The Lynwood-Charlton Centre Imbroglio, Part Three: The Road to Nowhere? Hardly.

So.

After nearly six hours of listening, spit-taking, note-scribbling, cud-chewing, what am I left with?

Sadness.

Frustration.

And a kind of unsurprising bewilderment.

Naturally, the issue front-and-centre (the potential relocation of a day-residence care facility from one neighbourhood with Ward 2 host to more than its share of facilities to another whose profile is already that of 'over-saturated') is the focus. And I'm sympathetic to all involved. Especially those young women who are currently residents of 52-56 Charlton.

But to me, beyond this, what the circumstances reveal is a real lack of engagement. (For the record, I believe the application should be denied as per the bylaw...and that the facility is not suitable for the stated purpose. The 52-56 Charlton facility and all of its concomitant particulars isn't germane to the discussion.)

Our neighbourhoods shouldn't feel 'assailed'. (Nor should they feel they're entitled to get everything the way they want it.)

Agencies shouldn't feel they're 'the bad guys' when they're trying to make a better go of things. (But then, they also should be 'good neighbours' and realize that the best way to have them is to be one. Oh, and that just because they feel heartfelt conviction for what they do does not mean everyone's going to be on-board.)

And tied to these truths, I'm reminded of what I've suggested elsewhere:

"You don’t dive into substantive, contentious issues in the hope that you can generate civic engagement. You generate civic engagement so that you’re better equipped to address substantive, contentious issues when they begin to unfold."

It may seem a bit much to group together such seemingly disparate issues as Lynwood-Charlton, the HWDSB headquarters, the downtown Mac development, Mission Services on Wentworth Street, Aerotropolis, the Hamilton Farmers' Market, the ARC effort regarding the status of local high schools, but to me, the common thread is, in the end, a crap level of engagement as seen in the main, especially as it pertains to residents being well outside the loop. I'm not blaming the residents local to each of these issues. I'm suggesting that the system as we're seeing it unfold regularly hasn't kept up with our changing world. 

There is no reason for residents not to be partner-collaborators to a much greater extent than they have been in the past. Access to information has changed. The ability to 'get the word out' has increased beyond the ken of some (apparently). And our expectations should be changing, too. 

What seems to be happening is that we're locked into patterns from the past. And in some efforts to increase engagement, I think we get hamstrung by these patterns' limitations. And so the resulting rationalization (on the part of those who quite frankly, don't want to see better collaboration as well as on the part of those suffering from battle-fatigue on the other side) is that 'it's never going to get better'. 

Poppycock. 

We just have to change the way we address the entire formula of 'Great Local Governance'. Which sends me back to the aforementioned quote. 

M Adrian Brassington