My Stoney Creek

'How?' you ask...? Part Four, The Practicals, Cont'd

2012-02-12T11:21:00.000-05:00

In Hamilton, a deeply-committed neighbourhood hub project is well underway under the auspices of SPRC, HCF and the City of Hamilton, amongst others. And we have individual organizations, agencies, groups that are actively involved in trying to bring awareness to residents, who spearhead efforts. The Hamilton Civic League. Environment Hamilton. Hamiltonians for Progressive Development, to name but a few. As well, we have at least two online entities that act as forums for issues, places where those who wish to investigate these issues can, for want of a better word, 'assemble'. Raise the Hammer. The Hamiltonian. And of course, we have social media, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Rounding things out, we have The Spec, urbanicity, CHML, CHCH and others.

All of these are what I would refer to as 'matched multipliers', 'energizers', as 'adjuncts' to what I've referred to as the fundamental element of a better model of local governance, neighbourhood initiatives and participation by way of their NAs.

(A brief note here: none of the 'Arab Spring' revolutions would have had their impact if everything had remained online, on Facebook and Twitter. The same goes for the 'Occupy' movement. Social media and everything connected to it is wonderful. But as much as this may have been the driving force behind these situations...as well as -arguably- the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency of the United States in 2008...in the end, it's people's physical engagement that matters most. I may seem either pedantic or 'retro' in this regard, but my belief is that what ultimately matters is breathing the same air with others, in the same room, getting down to basics, tapping into the pure human experience.)

I would ask all naysayers to consider these propositions:

-Imagine a local governance landscape that has a voter turnout rate of 80% at election time. Double what we currently get.

-Imagine these voters casting their ballots based on having created qualified opinions about the candidates. Instead of the vast majority voting according to 'name recognition'.

-Imagine attending seminars and workshops and town halls being natural things to do, and not examples of supreme dedication to the betterment of their quality-of-Life.

-Imagine residents far more involved in what goes on in their neighbourhoods, in their wards, in their city.

-Imagine the widespread cynicism and fatalism having been replaced by optimism and hope.

Now, if we were to see these kinds of defaults present in Hamiltonians, then we'd 'be in shape'.

Then we'd be able to invest in strategy, in technique, in executing our 'game'.

Then taking our place at the table with the developers, the organizations, with The City, being a bonafide 'player'.

Which we currently are most certainly, beyond-the-shadow-of-a-doubt, not.

Because going back to my analogy, we're *mostly flabby. Morbidly obese. Sedentary, without resiliency, with little endurance, poor recuperative powers...and even if we could gain full-access to 'the game', we'd get our asses kicked.

Which in reality, we do. Time and again.

*I say 'mostly', keeping in mind that there are some stellar workhorses in Hamilton, some superlative talents, some wonderful stuff underway. But given the limitations of the analogy, I stand by my statement. Additionally, we have some outstanding NAs in the city. Doing great work for their communities. And they're unquestionably models for other neighbourhoods to examine, to learn from and be inspired by. But we've just scratched the surface of the potential inherent in our residents.

I don't believe that our development 'salvation' can be found by awaiting The Next Great Councillor. Or The Next Great Mayor. Or hoping that a more benevolent breed of developer bestows magnanimous riches upon us.

I believe that the answer to how we can prevent having to repeatedly ask ourselves why we're constantly behind either The 8-ball or The Curve can be found in empowering ourselves by way of a concerted neighbourhood and community association effort.

That's how we'll get fit. That's how we'll have the oomph to ensure that our interests are properly being looked after. That's how we'll be a winning player in the game involving our livelihoods, our welfare, the very existence of our city, our Hamilton. After all:

'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.'

M Adrian Brassington

'How?' you ask...? Part Three-B, The Practicals

2012-02-12T10:39:00.000-05:00

In truth, I can offer up no easy, prize-winning 'practicals' addressing what I raised here at The Spec. Not ones pertaining to any given situation. Each situation is different, each will require its own approach, its own strategy, its own checklist.

Sorry if this admission strikes some as a 'shaggy dog tale' ending to the series, considering the build-up.

But in fact, what I'm going to propose...and what I've been proposing for a long time...facilitates the above, makes it all possible. So indulge me as I propose an analogy.

Suppose you're looking at entering into an important match. (The actual sport we're talking about doesn't matter...I'm loath to place the analogy within any particular one for fear of bias-of-reaction.)

Supposing you're out of shape. Overweight. You lack flexibility, mobility, endurance. In a nutshell, suppose you're unprepared for the match.

Were the above to be true, placing an emphasis on strategy and technique, no matter how well informed, would be folly. You'd need to get in shape first. You'd need to do your prep work so that whatever you were able to come up with strategy-wise would be maximized.

The same goes for changing 'How Things Are Done in Hamilton' when it comes to projects that involve taxpayer revenue. Where we have a stake.

And just as looking after the simple stuff in the above analogy is paramount (diet, flexibility, endurance, strength), it is in the realm of local governance.

To me, the foundation of changing our landscape is the neighbourhood.

Specifically, the neighbourhood association, or NA.

To this end, some core beliefs of mine:

-Every community in Hamilton should have an NA. Currently, we're not even close to that state. Here's a map of traditional neighbourhoods in the city, and here's the most current manifest of NAs recognized by the City of Hamilton. Note that some wards don't have NAs, period. So there is no level of organization of residents beyond contact with the Councillor. Contact either by the resident when there's a problem or contentious issue, or by the Councillor when it's required, or deemed necessary.

-Hamilton needs a Congress of NAs, an Organization of NAs, a Federation of NAs, some kind of unifying group whereby the city's NAs are able to connect, to communicate, to share resources, to unify citizens, a means by which consensus can be built, and a far louder, more resilient voice can be brought to bear. A placeholder was created last year, and it can be found here. On the provincial level there's the Federation of Urban Neighbourhoods.

Next up: Why the heart of our hope lies in NAs

A: Actually, I find it both depressing...

2012-02-10T16:51:00.003-05:00

...and dismaying.

Q: Given that almost two-thirds of voters don't vote in municipal elections, given that about the same ratio of voters who do cast ballots, do so out of 'name recognition', how do you feel when you have people who are at least sufficiently engaged to read and comment on a 'community/civic activism' blog musing on the publisher running for office....based on the apparent 'feel good' factor?

Addendum: It's been suggested to me that 'this is being done by The Publisher's own people'. That possibility just shifts things around, it doesn't diminish my 'feel bad' factor. It merely places it in another category.

'How?' you ask...? Part Three-A

2012-02-10T12:27:00.000-05:00

This week has been chock-full of rich experiences and Life-lessons for me. (This is an admittedly silly way to begin a post; all weeks contain these. LOL) So please forgive me for not getting to the meat of the matter and immediately laying out my practical suggestions.

Family health, medical and mortality issues. The travails of friendship. Meeting online commenters for the first time. Reconnecting with community confidantes, their intellects and their spirits. Observing knee-jerk judgement in action. Witnessing well-intentioned community efforts go benignly awry. Reading both enlightened and informed commentary (and reassuring responses to these) as well as self-indulgent, self-limiting pap.

Despite some peoples' perceptions of me by way of my online 'delivery' (I'm strident, that ain't gonna change), I'm actually a sensitive bunny. Most of the above affected me in one way or another. And apropos of this series of posts, they contributed to what I believe about changing 'How Things Are Done in Hamilton'.

Hamilton is, at the same time, blessed and cursed.

Blessed by the number of impassioned people. People with big hearts. Just-as-big minds. Untapped resources of near-unimaginable richness.

And cursed not only by our 'legacy malaise', but by a somewhat-indulgent mob-mentality that's got this I.V. drip going on of cynicism, frustration, desperation...and fear.

I'm reminded of someone who's in a panic. Someone who, for the sake of argument, is 'too smart by half'. Articulate, seemingly self-formed. Have you ever been around someone like this when they're in meltdown? Ever had to talk a friend 'down from the ledge'? Ever known anyone with either Bipolar Disorder 1 or 2, who's in their 'manic' state and are going a kajillion miles and hour, thoughts and concepts and ideas just barrelling out into the air you're breathing so rapidly that not only is it almost impossible to see any of them with any degree of clarity, but the process actually deprives you of oxygen?

OK; that's not quite what I'm seeing. It's not as dramatic as all that. But the bottom-line is the same: they're not going to get to where they think they're heading to.

Which ties nicely into the discussion summed up in 'The 8-Ball and The Curve: Why Are We Always Behind One or The Other?'

If I'm able to pull on my 'Toque of Cynicism' for a minute, we have a rigged system before us and all around us. Mostly because we have chosen by way of either conscious decision or unconscious neglect to not insist that we play the part we have every right to. (After all, we're the ones footing the bills.) And frankly, I'm 'concerned' at how far away we collectively are from having the skills to be able to take our place at the table.

I've sat in on meetings where it was proposed that there be some kind of 'schooling' for potential candidates for Council to make the most of their innate abilities in order to prepare them for both the election campaign as well as the day-to-day of City Hall life.

We're going to have to have something similar in place for the general public if we are to pull up that chair in that game.

Now, I'm not talking about classes. I'm not talking about instruction or school or anything like that. I'm talking about- Well, I'm talking about the notion of 'raising the level of debate in the city'. By way of example.

And connected to this, the reality that we're never going to have an entirely-engaged citizenry. I'm not sure what a reasonable expectation is in any given set of circumstances, so instead, I'll frame things this way: we need to consider the realities of producing a tiered system of engagement. Where at the bottom, you have The Disinterested. Above this, you have Those Who Are Willing to be Engaged, So Long as They're Convinced It's Worth Their Time. Above this, The Marching Army. And at the 'peak' tier, Those Capably Marshalling The Troops With Vision and Forethought And Leadership.

And I suddenly feel a little queazy, realizing how far away we are from this.

Next up: Some practicals. I promise. Really. Trust me.

A beautiful piece of commentary.

2012-02-10T06:15:00.001-05:00

Over at The Hamiltonian, Herman Turkstra has offered up his take on the HWDSB relocation, its building, downtown development, etc. (The Spec picked it up, too.)

Context and perspective.

Always refreshing.

'How?' you ask...? Part Two

2012-02-10T05:18:00.001-05:00

Nobody cedes power willingly.

Life is a competition, and people just want to win.

Nothing matters as much as getting what you want.

Boys will be boys.

Since forever, for all practical purposes, power has been denied the general populace. It's been held by just about everyone but residents, notions of 'democracy' notwithstanding. Royalty, emperors, dictators, 'the upper class', people with money, business magnates, precinct bosses, the Mafia, gangs...yadda, yadda, yadda.

And the thing is, nobody who's a 'player' in whatever game they're in, wants to see it change.

Politicians generally groan when the phrase 'public consultation' is uttered. (And this is further entrenched for me every time I hear a Councillor say "Town halls? Don't need 'em. If any of the residents in my ward have a problem, they can always get me by phone or email." In other words, they'll respond when necessary, but they're not going to go looking for input or feedback.)

Developers and movers-and-shakers generally prefer to steer clear of the public. They want to build what they want to build and would prefer it if they could get everything to their specifications and not have to compromise at all. (Still, thank Heaven for the OMB...)

Politicians generally want to be left alone to do their jobs, to look after the minutiae of governance. And not get involved in kerfuffles that risk re-election.

Developers- Just want to develop.

And to be fair, 'many' people –residents, citizens, constituents– don't want to be bothered with much of anything to do with any of this stuff. They vote people into government, they expect the elected officials can take care of what needs to be taken care of...and they want to be able to do whatever it is they want to be able to do. In their La-z-Boys.

There's nothing new here.

However, a) the world is no longer quite as simple as it's been since forever, and b) ours is a tragically flawed system the above operate within...one due for a critical re-boot, in my opinion.

But 'changing the game' it isn't a matter of passing this law or that rule or that regulation.

We're talking about some fundamental role-shifts. Not to mention shifts in perceptions, expectations...and most importantly, power-structure. And without the conviction on the part of the public...not necessarily all the public, just a sufficient number to prove cohesion, and therefore, clout...nothing will change. Because the most important notion on this page is at the top: 'Nobody ceded power willingly.'

So I guess the first substantive part of the answer to the question 'How?' is 'With great resolve on our parts.'

Next up: The specifics of 'How?'

'How?' you ask...? Part One

2012-02-09T13:31:00.000-05:00

'Good question!' is my initial response.

(The question under consideration is in regards to the notion that I presented in the essay 'The 8-Ball and The Curve: Why Are We Always Behind One or The Other?': We need to change the landscape so that we, the residents, the taxpayers, the underwriters of publicly-funded development, have a much higher level of participation than we've traditionally had.

It's a touchy, usually-avoided topic, a situation seen as being beyond any degree of 'fixing'. People who I present it to roll their eyes, shake their heads...and offer to sort out world peace instead. 'Good luck with that!" I'm told. "Not gonna happen," others mutter. "You must be living in your own little world," generally sums things up.

So before I go any further, allow me to suggest this analogy when it comes to this discussion:

Imagine if I were to propose to morbidly obese people what their day-to-day lives would be like if they were lean and fit.

If I were to talk about being able to get more done on their days off, or even before and after work, the response would be a bewailing chorus pointing out that a) they don't have the energy, b) they don't have the desire, or c) they don't have the motivation. It almost wouldn't matter were I to point out that their references were off, that because they'd be lean and fit, they'd have more energy, they'd have more desire, and they'd have more motivation. Even in pretending, they're locked into their perceptions, their experiences.

If I were to talk to them about how great it would be to be able to go into any clothing store and have a massive range of choice, they'd scoff and ask 'Do you have any idea how hard it is to find anything that fits?!?' It almost wouldn't matter were I to point out that their references were off, that because they'd be lean and fit, most styles would be options and much more likely than currently, their size would be in-stock. Even in pretending, they're locked into their perceptions, their experiences.

