To dream, perchance to...? Part Two

Last week, I published a post and circulated it amongst those readily identifiable to me as 'ones who might be good choices for contributing to the discussion'.

The post was about the idea of a self-directed grocery store downtown, connected to the city's 'prize' of $650,000 to the business that opens up a store in the core.

And the responses were-

Well, sufficient to compel me to title this post as I have.

Over at Town Halls Hamilton, last month I posted a commentary on the notion of 'playing'. On the idea of 'creatively re-imagining' our city, specifically the downtown, the area from James Street to Wellington, King to Cannon.

What I proposed wasn't some sure-fire solution, a project to be approved that would be the 'magic bullet' to cure all Hamilton's ills. (In the same way that I've been saying that increased engagement on the part of our residents isn't an 'instant fix' to some inarguably pressing concerns such as AEGD.)

In truth, no such project exists.

But even in framing things that way...that the 'solution' is something brought to us, bestowed upon us, as some sort of act of developmental beneficence...cranks up my cringe level another notch.

And I'm well aware that what I'm about to launch into will assuredly bring on claims of 'naïveté', that I'm not grounded in reality, that I 'don't know how the system works', yadda, yadda, yadda.

(Motivating me to ask "If the 'old boys' network' was 'bad', how are we to regard the 'new boys' network'?")

I don't have a problem with such responses. The truth is that I'm coming to see –with increasing clarity– that I don't stand with the herd. And therefore have to be mindful as I propose and postulate and otherwise ponder, that not only do I have no inclination to be part of a 'club' or a 'group' or a 'clique' (I'm inclined to paraphrase Groucho Marx here: "I don't want to be a member of any club that would have me as a member."), as the frog said, 'It's not easy being green.'

The people I circulated the post to (which at its core was proposing that the great initiators in Hamilton consider the possibility of finding a way for a 'community' concern to start up a supermarket, perhaps a variant on the traditional 'co-op' model) were pretty much unanimous in the practicality of their responses. (You can read the resultant Spec article here.) I wasn't 'surprised' by the general profile of what people shot back via emails...but I was disappointed. (I'm not currently wearing my Drama Queen hat, otherwise I'd have used the word 'dismayed'. Or worse, entitled this post 'Actually, I despair.')

My disappointment was three-fold. First, I had been hoping that my correspondents would get caught up in the thrust of my posit, which was covered in Part One of this series of commentaries: a community-based supermarket initiative. Which they didn't; instead, the general thrust was about leveraging the City's bounty money into a larger development. (I make no claims for thoroughness in representing that thrust. Go to the original article for the specifics.)

The second aspect of disappointment had me realizing that I was appealing to the wrong cadre of Hamiltonians. While all of these people (the list was not the result of dense consideration and certainly wasn't broadly representative in any way, shape or form) were potentially great commiseration-pals, the truth is that the group I should really be having good chin-wags with...are 'regular' Hamiltonians. Run-of-the-mill residents. Because...

The third aspect might just be the most profound, one that I've already mentioned: the ability to play at creatively re-imagining our Hamilton. Not as a result of some City Hall initiative, or in a wistful counter-reaction to a developer's plans, but because it's our prerogative, it's our 'birthright'...it's a responsibility we've never really acknowledged or accepted. 

Next up: Getting to the gist of it all, cracking that 'dreaming' nut.