A wrong turn for mayoral candidate
Motkaluk’s Portage and Main conspiracy theory does little to advance debate
LAST week, we got to see the first serious week of campaigning in the referendum on whether to reopen Portage and Main. In short, it was a frequently rough-and-tumble, horrendously misinformed thrill ride.
Facebook and Twitter were alight with debate between citizens in favour and opposed to pedestrian traffic at Portage and Main.
Opponents suggested the return of pedestrians would cripple traffic and endanger lives; proponents countered with engineering studies showing commuters would, at worst, face delays of up to 50 seconds.
In general, the debate has been well conducted: citizens exchanging ideas and background information on a pressing issue of public concern. Lamentably, there were a few participants determined to drag the discourse down into the gutter with all manner of incendiary allegations.
Mayoral candidate Jenny Motkaluk was at the head of the pack that sought to divert the debate from the impact of reopening the intersection to political conspiracy theories.
In an Aug. 3 post on her campaign website, Motkaluk said there was a “rumour” Mayor Brian Bowman was having trouble raising money for his re-election campaign. As a result, Motkaluk expressed concern Bowman was going to misuse taxpayer resources to support his bid for a second term. That’s an incendiary allegation, and one that Motkaluk did little to back up with evidence. What proof she did claim to have focused more on the lack of rules governing the referendum, and how that might end up benefiting Bowman.
On that one point — the issue of the lack of guidelines — Motkaluk is not wrong to raise a red flag.
The referendum motion tabled by Coun. Jeff Browaty and Coun. Janice Lukes on July 18 made no attempt to define the rules for campaigning. This was a problem because Manitoba is one of only three provinces that does not have legislation governing plebiscites and referenda.
An opponent of the referendum, Motkaluk said she is concerned there will be “unchecked third-party spending” that could affect the civic election. Again, on that point she has a valid concern.
At the same time they were building support for a referendum, Browaty and Lukes certainly should have proposed a bylaw to outline the rules of engagement. But they didn’t and, as a result, we are facing a potential free-for-all referendum campaign.
However, rather than question the wisdom of those who brought forward the referendum, Motkaluk seems to be consumed with an elaborate conspiracy theory about how “unchecked spending on the Yes side would be an important element to (Bowman’s) reelectioncampaign.” If the ‘Yes’ campaign sticks to the issue of Portage and Main itself and does not get into the business of endorsing any candidate for public office, then the allegation that it supports Bowman’s re-election campaign is a long bow to draw. Yes, Bowman wants to reopen Portage and Main. And yes, citizens who support that view may choose to support Bowman. But it’s a stretch to say the ‘Yes’ campaign is a ‘re-elect Brian Bowman’ campaign.
And the same could be said about the ‘No’ campaign. Any resources that go into that effort would, in essence, support Motkaluk’s bid for the mayoralty. Although it’s unclear that a fully operational ‘No’ campaign will materialize, this is a level playing field for the most part.
Motkaluk also alleged that city-funded agencies supporting the ‘Yes’ campaign were effectively using taxpayer money to support Bowman’s campaign.
In particular, Motkaluk called out the Downtown BIZ and Exchange District BIZ, both of which have publicly argued in favour of reopening Portage and Main for years and now are providing operational support to the ‘Yes’ campaign.
The Business Improvement Zones were created as advocacy organizations, supported primarily through a levy charged to business owners in each zone. The city does collect that money, but it is remitted entirely to the appropriate BIZ. The BIZs also earn some revenue by providing other services to the city, such as security and litter control.
“I think Jenny has the right to express her concerns,” Stefano Grande, CEO of the Downtown BIZ, said in an interview. “But the truth and facts are that the Downtown BIZ, and others, have been already expending resources on this issue for several years now. We have the data and research to educate our members and the public on the importance of opening up Portage and Main. This is our role.”
The conspiracy theories offered last week by Motkaluk did not stop at the BIZs. She also went after architect Brent Bellamy, spokesman for the ‘Yes’ campaign.
In addition to fronting the ‘Yes’ campaign, Bellamy is a member of a number of architecture and planning organizations and a regular contributor to the Free Press. Plus, he was appointed by Bowman as the chairman of Centre Venture, the city’s downtown development agency.
“Brian Bowman is the honorary chairman (of Centre Venture),” Motkaluk wrote in her post. “Hmmm. That’s interesting.”
No it’s not. As is the case with the two BIZ organizations, Bellamy was a well-known advocate for reopening Portage and Main, and was appointed to the Centre Venture board long before the referendum was proposed. To suggest Bellamy is doing something wrong by supporting the ‘Yes’ campaign is a brutal bit of logic.
Still, it’s easy to understand why Motkaluk is upset. She has worked hard to create contrast between herself and Bowman, and clearly believed she would have the upper hand in any debate on Portage and Main that took place within the confines of the mayoral campaign. Now, she is concerned about having to wage war on a second front against the forces behind the ‘Yes’ campaign who can operate without any constraints.
Unfortunately, Motkaluk’s concerns are coming out as poorly grounded innuendo. If you follow her logic, you might even be willing to believe Browaty and Lukes conspired with Bowman to create the referendum, thus giving the incumbent mayor a huge advantage over challengers.
Anyone who knows the lay of the land at city hall knows Browaty and Lukes have no interest in aiding Bowman in any way, shape or form. They are easily among Bowman’s greatest council foes.
When it comes down to it, Motkaluk’s beef is not with Bowman, who has argued that his 2014 election win gave him a mandate to reopen Portage and Main, but rather with Browaty and Lukes, who unleashed a referendum — which has no rules or guidelines — on the city just 90 days before Winnipeggers go to the polls.
Council might want to consider an emergency meeting this month to set some of those guidelines. These might include, but not be limited to, spending limits for official campaigns, a requirement to reveal the identity of donors and most importantly a directive that any referendum-related advertising should steer clear of endorsing any one candidate.
These are guidelines all council members should embrace. Even Bowman, who could kill any future allegation that he wants a lawless referendum campaign by leading the charge to introduce firm rules.
Until that happens, all candidates seeking election in the fall would be well advised to pick their fights more carefully.
dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca