I don't have one...and I'm worried.

Photograph Property of Historic Hamilton

What I 'don't have' is a qualified opinion on 'social services' in Hamilton. And what I'm worried about is that the discussion that we really need to be having isn't going to happen. 

 This week, a 'social' issue came to the fore, one that's managed to polarize Hamiltonians, as well as create several different discussions beyond the preliminary issue of the relocation of a 'group home'. 

 (For further context, here's a Spec editorial, here's a followup article, and here's a thread on The Hamiltonian dealing with the issue. As well, check out facebook groups 'Dissidents (Hamilton Chapter)' and 'Ward 3 Residents' Association'.)

I'm no expert in this area, even though I've had some substantial input from contemporaries of late. To me, here are the various (and variant) discussion points:

-The general 'determination of what belongs in our neighourhood'. (NIMBYism)

-The zoning question, the long-extant 'radial separation' bylaw

-The potential Ontario Human Rights contravention

-The conglomeration of social services in Hamilton resulting from the Ontario government's 'downloading' in the last century

-The 'poverty industry' claim

All of these are sizeable avenues of discussion. Each one in and of itself is deserving of some protracted, engagement. Not so much on the parts of 'experts', or paid professionals (City Staff or Councillors), but on the parts of Hamilton residents.

For the sake of an exercise, let's take a look at each one (Note that I acknowledge that I'm not qualified to discuss them at length, that I'm certainly no expert. That I present them merely to point out that we need ongoing dialogue as initiated by Hamiltonian citizens):

1) The Radial Separation Bylaw. Some have said that "Our radial separation bylaw (however ineffective it has been in practice) to a large extent prevented unscrupulous developers/property owners and certain charitable organizations who use God and Guilt as a prodding rod, from totally gutting large chunks of the lower city." Depending on the result of any lawsuit that goes forward, there may have to be some consideration applied to re-thinking what's on the books. For the time being though, City Staff have contributed their two cents' worth...as has Ward 2 Councillor Farr. Regardless, doesn't it seem prudent for us to be talking about what this bylaw sets out do to, and what the implications are?


2) The Ontario Charter of Human Rights. This avenue may well be trotted down, the issue may go to court...but that'll be years. In the meantime, I'm hoping that we don't treat this element as an 'untouchable', but include the reasoning, because it is germane to the overall discussion. 


3) NIMBYism. Being brutally honest, in most situations, given the realities of the economy as they pertain to property values, as well as the general diminution of 'community', the facts are that a) nobody 'wants' these facilities, b) we don't have enough faith in City Hall or any other level of government to get things right, so doubts and fears aren't assuaged to anyone's satisfaction, situations are consistently badly handled...and so it's not uncommon to have residents retrench into even more staunch stances of 'NIMBY'. (I should say that my impression is that it isn't so much in play vis a vis Charlton Hall.)

4) Social services delivery in Hamilton. One of the two 'elephants in the room'. Not everyone I've heard or read commenting seems to either have any knowledge of, remember or understand why we seem to have as much of a proliferation of everything associated with social services in the city. It's been suggested that we map every element of delivery in the city as well as compare the numbers (agencies, locations as well as people being serviced) with those pre-downloading. Because you can't have an engaged citizenry without there being a basic level of information and understanding. And I'm not of the opinion that these truths are front-and-centre, nor that they're being made integral to whatever discussion is being had. (For starters, what's the percentage of people being processed by various agencies that have actually been 'brought into the city' in order to be so ministered to?)

5) 'The reality of a poverty industry'. I'm not sure this proposition will ever be addressed. The Spec has clearly determined on which side of the fence it sits, with their 'Code Red' series. Does the average person want to be bothered with addressing poverty, despite not many wanting an abundance of their tax dollars going to the cause by way of a government service? I'm sufficiently cynical to believe that no politician seems willing to get their hands dirty and promote genuine and sustained dialogue about this notion; it's too risky, and there probably seems little upside. Additionally, I doubt most get what's being said when it's maintained that "This is not a 'poverty' issue, but an 'economic development' one." And besides; we can't address our downtown regarding development; why should we have faith in our elected officials addressing something in this vein re: an admittedly social manifestation? (Maybe the key will be when someone offers up something simple and cogent as an alternative to how things are currently being handled, a concept that lay-people could even process or digest. But currently, from my vantage point, it sure appears as if people aren't interested in 'going there', and are content to 'render unto Caesar', ie various government agencies in combination with the Mission Services, the United Ways, the Salvation Armys and the Good Shepherds.) 

Last autumn, we had a community brouhaha on Wentworth Street North involving the Wever Hub, Cathy Wever School, Mission Services and Mohawk College against the backdrop of woefully under-informed residents concerned about how their neighbourhood was going to be affected by what was being implemented at the old Mohawk campus. (I'm still asking questions, I'm still attempting to get a status update, but my understanding is that nothing has been resolved; mostly because Mission Services was busy with their primary fundraising season and were going to hold off on answering questions until the new year. You know, now...)

And these two situation are certainly not isolated. Because of the profile of our 'social services' efforts in Hamilton, these 'incursion' and 'intrusion' discussions are the norm rather than the exception. 

But is an interlude when something has become a 'hot topic' the best time to be actually talking? Especially when there are some pretty volatile contributing factors?

I'm going to shift the next portion of this discussion over to Town Halls Hamilton. 

Oh, and while I have your attention, please take the time to read an essay on this very subject over at the Metro Hamilton blog.