Iveson under fire — and he's not even on the ballot
As any mayor hoping to stay in office for a second, third or even 13th term can tell you, running for re-election can make you feel like a nail facing a bunch of hammers.
Incumbent mayors tend to be prohibitive favourites, which means they automatically become the exclusive target of challengers who are happy to put their voting record, speeches and any perceived character flaws on trial for voters.
However, as it turns out, even outgoing mayors like Don Iveson aren't exactly immune to this treatment during election season.
Candidates competing to distinguish themselves will campaign not just against their opponents, but against the status quo, which, rightly or wrongly, tends to be represented by the person who has held the top office.
Some of this is inevitable in any such race, and yet I'm getting the sense that there is a heightened degree of animosity toward Iveson this election that he didn't face in any of the four elections where he was actually on the ballot.
Economic and social anxiety from COVID-19 is undoubtedly fuelling a lot of this, but I've also heard considerable anger out there on a variety of other fronts.
Still, contenders hoping to harness these hard feelings to their cause face an interesting question: Can they rely on them enough to actually win the race?
The latest performance of Iveson the punching bag came during last Thursday's mayoral debate, much of it from businessman and former city councillor Michael Oshry.
In case you missed it — and since the event was a private, invite-only affair, chances are you did — Oshry began his opening remarks by blasting Iveson without naming him, as if that might soften the blow.
“Edmonton's business community has been ignored by the mayor's office for the past eight years,” Oshry said to a room full of members of that business community.
“We also need a mayor who doesn't have a history of attacking provincial governments,” he added, before also taking a couple of swipes at opponents Amarjeet Sohi and Mike Nickel, the latter of whom did not attend the debate.
Later, he castigated the city's performance as developer of the Blatchford community — an initiative Iveson has championed — calling the effort “a total disaster.”
As for the other contenders, Kim Krushell, Cheryll Watson and Sohi were more subtle in their approach, but also had a few moments of criticism for perceived failings that have occurred under Iveson's watch, including the rise in property taxes, excessive red tape for projects, downtown disorder and the size of the municipal bureaucracy.
Regarding Nickel, his animus toward Iveson has felt more personal and long-standing, even dating back to 2007 when Iveson beat him in a ward race. Still, though the two men haven't agreed on much in the last 14 years, it's clear the intensity of Nickel's denigration has picked up over the past 16 months as it became clear he was going to seek Iveson's job.
Of particular note has been a cycle of social media attacks, followed by Iveson's votes to sanction Nickel for code of conduct violations, including one violation for which Iveson was the complainant.
Though I think his rhetoric has often been misleading or misplaced, there's no question Nickel has tapped a vein of public resentment with his argument much of council — and Iveson in particular — has given too much time and energy the last few years to confounding social issues the city is ill-equipped to solve (climate change, homelessness, addictions, etc.).
Oshry, too, has waded into this disaffection, suggesting the city has overcomplicated its response to those issues and needs to get out of a pattern of too much talk and not enough action.
Some contributors to our latest Groundwork project have expressed similar sentiments, while also registering upset about frequent delays to city infrastructure projects, and other assorted concerns for which they, fairly or not, hold Iveson partly responsible.
Iveson's office declined to comment on the election rhetoric, and that's probably the smart move since he doesn't want to be seen influencing the outcome.
Still, it can't be fun hearing candidates tear down his record for political gain, especially when some of those attacks are disingenuous or at least missing some important context.
And if Iveson is planning another political adventure, it may be especially difficult to resist fighting back.
I won't weigh in on the validity of the criticism of the mayor here, but I am interested in the question of how much there is to gain for those engaging in it.
Is the well of resentment toward Iveson and the interests he is seen to represent really deep enough to propel someone to victory?
On this, I'm skeptical.
Yes, the politics of anger have been an effective election strategy in other circumstances.
But in a field this crowded, for a non-partisan office that has limited powers, I don't think it's going to be sufficient, and that's a good thing.
The winner of this race should be crowned on the strength of their ideas and experience, not how loudly they disparage the politician they are trying to replace.
In other words, if you want to build something lasting, your tool box better have more than a hammer.