Retained to help Envision Edmonton

July 23, 2010 10:01 am 18 comments

I’ve been watching the debate about the Edmonton City Centre Airport for sometime now.  However, when one takes a balanced look at how things have transpired and the intentions of both sides of this discussion, and having talked with people directly involved, it becomes more apparent to me there is more to this issue than the simplified and ridiculous rich fly guys vs. rich developer guys argument.

I’m announcing that we have been asked by Envision Edmonton to provide social media help and since this is a service we provide, we’ve agreed to help.  I wish we would have had more time, however, we’re here to help our clients and we don’t shy away from tough projects, as in a heated debate like this one, that just means we’re going to have to work hard and quickly.  The bottom-line is our services are needed by an honest client and we’re going to provide the best service possible.

Consider us on the “Demand the Vote” side of things.  Even if you’re for closing the airport, you should still support letting democracy rule the day via a public vote.  Volunteer to help collect signatures, if you’re undecided take a look at the documentation and the facts.  If nothing else, read Kevin Libin’s column today in the National Post about recent developments.

  • Jo

    Well I hope you do a good job. Because if you don't I am sure it will be vocalized

  • Closedown

    “our services are needed by an honest client”

    Honest… using scare tactics about people dieing from the Air Ambulance is far from honest, how about lost business from the airport closed, in some cases some of their business could increase as more people will be living and working in the area.

    How much does it cost Edmonton to restrict building height, how about the risk of deaths of planes hitting buildings, seem to me planes have in the past hit Kingway Mall and the Royal Alec.

    Or Tony Caterina's comments that cleaning up the area will cost billions, give me a break.

  • kcantor

    walter,

    when you mention being asked “to provide social media help” and note that “this is a service we provide”, what does it mean when you say “we've agreed to help”?

    i'm curious to know if that means you would actually participate in that social media on behalf of your client? and presuming that is what you mean, would that be under your company name (as the entity that has agreed to provide the “help”), or your name, or whether you would pretend to be an individual participant in that social media providing their personal opinion?

    and, if the last, without disclosing who you are and what you're doing aren't you actually co-opting that media on behalf of your client and not actually participating in that democratic social media you are profiting by?

    ken cantor

  • Alex

    Oh no….here comes the connect2edmonton posse. Whatever will we do? Push for a democratic vote? Nah, that'll make the C2E'ers mad. Oh for sooth!

  • Phil

    Let the trolling begin.

  • kcantor

    i didn't know i qualified as a posse all by myself but i suppose i could take that as a compliment.

    and i didn't post from or on behalf of c2e or anyone else for that matter. just myself.

    and i did post as myself. i guess i just didn't realize how upsetting that would be.

    after all, i was just asking what i thought was a simple question or two and would have thought a simple answer or two would be all that was needed to clear things up. guess i was wrong.

    ken

  • Richard

    Hey, being retained as the Envision Edmonton campaigners, people have to be open to all sides stopping by to say “hi!” – regardless of where they come from or who you assume they represent!

    Cantor asks a very honest question. Will everything fusedlogic does on the behalf of Envision Edmonton be above board and identified as authored by a member of, or created for EE on behalf of fusedlogic? With the cries for democracy here, with concerns for transparency, it is a valid question. After all, everything I do has my name on it, and I'm just joe public!

    Considering that some C2E'ers aren't afraid of this plebiscite attempt, or even if it actually hits the ballot, or better yet actually WANT it on a ballot, that is pretty much a blanket brush inappropriately applied! Some are even asking for the rhetoric on all sides to stop. Others on C2E are outright airport supporters, so maybe reflect the reality of that situation. Still others think the end vision for these lands, regardless of the airport conversation, is not realistic and lacks true city-altering impact. I'd say C2E has plenty of opinions, so just because you don't like poster x, y, or z is not a reason to paint everyone there with the same brush! Plus, if you think that the general population is not saying the same things, you haven't been standing and watching some of the signature drives. I have, including the ones outside the Indy. The exact same comments and concerns are being echoed there as in C2E, comments to the Journal, town halls, etc. Considering the turnout at some of the events, I'd say this issue resonates with Edmontonians about as much as following the Toronto Blue Jays – some care, but not enough to be a material difference in the daily lives of Edmontonians. If they did, that plebiscite would already have the required signatures.

    Nope, the only posse that could be coming are those who express their opinion. I have no reason to jump on here other than to simply correct a misconception.

    Walter, I respect your company's ability to take on every client it so chooses, I respect Envision Edmonton's right to engage in the campaign it has, and in the end I respect the right for every position to be heard. I will take one issue with your opening post though. While you may think this debate has degraded into a rich guy v rich developer equation, it certainly has not. That is the brush that some would like applied. This issue is far more multi-faceted than that, and you should know better.

    I will caution this however, for every open option, there will definitely now be an immediate closure option. Hey, if you want one side to have “democracy”, well expect a ying to your yang. I'm not predicting an outcome, but merely stressing a cautionary tale to some. Construct your question well, should you get a chance to construct your question at all.