If I were to talk to them about the different activities they could partake in, the sports they could compete in, the hobbies they could-

Yeah, I'm sure you know where I'm going with this: people frame their responses based on past experiences, present expectations...and seemingly aren't capable of imagining any other possibilities.

Whenever I turn around the sign so it says 'Discussion Topic: Making Governance Better', I run into the same sort of responses.

Even from really intelligent people.

I've begun to wonder if a) industrial-strength cynicism has leaked into the water system, b) people are that beaten down, or c) I just need to try a little better at explaining how we can accomplish the goal of changing 'How Things Are Done in Hamilton'.

Next up: Getting down to the practicals of 'How?'

For the record...

2012-02-09T05:24:00.003-05:00

...the original title was:

The 8-Ball and The Curve: Why Are We Always Behind One or The Other?

Here's the article in today's edition.

To dream, perchance to...? Part Three

2012-02-07T18:51:00.002-05:00

I'll admit up front I'm going to get a little esoteric on your intellectual rumps here. (But for those who prefer to take the facile, get-to-the-point route: 'We need to play more of a part in how our city changes into its next iteration. We need to 'creatively re-imagine' Hamilton. We need to dream.' There; feel better? Now go get me a coffee.)

I'm going to riff on awareness for a bit. Ability. Engagement, involvement...participation. But as I'm heading down that esoteric route, I present to you the spiritual stages of the above:

Unconscious inability: People who live Life struggling against emotional and spiritual challenges they're not consciously aware of, and certainly aren't capable of mastering. These are everyday folk who are 'unaware'. (Ignorance rarely means 'bliss'...though it is possible through denial and distraction to be existentially content.) Visibly seen everywhere, all the time.

Conscious inability: People who live Life struggling against emotional and spiritual challenges they're consciously aware of but aren't yet capable of mastering. These are everyday folk who have some degree of 'awareness', a basic understanding of 'what's what', who explore various pathways, read self-help books, take classes, whose engagement in all this ranges from 'casual' to 'earnest', with an equally broad range of success. Visibly seen in yoginis and adherents and acolytes and followers, pursuers of personal truth.

Conscious ability: People who live Life consciously gaining mastery of emotional and spiritual challenges. These are most often exemplary folk, people who 'have something special about them', who seem a little differently dialed-in, on another frequency entirely. Visibly seen in yogis and other 'leaders', traditionally identified as the shaman, the wise-woman, the elders of the community, the great philosophers.

Unconscious ability: People who live Life executing mastery of emotional and spiritual challenges in an unconscious way. They are the 'adepts', the most 'exalted' of our yogis, our leaders, people who in effect transcend Life's travails and banalities, capable of pushing through to another reality entirely.

So.

Having already presented my 'Dummies' Dreaming For a Better City' notion, let's for a little bit consider transposing the above into the arena of civic engagement, community-building, a citizen's investment, a resident's involvement, however you choose to frame things.

Truthfully, I'd say about 99.5% of Hamiltonians fit into the first category (as it pertains to what I'm referring to, actively 'dreaming' about the city). And I'm willing to include in that number, 'players' (aka 'developers') just because that's the kind of guy I am.

We've never really been encouraged to 'dream'. Not about 'what Hamilton might be'.

Yes, we've had some charrettes take place regarding our LRT future, and yes, we've had student projects focusing on 'free-thinking' exercises, imaginatively constructing their own visions. And yes, even as recently as last autumn, we had a session furthering public input about the John-Rebecca park.

But out of 500,00+ people, that doesn't amount to much. Even if you double it for this one-off, triple it to be kind...

And frankly, from what I've seen on Raise the Hammer, on The Hamiltonian and on The Spec, most contributors/commenters/trolls 'don't go there'. They don't engage in creatively re-imagining their city. In fact, I kinda sorta nailed it in a post of my own:

"I'm amazed at how much energy gets channelled into limitation-based thinking."

Please understand: I'm not suggesting that just because we all 'play', we're going to get what we want. That's at the other end of the spectrum from where we generally are now, where very little creative effort and energy is invested by the average Hamiltonian in 'how things might be'.

Instead, we bitch and whine about yet another travesty, another situation that invariably hinged on an 'in camera' session at City Hall, where 'divine sovereignty' is claimed by this Board or that agency to do as it sees fit with taxpayers' money-

Oops. I'd only intended on looking at 'private' development situations, but I got sucked into my own frustration about what's currently unfolding in several sectors of the city. My bad.

I'm reminded of an adage that was bestowed upon me by- Well, I can't remember who. Regardless, it's perfectly apropos of this conversation, and a fitting way to bring this monologue to a close, keeping in mind that it's time for us to play, it's time for us to creatively re-imagine our city, it's time to dream, and push the best of those dreams towards reality:

'You don't ask, you don't get.'

M Adrian Brassington

To dream, perchance to...? Part Two

2012-02-07T12:31:00.000-05:00

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.

To dream, perchance to...? Part One

2012-02-07T06:35:00.000-05:00

Ryan McGreal, Publisher of Raise The Hammer

Yes, I'm the guy who 'spurred that spirited discussion' both in The Spec and at Raise the Hammer.

But...

But the 'discussion' didn't turn out as I'd hoped. Allow me to first share feedback to Ryan et al during the 'content approval' stage for his article's publication (edited marginally for clarity):

Ryan;

Interesting collation.

Too bad what it's sprung from hadn't been in-person.

A few points, as I attempt to stay away from the thrust of my own commentary, still being written:

As I was the one who prompted the conversation, it's been fascinating to see what was 'heard' and how almost everyone (save Sean Burak) processed the challenge and ran down a particular path with their response. One that generally had more to do with incorporating the idea of a supermarket (I'm using this term because there's too strong an assumption that 'grocery store', especially in the same conversation as 'The Hamilton Farmers' Market' just means produce, meat, dairy, baked goods, when that's not what I've been referring to, not if you go back to my initial commentary, here.) into a development possessing multiple uses...when what I was referring to was predicated on the idea of people as a community...and I do mean this in the complete sense of the word...examining their needs and making something happen.

Can you see the difference? You're talking about development...and I'm talking about community.

Both valid and important discussions, inextricably intertwined, but entirely different ones in the main.

When I posited the notion of 'building it ourselves', I was, once again, trying to get a conversation about we Hamiltonians being active, rather than being reactive. We've become a culture of complainers in this city, bitching and whingeing online while -quietly- waiting for manna from Heaven to descend amongst our cynicism. This exercise was merely an attempt to get people more in 'dream' mode, to consider possibilities themselves, rather than be subject to how someone from 'outside', as assisted from the City I suppose, would confer on the downtown core some beneficence, and provide something that while quite reasonable, has in fact never existed.

What I saw...especially after my efforts regarding Stoney Creek's downtown, in the far, far background of that discussion...was a store that the community had made happen. Not just for the sake of having another good-choices option in the downtown core, but as a strong example of Hamiltonians being able to get something done on their own that is not an event.

I certainly appreciate what ensued. In fact, I'm downright chuffed at how much was generated in so small a time-frame, given the fact that you were all simply responding to words on your screens. And I believe we've only scratched the surface. (For the record, this kind of 'unfolding' is precisely what I have been yammering on about for what seems so long a period of time, the concept of 'salons', where ideas can be shot back and forth. A rudimentary effort was attempted last summer/autumn with the 'RTHers' get-togethers, which numbered eleven at year's end.)

But I'm still wanting to tap into that other approach, go down that other path, the path more aligned with the initial reason for me challenging everyone: a community-based, community-directed store (yes, in partnership with someone, an 'already-in-the-game' player, if necessary) that would be an immense declaration to all that Hamiltonians do not require their Council to make everything happen, we don't have to wait on developers to gift us their generosity of presence, or even a protracted LRT plan being put in place, that we are quite capable of making things happen on our own, thankyouverymuch.

(And yes Ryan, this flies in the face of your admonition/aside regarding community and its food choices.)

Oh, and there was nothing overt in my proposition about the $650,000. At no point in any of my commentaries/editorials have I focused on that. In fact, I don't believe I even mentioned it. The overwhelming impetus of my gesture to generate conversation was that we try to play a little and find a way to imagine such an endeavour coming from Hamiltonians. That we consider the possibility of anteing up our brain power, our enthusiasm, our boldness...and of course, maybe even our money.

But I think that perhaps the main divergence in what I was musing on and what resulted, is a philosophical one. Because almost the entire motivation behind what I talk about isn't how to solve the consternating issues that are unfolding in the city, it's about 'How do we get people more engaged, so that they're contributing more to the ongoing revitalization of their city?' Where most everyone's response was 'How can we find ways to incorporate a grocery store into someone's development?'

I'm hoping you can see the difference.

Please don't misunderstand me: the collation effort is great, especially if it winds up in The Spec as an op-ed piece. But I need to remind all that this isn't the conversation I'd wanted to nudge people towards. It's a good one, it's a valid one, but until we focus on the most ignored element of this whole equation, the most invaluable commodity if you will, our residents, the dialogue is lacking its most critical part. And to me, this is unforgivable, because we do control our own destiny in this regard. We just haven't (outside the fold of 'active residents') accepted the mantle as of yet.

Truculently yours towards building a better Hamilton,

P.S. That throwaway line from the original Facebook page –about a town hall– was an entirely serious one. Until we're actually talking about this stuff in a room, we're going to remain mired.

Regarding a 'downtown supermarket'

2012-02-02T07:30:00.003-05:00

Within a lengthy Facebook exchange on the subject, I posited this notion for my correspondent's consideration:

Further to that final point, here's a challenge, for all the 'dissidents' in Hamilton, for all the 'movers and shakers', for all the 'community organizers' and 'civic activists': Why don't you utilize your immense talents and sound, heart-based energies and construct a co-op effort in concert with either an independent entity (Goodness Me!, Longo's, Lococo's etc) or Loblaws or Metro? I'm not being glib here. I'm being absolutely serious. We have so much whingeing and kvetching in Hamilton concentrating on what we're disappointed with, on how powerless we feel in the face of so many 'bad decisions' being made, here's a chance to actually pull together and make a difference. This wouldn't be the first time such an effort was made; didn't this happen in Ward 3 with a rec centre? Residents putting their own resources up to make the project happen? There's no reason why a 'community effort' coudn't provide a downtown grocery store, and plough the proceeds back into the community. Town hall anyone...?

So, there's the challenge: brainstorm a way to get a self-directed supermarket into the core.

I'm looking forward to the discussion.

M Adrian Brassington

Musings on a Downtown Grocery Store

2012-02-01T12:51:00.000-05:00

I spent the better part of a decade in England. Specifically Brighton & Hove. (Population: 260,000). In the 'downtown' area, there were three 'supermarkets'. All were frequented by customers primarily on-foot or travelling by bus. By people who either lived or worked downtown.

I know that Toronto now has a Loblaws store at Maple Leaf Gardens. When I lived in The Beaches, having the IGA on Queen Street West was great.

And I've shopped in Whole Foods in Manhattan.

Hamilton? What has downtown Hamilton held over the years?

Well, my research and recollections have suggested three. I'm being told there was one on Main Street just opposite First Place. There was an IGA on James Street South at Duke (now Adam's Marketplace?). And of course, The Barn at Hess and York.

But there's never been one...at least going back to the 60s...in 'the core'.

So with the announcement of the City of Hamilton's 'prize' for the person or company locating a grocery store downtown, I got to thinking about the notion. In terms of the relevancy of one going in there, the history of such in the area, and about 'corporate' vs 'community' priorities.

I'll admit, I've been torn about the idea of a supermarket in the core. I'm old enough and have a sufficiently intact memory to understand the past 50 years of the downtown pretty accurately. And in its various 'heydays', there was never a 'grocery store'. Never a food supermarket. (Yes, the Farmers' Market was always there, always providing meat, produce, baked goods and dairy products...but that's not what we're talking about here.) So I'm a little hesitant to get on-board with the idea that having one there is such a potential lynchpin to revitalizing the downtown. In fact, I'll admit to a sort of cynicism when it comes to just about any development whispers there: I'm very, very wary of desperate appeals and flights of fancy.

And at the risk of being pilloried, I'll add this: I would not want to see a 'Food Basics'-type store in the core to complement the Bingo Hall, the Money Marts and other such establishments.

I get all the arguments about food choices being vital to good health. About people who don't have broad food choices being unable to make good ones. But I'd hate to see the wrong movement take place in the core. If this paints me as 'elitist', so be it. Because if we want to get our downtown back to the way it was either before Jackson Square opened or when the mall was at its peak, then we have to be cognizant of the differences in 'synergistic development appeal' between a cut-rate grocery store and one on the level of a Sobeys. We need to strive for more than just the lowest common denominator. My suggestion? Something along the lines of a 'Metro'.

I'm also curious as to where the shoppers would be coming from. What's the catchment area? Who'd be shopping there? People who live in Beasley and Corktown? Currently, if we're talking the broadest sense of 'downtown', the closest grocery store is 'Food Basics' on Barton at Mary. After that, it's Fortino's at Dundurn, and 'No Frills' on Main close to Wentworth. Would people working in offices downtown shop there? I remember when commuters on buses and in cars brought back their bounty from Jackson Square at the end of the day, from the retails stores as well as the Farmers' Market. So while I know we've come to believe that 'people won't shop downtown', I also know this is malarky.

Tied to this discussion is the fact that we 'lost' a downtown grocery store when Metro Inc bought up The Barn, Dominion, A&P, Loeb and Ultra stores in Ontario in the last decade. It closed the flagship 'Barn' store at Hess and Main.

