Changing world, changing needs, changing solutions

At the May 1st Planning Committee meeting, a letter was presented by North End Neighbours member Judy Snider regarding a trial mediation service being adopted by the City. That letter can be found here.

Emma Reilly of The Spec filed an article that day, 'City eyes mediation service to resolve feuds between neighbours'.

The Hamiltonian featured an article entitled 'Keeping the Peace' dealing with this development...and then followed it up with a 'Q&A' with Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr.

What's been most interesting to me have been the consensus of comments on The Hamiltonian. The immediate questioning of the idea. As in 'Are they nuts?!?'

The organization the City is going to be using is Community Justice Initiatives.

(And for the record, this Kitchener-Waterloo organization isn't alone out there: here's one in Langley, BC.)

What some of the aforementioned commenters lack is both context and perspective. The knee-jerk reaction in situations where another resource is suggested is 'Great. More cost to the taxpayer, another layer of bureaucracy, meaning other departments get to sit on their duffs even more!'

For some time, I've been chewing on councillor-based notions: a) what councillors spend their time doing, b) whether or not their time is being spent in the best ways, and c) whether or not the average resident understands what their councillor does on a daily, weekly, monthly basis.

I don't have fully-formed opinions of either a) or b). What I do have are certain beliefs. One of them is that while Council members need to be engaged with their constituents (and for anyone who's interested, here's a study from the UK about the changing role of councillors over there; thanks go to Mahesh Butani for this link), I don't believe they should be 'complaint resolvers'. I'd much prefer my councillors be providing leadership than sorting out beefs; the former is a much more valuable use of their skills and their time than the latter. So the idea of mediation strikes me as a good thing on that level. 

But as someone who believes in the idea of 'community', I'd like to see neighbourhood associations (NAs) directly involved in this sort of effort. 

In fact, I'd love to see Community Justice Initiatives working with NAs to help build better neighbourhoods through the philosophies and mechanisms they believe in and put to good work. 

Life today is not Life from fifty, a hundred years ago. It's far more complicated, despite the technological advantages we've ushered in and embraced wholeheartedly. But what we've improved upon in terms of access to information has been offset by a drop-off in communication skills (ironic, huh?), interpersonal rapport...and trust. 

Back 'in the day', neighbours knew each other more than they generally do now. (I am not pointing to any 'halcyon days', so don't try to pin 'The Nostalgist' label on me.) There was a greater investment in 'community'...even if it was mostly manifested in a greater sense of 'family'. 

Today, people are busier, they're more detached, and in many ways, less inclined to be invested in their own streets. (I'm generalizing here again, I know.) To me, NAs are the basic building block for bringing people together. Generating a greater sense of belonging, of pride-of-place...and therefore, to these eyes, are a fitting partner for mediation efforts with entities such as Community Justice Initiatives. 

Hats off to Councillor Farr and his cohorts for recognizing that a city's needs change, and that therefore, so do solutions applied to those needs. Here's to hoping that it's possible to consider the notion of entrenching this CJI endeavour in our neighbourhood association culture. Hamilton would most certainly benefit in myriad ways to such an approach. 

M Adrian Brassington