Skip to content
PolitiWardCalgary
‹ All people

Naheed Nenshi

Former mayor. Ran for mayor in 2010, 2013 and 2017.

Elections contested
3
Won
3
Votes received
532,787
all races combined
Council terms
3
2010–2013, 2013–2017, 2017–2021
Council votes recorded
4,552
since 2010 (roll calls before 2021)
Raised for 2017
$529,315
spent $688,705

Record

Mayor
View chart data

Chart values

6 rows
OfficeRecord
MayorMayor, 2010–2013
MayorMayor, 2013–2017
MayorMayor, 2017–2021
Mayor2010 Mayor: 39.6%, won
Mayor2013 Mayor: 73.7%, won
Mayor2017 Mayor: 51.4%, won
Bars are terms on council; diamonds are elections (filled = won). Records start with the 2010 election.

Elections

YearRaceVotesShareResult
2017Mayor199,13151.4%ElectedIncumbent
2013Mayor193,39373.7%ElectedIncumbent
2010Mayor140,26339.6%Elected
Official results, City of Calgary Open Data (sources). Share is of all votes cast in the race; affiliations appear from 2025, the first election with municipal parties.

Name as recorded

SourceSpelling
BallotNenshi, Naheed K.
BallotNENSHI, Naheed Kurban
Vote recordMayor N. Nenshi
DisclosureNENSHI, Naheed Kurban
Spellings matched to this person across sources. See About for how names are resolved.

Issue positions

Explore the issues and policy measures or compare this person.

Advancing the Green Line rail program

Explicit approvals to advance the Green Line program. Choices between two rail alignments and a wind-down after another government's funding withdrawal are explained separately and do not automatically count as opposition to rail.

Opposed the reviewed advancement proposalsSupported the reviewed advancement proposals
Naheed Nenshi
Insufficient voting evidence
0 reviewed decisions
View chart data

Policy positions

1 row
PersonScore (0–100)Independent decisionsRemove-one lowRemove-one highEvidence statusFirst voteLast vote
Naheed NenshiNot available0Not availableNot availableInsufficient voting evidenceNot availableNot available

Broader residential permissions

Reviewed land-use decisions where the direction of residential building permissions is explicit. Broader permission does not establish that a home was built. Contextual amendments do not each become another independent score.

Favoured narrower permissionsFavoured broader permissions
Naheed Nenshi
Insufficient voting evidence
0 reviewed decisions
View chart data

Policy positions

1 row
PersonScore (0–100)Independent decisionsRemove-one lowRemove-one highEvidence statusFirst voteLast vote
Naheed NenshiNot available0Not availableNot availableInsufficient voting evidenceNot availableNot available

Capital borrowing authorizations

Final readings of specified capital borrowing bylaws. This is a record of support for these particular debt-financed projects, not a general tax, spending or fiscal-conservatism score; utility-supported and tax-supported debt may differ.

Opposed the reviewed borrowing authoritiesSupported the reviewed borrowing authorities
Naheed Nenshi
Insufficient voting evidence
0 reviewed decisions
View chart data

Policy positions

1 row
PersonScore (0–100)Independent decisionsRemove-one lowRemove-one highEvidence statusFirst voteLast vote
Naheed NenshiNot available0Not availableNot availableInsufficient voting evidenceNot availableNot available

Climate and Environment operating allocations

Explicit amendments to Climate and Environment operating allocations. This is separate from formal targets and declarations; multiple amendments within one annual budget share one scoring weight.

Favoured the reviewed funding reductionsFavoured retaining the reviewed allocations
Naheed Nenshi
Insufficient voting evidence
0 reviewed decisions
View chart data

Policy positions

1 row
PersonScore (0–100)Independent decisionsRemove-one lowRemove-one highEvidence statusFirst voteLast vote
Naheed NenshiNot available0Not availableNot availableInsufficient voting evidenceNot availableNot available

Community-based safety responses

Explicit funding or plan approvals for community-based prevention and wellbeing responses. This measure makes no claim about a member's position on every police budget or the effectiveness of an adopted plan.

Opposed the reviewed community-safety proposalsSupported the reviewed community-safety proposals
Naheed Nenshi
Insufficient voting evidence
0 reviewed decisions
View chart data

Policy positions

1 row
PersonScore (0–100)Independent decisionsRemove-one lowRemove-one highEvidence statusFirst voteLast vote
Naheed NenshiNot available0Not availableNot availableInsufficient voting evidenceNot availableNot available

Formal municipal climate commitments

Reviewed decisions establishing or rescinding municipal climate targets, strategies and declarations. A declaration vote is not evidence of a particular dollar amount or emissions outcome.