I drove by the location this morning. It's now a 'Premier Fitness' complex. And remains a great location for a supermarket. maybe the best potential location in the downtown, all things considered...save maybe for the old Eaton Centre addition to Jackson Square, which would automatically be seen as a 'Farmers' Market Killer'.

While I understand that companies have the right to make the business decisions they feel are best for their stockholders, I'm wondering what the reasoning was for closing this location, given where it was drawing customers from: the North-end, Central, Durand and Beasley neighbourhoods. I'm not going to claim that I'm privy to why the decision to close the store was made (the closest Metro Inc outlet is the aforementioned Food Basics store on Barton at Mary, so it can't have been in trying to forestall internal competition). But I am going to suggest that it's this kind of thinking (and the apparent 'hands-off' reaction of anyone at City Hall in response) that contributes to what we're currently seeing extant in the downtown...James Street South and James Street North above Cannon Street notwithstanding: there's no there, there.

I'm trying to imagine what piece of property would provide what's required for a 'downtown supermarket'. And I'm not coming up with much. Save for maybe the current Bingo Hall location, or the empty lot on James Street South there Robinson's used to be, two entirely different approaches.

But then, this is precisely the sort of conversation that should be happening in Hamilton, as I've mentioned previously.

It would be great if we could get more voices involved in the dialogue than just bureaucrats and developers, doncha think...?

M Adrian Brassington

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

2012-01-31T07:44:00.002-05:00

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

The Lynwood-Charlton Centre Imbroglio, Part Two: One Thing Leads To Another

2012-01-30T10:17:00.003-05:00

I don't have any need to get melodramatic about what transpired at the January 17th Planning Committee meeting as they considered an exemption/amendment to the 2001 Radial Separation bylaw. But I did have moments when an eyebrow would rise, when I stared at the screen, when I jotted down references...or when I paused the video to ponder what I'd just heard. (Oh, poo; I've done precisely what I'd said I had no need to do.)

Instead, here are my impressions...in no particular order, though I've attempted to establish some order...including a cursory swing at the 'history of things' bat.

History:

Charlton Hall has been operating for decades at 52-56 Charlton. The building is owned by us, The City. For three decades, CH has been paying $1300/mth, well below market value. The building is, 'literally crumbling', and in need of roughly $1.2 million in repairs/restorations...despite having work done on it in the past five years. Their facilities house a maximum of 8 young women.
Lynwood Hall has operated 121 Augusta Street as a non-residential facility. It also owns and operates a residential care facility nearby on Forest.
In order to provide a more synergistic approach to the services they delivered, Charlton Hall and Lynwood merged. I'm assuming that part of the logic was that as Lynwood already owned a building that could house the 8 patient-clients that Charlton managed, and that as Charlton's building was 'literally crumbling' (and had been deemed, at least so far as a City memo was concerned, to be 'surplus'), amalgamating made perfect sense. So the plan was to house Charlton's services at 121 Augusta. Which of course presumes that an amendment/exemption be granted to the Radial Separation bylaw.
Corktown is a neighbourhood that has been fighting diligently to raise itself up, to improve its appearance, its liveability, the very quality of its day-to-day living. The residents are proud of how far they've come, making things happen on their own, fostering a genuine 'community' spirit.

-"Please don't do this to us!" This was the sentiment repeated during the proceedings time and again by residents, including Barry Bogusat, the president of the Corktown Neighbourhood Association. The consensus to me was 'We don't want to risk the progress we've made by having the facility move in.' Now, the issue of the day was the application for the amendment/exemption. Which is based on the fact that there are currently two other 'day facilities' within this 300 meter radius. (the 'radial' in the term). So my immediate question, the real test of 'NIMBYism' would be: 'Pretending that these other two facilities did not exist, what would the community's stance be to seeing Lynwood-Charlton opening a day facility at 121 Augusta?'

My sense is that the 'Please don't do this to us!' sentiment would prevail. And from what I heard, the inference that's natural to draw was that the facility's profile...including the 'police visits' so repeatedly referenced by Councillor Farr, which I'll get to in a minute...is a negative one. Despite the fact that the reality of the Charlton Avenue location is that in terms of the behaviour/influence of the patients (the 'girls'), there has never been a clamour on the parts of the neighbours about it being a 'negative'. So despite everything else contributed by those who presented testimony (and again, I'll get to all that presently), I sensed a fair amount of NIMBYism over the duration of the proceedings.

-Lynwood-Charlton hardly did an exemplary job of communicating with the Corktown neighbourhood. It would be difficult for me to be convinced otherwise. The L-C Board all seem like good people. And their intentions seem above reproach. But my sense was that not enough was done, given the chutzpah displayed (using the press to show that the 8 girls had been informed of the likelihood of the move...which again, presumes that either an amendment/exemption would be won at Council, or that the OMB would decide in their favour...eventually). I'm rather amazed that such a simple part of the formula would have been so egregiously overlooked. This was result of either arrogance, or sloppiness...or both.

-In shutting down any communication between them and L-C, the Corktown Neighbourhood Association did themselves no favours. (And as was pointed out, this may come back to bite them on the collective ass if an OMB appeal is heard) I understand that they felt that they were being 'lied to'. I understand the 'Us vs Them' default setting that probably kicked in. But nothing is ever accomplished by closing the door to dialogue. Ever.

-You can't have it both ways. Probably the hardest thing for me to listen to was Councillor Farr repeatedly going back to the number of times police were at the Charlton Avenue location in 2009, 2010 and 2011: 65, 72, 30. One hundred and sixty-seven times. He hammered away at this ad nauseam. Regardless of the fact that Councillor Whitehead noted that he'd been informed that 99% of the calls had to do with one of the girls having gone 'missing', that no mischief or vandalism or untoward behaviour was being acted upon, Councillor Farr was 'hell-bent for leather' to put these stats up on the board.

Um...there's one problem with that: You can't have it both ways.

Throughout the proceedings, Councillor Farr referenced the contributions he's made in his career to 'youth at risk' endeavours, how supportive he was of what Charlton Hall did, touting the wonderful work they do there...and yet here's this campaign to impugn what they do, based on the number of police calls.

In hammering on about these constabulary visits, Councillor Farr was clearly saying that 'police visits are a negative'. Which by extension (and it's not much of one) means that the very presence of the facility is disruptive...and that the kids themselves are negatives, that Charlton Hall is a blight on the neighbourhood. Because...

Because you can't have it both ways.

This, not to put too fine a point on it, is an cloaked expression of NIMBYism.

(For the record, I also found it a bit much that he was unrelentingly effusive ('weening'?) in thanking the Corktown residents ('Us') for attending the proceedings and contributing testimony...but was hardly so with the L-C side ('Them').)

-While understandable within the context of not wanting the facility relocating to Augusta, I found it odd (to say the least) to hear residents so loudly advocating why the building at 121 is not at all suitable for the children who would be living there. (No greenspace, proximity to rail tracks, etc). This seemed skewed to me. I don't think that in negotiations (or anything that's akin to them, or leads to them), that one side should be addressing factors such as these. Their points were dead-on, and to me these alone make the relocation a bad business decision, but I still felt they were inappropriate.

-I also found the argument about 'thin edge of the wedge' ('If you grant a variation to the Radial Separation bylaw, and then L-C leaves, we have no idea what will happen to the property next!) to be a bit much, and beyond the remit of the session. (The fact is that if our City is that mired in- Oh, never mind...)

-On the other side, I found that some of the arguments from L-C were rather choice: Charlton Hall's presence hasn't hurt the 'gentrification' of Durand, and things are moving east from Locke, so maybe L-C's presence will help...and in having police come to 131 Augusta on calls means that these are instances when police are present and might prevent other incidents from happening, 'cleaning up the neighbourhood', as well as the girls helping to clean things up. (Yes, I did a spit-take at this comment.) I should note that Councillor Whitehead's stance was 'I have residents that would love the police to be coming by more regularly; they're begging for the deterrent!'

-As 52-56 Charlton Avenue is a City-owned property, I have a few questions. a) Why has such a low rent allowed to continue for such a long time? (Fifty years.) b) Why has there -seemingly- been no long-term strategizing on this property's future? The building is an unquestionable neighbourhood asset, a resource, so how is it that it's currently 'literally crumbling'? c) Why has there been no consultation with the community as to the potential future of the building? Why is this yet another bombshell that's being dropped in typical sequential, slow-motion?

-'A lack of planning and sound business acumen on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine...no matter that I'm your landlord in one instance, and the rule-setter in another.' It's L-C's responsibility to ensure its operations can continue. If the 52-56 Charlton location is no longer ideal due to its deteriorating condition...perhaps not even viable in the long-term...surely it's inarguable that Charlton Hall's had decades to sort out a different strategy, and during this time they've have had the benefit of a good run re: finances. (Given the low rent since its inception.) The fact is that L-C chose the wrong location for what's required for the day treatment centre. It's in contravention of the Radial Separation bylaw, it's not an appropriate facility for its intended use...and they used what amounted to (emotional blackmail) in presenting things in the ways they did, basically telling the City that it had a responsibility to make things right...'for the girls'.

-Ah, yes: the lawyer for L-C. He was, and I'm being kind here, clutching at straws, once again using a form of 'allusive blackmail' to say 'In the end, the City will have to accept its responsibility in the process.' I think that while Councillor Farr's tack was disappointing in its volume of delivery (the 'hammer'), this gentleman's approach was startling in its sharp thrusts (a 'stiletto'.) And it was great to hear him rebuked by at least one member of the Planning Committee (Councillor Johnson) for this.

-Conflation. Way too much of it. As usual. A lack of clarity reigned, facts were never really gotten under control, and there was benign fomenting (aka 'grandstanding') when there shouldn't have been any at all. Not the time, not the place. Inappropriate. Surely to God there must be some moment within a councillor's term when pandering to potential supporters is absent.

-On a brighter note, I was heartened by the clear voices and sound logic of at least two and a half members of the Committee: Councillors Johnson, Collins, and for some of the time, Whitehead.

The Lynwood-Charlton Centre Imbroglio, Part One: What we've got here...

2012-01-29T12:45:00.000-05:00

...is failure to communicate.

Well, failure to communicate well.

I've been listening to the January 17th, 2012 Planning Committee meeting. The bulk of the five hours and forty-one minutes has to do with the application for amending the 2001 radial separation bylaw as it pertains to using the 121 Augusta Street building to operate the current 52-56 Charlton Avenue facility out of.

I've looked at this issue recently here and here. In the first piece, I noted that there were a handful of contributing elements that made up the larger discussion. And that I worried that some would get lost, that conflation would rule the day, that the conversation so clearly required probably wouldn't happen...and we'd be no further ahead than before this issue came to the fore.

But it's taken listening to the proceedings for me to really gain some clarity. To appreciate the viewpoints of the various participants, to understand all the better the general process at City Hall, and to place a value on what's probably needed more in Hamilton than even visionary leadership on Council: discourse and dialogue amongst residents.

(But before I start taking a look at what this time spent has provided me –and I'll confess that due to the often cringe-inducing content, it's taken much, much longer than the actual play-time to get through– I'm going to go off on a brief tangent: Since I began attending Council meetings last year, I've been astounded at the abysmal level of exchanges. The amount of wasted time produced by Councillors. The bush-league 'political grandstanding' that seems to be habitual to so many around that horseshoe of theirs. The insecurity-based tendency to iterate the same point over and over and over again...until it's been ground into the dirt...and then pummelled some more. In summation: the paucity of genuine skill-sets pertaining to asking questions, in getting to the heart of a matter, in making the most of the time available. I find myself so gobsmacked that were I to make one single, solitary suggestion, I'd have the John Cleese management training video 'Meetings, Bloody Meetings' part of an ongoing Competencies & Proficiencies package afforded everyone on Council, because from what I've seen, remedial instruction is sorely indicated. But as I'm being candid regarding Council, I'll also point out that because we don't have ongoing opportunities for the public to improve their proficiency at discussing issues, they often fall down, too. We really need to raise the level of debate in Hamilton. So much is at stake. And we can surely do better.)

Up next: Let's take a good, hard look, shall we...?

M Adrian Brassington

'Social media' and all that...

2012-01-26T08:03:00.001-05:00

"Unfortunately, it's the case with social media that individuals too often engage in dialogue without the (or for that matter any) facts."

I've had some intriguing conversations and experiences this week, including a family medical one. Some have been trying, others have been illuminating, yet others have given me pause to think...and re-think.

In terms of local governance, I think I'm getting a bad neck-strain from shaking my head so much. I'm finding myself quite dismayed by how there are issues at the fore...residents are bitching and complaining, some writing editorials, others producing posters...but in the main, nothing. And I feel like I've been dropped into a film; I'm not actually part of the 'action', yet I can wander through the desolation and general conflagration. All the while yes, shaking my head.

I'll get to the quote that begins this post in a minute, but before I do, I have to say this: what irks me far more than disagreement is disconnect. The absence of an honest back-and-forth based on agreed-to information. Dysfunction drives me nuts. Serial, systemic dysfunction all the moreso.

The quote was offered up this week as a throwaway comment in a far more serious exchange. Prompting me to respond to the person thusly:

Please allow me to paraphrase: 'Unfortunately, it's the case with governments on all levels that there is a lack of appreciation for how the landscape has changed in terms of governance, in terms of access to information, in terms of the very dialogue that should exist between residents and their elected officials...as well as -in the case of municipal government- City Hall Staff.'

First off, although I don't take it personally myself, the use of 'social media' in the way you've used it comes across as a pejorative, no matter its strength. I've found that dismissive gestures lumping everything that rankles or otherwise makes City Staffers' jobs more 'trying', is part and parcel of how 'we're' dealt with in 'social media'.

When in fact, even when admitting that the process is flawed, all that's being done is an ongoing correction of the default setting long in place regarding the public and information, that of 'Only as much as is required'.

