Be kind of nice if Dan could keep an eye on the proceedings at City Hall for awhile.
He must have a general idea of plans on the agenda and whether they are questionable as to the cost and benefit to the city taxpayers.
Bet he could disclose scads of information which might keep some of those administration employees in line.
He may be more beneficial out of that limelight.
Could there be a silver lining to this cloud???
One never knows---yet????

IMO two things stick out to me as costing Dan the election.

The first was that he offer up a lot of issues, but he did not have a clear direction on what he would do to solve those issues. I agree with the consensus building process, but he needed to offer up his opinion even if it was qualified to add more certainty to his mandate.

Number 2 big issue was that Dan allowed the media to give Colin Kinsley a free pass on the major issues such as BC Rail, Colins traveling expenses, and the lack of transparancy in the mayors political agenda. Dan had to not only point out his political differences from Colin, but he also had to explain why Colins decisions were wrong, and how he would do things differently.

Number 3 big issue was the Cameron Street bridge. Dan made a huge mistage saying his solution was to study the province enhancing Cameron Street and 5th Avenue traffic flows rather then publically saying he supports a bridge replacement.

We all know some of Dan's concerns were to not damage the water pumping aquifer station at the Cameron Street bridge as well as to preserve the bridge for historical reasons. Those are legitimate concerns I'm sure most of the voters in the Hart would agree with.

Dan's failure was to say he suported a new birdge, but with provincial and federal funding at a new location that would benefit the city as a dangerous goods route as well as to facilitate through traffic to the Hart more efficiently than the 5th Avenue route. This could have been done and should have been part of Dan's plateform.

Colin on the other hand backed away from his original position on two fronts. He no longer called for tearing down the current bridge, and he now conceeds that the federal and provincial governemnts should be involved. That change of position was an opening for Dan to own the issue and Dan walked away from it when he was on top.

All Colin had to do was modify his position a little on that one issue and then lay low and hope Dan or the media didn't bring up his past track record for further examination.

Trent on the otherhand failed to build a base of support once it became apparent his campaign was about himself. It makes no sense to run an insurgancy campaign if your not going to take the incumbants to task on a major issue or part of their track record. For that reason Trents campaign was one of a spoiler.

IMO

IMO two things stick out to me as costing Dan the election.

The first was that he offer up a lot of issues, but he did not have a clear direction on what he would do to solve those issues. I agree with the consensus building process, but he needed to offer up his opinion even if it was qualified to add more certainty to his mandate.

Number 2 big issue was that Dan allowed the media to give Colin Kinsley a free pass on the major issues such as BC Rail, Colins traveling expenses, and the lack of transparancy in the mayors political agenda. Dan had to not only point out his political differences from Colin, but he also had to explain why Colins decisions were wrong, and how he would do things differently.

Number 3 big issue was the Cameron Street bridge. Dan made a huge mistage saying his solution was to study the province enhancing Cameron Street and 5th Avenue traffic flows rather then publically saying he supports a bridge replacement.

We all know some of Dan's concerns were to not damage the water pumping aquifer station at the Cameron Street bridge as well as to preserve the bridge for historical reasons. Those are legitimate concerns I'm sure most of the voters in the Hart would agree with.

Dan's failure was to say he suported a new birdge, but with provincial and federal funding at a new location that would benefit the city as a dangerous goods route as well as to facilitate through traffic to the Hart more efficiently than the 5th Avenue route. This could have been done and should have been part of Dan's plateform.

Colin on the other hand backed away from his original position on two fronts. He no longer called for tearing down the current bridge, and he now conceeds that the federal and provincial governemnts should be involved. That change of position was an opening for Dan to own the issue and Dan walked away from it when he was on top.

All Colin had to do was modify his position a little on that one issue and then lay low and hope Dan or the media didn't bring up his past track record for further examination.

Trent on the otherhand failed to build a base of support once it became apparent his campaign was about himself. It makes no sense to run an insurgancy campaign if your not going to take the incumbants to task on a major issue or part of their track record. For that reason Trents campaign was one of a spoiler.

IMO

A very good analysis Chadermando ......

you got to get rid of that sticky keyboard though ... ;-)

Great analysis Charmando. As well as the concern about the water pumping station and concern about preserving the bridge for historical reasons, there is also a concern about McMillan Creek Park on the North side of the bridge which is our only trout spawning creek.
I disagree that the Hart Highway residents would agree with these concerns. Shirley Gratton was in favour of replacing the bridge and was given a mandate for that by Hart Highway