Favoured fewer formal commitmentsFavoured more formal commitments
Naheed Nenshi
Insufficient voting evidence
0 reviewed decisions
View chart data

Policy positions

1 row
PersonScore (0–100)Independent decisionsRemove-one lowRemove-one highEvidence statusFirst voteLast vote
Naheed NenshiNot available0Not availableNot availableInsufficient voting evidenceNot availableNot available

Public funding for the Event Centre

Specific public financial commitments to the Event Centre project, including the original project and the replacement agreement. These are different proposals across time; a vote is not a generic position on all major projects.

Opposed the reviewed public commitmentsSupported the reviewed public commitments
Naheed Nenshi
Insufficient voting evidence
1 reviewed decision
View chart data

Policy positions

1 row
PersonScore (0–100)Independent decisionsRemove-one lowRemove-one highEvidence statusFirst voteLast vote
Naheed NenshiNot available1Not availableNot availableInsufficient voting evidenceJul 26, 2021Jul 26, 2021

Public support for non-market housing

Reviewed decisions that provide a specific financial or tax benefit for non-market housing. A vote records a choice on that proposal, not an estimate of affordability outcomes or an overall housing ideology.

Opposed the reviewed support proposalsSupported the reviewed support proposals
Naheed Nenshi
Insufficient voting evidence
0 reviewed decisions
View chart data

Policy positions

1 row
PersonScore (0–100)Independent decisionsRemove-one lowRemove-one highEvidence statusFirst voteLast vote
Naheed NenshiNot available0Not availableNot availableInsufficient voting evidenceNot availableNot available
Only reviewed policy choices are scored. Each independent decision family counts once per measure; choices within one budget or policy package share that family’s weight. statements, promises, absences and contextual amendments do not contribute. Two decisions are the minimum for a position. The sensitivity range shows the score after removing one decision at a time; it is not a statistical confidence interval or a prediction.

Policy choices over time

Date / precisionPersonRecord typeChoice or statementSource
Jul 26, 2021Naheed NenshiRecorded vote
Add up to $10 million for Event Centre City costs · Yes

The resolution explicitly adds public capital funding to the Event Centre project.

City Clerk's Council and Committee Votes · reviewed Oct 29, 2026
Votes, statements, promises and action milestones retain distinct labels. Dates preserve source precision; undated records appear last. Different proposals can explain different choices; a changed vote is not automatically a changed belief.

Statements and reasons for votes

No sourced statements collected

This is a gap in the collected evidence; it does not establish a person’s views.

Published statements are attributed to their author and kept separate from recorded votes.

Promises and actions

No sourced commitments collected

A missing commitment is not a finding that someone made no promises.

Milestones describe the evidence collected. Adoption, an individual vote and implementation are different events; a missing milestone is not proof that a promise was broken.

Policy leadership

No documented leadership entries collected

Sponsorship and committee appointments require an explicit source; a Yes vote alone does not establish either.

Appointment records do not establish continued service beyond their sourced term. Authorship and sponsorship require explicit documentation.

Conduct and accountability

Every record
  • Jul 25, 2016Code of conduct findingM2016-0625

    Integrity Commissioner report to Council concerning the Mayor's public remarks about the ride-hailing company Uber. The City publishes only investigations that found a breach of the code of conduct.

Code of conduct findings are those the City publishes, which are only investigations that found a breach; the code was repealed in May 2025, when the Province removed municipal codes of conduct (Bill 50). Votes link to Council's recorded decision.

Mayoral vote by ward

Share of the mayoral vote cast at each ward's stations
201020132017
W01
W02
W03
W04
W05
W06
W07
W08
W09
W10
W11
W12
W13
W14
View chart data

Chart values

14 rows
Ward201020132017
W0143.974.852.2
W0242.475.351.9
W0340.180.849.8
W0437.871.551.6
W0534.974.759.7
W0643.374.750.2
W0753.678.563.7
W0856.782.562.9
W0936.669.350.5
W1026.561.149.8
W114572.849.9
W1229.370.249.3
W1336.970.546.5
W1435.267.844.4
Ward201020132017Change 2010–2017 (pts)
W0143.9%74.8%52.2%+8.3
W0242.4%75.3%51.9%+9.4
W0340.1%80.8%49.8%+9.7
W0437.8%71.5%51.6%+13.8
W0534.9%74.7%59.7%+24.7
W0643.3%74.7%50.2%+7.0
W0753.6%78.5%63.7%+10.1
W0856.7%82.5%62.9%+6.1
W0936.6%69.3%50.5%+13.9
W1026.5%61.1%49.8%+23.3
W1145.0%72.8%49.9%+4.9
W1229.3%70.2%49.3%+20.0
W1336.9%70.5%46.5%+9.6
W1435.2%67.8%44.4%+9.2
Ward boundaries were redrawn between these elections, so a ward number does not cover the same area each time. Advance, hospital and mail-in ballots are counted city-wide and are not included.

