The 'One-way to Two-way' Endeavour...With a Twist

Poster by Graham Crawford, 'Dissident' Primoris

There is a movement afoot (!!!) to turn back to two-ways some of the one-way streets that were made so back in 1956. (All one has to do is check out Raise The Hammer.) 

Now, when I say 'movement', it's fair to say that at this point, most of it is at RTH and the 'Dissidents' (Hamilton Chapter) facebook group. But that doesn't mean that it's not going to gain traction, that we won't see this become a certified endeavour and not just a cliquish frustration-fest. (And though I'm on-board with the reasoning behind it, I am mindful of the fact that 50 or 100 people, no matter how eloquently, or how vociferously they're making their views known, are nowhere near sufficient to get The City to act. More on that reality, anon.)

But in reading one of the online comments on the subject, I was reminded of the ward boundary reform situation, amalgamation grudges, about turf protection, of the $3.6 million that Councillors in Wards 1-8 have at their discretionary disposal as a result of the area rating compromise...and I got to wondering about just how much say  'local residents' have and should have in what goes on in their neighbourhoods. 

I think it's fair to say that all the pre-amalgamation municipalities would insist that to as great an extent as possible, what goes on in their backyards should be up to them. For example, Waterdown and Stoney Creek were 'deeply affected' by having parking meters installed in their downtowns because it was instituted in the BIAs elsewhere. (I know, I know; this topic is far more complicated than the simple way I'm presenting it, but my point's validity isn't reduced one whit.) In the end, this decision was reversed, an acknowledgement that Hamilton is not homogenous, and good management requires being able see things objectively, and in the words of one councillor, 'equitably'. 

So even understanding that Council has to always have the greater needs of The City front-and-center, is it a leap to suggest that the residents in the neighbourhoods that are affected by these one-way streets should have a pretty sizeable say in their potential reversal back to two-way?

Much of the latest chatter at RTH has to do with presenting a business case to Council for the reversals. All fine and good, but not what's important to me in the exercise; it's doubtful that no matter how strong the business case is, that Council would get behind the endeavour unless they felt sufficient pressure to do so. And when it comes to a neighbourhood's needs in the main, there's only one place that sufficient pressure can come from. (And it's not RTH, it's not The Spec and it's not facebook.)

Imagine Council having it demonstrated to them by substantive voices from the communities directly affected by the reversals that this is what they want. 

As opposed to the kvetching and bellyaching by those who regularly drive across the City on Main or King who, in anticipation of these thoroughfares being changed, claim that 'all Hell will break loose' if the status quo changes, and vow to never go downtown again if it all unfolds as proposed. 

What are the extents to which local residents get to determine how their neighbourhoods are comprised?

More to the point, have these extents never really been determined because residents have never really been marshalled to come to the table? For in most instances of protest, aren't developers involved? You know, the standard long, drawn-out resident/City/developer/OMB imbroglio. That's not what these street-direction situations are at all. To a far greater extent, they involve massive Quality of Life implications, and for a change, they're not infused with discussions of development charges or by-law or planning exemptions.

I see this effort as something akin to the one for ward boundary reform: a perfect opportunity to galvanize neighbourhoods across wards, execute some strategic community activism, and develop some genuine resident cohesion...

...leading up to the 2014 election. 

Imagine the possible lessons learned about engagement, about taking a greater role in our own governance, about whether or not incumbents are worthy of being reinstalled. 

It's enough to elicit a dissident's smirk. 

M Adrian Brassington