Getting to the heart of the matter...

Within my most wishful imaginings, I see town halls. And forums. And salons and seminars and all manner of exchanges that go waaaay beyond online participation such as emails and tweets and facebook posts amongst 'the converted'...

Huh?

Sorry. It's just that there's been a flurry of activity this week over at Raise the Hammer (and it's only Tuesday!) that's been both curious and reassuring and boggling, and...and...

Articles and responses. By knowted Hamiltonians such as Graham Crawford and Jeremy Freiburger and Adrian Duyzer, as well as someone going by the moniker of 'Ersatz'. And the theme is consistent- But we'll get to that in a moment. First, excerpts from the material in question, which can be found in the articles or the subsequent comments contained therein 'Hamilton: Succeeding and Failing at The Same Time', and 'Hamilton's Problem is Not Ignorance'.

Graham Crawford: “When will we stop relying solely on the efforts of like-minded individuals? I love change from the grassroots, but at some point you need to look to your leaders to build on the efforts of individuals.” 

“Like many others, I will continue to make my contribution, such as it is, no matter what happens at other levels of government, but I really want to see some true leadership at the top. I'm getting pessimistic as I get older. I don't like that fact.” 

Jeremy Freiburger: “While the audience seems to strong, we are the converted.” 

“I also found it a little disturbing how much talk focused on the ability of the new comers to Hamilton to change the scene. Somehow it felt that the implication was that long-time local residents have sat in a stupor while our city has fallen apart - that we have no ideas - no ambition. For those who have been working hard that hurts.”

Adrian Duyzer: “It really is time to move past the "what" and on to the "how" and "when". Past exhortations have failed. We need to do something different this time. But what?”

Ersatz: “Seems to me that the trick is reaching beyond preaching to the converted. These events seem to bring in those who are already convinced of the value of the cause and the wisdom of the measures and strategies required to get there. The shortfall is in broader public engagement. This seems to be particularly true of charrettes, which tend to occupy a very narrow bandwidth.”

As a result of reading these profferings (and more), I began jotting down some notes towards a response. Here are a few slices:

• Getting leaders to do bold work requires more than just a small cadre with sticks, poking them. 
• ‘Legacy malaise’ on the part of most Hamiltonians should never be discounted, nor should its impact be reduced. 
• JF’s comment illustrates my point about people assuming that because they’re aware and energized, that this is the status quo. Simple proof is voter turnout. 
• I can’t help but think that activists...because so many have heroes, Jane Jacobs comes to mind immediately...are unconsciously hoping for saviours at Council. Once again, attention and focus is misdirected: it’s at the politicians, but should be at we, the people. 

Putting aside any rolling-of-the-eyes, the first thing that struck me was a double-barrelled question: 'How does change tend to happen?' and 'What do we expect from our councillors?' 

I'm not an urban planner, I have no letters after my name, and I'm not a known/accepted/supported 'community leader'. Phhttt. No matter, I'll opine anyway. : )

To me, development change tends to happen as a result of developers pushing for something and Council (as 'advised' by City Staff) allowing –and supporting– it. (Residents only  tend to get actively involved when they're against the development...although this isn't always the case. But when it happens, the end result can be an OMB hearing, after a substantial amount of time.)

Ironically, even though it's their city, and councillors work for them, efforts on the parts of residents don't tend to have anywhere near the impact as those of 'developers'. For example, lobbying for this or that feature, mostly in the area of a municipal service, not in terms of something they'd like to see in their community from a business point-of-view.

There's nothing new here; this process has been going on probably as long as we've had cities. (Obviously, at the bad end of the spectrum is the corruption and bribery typified by Tammany Hall in New York City in the 19th and 20th centuries.) But this post isn't about the inner-workings of City Hall, 'How Things Get Done in Hamilton'...and yet, it is. Or at least, it's about how things could get done, and by extension, addresses the aforementioned points and questions.

Previously, I've related as to how 'special interest' forums tend to adopt the mindset (or at least behaviours) that everyone else in the world places the same importance on the subject at hand. And I see this being the case with 'community engagement'. (It's certainly very evident in certain activism efforts.) Those who are energized tend to forget that their passions are not shared by others. In fact, they may not be shared by the majority. (Granted, in many cases, it's more a question of eyes needed to be opened, that 'ignorance is bliss' and all that than simple disagreement.)

It's at least heartening to see that they all tend to acknowledge this point by referencing 'the converted'. 

But I still think that there's an underlying connection to the mindset, a kind of incredulity that the causes are just, the intentions are good, the passion's there in exchanges; why doesn't 'change' happen? 

Rather than get into the whole examination of whether there's naïveté going on, or arrogance, or some other variation, I'm going to go back to my muse-points. 

