Gotta Give The Guy Credit

In this week's installment of 'Tales from the Crypt', Group Managing Editor of the Metroland area community rags Mark Cripps manages to tear off big chunks of two entirely separate, yet currently connected issues. In doing so, he shines a little light...but I don't think the resulting effect was what he was straining for: putting the flashlight in his mouth and making like a scary Jack-o-Lantern.

The two issues are 1) Suburbia as 'serfdom', and 2) the unassailability of highway-served stadiums.

Now, on the first count, Mark and I actually start out on the same side of the discussion insofar as the implementation of amalgamation back in 2001. My feelings back then, and buttressed by both empirical experiences here and in the UK in the interim, as well as a diverse selection of digested reading materials tells me that 'bigger is not in fact, better'. In almost any instance. In fact, in order to find a way out of the morass we've created with our current manifestation of whatever-you-want-to-call-what-ails-us, this consumer-driven, entitlement world, we're going to have to 'go smaller'. You know, right down to notion of neighbourhoods being the hubs around which communities and towns and cities are built. But that's another discussion entirely. The bottom-line is this: I don't like the arbitrarily-created entity called the 'City of Hamilton'.

I was born in Hamilton. I've lived a good portion of my life either in Hamilton or nearby. But I was raised in Stoney Creek and Winona, and over the years, have spent quality time in both Dundas and Ancaster. So I cannot be convinced that Hamilton is anything other than Hamilton, and not Stoney Creek, not Dundas, not Ancaster and not Flamborough...and those fine cities are not, by any stretch of any bureaucrat's addled imagination, Hamilton. Am I in favour of 'de-amalgamation'? Yup. You betcha. (Not that it wouldn't come at a cost, or require some creative thinking and negotiations to make a new dynamic arrangement work. But hey; the genie that's currently outside the bottle has a peculiar smell, the upkeep is ridiculous...and its textbook description is 'unwieldy'.)

So what Mark and I do agree on (I think) us that the notion of the 'City of Hamilton' doesn't fly. (Albeit for different reasons.)

What we don't agree on is the extrapolation of how people supporting the West Harbour site -those who wish to see Hamilton's downtown revitalized by extension- are expressing themselves, and what all the clamour really means.

Mark takes umbrage at the very idea of a domino-effect initiative at the West Harbour being paraded so enthusiatically. He sees the cheering and the lobbying on the site's supporters as being...well, 'putting down the suburbs', because championing the West Harbour site means saying 'No' to the East Mountain site...and in Mark's flashlight-illuminated cranium, this means 'Down with the suburbs! Boo! Hiss!'

Three tiny points here: Firstly, one of the primary reasons the downtown has suffered neglect from an civic administration standpoint is that a great majority of the available energies have gone into the development of the peripheral aspects of the 'City of Hamilton'. You know...the suburbs. Mark's self-described 'serfdom'. Secondly, in order to connect the dots to his umbrage, there has to be a somewhat-shortfall where self-esteem is concerned. Otherwise, generally we don't tend to get bent out of shape over such -ill-founded- extrapolations...leading me to ask 'Why so down in the mouth, Mark?' Thirdly, someone being proud of whatever it is they're proud of doesn't automatically mean you can infer that they're saying that you're crap. (Please see my second point.)

So; people who are championing the West Harbour site see everything connected to it as being great for Downtown Hamilton's renaissance. They're not 'anti-suburbs', they're 'pro-downtown'. And shouldn't feel one iota of obligation to defend their beliefs, certainly not because Mark has decided in that Jack-o-Lantern getup that he -and others in similar costumes- have been slagged-off.

But I will concede that the West Harbour supporters are -to a great number, I'm sure- anti-suburban stadiums in general...which is connected to Mark's other bully-pulpit issue, 'the unassailability of highway-served stadiums'.

I'm going to keep things simple here and concentrate on the salient element of this disagreement, the crux-point: those people who believe that the West Harbour site is a better choice in terms of downtown development are at the same time, pro-transit and anti-car mentality. Whereas Mark is seemingly, at least from what I've gleaned from his editorial, a staunch believer in The Car as King.

And you know what? As I related in this piece, for me the discussion begins and ends with these polar-opposite approaches. Approaches not just to stadiums, but for a hellova lot about Life in general; at the core, we're talking about value system clashes. (Again, another discussion, another time.)

My guess is that Mark's existence is deeply-embedded in the car-culture. (Or the car-culture is deeply-embedded in his existence, take yer pick.) My sense is that Mark can't make the mental leap to a new paradigm that does not have the car as the focus, that he's resistant to even considering a value system predicated not on an accelerator pedal underfoot, but on an integrated public transit system. I'm willing to bet that even this part of my commentary will have him making all kinds of new faces to be ghoulishly highlighted...each successive one all the scarier than the previous.

I welcome a healthy debate. I appreciate a well-considered argument, indeed celebrate discourse that adds to the discussion. Sometimes someone else's pointed thrust, no matter how diametrically-opposed to yours, can actually help clarify not only the topic being discussed, but help make your position all the clearer. Having said all that, I'm finding more and more that my reaction to Mark's editorials is a wide-eyed, drop-jawed 'WTF?!?'.

Naturally, without the flashlight effects.