Voting record

CouncilVotes castOn split votesParticipationAgainst the result*Same vote as mayor
2017–2021 council1,4831,14096.2%23.5%–
2013–2017 council (roll calls)1,4761,46898.1%33.9%–
2010–2013 council (roll calls)78377999.1%41.7%–
Vote counts and agreement here use Council meetings, with procedural motions excluded. A missing vote counts as not participating because absences are rarely recorded. *On split (non-unanimous) motions. Rows marked roll calls (and 2017–21 votes before 2021): Before 2021 a member's vote is on record only when Council took a roll call, which the minutes print; those are the votes a member asked to record, mostly contested ones. Committee votes before October 2020 are not included.

Votes the same way as…

2017–2021 council
Druh Farrell88%
Gian-Carlo Carra86%
George Chahal82%
Evan Woolley80%
Jyoti Gondek76%
Diane Colley-Urquhart73%
Jeff Davison72%
Shane Keating71%
Ward Sutherland67%
Peter Demong65%
Ray Jones59%
Joe Magliocca51%
Jeromy Farkas51%
Sean Chu45%
View chart data

Chart values

14 rows
CategoryValue
Druh Farrell88%
Gian-Carlo Carra86%
George Chahal82%
Evan Woolley80%
Jyoti Gondek76%
Diane Colley-Urquhart73%
Jeff Davison72%
Shane Keating71%
Ward Sutherland67%
Peter Demong65%
Ray Jones59%
Joe Magliocca51%
Jeromy Farkas51%
Sean Chu45%
Share of Council-meeting motions both members voted on where they cast the same vote (procedural motions excluded).

Votes by topic

Substantive recorded votes
NoYes
Planning & land use6041,583
Budget, taxes & finance197351
Transit & transportation70213
Governance & council68166
Other56134
Social & community services2566
Economy & business2555
Housing & affordability1751
Public health946
Environment, water & climate1119
Arts, culture, sport & events918
Public safety & policing618
Intergovernmental45
View chart data

Chart values

13 rows
TopicNoYes
Planning & land use6041583
Budget, taxes & finance197351
Transit & transportation70213
Governance & council68166
Other56134
Social & community services2566
Economy & business2555
Housing & affordability1751
Public health946
Environment, water & climate1119
Arts, culture, sport & events918
Public safety & policing618
Intergovernmental45
Council and committee votes; procedural motions excluded. Topics come from keyword rules applied to the motion text.

