I was at this debate and I don't agree that Peter is, as you say, "a slightly crazed dude" who was "foaming at the mouth". In fact, if anyone was "foaming at the mouth", it was Hoskins, but, like Grabosky, he had a good reason. In the past 20 years, very little attention has been paid to the communities in the new District 11. As Adams himself said, activities and accomplishments in the district in the past 4 years have outnumbered those of the past 16, and, more importantly, have been focused on the Spryfield area alone -- which is only one community of the thirty communities that make up the district.
While Grabosky did make a few digs at Adams, they were made to address what he believed were serious issues, and not made for the sole purpose of attacking his adversary, as we saw in the recent mayoral transportation debate. The questions of where a candidate lives, whether he will devote full time to the job, and what he plans to do for the community are all fair, and deserve to be addressed. If a candidate does not live in the district, does not maintain an office in the district, does not have a history of holding regular town hall meetings in the district, and doesn't even bother to update his city provided web page to keep the district up-to-date, is the candidate's heart really in the district? And how effective will a part time councilor be? (Note that Grabosky and Hoskins are retired and Lavers has vowed to stay on leave if elected. On the other hand, Adams has a job as a Pharmaceutical Sales Representative.)
In my view, of all the candidates, Grabosky has the clearest vision of what the problems are and what needs to be addressed. So I also have to contest your view that Hoskins was the clear winner. In my view, both Grabosky and Hoskins were winners for daring to have passion, daring to address the real issues, and the courage to stand up and say "enough is enough -- these are problems we see and we need to fix them, no matter who's jurisdiction they do or do not fall under". This was a big contrast to Adams, who repeatedly promised change, but would not specify what kind. Hoskins might have been a little louder, and a little more researched on a few of the specific questions that were asked, but Grabosky also has a clear platform, and ideas on how to make it work (and has a social media website plugged into his facebook and twitter so you can ask him questions direct if you want to: http://www.hrmpetergrabosky.ca/ -- it's the best of all the candidates as I can't find one for Hoskins, Lavers is minimal , and Adams indicated he won't update his until he is elected, but if elected, will have it updated by the end of November).
Recent Comments
While Grabosky did make a few digs at Adams, they were made to address what he believed were serious issues, and not made for the sole purpose of attacking his adversary, as we saw in the recent mayoral transportation debate. The questions of where a candidate lives, whether he will devote full time to the job, and what he plans to do for the community are all fair, and deserve to be addressed. If a candidate does not live in the district, does not maintain an office in the district, does not have a history of holding regular town hall meetings in the district, and doesn't even bother to update his city provided web page to keep the district up-to-date, is the candidate's heart really in the district? And how effective will a part time councilor be? (Note that Grabosky and Hoskins are retired and Lavers has vowed to stay on leave if elected. On the other hand, Adams has a job as a Pharmaceutical Sales Representative.)
In my view, of all the candidates, Grabosky has the clearest vision of what the problems are and what needs to be addressed. So I also have to contest your view that Hoskins was the clear winner. In my view, both Grabosky and Hoskins were winners for daring to have passion, daring to address the real issues, and the courage to stand up and say "enough is enough -- these are problems we see and we need to fix them, no matter who's jurisdiction they do or do not fall under". This was a big contrast to Adams, who repeatedly promised change, but would not specify what kind. Hoskins might have been a little louder, and a little more researched on a few of the specific questions that were asked, but Grabosky also has a clear platform, and ideas on how to make it work (and has a social media website plugged into his facebook and twitter so you can ask him questions direct if you want to: http://www.hrmpetergrabosky.ca/ -- it's the best of all the candidates as I can't find one for Hoskins, Lavers is minimal , and Adams indicated he won't update his until he is elected, but if elected, will have it updated by the end of November).