- Getting leaders to do bold work requires more than just a small cadre with sticks, poking them. Yes, I agree with Margaret Mead's admonition "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." However, I do believe that there are some qualifiers here, so I'd edit it (at least within Hamilton's circumstances) to say:


"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens prompting, organizing and energizing communities can change the way Council executes local governance."


I have no doubt that those councillors who have been 'poked' by community activists have been influenced by them to varying degrees. But there's a limit to this influence. Councillors are not voted into power by 'concerned residents with informed opinions who are energized and active'. They're -mostly- voted into power by everyone else. (I don't think this is all that arguable a point: if sixty percent of voters are voting by 'name recognition', that leaves forty percent. So; how many of the 56,000+ mayoral contest ballot-casters do you think could be classified as 'concerned, energized and active citizens with informed opinions'? Be honest.) 


Until a councillor understands that the poking and prodding is coming from a substantive portion of their constituents, they won't place attach sufficient importance to it to actually effect change. 



- "Legacy malaise’ on the part of most Hamiltonians should never be discounted, nor should its impact be reduced." However you wish to label the communal state of mind that either sees change as improbable, or ambivalent to change, even nihilistic towards possibility, or even apathetic towards any examples of non-progress, it's there. I know because while I was born in Hamilton and have lived in its environs most of my life, I've also spent extended periods away, and so have returned with fresh eyes each time. 


Regardless of its causes and multipliers (reinvention due to a core industry slowly but inexorably vanishing, peripheral development accenting the lack of stewardship of the core, the trials and tribulations of amalgamation, or even the specious 'inferiority complex' theory in reference to Toronto), the fact is that it's a debilitating agent of inertia. 


How can it be 'cured'? Having a City Hall that is seen as being capable and trustworthy and warrants confidence notwithstanding, I'd say in two primary ways. The first is to have true leadership coming from our councillors. (And 'leadership' should not be confused with 'management'.) The second is to have energized communities across the city, establishing the tenor and tone by way of energized residents invested in their own Quality of Life. 


Not surprisingly, these two elements would feed off and motivate each other, creating a synergistic process. 


But the 'legacy malaise' is not something that can be overcome by slogans or mottos. There's a writer's adage that's apropos of this discussion, and I'll paraphrase it for you: 'A city's character isn't revealed in what it says, but in what it does.'




- "I can’t help but think that activists...because so many have heroes...are unconsciously hoping for saviours at Council. Once again, attention and focus is misdirected: it’s at the politicians, but should be at we, the people." 

I guess this is the part where there's the most distance between so many 'activists' and myself. And the part that consistently has me scratching my head. 


The ire of most is spent on Council. Bad decisions. No decisions. No courage. No insight. No 'visionary leadership'.


But really, our system, our heritage doesn't encourage 'superstars'. And how can it, when most Hamiltonians simply aren't all that interested in what goes on at 71 Main Street West. At least not to the extent that they're inclined to be involved. 


I'm not saying there aren't some quality people on Council currently. There are. But I believe that expectations are so low...'legacy malaise' combined with indifference as revealed by voter turnout...that it would be astounding for one or more of them to rise above the governance equivalent of duck-farts against the backdrop of sonorous snoring. 


And I'm not saying that we haven't had some candidates who ran (unsuccessfully) in recent elections who were capable of injecting some real oomph into City Hall deliverables. 


But why would anyone constantly be looking at the political equivalent to winning the lottery when, in keeping with a 'richness' analogy, they should be addressing the obvious -and ignored- factor of personal financial responsibility?


I read a lot of bitching and complaining about Council. About bad decisions. About how we can't seem to get it right on so many fronts in Hamilton. About how 'they' are constantly 'snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory'. But I almost never see anyone shining a critical light on the mechanism that allows for a situation such as ours to continue grinding on and on and on: we, the people. 




So here's my bottom-line response: Start getting serious about using the biggest aspect of the 'great governance formula', the residents. Find ways to 'convert' those who are not currently invested instead of continuing the 'endless-loop, echo-chamber' or 'circle-jerk' habits. Work on building street-level pride-of-place and a community sense of belonging by way of functional, empowered neighbourhood associations instead of crafting invectives against your councillors and how they've disappointed you...yet again. 


The 'saviours' will never arrive at City Hall. And as a relatively small group of concerned and animated citizens, you will never be able to effect the change there that you so earnestly crave. 


This change will never be delivered by way of a mandate from somewhere else, nor will badly-conceived referendums or plebiscites prompt it, either. 


In much the same was that my beliefs about term limits (as expressed in my post 'Me and Mahesh and 'term limits'...') comes down to 'doing the hard work to attain a more organic, more satisfying result', so do I believe that we need to accept that all the kvetching and all the praying for rescue by way of the ballot box ain't gonna get us what we want, that we need to be honest with ourselves and make a real examination of the heart of the matter. 






M Adrian Brassington