The truth is that while we live in the most information-rich time ever, there's still a pretty strong reluctance on the parts of 'those who administer' to have residents on-board as true collaborators, as partners in their own governance.

But just like glaciers, those times are slowly receding.

Secondly, I would hope that all elected officials and their support staff gain better understanding of the amount of frustration and distrust and cynicism the public feel in general towards City Hall. (No surprise; almost 60% of eligible voters chose not to in 2010.) People are fed up with obfuscation, with the perceived collusion with 'special interests', with the general lack of transparency and accountability they feel they're getting, and they're quite prepared to do what's necessary to access what's required for them to take their rightful place at the table. At the present time, I can easily name several situations that, once you peel back the protective PR mylar, reveal scenarios where these sentiments are easily seen:

-The downtown Mac development at the BOE site

-The relocation of the BOE complex

-Charlton Hall and the Wentworth Street North Mission Services locations

-AEGD

Finally, there has to be a more highly developed appreciation for the speed at which people are receiving news in general, and from The City specifically. So, not to put too fine a point on it, the process of 'managing information' on the part of The City has to change. Doling out facts in dribs and drabs is a thing of the past. The turnaround time to response, to comment, to 'Letters to the Editor' is much, much shorter than it has been in the past, sometimes (via twitter, for example) broadcast for consumption before the person doling out the quote returns to their office.

I understand completely any frustration you may have felt as a result of this particular situation unfolding as it has, but to put the blame on the shoulders of 'social media' would seem to be just a wee bit much, given all the particulars. (Especially as the crux of the discussion is a quote directly attributed to a City staffer by The Spec.)

In fact, I would go so far as to say this: if City Hall wants to prevent such occasions from resulting in the future, it needs to a) adopt a more engaging stance when it comes to 'What's going on in your neighbourhood', and b) keep in mind that from here on in, things are only moving forward, not backwards. There is no 'putting the genie back in the bottle.'

As I've stated over at Town Halls Hamilton:

"Endeavouring to increase the relationship of engagement between residents, their communities and their city through town halls, and in doing so, to gradually change the landscape of local governance...creating a better Hamilton for all."

M Adrian Brassington

Clarity is Vital

2012-01-25T07:24:00.002-05:00

In any discussion that addresses 'the poor', 'poverty', 'people in need', 'food banks', 'social assistance' and all the government and non-profit agencies normally associated with such notions, clarity is vital.

Especially when the term 'poverty industry' is brought up.

It worries me when I see phrases like 'making money off the suffering of others'. Because I don't believe that clarity resides where those opinions are uttered.

We have a poverty problem in Canada. In Ontario. In Hamilton in particular. How much this has been magnified by the provincial government changing the dynamic in terms of 'who pays for what' and 'where services are located' is part of the debate, as I noted here. We need to help people who require help. That's not the issue. The issue to me is two-fold: considering the possibility that 'poverty' is more an economic development issue than it is a social one and therefore demands a different tack than what has traditionally been taken, and what I recently offered up on The Hamiltonian:

"A 'poverty industry' isn't indicated by the fact that there are engines set in motion to deal with 'people in need', but by the fact that there seems to be a self-perpetuating mandate. As proven when an agency comes into an area (such as on Wentworth Street North) and says 'We're committed to being here! We'll be here in twenty years!'

It doesn't seem to be possible for agencies to say 'We are counting on NOT being here in twenty years. We want to help ERADICATE poverty, not cultivate it.' "

So nobody who provides humane means of sustenance should automatically be considered to be 'making money off the suffering of others'. However, if there are mechanisms in place to sustain this state, and if these efforts are being executed under the guise of religion as well as well as self-righteous obfuscation...especially when it's being funded to any degree by tax dollars...then I believe at that point, we just might have a problem, Houston.

My view is this: If Hamilton hadn't had services plonked down in the way it did with Mike Harris's downloading, if people hadn't essentially been shipped in to make the most of these changes, if we hadn't seen numbers that probably don't correspond to our authentic population numbers, I doubt we'd see the vista we're currently witnessing.

And we probably wouldn't see evidence of a 'poverty industry'.

Make no mistake about it: we have people in need in Hamilton. Agencies such as Mission Services, Good Shepard, The Salvation Army and Goodwill provide substantive assistance, even if there are valid criticisms to be launched against them regarding how they do what they do. Nevertheless, this truth remains: they are sizeable concerns and as with any entity with a bottom-line, they look to the future, wishing to see continuity and success. I guess it comes down to how 'success' is defined.

So keeping in mind that we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater, how about this:

Suppose we saw an economic development plan put into effect, a really sound one, and in five years, we'd 'whipped' poverty. Suppose the numbers went waaaaay down. What would these entities do? How would they reconfigure? Would they reconfigure what they do on a daily basis? Or would they shift operations to another locale? How would they rationalize their fund-raising efforts, especially those provided by public coffers?

My point being: if there's a 'war' on poverty, don't we need to have an exit strategy? Isn't that part-and-parcel of a well thought-out campaign? Unless of course, we're not all on the same page where whole exercise is concerned, and we're actually working at cross-purposes.

Ah yes; the need for clarity.

M Adrian Brassington

Meanwhile, over at The Hamiltonian...

2012-01-24T19:15:00.000-05:00

My good friend and breakfast-mate Mahesh Butani has had his article from Metropolitan Hamilton published by Teresa DiFalco et al.

It deals with what he feels the real story is with Charlton Hall wanting to move to Augusta Street, especially with how it ties in with the notion of a 'poverty industry' in Hamilton.

It can be found here.

I don't have one...and I'm worried.

2012-01-23T13:22:00.000-05:00

Photograph Property of Historic Hamilton

What I 'don't have' is a qualified opinion on 'social services' in Hamilton. And what I'm worried about is that the discussion that we really need to be having isn't going to happen.

This week, a 'social' issue came to the fore, one that's managed to polarize Hamiltonians, as well as create several different discussions beyond the preliminary issue of the relocation of a 'group home'.

(For further context, here's a Spec editorial, here's a followup article, and here's a thread on The Hamiltonian dealing with the issue. As well, check out facebook groups 'Dissidents (Hamilton Chapter)' and 'Ward 3 Residents' Association'.)

I'm no expert in this area, even though I've had some substantial input from contemporaries of late. To me, here are the various (and variant) discussion points:

-The general 'determination of what belongs in our neighourhood'. (NIMBYism)

-The zoning question, the long-extant 'radial separation' bylaw

-The potential Ontario Human Rights contravention

-The conglomeration of social services in Hamilton resulting from the Ontario government's 'downloading' in the last century

-The 'poverty industry' claim

All of these are sizeable avenues of discussion. Each one in and of itself is deserving of some protracted, engagement. Not so much on the parts of 'experts', or paid professionals (City Staff or Councillors), but on the parts of Hamilton residents.

For the sake of an exercise, let's take a look at each one (Note that I acknowledge that I'm not qualified to discuss them at length, that I'm certainly no expert. That I present them merely to point out that we need ongoing dialogue as initiated by Hamiltonian citizens):

1) The Radial Separation Bylaw. Some have said that "Our radial separation bylaw (however ineffective it has been in practice) to a large extent prevented unscrupulous developers/property owners and certain charitable organizations who use God and Guilt as a prodding rod, from totally gutting large chunks of the lower city." Depending on the result of any lawsuit that goes forward, there may have to be some consideration applied to re-thinking what's on the books. For the time being though, City Staff have contributed their two cents' worth...as has Ward 2 Councillor Farr. Regardless, doesn't it seem prudent for us to be talking about what this bylaw sets out do to, and what the implications are?

2) The Ontario Charter of Human Rights. This avenue may well be trotted down, the issue may go to court...but that'll be years. In the meantime, I'm hoping that we don't treat this element as an 'untouchable', but include the reasoning, because it is germane to the overall discussion.

3) NIMBYism. Being brutally honest, in most situations, given the realities of the economy as they pertain to property values, as well as the general diminution of 'community', the facts are that a) nobody 'wants' these facilities, b) we don't have enough faith in City Hall or any other level of government to get things right, so doubts and fears aren't assuaged to anyone's satisfaction, situations are consistently badly handled...and so it's not uncommon to have residents retrench into even more staunch stances of 'NIMBY'. (I should say that my impression is that it isn't so much in play vis a vis Charlton Hall.)

4) Social services delivery in Hamilton. One of the two 'elephants in the room'. Not everyone I've heard or read commenting seems to either have any knowledge of, remember or understand why we seem to have as much of a proliferation of everything associated with social services in the city. It's been suggested that we map every element of delivery in the city as well as compare the numbers (agencies, locations as well as people being serviced) with those pre-downloading. Because you can't have an engaged citizenry without there being a basic level of information and understanding. And I'm not of the opinion that these truths are front-and-centre, nor that they're being made integral to whatever discussion is being had. (For starters, what's the percentage of people being processed by various agencies that have actually been 'brought into the city' in order to be so ministered to?)

5) 'The reality of a poverty industry'. I'm not sure this proposition will ever be addressed. The Spec has clearly determined on which side of the fence it sits, with their 'Code Red' series. Does the average person want to be bothered with addressing poverty, despite not many wanting an abundance of their tax dollars going to the cause by way of a government service? I'm sufficiently cynical to believe that no politician seems willing to get their hands dirty and promote genuine and sustained dialogue about this notion; it's too risky, and there probably seems little upside. Additionally, I doubt most get what's being said when it's maintained that "This is not a 'poverty' issue, but an 'economic development' one." And besides; we can't address our downtown regarding development; why should we have faith in our elected officials addressing something in this vein re: an admittedly social manifestation? (Maybe the key will be when someone offers up something simple and cogent as an alternative to how things are currently being handled, a concept that lay-people could even process or digest. But currently, from my vantage point, it sure appears as if people aren't interested in 'going there', and are content to 'render unto Caesar', ie various government agencies in combination with the Mission Services, the United Ways, the Salvation Armys and the Good Shepherds.)

Last autumn, we had a community brouhaha on Wentworth Street North involving the Wever Hub, Cathy Wever School, Mission Services and Mohawk College against the backdrop of woefully under-informed residents concerned about how their neighbourhood was going to be affected by what was being implemented at the old Mohawk campus. (I'm still asking questions, I'm still attempting to get a status update, but my understanding is that nothing has been resolved; mostly because Mission Services was busy with their primary fundraising season and were going to hold off on answering questions until the new year. You know, now...)

And these two situation are certainly not isolated. Because of the profile of our 'social services' efforts in Hamilton, these 'incursion' and 'intrusion' discussions are the norm rather than the exception.

But is an interlude when something has become a 'hot topic' the best time to be actually talking? Especially when there are some pretty volatile contributing factors?

I'm going to shift the next portion of this discussion over to Town Halls Hamilton.

Oh, and while I have your attention, please take the time to read an essay on this very subject over at the Metro Hamilton blog.

And yet yes, this is what Hamilton's like.

2012-01-19T06:05:00.001-05:00

"And so, in Hamilton right now, we're not only focusing on piddling
issues, but based on some of the online 'discussion' I've seen, we're
clearly out of our depths to even address these with any degree of competency."

LMAO. So true. At times it feels like my old high school debate club.

This was an email sent to me by a friend. The italicized quote is from an editorial published here this week. Yesterday something cropped up that may not quite have fallen into the category of which I spoke, but reinforced how aspects of Hamilton strike me in terms of 'What's Worthy of Discussion' and 'How We Discuss'.

Graham Crawford, he of HIStory & HERitage proprietorship, of lambasting political poster notoriety, of incisive and insightful articles and editorials in The Spec, urbanicity and Raise the Hammer fame, mainstay of the 'Dissidents (Hamilton Chapter)' facebook group, was on Laura Babcock's 'Chats From The Lair' show this week. This fact was noted on The Hamiltonian. After which, commenting began...leaving me prompted to write this piece.

Graham is an engaging man. I know him, we've had some long conversations upstairs in his store on James Street North. He was invited onto Ms Babcock's show because he has a strong voice in the city and he's in a position to say what he wants without fear of recriminations. He might have made for an equally engaging guest, but it didn't pan out that way. (No, this had nothing to do with his vocal problems, rendering him almost laryngitic. It had to do with- Well, it was a wasted opportunity, in my mind.)

Allow me to cut to the chase. (I know you're all probably nodding enthusiastically. LOL)

The 'Five thousand dollar advice' bit of ensuing conversation over at The Hamiltonian is a red herring. (For the record, I'm willing to bet that Graham wasn't particularly interested in disseminating said advice verbatim on the fly, especially on Ms Babcock's show, and that what he did offer was merely the framing of what he'd have spoken to City Manager Chris Murray about had he been given the opportunity.) This actually isn't what irked me so much, though it is another example of a lack of perspicacity in the city...as well as yet further striding towards more conflation.

No, I think that what's most sad is a) how much emphasis was placed by Ms Babcock and Mr. Leiberman on this streetscape campaign and whether what Graham does with his in-window posters is 'hurtful', and b) how 'remarkable' it seems to be to have such a dissident voice in Hamilton.

Yes, I understand that these posters have become a touchstone for some in the city. That Graham is articulating things in ways that some admire. And this type of critical statement about our politicians has been with us for a very long time. All fine and good. But to me, if you were going to have on your show this clear voice that consistently strives to make Hamilton better (not that he's always right; I countered a recent argument of his here), I'd have thunk that you'd get the 'poster-imp' aspect of his oeuvre out of the way and get to the meat of the matter: discussing some salient issues. After all, this arena is what Graham purports to have a better handle on than most. Sure, I also get that this 'interview' is entertainment, that its format is 'footloose and fancy-free', and that the personality of the guest is paramount on the delivery list. But you've got him there, in front of a mic; why not make the most of the moment?

