Responsibility. Perspective. Consideration. Citizenship. Respect.

With the publication of today's Stoney Creek News article, we finally have an answer to the 'WTF?!?' question so many people have been asking about this piece of land that sits adjacent to Battlefield Park at its south end. (In the above map, showing Niagara Escarpment Commission and Hamilton Conservation Authority assignations -the former being lime-green, the latter being baby-puke bleurgh- The Property in Question sits at the middle-bottom, marked 'OS-3'. And while I do apologize for the map being cut-off, I also have to concede that beggars can't be choosers.)

Without venturing into my core reaction as to the veracity of Mr. Al Merlo's response (for the time being my innate sense of propriety prevents me from doing so...but just barely), I'd like to address both what his explanation connotes, and some suggestions as to how all of this might have been better handled.

Part I

(1) "Our family has owned that land for forty years,” Merlo said. “It used to be our farm.”When asked about the bulldozers that have been spotted on the property, (2) Merlo explained that he is simply “leveling off” the land to make it look neater. “(3) There used to be a cherry orchard there and we had let it grow over,” he said. “We’re just clearing out the underbrush so that we can seed that land and mow it.”

(1) "Our family has owned that land for forty years. It used to be our farm.” As much as I tend to be a futurist, I have a pretty broad traditionalist streak. As well, though I'm no nostalgist, I'm a great believer in heritage. So I appreciate that this property has been held by the same family for four decades, and was once a farm. I spent part of my childhood in Winona, and know first-hand about orchards and open-space-as-public-access, and I have my own reverence for ownership of land as it involves access to all. (In England, where I lived for almost ten years, there are 'rambler' laws, ordinances that guarantee public access to 'private' land.)

To own property that is walked through by residents creates a particular relationship, and by extension, expectations and obligations above and beyond legislation or by-laws. As I have tried on numerous occasions to explain to those who really should know better, a society's profile of civility cannot be mandated, shaped or informed entirely by rules and regulations. The brunt of the influence has to be the result of inculcation: from examples set, from upbringing, from teaching, from a general, communal sense of...of...

Well, of the title of this post:

Responsibility. Perspective. Consideration. Citizenship. Respect.

So while I appreciate the context of Mr. Merlo's preamble, for me, given the fact that this land sits (as I've now said ad nauseam) between a National Historic Site and a UNESCO World Biosphere Region), given that this land has by habit and tradition been crossed for decades now, and given the special relationship that is wordlessly constructed on a day-by-day, hiked-by-hike, photo-by-photo basis...even with his family's passive participation, the fact is that long-term ownership in so distinct a situation does not automatically infer boundary-less latitude insofar as his management of the property is concerned.

(2) "'Leveling off' the land to make it look neater."

Hmm...

I'll be honest; I can be quite blunt on occasion; I don't suffer fools gladly. On the other hand, I pride myself on being empathetic, on being kind, on being more curious about the reasons behind a person's behaviour than I am in focusing on what they've done. (The whole 'RBR' -Reason Behind the Reason- thing.)

So I'll try to be both conscientious and considerate here.

-grits teeth, gnashing them, narrowing eyes to slits, cracking knuckles Bruce Lee-style, with closed fists-

Why should any land just used for nature walks require a pool table's flatness? Has someone complained? Has there been a lawsuit resulting from a personal injury? The very fact that there were trees irregularly spaced throughout, precluded any sort of rapid movement; it was, 'by design', a place where its 'levelness' was not of any concern.

So again; why this as a motivating factor?

'Neater' for whom, exactly?

And since when does an 'open space' area, a portion of land in direct vicinity to the Niagara Escarpment -a virtually forested region- and Battlefield Park -land close by either dense brush or densely-treed- have any sort of need to be 'neater'?

Neater?!?

This is Nature.

Nature isn't 'neat'.

But inasmuch as we humans feel the need to control Nature, there are always opportunities to effect degrees of maintenance. And I can certainly see the requirement to prevent hazards from being allowed to get to a 'danger' state. (The Bruce Trail Association is an organization who undoubtedly have solid guidelines where this topic is concerned.)

Maintaining 'neatness' isn't one of the parameters of owning this land. (Please see the first point)

In fact, the very notion runs contrary to having an open space.

But for the sake of argument, if 'neatness' was required (and I'm not conceding that this was a valid decision...though I'd certainly award the rationalization an 'Arrogantly Arbitrary' badge), surely clear-cutting all the trees, scrubbing the brush down to soil, removing almost every shred of Nature is to 'neater' as removing a man's facial skin down to muscle is to 'shaving'.

(3) “We’re just clearing out the underbrush so that we can seed that land and mow it.”

Seriously?!?

Wowza.

Let me see if I understand this completely: all those lovely decadent trees have been excised, all that charming brush has been abraded to nothingness...

View Larger Map

...as noted in the above map, to the left of 'B' (Not immediately to the left, because that's Battlefield Creek. But see where that openinsh space is? Between the 'B' and Centennial? There. Ish.)...

...to seed grass?

What's intended is the creation of another rolling greensward, to bookend the one further to the north, the one that adjoins the main Battlefield parking lot?

Lovely.

Because that makes an infinite amount of sense, right? Because it'll be easier to maintain, right? Having it all in this other state will be more convenient for it to manage, right? It'll be less of a safety hazard for anyone mowing, right? Once it's flat and re-seeded, right?

Right...?

Please let me know if there's anything that I've misconstrued here, or otherwise gotten wrong.

Part II

As for how all of this might have unfolded...

While I'd be more than happy to pontificate as to the landowner should have conducted himself, allow me to phrase things in terms of how I would have proceeded. At the very least, it'll allow me to take some the edge off some of the jagged barbs. (I said 'some'. Not all. I don't possess that much restraint...)

If I'd owned the land, I wouldn't have done anything to it. Period. End of story, full-stop. Unless there were land-management issues that had become such as a result of involvement with the appropriate overseeing parties. That is, that there was a need pointed out by, a project initiated by the Niagara Escarpment Commission and/or the Hamilton Conservation Authority.

But if my employees were having a hard time 'maintaining' the property, of I had some concern about how the area could best be maintained, then the very first thing I'd have done would have been to consult my neighbours the Battlefield Park and the NEC and the HCA. (Undoubtedly, the City of Hamilton also should have/could have been involved.)

I'd have consulted with them, at the very least letting them know that I felt that it was necessary to take some sort of 'horticultural maintenance' action and asking for their input. I would have asked for their views on things, I would have discussed what the reasonable limits might have been regarding how much 'neatening up' I could do, how much I should do.

I wouldn't have done this just because there were rules and regulations, laws and ordinances, zoning by-laws I was obligated to conform to. I'd have done it because it's the right way to approach this situation.

It's called being a good neighbour.

It's called being a good community citizen.

It's called being a good steward of the land.

Responsibility. Perspective. Consideration. Citizenship. Respect.

(Of course, there's always the chance that flattening things, making things neater, planting a lawn isn't the story, the whole story, nothing but the story.

Hmm... Does proposing such a notion make me cynical...?)