Last doesn’t lack lustre

Image supplied by: By Adam Zunder

Ontario municipal elections will take place on Monday, October 25. The Journal’s editorial board sat down with the six candidates running in the City of Kingston’s mayoral race. Each candidate was asked an identical set of three questions, which focused on student housing issues, Town-Gown relations and public transportation.

The Journal believes that a Queen’s student’s vote is best directed towards John Last.

Last stood out as a candidate due to the uniqueness of his ideas. Several of the candidates stated that increased bylaw enforcement would be a key component of addressing current property standards issues in the student neighbourhood.

However, Last suggested a specific strategy targeting problem areas by “setting zones where those bylaws should be enforced more rigorously.” Furthermore, he is in favour of a mass mailing at the beginning of each academic year, making students aware of their rights and responsibilities as renters.

Many candidates were quick to suggest that Town-Gown issues would be best addressed by increased communication and a transparent working relationship between the University and the City. However, Last stressed a more precise platform of communication between the municipal government and the AMS which would allow the AMS to cross-promote relevant information to students in an efficient and timely manner.

He also addressed transportation practically, prioritizing faster service over extending existing routes.

These unique ideas demonstrated an understanding of the issues relevant to the Queen’s community that surpassed any other candidate. Last was well-spoken and addressed questions head-on.

The same can’t be said for the other candidates running under the “Run This Town” banner. Ultimately, the trio may have done been better off choosing one face to clearly represent their platform.

Last was pragmatic in discussing the nature of the “Run This Town” campaign. He was quick to insist that the campaign is not intended as a gratuitous soapbox for existing youth voters. His goal is to make young people aware that they have a real ability to influence the outcome of an election—provided that those who don’t currently vote are mobilized.

While Last can’t lay claim to the same level of experience as some of the candidates in this election he spoke with as much knowledge and authority as any other. He was frank about the likelihood of winning the election, but demonstrated a compelling understanding of what a victory would represent—a genuine dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs in municipal politics. Last called this a “mandate for change,” and expressed his hope that his campaign would force the winning candidate to focus more on student issues. It was inspiring to see that he had considered the long-term significance of his campaign.

Candidate Barrie Chalmers lacked Last’s familiarity with the Queen’s community. His suggestion of a Fauxcoming-sanctioned event on Tindall field was interesting, but unlikely. While he supported a joint-committee to discuss Town-Gown issues, his acknowledgement that such a committee would probably not receive funding was discouraging. His suggestion that a two per cent property tax reduction would help landlords save money is valid, but it’s unlikely that the benefits will be passed on to students—they are rarely property owners.

Mark Gerretsen seemed more in touch with Queen’s-related issues. Gerretsen provided a compelling plan for a permanent task force to address Town-Gown issues. He also displayed an informed perspective on the ability of a few “bad apples” to ruin the image of the University. He had an understanding of transportation issues facing Kingston residents, and emphasized community involvement in facing these challenges. However, Gerretsen relied too heavily on his experience as a landlord in framing Town-Gown issues—it would have been nice to encounter a personalized understanding from a Queen’s alumnus.

Rob Matheson provided practical, realistic solutions to the problems he was asked to address. He stressed more stringent measures for students caught misbehaving, and suggested welcoming Queen’s students with a Fauxcoming bash at the K-ROCK centre, not riot police. Of special note was his acknowledgement that the current discussion around Fauxcoming issues is too transparent. This transparency, he said, makes discussion focus on venting public antagonism, and is ultimately counter-productive.

Ultimately, John Last’s insight and unique ideas made him the most compelling candidate. The greatest obstacle Last faces is not inexperience, but rather low voter turnout. Queen’s students, staff, and faculty represent nearly 30,000 people, which makes up a substantial portion of the voting population.

We have a profound ability to influence the outcome of this election, which is what John Last’s campaign is all about.

All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to content