The July 20th edition of The Spec features an excellent article by 'Raise the Hammer' Editor and local activist Ryan McGreal. The theme is 'urban focus'.
For some/many people within The Amalgamated City of Hamilton, what Ryan has to say runs contrary to how they see things. (I'm not talking about elected officials here, although that opens up an interesting can of worms...) In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the idea of a revitalized, recovered and restored urban area isn't even on the radar for these people, the notion doesn't even register.
People want what they want...and what they've decided (unconsciously or not) they don't want...they don't want. For the people who have no connection to Downtown Hamilton -and yes, I do realize that Ryan isn't just focusing on this area, but for the purposes of this editorial, I am- it matters not one whit whether or not this part of the city is resurrected to yet another iteration of glory. I'm convinced that these people have either traditionally not had any attachment to Downtown even though they've lived within the contiguous limits of The City of Hamilton, or they've set themselves up in 'the suburbs' and especially because what's going on in Downtown has been 'in process' for over two decades, aren't aware of how vibrant it's been at various times over the past century. For either group, they just don't give a good God-damn.
Which is fine.
I don't blame people who have landed in the periphery of a city for not being strident about the city's downtown. Especially when the Downtown has little to offer. (And can't meet their needs.) And I don't blame those people who have a legacy non-relationship with the core, either. Habits mean comfort, and for many people, frequenting Downtown Hamilton has never been habitual...so there's little or no comfort connected to it.
(I may as well deal with the feelings of those in the municipalities who were forced into amalgamation with Hamilton, specifically Stoney Creek, Dundas and Ancaster. I understand and appreciate the resentment and resistance of these residents regarding chipping in towards something that, in their eyes, they may never be inclined to take advantage of. Just as I understand and appreciate the inequities associated with a forced amalgamation.)
But these issues cannot be left to parochial, narrow-minded individuals who, let's face it, have in common (amongst other things) a distinct lack of in-depth examination of the risks and benefits (!!!) of such a mindset. (Including, fittingly, LRT.) My belief is that their opinions tend to result from indifference, fear of change, and a general lack of vision.
But then, that's what we have civic leaders for.
That's what we have elected officials for.
That's why we have Councillors and a Mayor.
They're supposed to not only listen to their constituents and act reasonably on reasonable issues, but provide leadership. (Which yes, is more than merely 'doing as they're requested' or lobbied.) They're supposed to be more informed than just about any of the residents, and as such, be able to shine light where obdurateness and apathy tend to produce stultifying darkness.
They're supposed to balance pragmatism with vision.
Actually, allow me to re-phrase that: 'while proceeding at all times with a sense of responsibility and pragmatism, they should consistently be driving the city forward with vision.' Because by-and-large, vision ain't gonna come from the average resident. Not within the construct we have in front of us currently.
Some of my favourite bits from Ryan's article:
"Hamilton must make urban revitalization its number own growth priority. The alternative of continued suburban development doesn’t generate enough revenue to pay for the infrastructure that is needed to service it.
Each new subdivision actually increases the city’s net liabilities. And as the urban boundary expands, more distant suburbs are even more expensive to service.
We have been running this pyramid scheme for decades, paying for yesterday’s expansion with tomorrow’s. As a result, our existing infrastructure idles while we spend money we don’t have to build more infrastructure that can’t pay for itself.
An urban focus doesn’t mean an end to our suburbs. Rather, it means we need an economic engine that generates enough wealth to pay for those suburbs. As Indianapolis Mayor Bill Hudnut famously said, “You can’t be a suburb of nothing.”
