So far, we have six candidates running for Saskatoon’s top job. Incumbent Mayor Charlie Clark, former mayor Don Atchison, former provincial cabinet minister Rob Norris, and three that are new gladiators in the arena, engineer Zubair Sheikh, consultant Cary Tarasoff and businessman Mark Zielke.

With no malice aforethought towards the new kids in the race, the likelihood of the last three winning is remote, although miracles can happen. It will be alleged over and over that Sheikh, Tarasoff and Zielke do not have any experience in any form of government and are thus not qualified for the position. The top three contenders each have track records to both capitalize on and defend.

Clark implied that voters should beware candidates making promises that they won’t deliver on. He should know better than most.

In the closing days of the last election a question was asked of the then three top candidates, Don Atchison, Charlie Clark, and Kelley Moore. The question put to each candidate was whether they would support a shift of taxation from commercial property to residential property, which meant reducing the commercial tax rate and increasing the residential tax rate.

Atchison replied yes, he would and stated his reason for doing so. Moore said she would have to study the issue before committing either way. Clark emphatically replied that he absolutely would not support any such shift.

The race was tight, and I am convinced it was this question that tipped the scales. However, shortly after winning the coveted throne, Clark proudly led the charge to support shifting property tax from commercial to residential. Is this why he warns us not to believe the campaign promises of his opposition?

Clark also suggests that he doesn’t want our elections to become like American ones, and I think we could all agree on that. The Americans know that some of their incumbent leaders are liars, crooks and scoundrels and yet are still prepared to vote for them.

It is like watching the decline and fall of the American empire in real time. However, there is a big difference between that and having challengers point out the shortcomings and broken promises of an incumbent, as well as the challengers. All three of our top candidates know this and have past records to defend during the campaign.

Atchison and Clark will probably point out that Norris doesn’t have any experience in civic government, but in truth that is just a distraction. Norris has lots of transferable government experience.

An election is not just about defending past records, it is also about questioning the candidate’s vision for the future of the city and how they plan to achieve it. Anyone promising no or incredibly low tax increases better explain how they plan to pay the bills, as debt obligations do not change with governments, or alternatively what will be cut from the budget to accommodate no increase in taxes.

Better they should talk about spending. Clark says it’s too late to stop the $134-million-plus library project. Let me see, the city owns the library facility, the city appoints members to library board, the library must have its budget approved by city council, and the borrowing for a new building must go through council.

I expect the library board will rush to get everything signed while those council members who support the project are still in office.

Then, there is the proposed downtown arena and new convention centre, and the active transportation plans on the horizon and God knows what else. All these projects demand more tax revenue. And moving the rail lines to outside of the city will not happen in our lifetime.

There has been commentary about acclamations in some wards, implying a lack of public interest in civic government. At this writing it is now down to one — Troy Davies in Ward 4.

I suspect it isn’t a sign of a lazy democracy but rather relates more to the cost of running in an election campaign coupled with the likelihood of success. Just look at the number of candidates that file nomination papers when a ward becomes open because an incumbent is not seeking re-election.

It is harder for a newcomer to solicit campaign funds, especially since tax receipts cannot be issued for donations to civic election campaigns, and big donors like businesses and unions do not bite the hand that feeds them.

How many citizens can afford to risk $100,000 for a mayor’s campaign or $40,000 for a council seat which is what it may take to possibly unseat an incumbent? There are previous candidates still paying off election debt from the last election. As well, incumbents get the benefit of public exposure by grandstanding on council and use taxpayer dollars to advertise themselves leading up to the campaign.

It also helps tremendously to have a political party (entities who supposedly are not involved in civic campaigns) working on a candidate’s behalf. Those parties provide campaign volunteers and a list of the party faithful to contact for voter support. Voters don’t know which candidate is backed by a party unless of course you are a member of that party.

I’m starting to think the old at-large system gave newcomers a better shot at being elected than the ward system does. The at-large system gave voters across the city a choice of who ran city hall whereas a ward system allows candidates to tailor their message to a selective area and specific needs, which may or may not be in the interests of the whole city.

However, every now and then voters rear their heads and decide it is time for a change and are willing to take a chance on a fresh candidate.

This election cycle may be one of those times as the impact of COVID-19 has left growing numbers of unemployed and financially stressed voters cool on the idea of more taxation for grandiose projects. Alternatively, the three top candidates could split the vote sufficiently to allow any of the other candidates to slip up the middle!

Whatever your thoughts on this election, it is important that you vote because every vote does count.

-Elaine Hnatyshyn