    The comments above (re:democracy) also assume that what the vote was last summer was somehow undemocratic, and I dare you to take that up with a constitutional lawyer and see if they even bother to engage. You may hate the outcome, even some of the lobbying, but to say that a city council cannot take up a vote on an issue would be silly. It acted within the rules established under the MGA. Would those decrying their right to democracy was violated be as aghast if the vote was 10-3 the other way?

    Folks, I'm simply going to wait to see the results of this petition. My only lobbying will be to ensure that the question, should it get on a ballot, is a simple and open as possible. I want this conversation done. For I honestly think that this airport issue is the biggest distraction in the city – there are far more pressing economic issues and city transforming ideas than an ancient debate with ready solutions.

  • http://twitter.com/fusedlogic Walter Schwabe

    Jo, thanks for reading.

  • http://twitter.com/fusedlogic Walter Schwabe

    Closedown – Tony Caterina is a City of Edmonton Councillor and other than signing the petition to my knowledge is not a part of Envision Edmonton.

  • http://twitter.com/fusedlogic Walter Schwabe

    Ken – If you used social media, and C2E isn't social media, you would already know the answer to your question regarding transparency. That's in addition to the fact that you're commenting on a post published about the fact that we've agreed to work with this client.

  • http://twitter.com/fusedlogic Walter Schwabe

    Unfortunately…

  • http://twitter.com/fusedlogic Walter Schwabe

    Richard – I find your comment “After all, everything I do has my name on it, and I'm just joe public!” interesting as you haven't identified yourself other than “Richard” here, I'm not sure how that's exactly transparent. Which then calls “your credibilty” into question rather than mine or that of my firm.

    As for the rest of your comment you may be interested to know that the City of Edmonton is already being sued for this action. Transparency sticklers will love this article in the National Post which clearly states in the words of the ERAA that the decision to close the airport was made before the public hearings and the Mayor was a part of that behind closed doors discussion.

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/23/…

  • Secretagent747

    I think your company should be called 'ConFusedLogic'! Makes more sense than the issue you are representing!

  • leddhed

    it goes to show that mandel should be sent packing…he has fallen in love with the worst generation in canadian history, full of ADD ,ADHD, drug abuse, binge drinkers….everybody is fair game in edmonton from the 93year olds to the kids………all the dead head seeds are sprouted and upon us….

  • Renie

    The CARP airport in Ottawa is a small general aviation airport that has attracted numerous high tech industries beside the airport. They provide jobs and taxes for Ottawa and have been a boon to the City. This could also happen in Edmonton (within City limits) and would benefit the City and attract firms to locate here. Aviation experts agree that it will not be long before planes that are very quiet are developed and they will also be STOL (short takeoff and landing) so the building height restrictions will no longer be an issue. Sincerely Renie Zeitz

  • kcantor

    Renie,

    the carp airport is further from downtown carp than ecca is from downtown edmonton. and this photo – courtesy of wiki – is a lovely picture of downtown carp:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/t…

    thanks but no thanks, stol or not. and for the record, carp airport is further from downtown ottawa than either ottawa international or rockcliffe.

    having said that, for clarity are you really suggesting that we simply keep ecca undeveloped so that it could be an aiport but only for very quiet stol planes “if and when they are actually developed” or do you want ecca as a full operating airport whether or not they are ever developed with the rationalization “they might be developed” and “they might be used here once they are”?

  • SeriousYEG

    Frequent reader to pick up tips, never posted before.

    Comment: Nathan Black posed (re: fraud and personation (the Canadian term for “impersonation” aka a criminal offense) as a Seattle newspaper writer. “His” blog and story went a little bit viral and then was exposed as a fraud. If you guys had anything to do with that, shame. That episode has tainted Envision Edmonton and everyone surrounding it. The Dorward campaign is in spin control. EE has come out in support of Black, dismissing his actions as a “prank.” If EE wants my support, they’ll have to realize that transparency is a two-way street, and that integrity demands a real commitment to acknowledge information that supports AND condemns your position.

    Sadly, in my view, I think Fused Logic is tainted with this scandal. It brings your own integrity into question. It’s no longer a question of democracy, it’s a question of integrity. If I were you guys I’d run screaming from Envision Edmonton. Unless the money is worth more than your reputation.

    Just sayin’.

    • http://twitter.com/fusedlogic Walter Schwabe

      Thanks for your comment. Our contract expired near the time of the vote by Edmonton City Council to deny the plebiscite. We did not renew it. We also do not condone or support what Mr. Black did, nor did we have any knowledge of same. We have no connection to Mr. Black or the Dorward Campaign. Further, our role on this project did not include setting message, that was handled by the Envision Edmonton Board and MKM. In the future, you are encouraged to log in with your real name, it’s pretty easy to make assumptions and accusations without the facts and without transparency.