As to my other assertion... I guess it comes down to my sense of there having been too much fixation on stuff that just doesn't matter in the long run. 'Peggygate'. 'GO vs LRT'. 'Domestic chickens'. I'm not saying that Graham shouldn't do what he wants to do. He has the inclination, he has the compulsion...he has the resources? More power to him.

The problem for me isn't what Graham does. It's how it's contextualized by others. (And yes, I am referring to the posters, not his more 'serious' media commentary.) In a strange way, this distortion actually seems to run contrary to what Graham believes in, which is far greater levels of engagement and involvement and investment in what unfolds locally, on the parts of us all. I don't happen to think that getting lost up our own asses is a foundation of his belief system about how to make Hamilton better.

I applaud –to varying degrees– what Graham attempts to do in each of his endeavours. I just think that we need to pay some mind to what the song says:

M Adrian Brassington

Ya gotta laugh!

2012-01-18T18:47:00.003-05:00

"Blogging isn't writing, it's graffiti with punctuation."

What matters? The way I see it.

2012-01-18T06:07:00.000-05:00

I guess I'm a bit of a non-conformist.

As well as expecting strong leadership from elected officials, I'd like to expect strong participation from residents. You know, as I proposed in 'The Great Governance Formula' over at Town Halls Hamilton last autumn. I don't believe the paradigm should be 'We vote people in, and content to let them get on with it, we hope things turn out for the best.'

For me, the problems with this notion are fundamental: First off, we don't spend anywhere near enough time vetting our candidates. We simply don't take the process sufficiently seriously. More often than not, the incumbent gets the nod, but not so much based on due-diligence being done, but on presumption. We presume that a good job has been done by a Councillor based on the absence of identifiable screw-ups and the presence of a high enough 'feel-good' level. (The truth is that people by-and-large don't stay on top of their Councillor's performance. In Guelph, their Civic League has developed a two-pronged approach: they established core values that correspond to those of the community, and then track how Council votes according to these values. A wonderful start, but not a be-all and end-all. To simply compare how a person voted with a proscribed list of 'values' as the sole determinant seems akin to those wacky Tea Partiers down south; it's arbitrary, its facile...it's not even as good an indicator as a student's report card is to really understanding their performance. If we can't utilize context and perspective equally when assessing, then I despair all the more for the process.)

We –generally– don't invest enough in asking the right questions during an election campaign, we don't press the candidates enough- But then we're generally not qualified to do so, commensurate with what's at stake, and our media does a pretty crap job of really getting to the meat of the matter, so everything informs everything else and we end up with this...this dreck. (The analogy of residents being the 'employer' and interviewing the 'applicants' –the candidates– would mean that in this situation, the employers weren't capable of executing their part of the bargain...and everything falls down at the start.)

Secondly, we're not sufficiently invested in the governance process as it unfolds between elections. Call me wooly-headed, naïve or just downright foolhardy, but I don't believe that in today's world, with our access to information being so broad and so deep, that the traditional bulwarks are any longer in place. So it's ironic that at a time when the Internet and all it encompasses has provided us so many personal opportunities for indulgence that it behooves us to actually 'take back our governance'. (If we ever had it.)

And so, in Hamilton right now, we're not only focusing on piddling issues, but based on some of the online 'discussion' I've seen, we're clearly out of our depths to even address these with any degree of competency. Issues such as:

-Domestic chickens

-Domestic garbage limits as they 'correlate' to illegal dumping

-'Peggygate' as it relates to the Mayor's New Year Levee

-The geographical alignment of Ivor Wynne Stadium II

-The personality traits of our Mayor

-Obsessing over a process currently beyond our contributions (LRT)

Meanwhile, we have several issues that are looming, and forwhateverreason (that's me not launching into 'Castigation' mode), they're not front-and-centre. We don't have visionary, engaging leadership from our Council, we don't have powerful 'lobbying' elements active enough to have awareness at conversational levels throughout the city, and we certainly don't have residents invested in the discussions themselves. Issues such as:

-AEGD, aka 'Aerotropolis'.

-Our infrastructure deficiency time-bomb

-The economic revitalization of our north-end, from Wards 1-4

-The pro-active re-imagining of our city

Here's what worries me: our 'legacy malaise' continues to infuse our day-to-day, and when combined with an unconscious shrugging of the shoulders, with a Council that frankly, at least to what I've read, what I've heard, what I've witnessed, hasn't provided me with hardly any reason to feel inspiration is bubbling up at City Hall, any reason to feel ambition is fostered there, but rather a weening desire to 'stay the course' conservatively and moderately, within limits, all the while making questionable decisions and expending energies on internecine squabbles, energies that anyone better equipped than a- Well, that most intelligent people would readily concede should be invested in other concerns, all of this doesn't really spell out a situation befitting cheering. (That's me being generous once again)

I have nothing against our Council. ('Damning by faint praise' or a 'backhanded compliment'?) I have no desire to lambaste or pillory. 'We get the government we deserve', yes. But our elected officials...save the exemplary ones, whenever we're fortunate enough to have them presented to us...only elevate their game according to what's asked of them, and what's contained within the collaborative mix. And currently, they're mostly on their own. Hardly setting the world on fire.

Surely we can do better than this.

M Adrian Brassington

Just because I can't.

2012-01-17T17:14:00.001-05:00

Pursuant to my posts this morning, which were prompted by a post over at The Hamiltonian, I'm finding myself needing to respond to responses to my initial comment there. (I don't have anywhere near the latitude I should have at theh site, and I really hate to have my thoughts marshalled by others...especially when they tend to both autocratic and ill-considered...so I'm kindasorta forced to declaim here.)

First off, the notion that plastic food wrapping is the main culprit for 'stinkage': No.

I can see that this might be a problem to a certain extent, but not anywhere near one that would have piles of refuse stinking up the neighbourhood, or your garage or wherever.

Solution? Do a better job of isolating these materials and bag 'em better. (Yes, using another piece of plastic 'adds to the pile', but nothing about this whole 'waste' situation is compromise-free.)

Regarding the notions that 'most people don't recycle and if we adopt an every-two-week garbage pickup schedule, then we'll be awash in rats', that we'd be in for a 'disaster': Riiiiiiiight.

I'll admit I have a soft spot for hyperbole, but these suggestions are just- Well, they're pretty typical of how we address challenges in Hamilton.

Even if this were the case, then I'd say 'Let's take all the money that we're wanting to put into a Garbage Intelligence Agency...you know, the vans for surveillance, the undercover 'officers' for illegal dumping...and apply it to tracking down and nailing to the wall those people who have 'opted out of recycling'.

Tell ya what; how about allowing some neighbourhood peer pressure to be put into play, to get the 'stragglers' on-board? Better yet, how about we get the actual Neighbourhood Associations involved? How about we have our own 'pride-cum-recycling Green Berets' program?

Wide-eyed and grinning.

2012-01-17T16:07:00.001-05:00

This morning I had the good fortune to have breakfast with Mahesh Butani. (It was the third time in the space of a week we'd tried to get together; I swear, the man has to get himself either an assistant, or a pager.)

I'm very aware of the opinions that some have of the former mayoral candidate. I see it in the 'downvoting' he instantly receives at Raise the Hammer, as well as the sidelong comments made there. Now, I'm not his apologist. I'm his friend, but he doesn't need me to 'defend' him against those who would slag him off. He's more than capable of handling things all by himself, thankyouverymuch.

Still, I get how people might get their feathers ruffled by his manner, how he approaches discussions, etc. I also get how he might strike some as being supercilious, condescending or even a blow-hard. (Like Clive Owen says in 'Inside Man': "Pay strict attention to what I say, because I choose my words carefully." For these concessions aren't really about him. They're about his anti-fans. And their capacities.)

Phhtt.

The facts are: 1) Mahesh has a huge heart. 2) He has an even bigger brain. 3) He doesn't suffer fools gladly. 4) He had more platform than The Big Three put together during the last municipal election. And 5) He is, by far, the Greatest Resource This City is Currently Not Using.

(A disclaiming/preface: I harbour no beliefs that he's perfect. Infallible. Anything akin to those notions. He's as flawed as anyone I've met, he's sometimes wrong, wrong, very wrong...and parody tales notwithstanding, I am hardly Boswell to his Johnson.)

Anyway, I had breakfast with him, and during our meal, prompted him on a project that I've been making mention of in various locales online.

His 'Double figure-8' transit concept.

I'm not allowed to give anything away. He's quite intent on 'getting it right' before he shares it. However, on a rumpled napkin he sketched with a fading pen a rough approximation of what he's been alluding to for months now. I'd gotten the somewhat-gist of it previously, but even with its lack of visual acuity (our server eventually offered up some computer paper in a lovely act of sympathetic consideration), it certainly brought on the the title of this post.

As he sketched it out, I asked him questions. But they weren't technical in nature; as an observer, I'm more intrigued by how things develop in the much bigger sense. So my queries were more along the lines of 'What do you think will be the fundamental reaction from the adherents of LRT to what you're proposing?' Because honestly, this plan of his is a mind-blower. Not because it's outrageously inventive or singularly, conceptually disruptive...but because it's so grounded in common sense.

Here's the thing: I'm not an LRT expert. I would never claim to have a qualified opinion on what's what, or how things should be designed. However, this is my pedigree: I've been a lifelong public transit user. Here, in the Hamilton area (I used to take the Grey Coach bus in from the North Service Road Winona to Stoney Creek when I was 9.) To Toronto. In Toronto. In Guelph. In NYC, in Norfolk, VA, in London and Brighton & Hove in the UK. I've lived in The Amalgamated City of Greater Hamilton for most of my life, resided at both east and west of the proposed LRT system, and while not a fabulous puzzle-solver, I'm a pretty damned good observer and hardly a dumb-bunny.

And as a result of all that, I am so looking forward to sitting back and watching the reaction to Mahesh having put his money where his mouth is...because in that reaction, we're going to see so much more than just contrary reactions to his admittedly contrary proposal. We're going to see just how visionary some people really are in Hamilton, how really attached they are to their own pet alignments, and whether there's a spirit of true deliberative dialogue in this city.

I can't wait.

M Adrian Brassington

'That Smell'? Part Three

2012-01-17T07:49:00.003-05:00

'Garbage in, garbage out.'

It's an early computer programming maxim, but it has many applications (sorry) in this modern world of ours.

If you ingest more calories than you expend, you have to deal with ridding yourself of the excess.

If you spend more than you earn, you have to deal with the debt.

If you purchase goods with what can reasonably be referred to as 'excessive packaging', then you have nobody to blame when it comes time to processing the waste.

By the same token, if you're hung up on 'buying things', if you're addicted to a materialistic, acquisitional cultural mindset (I've cried when the calls have gone up for people to 'Consume! Consume! Consume! Save our economy! Generate jobs for your neighbours! Spend! Purchase! Obtain!' by so many North American leaders.), then you're going to have rubbish to attend to.

Some people seem to see their part in the whole 'Garbage, Recycling, Composting' discussion as merely doing what's been asked of them and separating their refuse into the proper containers.

In fact, what's just as important is the notion of being mindful of product packaging.

Or what was required to bring it to market.

Or whether the product is needed at all.

For me, what this all comes down to is being aware of cause-and-effect. Understanding not just about what's in front of you on the shelf, or on the showroom floor, but what it's taken to get these purchasables to market.

Many people in Hamilton do 'get it'. Many do understand that due consideration needs to be afforded to our 'footprints'. And I suppose what we really need...more than any initiatives coming out of City Hall...is have more discussion, to have more 'due influence' at play within our citizenry.

So that the idea of purchasing more consciously becomes our default.

So that people don't see watering their lawns...or the disposal of its 'crop'...as some inalienable right, no matter how bizarre a practice it is.

So that people see bottled water for the travesty it is.

Once again, we need more dialogue. More discourse. On a basic level. Curbside chats. Town halls. Neighbour seminars. Street salons.

Mostly because I do believe we can 'talk' our way out of this one. As long as it's an external discussion, and not some mindless internal monologue.

M Adrian Brassington

'That Smell'? Part Two

2012-01-17T07:23:00.001-05:00

Photo property of Tim Noble and Sue Webster

I'm a 'reason behind the reason' sort of guy. I'm more fascinated by what motivates people to react, to behave in particular ways than I am in what's seen in the moment.

In Part One of this series, I touched on the general attitude of that portion of Hamiltonians that is resistent to improving the way we deal with our household rubbish. The idea that we've convinced ourselves that we shouldn't have to be bothered to do anything more than put bags of all-in-one waste out at the curb, that our rights-of-entitlement trump any notion of the 'common good', or that we simply don't have the time to deal with such...well, crap.

All fine and good; we live in selfish times.

But tied into this, contributing to the formula, magnifying the process are several elements.

The first, quite frankly, is leadership.

Leadership that's not somehow modified (I'd say 'perverted') by considerations of re-election.

Look; I'm all for councillors being available to their constituents, hearing them out, weighing their input, all of that. But we effectively hire these people to be able to take all the information available to them...such as City Hall Staff recommendations...and lead.

You know; the idea of taking people whose welfare they've been charged with managing from one place...to another.

The 'one place' vis a vis garbage and recycling? The old-school default of 'put it all in a green bag'. And 'another'? The default that has us diverting as much material away from our landfills as is possible, with blue and green bins taking the lion's share. (I believe the current goal is a 65% diversion rate.)

If Hamilton can't set a goal, or stick to an Official Plan or a Secondary one, if it can't get the basics right, then why should anyone harbour the belief that this city's fate is in the kind of hands that are possessed of vision and imagination and incentive and initiative of the sort that's required for us to become the next great version of us we're capably of becoming?

