Summary of candidates’ responses to Invitation 3


Background

With the aim of increasing voter turnout in the upcoming municipal election, candidates for Mayor and Ward Councilor in Prince Edward County are being invited to share their thoughts on a wide range of issues once a week.

The County’s official list of certified candidates includes 4 candidates for Mayor and 29 candidates for Ward Councilor (13 offices in 9 Wards). Eight incumbents are seeking re-election, including the Mayor and 7 Councilors.

Responses to Invitation 1, 2 and/or 3 have been received from 22 candidates (66.7%), including 3 candidates for Mayor (75.0%) and 19 candidates for Ward Councilor (65.5%). Responses have been received from 5 incumbents (62.5%), including the Mayor and 4 Councilors (57.1%).

The 20 candidates who responded to Invitation 3 included 1 first-time respondent.

Candidates received Invitation 3 on September 7, 2022 and were asked to forward their responses by September 12, 2022. Candidate responses were published here and on Facebook on September 14, 2022.

Satisfaction with Strategic Initiatives

Against the background provided in Invitation 3, candidates were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with the County’s Strategic Initiatives.

Table 1 presents the numbers and percentages of candidates’ ratings of satisfaction with each Strategic Initiative.

Table 1. Candidates’ satisfaction with Strategic Initiatives (N=20).
Strategic Initiative Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very satisfied
By-law and policy review 0 5 7 5 3
0% 25% 35% 25% 15%
Downtown revitalization 0 2 8 10 0
0% 10% 40% 50% 0%
Healthcare initiatives 1 8 4 7 0
5% 40% 20% 35% 0%
Municipal Accommodation Tax 0 2 6 10 2
0% 10% 30% 50% 10%
PEC Affordable Housing Corp. 1 4 4 8 3
5% 20% 20% 40% 15%
Short-term accommodations 2 7 4 7 0
10% 35% 20% 35% 0%
Tourism management 0 10 5 4 1
0% 50% 25% 20% 5%
Growth and water/wastewater 0 8 7 5 0
0% 40% 35% 25% 0%

Table 2 collapses both “Very dissatisfied” and “Dissatisfied” ratings into a single “Negative” rating and both “Satisfied” and “Very Satisfied” ratings into a single “Positive” rating. A “Neither dissatisfied or satisfied” rating is regarded as a “Neutral” rating.

We hesitate to go much beyond simply reporting the numbers and percentages of candidates’ negative, neutral, and positive ratings of satisfaction with each Strategic Initiative. For a moment, however, let’s disregard candidates’ neutral ratings and consider only ratings with a positive or negative valence.

The column headed “R = Pos/Neg” presents the relative frequency of candidates’ positive vs negative ratings of satisfaction with each Strategic Initiative.  For instance, candidates gave a positive rating to the Municipal Accommodation Tax 6.0 times more frequently than a negative rating. By contrast, candidates gave a positive rating to Tourism management only half as frequently as a negative rating.

Table 2. Candidates’ satisfaction with Strategic Initiatives (N=20).
Strategic Initiative Negative Neutral Positive R =
Pos/Neg
By-law and policy review 5 7 8 1.6
25% 35% 40%
Downtown revitalization 2 8 10 5.0
10% 40% 50%
Healthcare initiatives 9 4 7 .78
45% 20% 35%
Municipal Accommodation Tax 2 6 12 6.0
10% 30% 60%
PEC Affordable Housing Corp. 5 4 11 2.2
25% 20% 55%
Short-term accommodations 9 4 7 .78
45% 20% 35%
Tourism management 10 5 5 .50
50% 25% 25%
Growth and water/wastewater 8 7 5 .63
40% 35% 25%

Table 3 presents these data for incumbents (n=4) and non-incumbents (n=16) separately.

Incumbents offered no negative ratings for 4 Strategic Initiatives (so R is undefined). Incumbents gave a positive rating to 3 other Strategic Initiatives 3.0 times more frequently than a negative rating.

Overall, Non-incumbents offered more of a mix of positive and negative ratings of the Strategic Initatives than Incumbents.

Incumbents and Non-incumbents were generally aligned in their giving a positive rating more frequently than a negative rating to 3 Strategic Initiatives:

  • Downtown revitalization
  • Municipal Accommodation Tax
  • PEC Affordable Housing Corp.

However, Non-incumbents gave a positive rating less frequently than Incumbents to 4 Strategic Initiatives:

  • Healthcare initiatives
  • Short-term accommodations
  • Tourism management
  • Growth and water/wastewater
Table 3. Candidates’ satisfaction with Strategic Initiatives: Incumbents (n=4) and Non-incumbents (n=16).
Strategic Initiative Respondents Negative Neutral Positive R= Pos/Neg
By-law and policy review Incumbents 0% 0% 100% und
Non-incumbents 31% 44% 25% 0.80
Downtown revitalization Incumbents 25% 50% 25% 1.00
Non-incumbents 6% 38% 56% 9.00
Healthcare initiatives Incumbents 25% 0% 75% 3.00
Non-incumbents 50% 25% 25% 0.50
Municipal Accommodation Tax Incumbents 0% 0% 100% und
Non-incumbents 13% 38% 50% 4.00
PEC Affordable Housing Corp. Incumbents 0% 25% 75% und
Non-incumbents 31% 19% 50% 1.60
Short-term accommodations Incumbents 0% 25% 75% und
Non-incumbents 56% 19% 25% 0.44
Tourism management Incumbents 25% 0% 75% 3.00
Non-incumbents 56% 31% 13% 0.22
Growth and water/wastewater IncumbentsIncumbents 25% 0% 75% 3.00
Non-incumbents 44% 44% 13% 0.29

Explanation of ratings

Candidates were asked to explain their ratings of satisfaction with two Strategic Initiatives. A total of 36 explanations were provided by 18 candidates. Table 4 presents number and percentage of these candidates who chose to explain their rating for a specific Strategic Initiative.

Table 4. Candidates’ choice of ratings of satisfaction with Strategic Initiatives to explain (N=36 choices).
Strategic Initiative N %
By-law and policy review 1 2.8%
Downtown revitalization 2 5.6%
Healthcare initiatives 7 19.4%
Municipal Accommodation Tax 2 5.6%
PEC Affordable Housing Corp. 11 30.6%
Short-term accommodations 5 13.9%
Tourism management 4 11.1%
Growth and water/wastewater 4 11.1%

Missing Strategic Initiatives

Candidates were asked to outline one County-wide strategic initiative that was missing in the County and should be adopted by Council. Candidates suggested a wide-range of initiatives and their arguments were thoughtful; the most common themes seemed to be:

  • Climate and environment
  • Roads and infrastructure
  • Economic stability and sustainability
  • Planning
  • Poverty reduction and homelessness

As usual, I encourage everyone to read the candidates’ unredacted responses to Invitation 3.

, , ,

Leave a Reply

© Paul G. Allen