Fifteen minutes, and one thing he wouldn't say
Today's Rogers Ward 13 debate ran about fifteen minutes. In that time, Councillor Rawlson King found a way to avoid the single largest infrastructure decision facing this ward and this city entirely: the East End Crossing.
That's not an oversight. Fifteen minutes is not a lot of time, which means every subject that comes up is a choice, and so is every subject that doesn't. King has held a consistent position against the bridge since at least 2021, built on a study showing it would divert only about 15% of truck traffic off King Edward Avenue. It's a defensible position to hold. It is not a defensible position to hide from voters in the one setting built for him to defend it.
So I said it myself, in my closing remarks: the East End Crossing is the most significant infrastructure project facing this ward, and this city. Not because I expect everyone to agree with me on it — I don't — but because a debate where the incumbent won't bring up his own council record on the ward's biggest file isn't really a debate. It's a performance with the hard part edited out.
King's council motion this summer asked the federal review agency to extend its comment deadline past the election, with careful language noting the motion "does not constitute" a position for or against the bridge. The federal government is already spending $221 million on preconstruction. You don't need a procedural motion to hide behind a position you're willing to defend out loud.
He read his answers
Prepared remarks aren't unusual in a debate. But visibly relying on notes for direct questions made him less sure-footed once I pushed past the script — and it showed.
Credit belongs where the vote happened
At one point King's remarks implied he personally directs OC Transpo. He doesn't. Council decides — the same council that overrules individual wards 16-9 when suburban and urban interests split. I called that out in the moment, because it's the same confusion I've been writing about all year: crediting a single councillor for outcomes that are actually the product of a 25-member council, a budget process, and staff who report to all of council, not to one ward representative.
It's a small thing to catch in real time, but not a small distinction. If voters think one person delivers city-wide services, they'll misjudge what a vote for or against him actually changes. It doesn't.
Fewer wards, or just fewer illusions
I put a structural question to him directly: what if Ottawa cut its council from 25 wards to 12 — fewer seats, lower cost, decisions made by a body small enough for voters to actually track?
His answer was that it would be bad for democracy. I don't think that holds up. Only about 40% of eligible voters in this city actually vote. You can't credibly defend a 25-ward structure as protecting democratic representation when 60% of eligible voters aren't using the representation it already offers. A smaller council is easier to watch, easier to hold accountable, and cheaper to run — three things this city could use more of, not less.
The tone
A few exchanges had a condescending edge to them. Voters don't need to be managed. They need a straight account of what's been done and what hasn't — and I kept pulling the debate back toward outcomes, not intentions, every time it drifted.
Why this matters more than a debate performance
I'm not writing this to score a point on stage presence. I'm writing it because a fifteen-minute debate is one of the only moments all year where a Ward 13 voter can watch both candidates respond to the same question, live, without a press release smoothing the edges. If the incumbent can steer around the ward's single biggest infrastructure file in that window, voters need to know that happened — not because I said so, but because it's true, and they should decide for themselves what it means.
You don't have to agree with me on the bridge. You just deserve a candidate willing to say where he stands on it, out loud, when he's asked. So will the Rogers debate make it to the air??? Sorry but history says, "No"
campaign webpage https://peterkarwacki.blogspot.com/p/peter-karwacki-for-rideau-rockcliffe.html?m=1
This time around, inform yourselves, vote differently, vote wisely. Vote for Peter Karwacki for Rideau Rockcliffe.
So the question is: will the video make it to the air? History says...no.
ReplyDelete