Frankly, what I've seen unfold recently regarding Councils response to 'illegal dumping' and the perceived 'correlation' between it and the amount of containers of garbage being allowed (please note the term 'container'. It's not 'bag'.) does not instill confidence. At all. And frankly makes me wonder if, while there are always accusations of 'undue influence' regarding corporations or big-wig solo entities, that there's some 'undue influence' unfolding on a much more basic level, one that's closer aligned with thoughts of re-election than great local governance.

To be concluded in Part Three.

'That smell'...? Part One

2012-01-17T06:49:00.000-05:00

'You're entitled to your own opinions...but you're not entitled to your own facts.'

Moreover, nobody is 'entitled' to muddying the waters-of-discussion by constantly returning to a downright 'terminological inextactitude', by repeatedly waiving their hands, jumping up and down and yelling...

...when it's clear they don't want to have the conversation in the first place.

Because what results isn't a 'discussion'. It's more 'some involved parties wanting to earnestly and genuinely seek out solutions while others want to shut down the process and go back to the way it used to be'.

There are some Hamiltonians that can't be bothered to recycle. Or process their waste. They do it begrudgingly. But given their 'druthers', they'd welcome a return to throwing everything into green bags for pickup, period.

That world is gone. It doesn't exist anymore...and really, never should have, either. It's a remnant of a time that connects with the pretty shameful way we addressed North America as 'conquerer-colonists', and we owe it to the Earth not to continue to be such asshats half a millennium later.

Currently, we're witnessing a quite-pathetic resistance to looking at changing our garbage pickups. When the notion of 'once-every-two-weeks' has been posited, there's –apparently– been this clamour, a bewailing cry, a keening of protest, a caterwauling befitting children denied another hour of television, not a grown-up populace. A tax-paying one, at that.

Here's the truth, in a nutshell: Complaints have risen that, in the summer months, if we have go with garbage being picked up every other week, streets will be rife with 'smelly garbage'. Life will be intolerable over this period.

Huh?

What garbage smells? Seriously. Organic material deteriorates. Meat. Vegetables. Fruit and the such. But this stuff isn't supposed to be put into the garbage, anyway: it's meant for your green box. (The exception would be soiled diapers. And I see no reason why we cannot come up with a solution for this, if in fact it's impossible for the parents to come up with a holdover one of their own.) Which will still be picked up every week.

So there should be no 'smelly garbage', period. Regardless of how much time there is between pickups for garbage.

But this isn't just a moot argument, it's an insult. It's indicative of those people who resent that Life isn't as simple as it used to be, who just want to consume what they're compelled to consume...and not have to work at the other end of the process.

To me, the real problem, the fundamental issue isn't how often we have our 'garbage' picked up. It's how we continue to see our rights as consumers, how we see our government, how we feel about trusting our government, how we feel about 'being told' how we're going to address our personal waste.

And the truth is that some of us continue to be incredibly selfish. We continue to be obdurate about contributing to the common good, so instead of doing the JFK 'Ask not what your country...' thing, or the Gandhi 'Be the change...' thing, we choose to mine the seemingly-bottomless 'entitlement' thing.

To be continued in Part Two.

Meanwhile, back over at Town Halls Hamilton...

2012-01-13T14:39:00.001-05:00

...I posted an editorial about re-doing ward boundaries. Check it out.

'Peg 'o my heart'? No, 'Sorce of my hilarity'

2012-01-12T13:20:00.001-05:00

Right.

I'm feeling in a particularly playful...and, believe it or not, non-bilious...mood today, so I'm going to push the 'Indulgence' lever to the max and respond to a prat that I've had online run-ins with before.

He goes by the name of 'Sorce'. (I say 'he' because I'm of too high an opinion of women in general to believe that it could be a gal. If that seems somehow 'politically correct' in some twisted way, so be it.) He comments at The Hamiltonian.

I've consistently found him to be... A pain-in-the ass.

Not because I disagree with what he says (I often do), but because of his...well, his delivery.

He's a prat.

But in many ways, in being so, he fits in with the schoolyard sandbox forum that the editorial 'schoolmarms' at The Hamiltonian are quite insistent on maintaining. If I had to guess his general background- Oh, hell; I don't want to spend time going down that road; I'd be here all day, and who knows what kind of bile would end up being vented. : ) (That's me, showing some reserve.)

We've had 'run-ins' before. He seems to take pride in the fact that he uses 'pithiness' as his main weapon. I've taken pride in not pointing out that he's just doing the wise thing and staying just this side of The Peter Principle in doing so.

Anyway...

There was a discussion going on over there about Fred Eisenberger's interview on Laura Babcock's 'The Lair' this week. And I opined several things- Well, why don't I just cut-and-paste it?

SorceJan 12, 2012 05:22 AM

i listened to the entire interview and thought it was a major faux pas for Fred. Bratina is doing the right thing by not commenting. It came across as sour grapes and an attempt to recast a failing performance as mayor. He may have been politically betrayed by council but what do you expect from career councillors who keep hanging on to a job that they, for the most part, cannot handle. save for McHattie and Merulla.

obviously Fred is smelling blood on Bratins's alleged poor performance, but he has three more years to learn from his mistakes. The ONLY thing I agre with Fred on is that Mayor Bratina needs to hire better advisors. Certainly there must be other people he trusts and respects who would be better received.
Sorce

Replies

mystoneycreekJan 12, 2012 05:50 AM

"...but what do you expect from career councillors who keep hanging on to a job that they, for the most part, cannot handle..."

Except that the Councillors are not the problem in this notion. The problem...if there in fact is one...is that people keep voting them back in.

If you're an employer, and you're really not happy with the performance of the people you're hiring...over and over and over again...who's at fault here? The applicant/employees? Or you?

Delete

SorceJan 12, 2012 06:53 AM

I dont want you to take this the wrong way. I don't think you are an unintelligent person, but I think you are simple-minded on this issue. Until you move beyond that, there is not much point in debating this with you. But tell me. can you identify 5 root csuses of this phenomenon?
Sorce

mystoneycreekJan 12, 2012 08:57 AM

"I dont want you to take this the wrong way. I don't think you are an unintelligent person, but I think you are simple-minded on this issue."

LMAO

I'm quite surprised that The Hamiltonian would allow this kind of comment through. (But then, I was surprised it allowed my pal Mahesh's comment through about Mr. Borrelli...my co-hort for the inaugural Town Halls Hamilton event.

Sorce, I'm sure I won't be allowed to say here what I want to in response...so I'll reply on my blog...and in-person if you're ever up to it.

So, here I am, replying in full.

First off, the fact that Sorce would lead off by saying something like 'I don't want you to take this the wrong way' is extraordinarily telling. It's like the old-school bigots who would say 'I'm not a racist at all, but...' The fact is that Sorce does want me to take it exactly in the manner he's framed it. He knows that he's about to be insulting, and isn't quite evolved enough socially...or he just hasn't got a sufficient enough grasp of either common sense or cause-and-effect...or maybe he is a dumb-bunny after all...to be able to just say what he means. Why? Oh... Maybe he's worried about his word-count. I don't know.

Secondly, 'I don't think you are an unintelligent person...' LMFAO.

Oh, yes you do.

Yeah, you do, from your little Throne of Few Words, the Great Lord of Minimalism (in both intellect and word-count...).

The funny thing is that in your 'picante-by-way-of-Twitter-mode' approach, you actually magnify your tendencies...and your limitations. And as per usual, your tack is one of a gruffness as modified by time spent with Emily Post. But the bottom-line is that you're always dripping with disdain when you deign to address most anything I've proffered...disdain that doesn't come from a secure place at all.

Thirdly, '...but I think you are simple-minded on this issue.'

Again, I think I just LMFAO...and I have uric acid staining my jeans.

At the very least (and I am being playful here, this is well beyond the proverbial pot calling the kettle- Oh, you know what I mean.

'Simple-minded', huh?

Which means, if memory serves, that my IQ is somewhere between 71 and about 80 on the traditional scale. Idiot: 0-25. Imbecile: 26-50. Moron: 51-70.

Wow.

That's...astounding.

Let's see: considering I'd be hard-pressed to hold down a job, it's kinda marvellous that I've managed to editorialize with at least as much cogency as anyone in town on two different blogs. But wait a minute! You said I was just 'simple-minded' on this particular issue!

Whew!

What a relief!

But...hey... Does that mean 'selective simple-mindedness'? 'Situational'? 'Issue-specific'? This would have to be the case, because otherwise, I'd never be able to even conceptualize providing this response to you in the way it's being fashioned.

Wow.

I guess this makes me kinda an 'simpleton-savant', huh?

Fourthly, 'Until you move beyond that, there is not much point in debating this with you.'

Damn; just when I'd gotten my gluteals reattached...and a fresh pair of clothing to wear.

Dude... Seriously. You're so far out of your league, it ain't funny. (The humanitarian in me has risen up to make that declarative.)

But I'll give you top marks for condescension...and patronization...and addle-pated chutzpah.

The funny thing is that you're The Hamiltonian's Great Brain Commenter.

You're the 'source' for wisdom, the great font of All Things Dripping With Pithy Insight.

And in this regard, I'm reminded of the old SCTV skit with John Candy, 'Hey, Gorgy!'

Finally, let's get to the meat of the matter.

I will maintain until the cows come home that the great burden of responsibility for 'bad government' lies with us.

The people.

With just over 40% of eligible voters casting ballots in the last election, and if nothing had changed since the previous one in 2006, almost two-thirds of these casting according to name recognition, then you'd be hard-pressed to 'debate' with me that it's otherwise.

Of the available voters, less than 15% voted for a man who ran a campaign on a 'platformless platform'...and a good portion of these...given the demographic breakdown...did so not as a result of the kind of time and effort they'd put into where they're moving for retirement, but as a result of feeling comfortable with the idea of this longtime radio personality running the show.

So that's the background. Attached to this is my assertion that if we're dissatisfied with councillors repeatedly being voted in...usually resulting in calls for 'term limits', then we need to remind ourselves that nobody assigns them their posts. They're voted in by the public. And the last time I checked, nobody had a gun prodding their temple when they filled out their ballot.

So I maintain that if there's a 'problem' with incompetent, inefficient politicians being (repeatedly) elected, we need look no further than who's doing the 'interviewing', who's doing the 'hiring'.

Now, you were looking for '5 root csuses (sic) of this phenomenon'. I'm assuming that you're referring to how councillors get voted back in. Specifically, why people keeping voting back in people who others question the capabilities of. As you put it, '...career councillors who keep hanging on to a job that they, for the most part, cannot handle.'

(I almost feel like asking you to provide examples of people on Council...and it would have to be those who are 'career councillors'...who cannot handle their responsibilities, who are incapable of executing the duties for which they were elected. Almost.)

OK. Assuming that we are actually talking about councillors who are incapable of representing their constituents in a manner befitting reasonable expectations...

1) A lack of real attention to performance. (ie, 'laziness'.)

2) Cutting way too much slack, due to a self-constructed comfort level. (ie, 'laziness'.)

3) Voting according to 'name recognition'. (ie, 'laziness'.)

4) Getting what they want from the councillor. (ie, 'selfishness'.)

5) Genuinely and sincerely believing that the incumbent has been doing a great job and deserves another term. (ie, 'deluded'.)

*6) Fear of change.

*bonus root cause

Again, this is all based on the assumption that we're talking about people who really should not be returned to office...and yet are...over and over and over again.

And therefore, the people who are returning them should know better.

And yet we never hear of them being taken to task. Why is that?

(Now, if you're going to argue that the incumbent has too great an advantage come election time, then I might be willing to entertain that notion. (But only perfunctorily.) But again, I'd still haul in 'the voting public' to answer for itself.)

Oh!

I've just seen that Sorce has 'responded'!

SorceJan 12, 2012 09:22 AM

* *Lacking in subtlety or sophistication; artless or naive

thats the definition and the way i used the description of you on this topic. It was not name calling and Admins, probably not being simple minded, got that.

in terms or your reply, i cant converse with someone who thinks LMAO is sn appropriate reply, nor someone who decides to run off and scribble something elsewhere.
Sorce

Such a character!

Such a choice rejoinder, that last bit. Kindasorta like someone who hands out an assignment as they wander off...?

(Addendum, 12-01-25: I'm pretty much convinced we're dealing with a retiree. He's crotchety, he doesn't tend to type much...and he takes great joy in disseminating his hard-won 'wisdom'.)

Meanwhile, over at Town Halls Hamilton...

2012-01-12T07:05:00.002-05:00

Photo property of Tanya Day Ritchie,

Ward 3 Residents' Association, facebook

...I've published a three-part ~~editorial~~ musefest about littering and how it fits into a more engaged community mindset.

Part One is here.

Interview? Questionnaire? Neutral? Investigative?

2012-01-08T09:15:00.000-05:00

Recently, The Hamiltonian featured an 'interview' with Mayor Bob Bratina.

There's a lot of material in the mayor's response. (And from this material, some 'discussion' popped up on both the 'Dissidents' (Hamilton Chapter) on facebook and Raise the Hammer, which features an especially excoriating and blunderbuss-like article by Commander-in-Chief Ryan McGreal, 'The Exoneration of Mayor Bratina'.)

But regardless of the quantity or quality of the response, neither qualifies the piece as an 'interview'.

This is, however, the way Teresa et al do things over at The Hamiltonian. They're very fond of questionnaires. Mostly because it allows the publication/blog to remain 'neutral'. (This 'neutrality' has been offset marginally since Teresa's taking up of the publisher's reins from her hubby Cal, by the occasional 'editorial'. Which, for the record, are consistent in both their execution and their effectiveness.)

So the standard methodology there is to send whomever a list of questions, have them answer them at their leisure, and then publish the results.

As an 'interview'.