Vote record

4,552 recorded votes since 2010
Sep 22, 2021
C2021-1408
Give three readings to Proposed Bylaw 65M2021;
Public health · Special Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried13–1
Sep 13, 2021
C2021-1117
That Council give second and third readings to Bylaws 24P2021 and 80D201.
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried13–1
Sep 13, 2021
CPC2021-1183
Give three readings to the Proposed Bylaw 58P2021 for the amendment to the Richmond Area Redevelopment Plan (Attachment 2); and Give three readings to the Proposed Bylaw 158D2021 for the redesignation of 0.12 hectares ± (0.29 acres ±) located at 2137 31 Avenue SW (Plan 4479P, Block 52, Lots 21 to 24) from Residential Grade-Oriented Infill (R-CG) District to Direct Control District to accommodate a courtyard-style semi-detached development, with guidelines (Attachment 3). ROLL CALL VOTE:
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried10–4
That Bylaw 58P2021 be introduced and read a first time. ROLL CALL VOTE:
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried10–4
Sep 13, 2021
C2021-1185
Disband the Calgary Parking Committee and thank its members for their service, Adopt amendments to Calgary Parking Policies CP2021-04 (Formerly TP017) as described in Attachment 1 and reflected in Attachment 2; Direct Administration to make minor revisions to other Council Policies in accordance with the Council Policy Program (changes identified in Attachment 1); Give three readings to Proposed Bylaw 60M2021 (Attachment 3) to amend Calgary Parking Authority Bylaw 28M2002, Calgary Traffic Bylaw 26M96, Business License Bylaw 32M98, Councillors Budgets and Expenses Bylaw 36M2021 and the City Manager Bylaw 8M2001; and Direct that the governance and operational structure of the Calgary Parking Authority report directly to the City Manager, or delegate, upon third reading of Proposed Bylaw 60M2021.
Governance & council · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried11–1
That Bylaw 149D2021 be read a second time. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried8–6
Sep 13, 2021
CPC2021-0165
Give three readings to the Proposed Bylaw 52P2021 for the amendment to the Bowness Area Redevelopment Plan (Attachment 2); and Give three readings to the Proposed Bylaw 153D2021 for the redesignation of 0.90 hectares ± (2.20 acres ±) located at 6105 32 Avenue NW (Plan 2110672, Block 1, Lot 24) from Multi-Residential Contextual Low Profile (M-C1) District to Mixed Use - General (MU-1f4.0h22) District. ROLL CALL VOTE:
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted NoCarried10–4
Sep 13, 2021
CPC2021-1024
Give three readings to Proposed Bylaw 47P2021 for the amendments to the Montgomery Area Redevelopment Plan (Attachment 2); and Give three readings to Proposed Bylaw 128D2021 for the redesignation of 0.06 hectares ± (0.15 acres ±) located at 3019 46 Street NW (Plan 485GR, Block 5, Lot 38) from Residential Contextual One Dwelling (R-C1) District to Residential Contextual One / Two Dwelling (R-C2) District.
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried12–2
That Bylaw 51P2021 be read a second time. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted NoCarried11–3
That Bylaw 58P2021 be read a third time. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried10–4
That Bylaw 152D2021 be read a second time. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted NoCarried11–3
That Bylaw 58P2021 be read a second time. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried10–4
That Bylaw 158D2021 be introduced and read a first time. ROLL CALL VOTE:
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted NoCarried9–5
Sep 13, 2021
CPC2021-1150
Give three readings to the Proposed Bylaw 149D2021 for the redesignation of 0.17 hectares ± (0.42 acres ±) located at 206, 210 and 214 19 Street NW (Plan 8942GB, Block 19, Lots 5 to 7) from Residential Contextual One / Two Dwelling (R-C2) District to Mixed Use - General (MU-1f3.3h19) District; and Direct Administration to refer the initial Development Permit for this site to Calgary Planning Commission for decision. ROLL CALL VOTE:
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried8–6
Sep 13, 2021
CPC2021-1014
That Council adopt, by resolution, the proposed street names: Canopy, Laurentide, Midway, Storm and Snowline.
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted NoCarried13–1
Sep 13, 2021
C2021-1372
That Council approve the Capital budget appropriation of $3.4 Million for Arts Commons Transformation Project (Capital Program 639-010) funded by the projected investment income from the Major Capital Projects Reserve.
Budget, taxes & finance · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried13–1
That Bylaw 152D2021 be read a third time. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted NoCarried11–3
That Bylaw 149D2021 be introduced and read a first time. ROLL CALL VOTE:
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried8–6
Sep 13, 2021
PFC2021-1278
Approve the Barron Building Residential Conversion Grant Program Terms of Reference in Attachment 2; Approve a contribution of $7.5 million of the projected 2021 Corporate Programs operating favourable variance to the Fiscal Stability Reserve and commit these funds to support the Barron Buildings conversion to a residential building; Direct Administration to return to Council with a one-time budget request for the committed funds in 2022 as part of the 2023-2026 service plans and budgets, and release any funds not required to the Fiscal Stability Reserve; and Direct Administration to report back to Council, in conjunction with Phase 2 of the Downtown Calgary Development Incentive Program (PFC2021-0779), with analysis and conclusions regarding a potential downtown heritage incentive program proposal.
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried12–1
That Bylaw 149D2021 be read a third time. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried8–6
That Bylaw 158D2021 be read a second time. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted NoCarried9–5
That Bylaw 51P2021 be introduced and read a first time. ROLL CALL VOTE:
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted NoCarried11–3
That Bylaw 158D2021 be read a third time. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted NoCarried9–5
That Bylaw 152D2021 be introduced and read a first time. ROLL CALL VOTE:
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted NoCarried11–3
Sep 13, 2021
CPC2021-1093
Give three readings to the Proposed Bylaw 51P2021 for the amendment to the Richmond Area Redevelopment Plan (Attachment 2); and Give three readings to the Proposed Bylaw 152D2021 for the redesignation of 0.19 hectares ± (0.48 acres) located at 2003, 2009 and 2015 22 Street SW (Plan 7197FT, Block 3, Lots 5 to 8) from Residential Contextual One Dwelling (R-C1) District to Direct Control District to accommodate a low density development, with guidelines (Attachment 5). ROLL CALL VOTE:
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted NoCarried11–3
That Bylaw 51P2021 be read a third time. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted NoCarried11–3
Sep 13, 2021
CPC2021-1011
That Council give three readings to Proposed Bylaw 140D2021 for the redesignation of 0.06 hectares ± (0.14 acres ±) located at 1229 20 Avenue NW (Plan 3150P, Block 18, Lots 25 and 26) from Residential Grade-Oriented Infill (R-CG) District to Direct Control District to accommodate two main residential buildings on a parcel, with guidelines (Attachment 2).
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried11–1
Sep 3, 2021
C2021-1364
That Council give three readings to Bylaw 63M2021.
Public health · Special Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried12–2
That Bylaw 125D2021 be read a third time. ROLL CALL VOTE:
Planning & land use · Special Meeting of Council
Voted NoCarried9–4
That Bylaw 21P2021 be introduced and read a first time. ROLL CALL VOTE:
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted NoCarried9–3
Showing 30 of 3,412, newest first.

