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.