Putting aside everything else, the main problem with this is that it totally and entirely obliterates the very notion of what an 'interview' is. Or, in fairness, what it 'should' be.

An interview, at its core, is an investigative conversation during which the interviewer attempts to get not just answers from the interviewee, not just information, but probably most importantly, insight.

And very rarely do a proscribed set of questions produce insight. They generally produce precisely what the person wants to provide, and little more.

Now, because almost everyone The Hamiltonian 'interviews' is a politician, there are inherent realities. (Or pitfalls, or obstacles or challenges, depending on your default setting.) The person doesn't want to say the 'wrong' thing. They want to continue the perception of capability, of proficiency. They don't want to insult anyone, they don't want to alienate anyone...they don't want to risk their own status. (The end-game in this last bit is 're-election potential'.) So what usually results is a mélange of cogent-enough answers, bafflegab and fog.

There is no 'followup' to an answer, no chance to make a request for clarification, no opportunity for a deeper probe to be attempted.

No richer vein of ore is mined, no connecting aspect is touched on...

What we really receive is a press release.

Granted, it's been roughly designed and targeted by the 'interviewer', but to maintain that it's an 'interview' is being disingenuous at best.

These days, in the Internet Age, there are many avenues an interview can take. In-person, clearly. Over the phone, naturally. By Skype or other video app. By text-chat. Even by email, serially composed.

But regardless of the means, one thing is consistent: the give-and-take, back-and-forth between the interviewer and interviewee, the sometimes-fencing, sometimes-dancing that a great interview resembles. Some examples? Sure: Charlie Rose, George Stromboulopolous on 'The Hour', James Lipton on 'Inside The Actors Studio'...or, if we're talking about an impromptu interview, Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau on the steps of Parliament dealing with the FLQ crisis with CBC reporters.

I understand why The Hamiltonian approaches things in the way that they do. It wants to retain its neutrality. It doesn't want to ruffle feathers. It doesn't want to get on anyone's 'bad side'. It wants to continue to provide what it believes it's been providing for its readers all along...and presumably the foundation of this is its neutrality.

But nothing is ever truly 'neutral'. Not in today's world. (If it ever was.) And declared neutrality most often ends up muddying the water, if only because the status quo is allowed yet another moment on the stage, but moreso because the very tenets of journalism...and let's face it, The Hamiltonian exists to push forward its own benign, convivial brand of journalism, shining light on current local affairs...don't include neutrality.

That doesn't mean that all portals of journalism are either on one side or another, but that to ask questions, questions sufficiently important to require answers for, implies that the questions themselves need to be asked on behalf of a large group of people. The subject is important, the answers are needed...so the questions are asked.

Out of this was born all variations on 'investigative journalism'. The people have a right to know the truth, journalists are charged with the responsibility of obtaining these truths, and should do so with the goal of obtaining these truths being paramount, and not sustained neutrality that serves best the person attempting to manage the interview.

Otherwise, a press release would suffice: happy little lemmings, we.

I suppose what bothers me the most about the reaction to such 'interviews' is that a) the person bestowing such beneficence on readers is granted a communal 'Thank you!' for being so generous, and the 'interviewer' invariably seems to have warranted a statue.

Clearly, we're so dissatisfied with things in Hamilton that for some, a small victory is worthy of praise befitting a champion.

Look; I applaud Teresa and everyone else over at The Hamiltonian for getting Mayor Bratina on the record about some basic stuff. (Even if the responses were, to a one, hackneyed rhetoric, 'fluff' in some circles.) But we need to be honest with ourselves when we're not only examining the end product, but the process itself. Namely, that a questionnaire isn't an interview. And that in this case, I highly doubt that the mayor would have submitted to the process if it had in fact been an 'interview'...and that assuming an interviewer up to the task would never have settled for the answers that resulted. Which, make no mistake about it, resulted in little more than a long-form press release.

M Adrian Brassington

Meanwhile, back in Stoney Creek...

2012-01-07T19:08:00.005-05:00

View Magazine has an article in this week's edition about this:

It's courtesy of Don McLean and C.A.T.C.H. and it's entitled 'Taxes and Local Road Maintenance'.

I can't question some of the numbers provided, but I did find the context used, to be intriguing. (It feels strange to read anything about Stoney Creek, anywhere.) I'm going to pass along the link to Ward 9 Councillor Clark for his thoughts.

...the way I see it, anyway.

2011-12-22T09:33:00.000-05:00

Over the past 18 months or so, since I began paying attention to local politics (no apologies for that), there have been myriad reasons to feel not only the standard cynicism, naysaying nihilism to augment the area's decades-old psychic burden, but also disheartedness, disillusionment...and utter resignation.

However, unlike many in Hamilton, my focus isn't the natural one, that of 'the politicians'. It's not that I hold them blameless (hardly), it's not that I expect less than most and therefore aren't offended by what's presented as 'good governance' (ha!), and it's not that I'm eternally hopeful that somewhere in the mix, we're going to see a shining star reveal itself and guide us to a better place. (puhlease.)

I don't focus on 'them' simply because I believe fervently that-

Well, allow me to step back a bit and provide some context.

My instincts in just about any situation regarding people are to innately 'see' what's working, what's not, to frame things according to the available potential...and to come up with better ways forward. Improvements. I've done it in every arena I've worked in, I've done it in friendships and relationships with family...and this proclivity has most definitely been initiated on a regular basis since my 'awakening' regarding local governance.

I'm not 'wired' the way that most people I've met seem to be. I don't have a yearning to 'fix' things. This tendency isn't about me. I'm merely the active observer.

And though I'm not interested in the seemingly-mandatory urge to flay and lambaste and otherwise pillory councillors when they've slipped-up or maybe not risen accordingly to the occasion, I'm also not interested in mediocrity.

Frankly, I'm not impressed with much of what I've seen at Council performance-wise. There's a lot of room for improvement.

But I'm even less impressed with the behaviour some of those comprising the other part of the 'Great Local Governance' formula: the residents.

It's not surprising that when things are bad, when the general tone of where you are is negative, that bitching about comparatively unimportant things can become a habit.

'What were once bad habits are now vices.'

Hamilton has long suffered from what I have referred to on this blog as a 'legacy-malaise'. It's the effect of having a long-established identity (manufacturing, specifically steel production) slip away, and over the successive decades, have nobody at the wheel with sufficient presence of mind, forethought and constructive vision to steer the city (and by this I'm obviously referring to 'the lower city', specifically the north-end) in an entirely different direction. What's resulted has been this sense of loss, a variation on phantom-limb syndrome, and a general state of inertia across the population. (Newcomers are affected to varying degrees, whether or not they want to admit it.)

When you combine this default state with a series of recent 'stumbles' (or at the very least, perceived stumbles), then what inevitably happens is that people focus their frustration, their anger, their enmity on whatever's at hand.

Witness 'Peggygate', the tempest-in-a-teapot over Mayor Bratina's mishandling of the 'pay realignment' he'd wanted to effect on Ms Chapman's behalf. Previous to this, you could look to the relative nothingness that was the Jill Stephen/Chris Murray LRT imbroglio, yadda, yadda, yadda.

'Desperate times call for desperate measures'. Such as glomming onto incidents such as these, putting on your high-dudgeon suit, jumping onto the rapidly-filling bandwagon, and having at it.

I can understand many on Council wanting to put Mayor Bratina in his place over this. Someone said to me months ago that 'they're all sharpening their knives; it just remains to be seen who plunges in first'. I've heard many a tale about what's been going on beyond public eye- and earshot, so it shouldn't come as any surprise that many/most/all will take what they can get ammunition-wise and run with it.

But the public...?

A public that generally doesn't vote?

And when it does, the majority casts its ballots according to 'name recognition'?

"We must be the change we want to see in the world. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. ... We need not wait to see what others do."

Mahatma Gandhi

"We are the change we have been waiting for."

Presidential Candidate Barack Obama

I find it sad that at a time when there is so little authentic city-building taking place...and please, let's not mistake the number of cranes currently in use with 'city-building', which requires a consistent spirit to be suffusing daily life...that so much energy is being so frivolously wasted on what amounts to a hangnail on someone in need of an intervention...or at the very least, a protracted series of Life-coach sessions.

I deeply resent the lack of perspective shown by the media as well as the reckless indulgence shown by local pundits and supposed community-organizers.

The witch-hunt that these shenanigans can be characterized as leaving me shaking my head. Especially when considering what the topics of conversation should be. ('Such as?' you may well ask. The proper and honest addressing of the ramification of our 'poverty industry' in Hamilton. The resurrection and rejuvenation of the north-end across Wards 2, 3, 4 and 5. The discussion by the people of Hamilton addressing what they want their city to become. How, in making residents more aware and pride-filled at their own streets and neighbourhoods, that those communities, in being better connected and engaged, can assist in driving the city forward to an entirely better place. Making tangible and visceral progress on eradicating our 'legacy-malaise'. For starters.)

The only thing that provides me hope is the understanding that as with kids, those smirking and creating witty framings of the current goings-on in Hamilton will eventually grow tired of their indulgent dreams. (Check out this article for some perspective.)

Maybe then we can return to the real task at hand: providing this city with what it needs for the future its citizens deserve.

Oh, good Lord...there's more...

2011-12-21T06:51:00.000-05:00

I think I might have to once again wade into the murky waters (for some, anyway) of 'How The Retail Landscape Has Changed, And Why Parking Meters Aren't The Villain'.

In the meantime, another one of Mr. Robertson's letters.

I love the smell of conflation in the afternoon. It reminds me of...

2011-12-15T16:16:00.001-05:00

...obfuscation.

The situation in Hamilton regarding the 'Peggy Chapman's Getting a Raise' kerfuffle is getting a little ripe.

Witness this commentary over at Raise the Hammer by Michael Borrelli, co-hort of mine on the inaugural Town Halls Hamilton effort.

So, given the title of this post, I'd like to pose a few questions.

1) What is it precisely that irks so many people about all this? Is it a) the amount of the proposed pay raise, b) the timing, c) the way it was 'announced', d) the way in which Mayor Bratina mangled the 'explanation' about why Ms Chapman was being given this increase in salary, e) all of the above, or f) something else entirely?

2) Let's suppose for a second that we were, by consensus, having a marvellous year in Hamilton. (I know, I know, Mayor Bratina believes this is the case, and has stated this consistently of late, for all to hear.) Let's suppose that it was a banner year, that beneficial development was coming along like gangbusters, that unemployment was even lower than it is, that there's a real sense of possibility in the city. Would this situation still be eliciting the kind of rancour, indignation and enmity that's been so profoundly on display?

3) Further to the above 'What if?', if the Mayor and Ms Chapman hadn't made such a dog's dinner of the general perception of The Mayor's Office, what with enforcing a distinct lack of access, trying to control the messages coming out of City Hall to a highly questionable extent, if there weren't perceptions of City Staff being 'bullied' by The Mayor's Office...would this situation still be eliciting what it's been eliciting from most quarters?

4) Is it really necessary to bring into the discussion the inarguably distasteful amount of the proposed increase as it relates to a 'living wage' or subsistance living or poverty?

I swear, this is like the scene out of 'The Music Man', only the final part of the verse is '...and that rhymes with 'C' and that stands for 'Conflation'.

In desperate times, people get... Well, desperate. And they don't think straight. And complaints rise up and issues get combined in some amazingly energized ways...

...and suddenly the most cogent in the crowd, even the most considered thinkers in the throng, they start seeing things as 'All or Nothing'.

Desperation, I tells ya.

From the moment the Jill Stephen Non-crisis was foisted upon an unsuspecting and almost wholly disinterested city citizenry this summer, we've been mired in the most useless quagmire we could possibly have imagined...given the variables, given the stakes...and given the distinct lack of bodies at the end of the day.

Why?

A lack of clarity, a lack of maturity...and a surfeit of conflation. It's like- Well, maybe we should scrap 'The Mustard Festival' and become the World Capital of Conflation and have a corresponding celebration.

Look; I'm not a big fan of Mayor Bratina's. I didn't vote for him, I've not been impressed at any point (although I have witnessed some quite stirring moments in Council...but then I have to balance them against other non-stellar ones...) I don't think much greatness is going to result from his term, if only because he surely isn't delivering much of Graham Crawford's 'All I want for Christmas' list. But at the same time, I kindasorta expect our politicians to slip and slide and not perform quite as hoped. I actually expect more from people-with-opinions. (See how crafty I'm being in my veiled references?) I expect thoughtful observations, not rouse-the-rabble, appeal-to-the-common-denominator rhetoric. I expect considered context, perspective that results from a sincere weighing of the facts...I expect for what's offered to be of a much better calibre than The Toronto Sun.

Hamilton has no shortage of problems. Some serious problems. Some visible, some egregiously front-and-centre-and-yet-still-not-properly-addressed problems, some seemingly invisible, shamefully-ignored ones.

Not enough people are focused on these problems, with too many currently venting frustrations that quite honestly, aren't going to accomplish anything.

And Hamilton deserves better.

Yeah, it always comes back to Stoney Creek, doesn't it...?

2011-12-15T14:40:00.002-05:00

This letter made it into the Stoney Creek News this week:

Thursday, December, 15, 2011 - 9:09:19 AM

Olde Town needs merchants with vision

Re; Fresh ideas needed for Stoney Creek, not user fees, Letters, Dec. 8

Few things make me sadder than when someone gets it right… while getting it so wrong.

W. Robertson’s letter of Dec. 8 is a great example. Yes, ‘fresh ideas are needed for Stoney Creek,’ specifically for ‘Olde Town Stoney Creek.’ But the villain isn’t “user fees.” I agree wholeheartedly with much of what the letter writer says, especially when they focus on the loss of community spirit. But I disagree with his verdict.

I have explored this topic ad nauseam on my community blog My Stoney Creek, examined the issues from every angle, looked at the history of the street, the market trends over 40-plus years, the whole paid-parking brouhaha, amalgamation with Hamilton, virtually the entire gamut of variables and contributing factors.

To answer the primary question as to why, on a Wednesday at 3:30 p.m. there are virtually no cars parked on King Street (aside from the simple answer that they’re parking for free in Municipal Lot 3), this: “There’s no ‘there,’ there.”

There’s very little reason for anyone to make the trip downtown. There’s insufficient incentive for people to venture into Olde Town Stoney Creek. Not because of parking fees...Dundas has a thriving downtown and they have weekday fees as well...but because what’s presented simply doesn’t compel people to travel there to shop.

This has little to do with politicians, no matter how great the urge is to look at parking fees as the great battle issue. This has to do with market trends and a lack of vision on the parts of property owners, with the emphasis on the latter.

Of hubris, of fomenting...and of silliness.

2011-12-14T16:14:00.001-05:00

Ted Brellisford/The Hamilton Spectator

The recent mishandling by Mayor Bratina of Peggy Chapman's 'pay raise' is proving to be surpassed by those in the city who are now-

Well, how about I just post the quote?

All of us have talents as people, and Mr. Bratina does as well, particularly as a public figure OUTSIDE of politics. However, given recent events and the seemingly endless conflicts that have been a feature of his administration, I am left worndering if I am the only person who thinks he is not suited to the position of Mayor of Hamilton. Therefore, I would post an 11th wish: that Mr. Bratina do the right thing and resign.

(From this comment over at Raise the Hammer)

First off, I should be clear: I didn't vote for Mayor Bratina and I was shocked that he won the election. (No, allow me to rephrase that: I wasn't 'shocked', given the demographic that voted for him, merely dismayed.) Secondly, I am not happy with increasingly steady portions of what I've either witnessed of his performance first-hand, or read about. And finally, I made a prediction about his administration some months ago now, and though I'm not willing to go on record here and now with that tidbit, I would like to use this post as a marker for future reference.

What saddens me about much of the talk this week about the mayor...and certainly in the above suggestion...is that in their responses, at times vitriolic, at times downright hysterical, people surely aren't elevating the level of dialogue in the city.

It matters not one whit whether the commenter or legion readers believe that Bob Bratina is not suited to the position of Mayor of Hamilton. He was elected. He won the contest.

And tied to this is the fact that he's under no obligation to resign.

Actually, I had to stop typing that. I was laughing too much, shaking my head too hard.

Short of partaking in some truly egregious act of immoral and/or illegal behaviour, mayors don't resign. And they certainly don't resign over something as -in relative terms- insignificant as how a proposed pay raise was initiated.

There is nothing in place in Ontario to 'recall' publicly-elected officials. And City Council is not a party-infused legislative assembly. So there is no 'non-confidence vote'. And I hardly think that this incident falls within the purview of the Integrity Commissioner. So then...?

So then it behooves us to be the adults in the conversation.

I get the anger, the frustration, the umbrage taken. I get the need to ridicule. I get the need to have some fun. To lambaste, to lampoon, yadda, yadda, yadda. (And I'm in complete agreement with what Graham Crawford says in the editorial at Raise the Hammer to which the commenter was responding, 'All I Want For Christmas'.)

But I can't help but be reminded of 'Nero fiddling while Rome burned'...

...or the thrust behind this commercial:

Oi-friggin'-vey.

2011-12-07T10:49:00.001-05:00

In the Dec 1 Spec, there was a column by Gwyn Morgan.

I responded to it there, but because we live in the Twitter age of brevity, I really only addressed one aspect of the gentleman's article.

"There is an adage that goes: “If you’re young and you’re not a socialist, you have no heart. If you’re older and you’re still a socialist, you have no brains.” So there’s some reason to hope that some of those young, ideologically misguided protesters may grow up to become productive, contributing members of society. There might even be a young Steve Jobs carrying one of those placards."

What a fabulous testimony to how clued-out someone can be. Never mind being egregiously dismissive and mired in arrogance.

I've Googled Mr. Morgan, and it's clear that he's been a mover-and-a-shaker with a social conscience...which just makes this column seem even more hilarious...and saddening. But to paraphrase, there's some reason to hope that this older, ideological captain-of-industry may evolve into a far more insightful and empathetic citizen.

Now, I'd intended to post a more thorough response here, but today's Spec brings a letter by Geoff Ondercin-Bourne that says so much, so well. Here it is in its entirety:

Occupy criticism is full of ‘whoppers’

Re: In Canada, Occupied is unjustified; ‘Redistribution’ rhetoric ignores horrific historical realities (Opinion, Dec. 1)

The “whoppers” in Gwyn Morgan’s column would make Burger King blush. For example, contrary to his assertion that “no bank bailouts were needed,” we know the Canadian government set up a $75-billion bailout program for Canada’s banks to ensure their “stability” during the economic meltdown.

Morgan takes an unsuccessful stab at economic theory when he refers to “classic Marxist redistribution rhetoric.” In fact, Marx didn’t base his criticism of capitalism on redistribution but on production and the relationship between capital and labour. Equally unconvincing is his characterization of “communist” political regimes as concrete examples of Marxist theory, which Marx would reject. As an analogy, some pretty “un-Christian” acts are committed under the guise of Christianity.

I will give Morgan his point that some people respond to incentives; however, that general concept is not limited to free enterprise. Consequently, his illustration based on the experiment with economic students is nothing more than a straw man, which does nothing to support his main argument, such as it is.

Finally, he takes unions to task for their criticism of the “free enterprise system that pays their members’ wages.” In fact, without unions, the wages paid by employers in both the public and private sector would be much lower. It is labour’s ongoing struggle against that system which has garnered workers the wages they enjoy today, whether they are unionized or not.

Geoff Ondercin-Bourne

What do you get with less-than-great governance...?

2011-12-02T09:07:00.001-05:00

Back in October, over at Town Halls Hamilton, I posted an editorial about 'The Great Governance Formula'.

I saw the accompanying photo online, and I was reminded of how much a part 'vision' plays in great governance.

Tonight's the night...

2011-11-10T07:10:00.001-05:00

Hamilton's new motto (in light of transparency issues)

2011-10-24T13:37:00.005-04:00

Hamilton: Not the Best Place to Raise a Question.

(Thanks to The Hamiltonian commenter, 'Anonymous')

Just a question, is all.

2011-10-24T10:03:00.000-04:00

"I know that, you see, because I was poor. But I rose like a rocket, and I know how the whole thing works. The ones who are on your side, or so they think, are the ones who keep you down. Everything they do keeps you down. They'll forgive you for anything. Rob, rape, pillage and kill, and they'll defend you to yourself. They understand all your outrages, and all you failings and faults, too. Perfect! You can go on that way forever. What do they care? Excuse me, they do care. They want it that way. How would they make a living, these servants of the poor, if there were no poor?"

Mark Helprin, 'Winter's Tale'

I'm not an expert of much.

And those areas where I'm not confident in, I tend to ask more questions than proffer opinions.

Poverty is one of these areas.

Specifically the notion of how deeply entrenched this 'culture' is in Hamilton.

I've not been particularly aware of the situation. Some of this is due to having not been in Hamilton when things began to change in the 90s, and as they proceeded to change moving through the middle of the last decade. But more has to do with indifference on my part. Apathy. Ignorance.

Again, this is an area where I've known it's best to keep my unqualified opinions to myself and be content with taking in more information over time. Casual osmosis, if you will.

So this is not an informed editorial. I'm simply not equipped to offer up much in that regard. Save for the need to be asking questions about 'the situation in Hamilton' in light of what's been happening with Mission Services and Mohawk College of late.

And as much as getting answers to 'How did it come to this?' are vital, my first enquiry would be:

'Is there a 'poverty industry' in Hamilton?'

Something elsewhere...

2011-10-22T18:56:00.000-04:00

A topical editorial by Mahesh Butani can be found at Metropolitan Hamilton. Take a look and consider what it proposes. The implications for better communities and a better city are substantial. Especially considering the 'Good Neighbour Community Contract'.

Press Release

2011-10-13T07:18:00.002-04:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Contact: Larry Pomerantz

Organization: Hamilton Civic League

Telephone Number: (905) 545-5577

Email Address: HamiltonCivicLeague@gmail.com

Web site: http://WeVote.ca/

Hamilton, ON, October 13th, 2011 —The Hamilton Civic League (HCL) is pleased to announce a working partnership with Town Halls Hamilton (THH) to organize and facilitate a series of citizen-led Town Halls. Beginning with an inaugural Town Hall on November 10th in Council Chambers at Hamilton City Hall, HCL and THH are planning to hold similar events around the city over 2011 and 2012 to forge stronger links between citizens and their elected representatives. With an agenda driven by local neighbourhood associations, the Town Halls Hamilton initiative aims to bring together civically-minded residents in a friendly, positive and constructive environment.

The Hamilton Civic League is a broad-based, non-partisan association formed in 2009 to encourage citizen engagement and involvement in the political process. Town Halls Hamilton is a nascent, grassroots endeavour to create concerted, city-wide opportunities for increased engagement between residents and their Councillors. Both organizations believe in the importance of residents being in a position of greater ownership of their local governance, and this alignment is seen as one way of building energy and momentum towards this goal.

HCL Chair, Larry Pomerantz states “We have recently seen an increase in the number of new organizations that share our goal to heighten civic engagement. We encourage individuals to join and organizations to partner with HCL to forge collaborative community building opportunities such as with Town Halls Hamilton.”

The Hamilton Civic League will be actively involved in making the Town Halls Hamilton events successes, and the organization invites all Hamiltonians to become involved in the initiative over the following year.

For additional information, contact Larry Pomerantz at

HamiltonCivicLeague@gmail.com or visit http://townhallshamilton.blogspot.com/

Meanwhile, over at Town Halls Hamilton...

2011-10-08T08:33:00.000-04:00

This editorial.

Ye Olde Humpe-Daye Jocque

2011-10-05T08:29:00.000-04:00

A politician is talking with one of his constituents.

Suddenly, the latter holds his hand up to the former. "Stop right there! You're lying! I know you're lying!"

The politician, not put off in the least, says "You're right! But hear me out!"

(A special thanks must go out to 'The West Wing' and Leo for this chuckle.)

Once again, I'm scratching my head...

2011-09-25T07:57:00.003-04:00

I came across an article on 2010 Ward 10 candidate Bernard Josipovic's 'Hamilton/Stoney Creek Community Blog', 'Residents still fuming over speeding on Fruitland Road'. (As it was written by Laura Lennie, I'm assuming that it was originally published in the Metroland family of community newspapers.)

I'm not going to wax either poetical, lyrical or accusational about the issue, but as I said, once again, I'm scratching my head.

I've referenced this situation previously. Here...and here.

I'm going to get right to the point: is the world we live in local governance-wise typified by the fact that even considering the notion of trying out a speed reduction on a road...something I point out would only add about twenty seconds to the average trucker's interlude...so arbitrary, so fixed, so recalcitrant that something as benign, something so simple as reducing speed from 50Km to 40Km (as on Lake Avenue in Stoney Creek)? Because if it is, then we're nowhere near the kind of city that should be boasting about much.

Attracting investment isn't what makes a city great. And it's not the events its citizens put on, either. And even if I can concede that it helps when its officials are not only capable of executing good governance but do so with a competency that actually inspires residents, fills them with confidence and hope, it's not that either.

To me what makes a great city is how it deals with what may seem to bureaucrats as insignificant issues, situations that often become annoyances, and therefore appear to get even less energies applied as time unfolds.

To me it comes down to displaying and expressing humanity.

A humane approach to governance.

Aside from wondering why it is we're not trying a temporary speed reduction, I'm not here to lambaste anyone involved. I'm not here to harangue Ward 10 Councillor Pearson, nor the staff who have been addressing this situation from its hazy beginnings.

I'm actually here to point how how vehicle-centric our mindset has become...and its impact on how we implement solutions...or don't implement them, as the case may be.

There is a certain degree of the sacrosanct attached to being behind the wheel. I know, because I witness it every day, and because when I'm driving I accept that I'm subject to it as well.

We get behind the wheel and we feel this stamp of approval from on-high, this invisible imprimatur that what's paramount is us getting to where we're going.

And so we push the speed limit.

And so we force our primacy as drivers, spreading our wings/marking our territory, affecting others who share the road: other drivers, cyclists, pedestrians. (Oh, the tales I could tell from years of being both on-foot and a superlative observer.)

And so we -unconsciously- believe that our mandate...to get to where we're going...makes other considerations null and void. (Yes, I'm pushing the envelope here.)

To me, this is what 'the Fruitland Road issue' is all about. More than the exigencies of planning, of questionable assumptions on the parts of residents, more than even the obduracy of the often-referenced 'Culture of Obstructionism' within the bureaucracy of City Hall.

To me, this is a fundamental quality of Life issue, but unfortunately, it's tied into our vehicular culture mindset, one whose default setting it 'protect the rights and needs of the driver'.

The end solution for 'the Fruitland Road issue' isn't speed reduction. It's clearly tied into long-term development plans that go well beyond the comparatively small number (in relation to the general Fruitland Road-vicinity population, both current and certainly projected) of residents for whom this issue has generated such angst and frustration.

A great city is capable of understanding its situations, especially the seemingly-insignificant ones, leaving its ego out of it, and remembering that a city is the sum-total of its communities, its neighbourhoods...its families.

Or as my father has long reminded me, 'How can I trust you with the big tasks unless you can handle the tiny ones...?'

MIGHT OFFEND SOME

2011-09-18T20:06:00.002-04:00

"Politics is to governance as porn is to making love."