral support (financial and otherwise) for like-minded candidates is also a matter of important public interest. The question is thus whether any person could honestly express those opinions on the proved facts? Speaking frankly, it is difficult to understand how any reasonable person would not.

As part of his comment, Mayor Nenshi noted that the secret meeting called by Mr. Wenzel was like a scene out of the movie "The Godfather". This reference is without question an expression of subjective opinion and hyperbole which constitutes "fair comment" under Canadian law. In the context of the proven facts, no reasonable thinking person would conclude, based on this comment, that Mr. Wenzel must be involved in a "mafia-like" organization, as you referred to in your letter, or that he was committing heinous crimes. Rather, the reasonable person would consider this statement as a fair comment about Mr. Wenzel's approach to politics: an individual who has gathered 150 friends to raise money, who is kind and benevolent to those who give respect and agree with his views, but, perhaps, ruthless when something stands in his way.

Finally, I do note, in relation to that "Godfather comment" that Mr. Wenzel, in an interview given to the Calgary Sun published on April 23, 2013, was quoted as follows:

"Then when I think about it, I built this company as a family business. My son now runs this thing day to day. I hope one day my grandson runs it. So we will stay and fight and we won't run away. If Nenshi wants to fight then he's going to get it."
"Our family is more resolved than ever to go after him."

It is unclear what "family" Mr. Wenzel was referring to or how he would "go after him," but I would draw your attention to the further qualified privilege that allows an individual to respond to direct criticism or personal attacks. The statement by Mr. Wenzel to the Calgary Sun certainly appears to engage that definition in respect of Mayor Nenshi. I trust the above fully answers any concerns that Mr. Wenzel or Shane Homes have in this matter. The Mayor respectfully declines your offer to provide an apology "to Mr. Wenzel's satisfaction" as demanded in your letter. To be clear, should your clients decide to pursue a claim, the Mayor will be seeking full reimbursement for any costs incurred in defending such a claim.

Yours truly,
Munaf Mohamed

[Sugarphreak]

...

[FraserB]

Either way, all costs for this should be coming out of Nenshi's pocket. Him campaigning on a talk show is not executing the city's business, so his comments are those of a private party seeking election to office.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Lex350]

I think Nenshi is a whiney little bitch. He can go off an anybody that doesn’t have their head up his ass but god forbid someone as opposing views to his. He’s a grandstander. He isn’t political savvy, he is media savvy…sadly that will win you more votes in this day and age.

[mr2mike]

Glad I decided against voting for Kevin Taylor this past election. Clearly he's in with the home builders and developers.

[Lex350]

Nenshi makes it sound like the builders are some sort of evil entity that is trying to take over the city and rape your children. The level of influence that the home builders have is peanuts compared to what level of lobbying the BIG developers do. This stuff goes on all the time and like it or not it is part off the political game. I see either a current or former political figure in my boss's office on a bi-weekly basis.

It is no coincidence that many ex-political figures from the city seem to end up invloved with major developments in this city after they have "left" politics.

[Masked Bandit]

Originally posted by FraserB
Either way, all costs for this should be coming out of Nenshi's pocket. Him campaigning on a talk show is not executing the city's business, so his comments are those of a private party seeking election to office.

I heard on the news that at least one of the councilors (Diane Colley-Urquart -sp?) was pretty clear that taxpayers should not be on the hook for his legal costs.

[rage2]

Even if the city doesn't pay for it, there is no way Nenshi will be paying out of pocket. Any law firm would be more than happy to take this pro bono for the media exposure that it's going to get.

I love how it's drawn out in public. I love legal fights like this haha. It is a fairly solid defense that Nenshi's council has.

As your clients are probably aware, justification is a complete defence to any claim of alleged defamation. That is, truth is a complete answer. The law provides that it is sufficient if the substance of the allegation is justified. Based upon the definition of "Campaign Contribution" it is difficult to understand how Mr. Wenzel's confession to a group secretly called to a meeting that he had donated $5,000 and then in addition had thirteen trucks out delivering signs and assembling them would not be a clear violation of the law. Indeed, it would appear that Mr. Wenzel is fortunate that he was not pursued or prosecuted under Section 147.2(5) for contravening the LAEA. In addition, during the course of his statements to his various friends during that meeting, he was clearly explaining to them how they could provide services such as "every United truck" or printing signs for the candidates as a way to obviate the $5,000 limit. That, reasonably construed, again would be a violation of the LAEA.

The reason why Wenzel wasn't pursued or prosecuted was because he didn't do anything illegal, I brought this up in the original thread talking about these accusations. He didn't really personally offer 13 trucks. Those trucks were DD's for employees, who were persuaded enough to volunteer outside of work hours to Kevin Taylor's campaign. I think he just made those comments to exaggerate a bit, and make a point to his peers that he's doing as much as he can. Druh tried to complain about it but it went nowhere. Nenshi bitched about it, and it went nowhere because it didn't break any laws.

Of course, Nenshi's defense can easily be "oh, so that's what you meant when you said offer 13 trucks" and he'd get away with it. You'd have to prove that Nenshi didn't know the actual truth, which isn't exactly easy. Sure, a regular joe like myself figured it out in 10 mins, Nenshi could claim he's too busy to research it properly.

At the end of the day, all Wenzel wants is an apology. He didn't do anything illegal, Nenshi just has to retract his statements, and it all goes away. But we all know Nenshi is too proud to do that, cuz he's never wrong. It's not as fun as the Rob Ford sideshow, but I'll enjoy this while it lasts.

[Khyron]

I personally don't want my politicians stepping on eggshells worrying about getting sued for anything they say. Aside from blatant lying for personal gain I want them open and honest.

Nenshi should be covered by the city legal team. That's why he's fighting the lawsuit - Wenzel is throwing out some huge million dollar number as a scare tactic to try and silence opposition. It's not like this was all made up.

If Wenzel thought this was hurting his reputation before, it's 10x now. This isn't the USA. I will gladly remind people what Shane Homes stands for.

I find it funny that no one can do anything to Ford, yet Neshi gets sued for millions for calling someone a name.

[Mibz]

Originally posted by Khyron
I personally don't want my politicians stepping on eggshells worrying about getting sued for anything they say.

This isn't the USA.

I'm sure you've seen that fucking hilarious political ads on American channels where candidates make each other out to be pedophile wife beating drug addicted devils. That's what you get when politicians are allowed freedom to make borderline slanderous statements.

Would it be great to have politicians that could be free to say what they want? Yeah, absolutely, but you're dreaming if you think that freedom wouldn't be abused. Nenshi knows the laws and he chose to push his luck. This is the result. What Nenshi said, he said during a campaign, not as mayor. If a losing candidate got sued for something he said during campaign would the City cover it? I don't fucking think so.

I had to unsub from /r/calgary after this. Fucking people are talking about a Kickstarter for Nenshi if he has to pay out of pocket.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by Mibz
I had to unsub from /r/calgary after this. Fucking people are talking about a Kickstarter for Nenshi if he has to pay out of pocket.

Even if city won't cover it, he should have campaign funds left over to deal with this. But I'm not surprise /r/calgary will raise more $ for him.

Finally, I do note, in relation to that "Godfather comment" that Mr. Wenzel, in an interview given to the Calgary Sun published on April 23, 2013, was quoted as follows:

"Then when I think about it, I built this company as a family business. My son now runs this thing day to day. I hope one day my grandson runs it. So we will stay and fight and we won't run away. If Nenshi wants to fight then he's going to get it."
"Our family is more resolved than ever to go after him."

It is unclear what "family" Mr. Wenzel was referring to or how he would "go after him," but I would draw your attention to the further qualified privilege that allows an individual to respond to direct criticism or personal attacks. The statement by Mr. Wenzel to the Calgary Sun certainly appears to engage that definition in respect of Mayor Nenshi. I trust the above fully answers any concerns that Mr. Wenzel or Shane Homes have in this matter. The Mayor respectfully declines your offer to provide an apology "to Mr. Wenzel's satisfaction" as demanded in your letter. To be clear, should your clients decide to pursue a claim, the Mayor will be seeking full reimbursement for any costs incurred in defending such a claim.

I love how the lawyer is implying Godfather again at the end of that release.

[guessboi]

I guess Nenshi didn't purchase any liability insurance as a Mayor for advertising injury, otherwise he is covered under insurance.