Campaign funding

All campaign finance
ElectionContributionsOwn moneyFundraisingSpendingTotalsStatements (PDF)
2017$529,315$0$0$688,705Checked2017
Largest contributors (from itemized listings)
ContributorTypeElectionsTotal read
Ronald ThrasherIndividual2017$5,000.00
Rozsa De Coquet, MaryIndividual2017$5,000.00
Riaz MamdaniIndividual2017$5,000.00
Nooralli JafferIndividual2017$5,000.00
Merrco Payments IncOrganization2017$5,000.00
Calgary & District Labour CouncilOrganization2017$5,000.00
Kyle SullyIndividual2017$5,000.00
Patrick Wade ChiuIndividual2017$5,000.00
ErnestIndividual2017$5,000.00
Colin JacksonIndividual2017$5,000.00
897032 Alberta Inc.Organization2017$5,000.00
Greg MillsIndividual2017$5,000.00
Brookfield ResidentialIndividual2017$5,000.00
Borger Group of CompaniesOrganization2017$5,000.00
CUPE - Calgary District CouncilOrganization2017$5,000.00
James McRobertsIndividual2017$5,000.00
Maureen KilloranIndividual2017$5,000.00
Joan CameronIndividual2017$5,000.00
Alan KaneIndividual2017$5,000.00
Salim DhanjiIndividual2017$5,000.00
From the candidate's disclosure statements (scanned; read by OCR or transcribed). Checked = the totals satisfy the form's own arithmetic. Contributor names and amounts were transcribed from the attached listings.

Funding context

All recorded candidate elections
Itemized gifts read
$454,987.05
All recorded candidate elections
Largest five donors
5.5%
Share of readable itemized gifts
Verified organization coverage
0.5%
Share of readable itemized gifts
Unreadable gift amounts
0
Named contributorVerified business / sectorGifts readBusiness-activity source
Homes by Avi (Canada) IncHomebuilding$2,500.00
Homes by Avi — Official website
Homes by Avi describes homebuilding and residential community development. This record concerns the contributor named Homes by Avi (Canada) Inc only; it does not attribute personal gifts to the company or merge other donor records.
Candidate filings only; party and third-party advertiser gifts are excluded. Concentration uses readable itemized amounts, not all fundraising. Incomplete listings can change the result. Business sources verify the named organization’s activities; donation identities retain the name-matching limits of the listings. Shared funding and similar votes do not establish influence.

Office budget and spending

All offices
YearOfficeBudgetSpentUsedItemizedLargest categoryDetailsReport
2021Mayor's office$1,776,718$1,682,763
95%
$120,089Communications, printing & postageShared with Jyoti GondekPDF
Largest itemized lines
YearAmountVendorDescription / rationaleSource
2021$20,000TIGLEY WILLProfessional ServicesPDF
2021$15,000TIGLEY WILLConsulting ServicesPDF
2021$14,720ITRemote Access and Standard IT ChargesPDF
2021$12,117Apple StoreCellphonesPDF
2021$11,700BIRD CREATIVES LTDChinook Blast PlanningPDF
2021$4,722Bamboo ShootsMayor Nenshi's Innovation Challenge Photo ShootPDF
2021$3,558Insight Canada IncMHNK3VC/A Apple 12.9-inch iPadsPDF
2021$2,375Customer Service & CommunicationsPower Reception Hall DisplayPDF
From the City Clerk's quarterly reports. Spent includes staff salaries, which are not itemized. In a year the seat changed hands the report covers both members.