Lived
in Hamilton before the 1956 one way conversion.....YoungH..All
residents of the city matter, that's the point. Motorists, cyclists,
pedestrians and scooter drivers from anywhere in the city have equal
access to the core and have a voice in how the city operates. The
people who want two way streets are mostly residents or business owners
from the area. This would be OK if it was a small community or small
area of the city that a majority of the population didn't travel to or
through but to try to dictate traffic flow in a major downtown for self
entitled reasons that don't benefit but the small group pushing the
city. The conversion of James and John South cost taxpayers millions
and I would welcome anyone with proof on how this benefited the city."
You know, I wrote that piece as a reaction to the intractable, dogma-entrenched view of Those Who Want To See This Grievous Wrong Righted'. To go back once again to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.'
We are so entrenched in this absence of vision in Hamilton, so clenched, so constipated...
...so fearful of change, even if we're not even sure what the change will bring, no matter what our greatest dreads are...
"With all the efforts over the last 30 years to revive the downtown we have yet to see a payoff. Even with the so called resurgence of James North which is minimal at best the downtown is still sliding backwards. I think it's time to step back and let the downtown stew for a bit."
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Zoology) the projecting part of the face, usually the jaws and nose, of animals such as the dog and horse
2. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Zoology) a guard or strap fitted over an animal's nose and jaws to prevent it biting or eating
3. (Military / Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) the front end of a gun barrel
vb(tr)
1. to prevent from being heard or noticed to muzzle the press
2. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Zoology) to put a muzzle on (an animal)
3. (Transport / Nautical Terms) to take in (a sail)
[C15 mosel, from Old French musel, diminutive of muse snout, from Medieval Latin mūsus, of unknown origin]
Out of a city of just over half-a-million people, we have roughly 400,000 people available for 'activism'. By this I mean within the ages of 14-65.
To my recollection, we had two 'protests' this year. One was the Hamilton Civic League's garbage rally on March 10th, the other, the S.O.S. protest at the HWDSB headquarters on June 19th. Though both were about undeniably valid issues, neither required crowd control.
And yet there is a consistent reaction to sites such as Raise the Hammer, the havens of online activism, a reaction of resentment and dismissiveness. What strikes me as a desire to muzzle. Witness this excerpt of a comment regarding RTH Editor Ryan McGreal's Spec article on Council's reluctance to follow its stated downtown-core vision:
"I have no use for the blinkered view that ignores 3/4 of the city's interests in favour of a special interest group. Thats not city building behaviour its city destroying behaviour"
Now, my initial, gut reaction is 'Wow; you're ascribing a lot of power to the site and its commenters.'
Then: 'Why does an arguably 'fringe' element expressing itself so much bother you?'
And finally 'Is it jealousy? Is it anger that this person's view isn't being represented? Is it frustrating them to no end to have to put up with the 'activist-clatter'?'
Taking into consideration the fact that there is such a relatively small number of people who are willing to voice their contrary opinions, why would someone bear such...such disdain for a site, or a group of people, or a mindset? It's not like that in the RTH adherents having their say, the person's ability to express their own opinions is denied its fullness.
Or is it...?
The other side of this coin is that- Well, I've previously referred to Raise the Hammer as a 'endless-loop, echo-chamber'. And part of the hazard of being a devotée of such a mechanism is that a) you begin believing your own press, b) you get an overinflated sense of 'informedness' and c) in a self-validating way, you assume that most others are informed to the same extent and in the same ways...or believe that they should be.
Let me clarify that last sentence: There are some wildly intelligent people who contribute to the site, who read the site and who comment on the site. But what I've witnessed for as long as I've been frequenting RTH (which has go be going on seven years now) is the tendency to vilify those who have disparate opinions as well as -seemingly- believing that the party-line is unassailable...and moreover, that what's declared as 'consensus' isn't just plain old common sense, but the majority opinion.
And often, it's not.
Granted, for many issues, this disparity is a manifestation of ignorance. That the majority of Hamiltonians really don't possess a 'qualified opinion' on fundamental issues, that they're simply not sufficiently informed to craft one. Disinclination and non-investment tend to result in this state. Now, whether or not they'd serry up on the RTH parade square if they were shown the light, it's hard to say. Most of them will never read RTH, and even more will never even be aware of it.
So it's not like the site actually has that much 'power'. Ryan is unquestionably respected by many in the city. He has a certain amount of cachet as a respected community commentator. But as deserving as he is for acclaim, RTH is hardly the hotbed of activism that someone like the aforementioned Spec commenter seems to resent it being. Resentment that to me, points to a wish that its strategic views be muzzled. For the common good, of course. According to how this person defines that.
But this runs both ways: the 'downvoting' tool on RTH Comments sections is inarguably muzzling. 'Non-aligned' comments are immediately downvoted. In fact, a contrarian's post is rendered invisible if the reader's preferences dictate a threshold of negative votes provides this ultimate 'censuring'. So in the end, a forum that purports to be searching for answers for a beleaguered city wraps distasteful dissent in the 'troll' flag, and merely adds to the preponderance of muzzling.
And of course, there's the more covert, seemingly benign brand of muzzling. The psychological kind that's regularly imparted by some on Council. I've seen it in general comments during a session, I've seen it during citizen delegation presentations, and I've read it in The Spec. (Regarding the middle reference, here's what a commenter on The Hamiltonian had to say about what happens during them: "A delegation. That's where you show up after having done a whole bunch of work, get only 5 minutes and be in shock as the counselors play with their blackberries, whisper to each other about other things and generally try to look as though they give a care.")
In the same way that subtly demeaning your spouse, jabbing them with tiny barbs, lobbing the tiniest of emotional shite-bombs might not be considered 'abuse' but still defines behaviour in a 'destructive relationship', the patronizing, the condescension, the well-couched belittling offered by certain councillors is nonetheless a form of muzzling. As witnessed in the engagement surrounding the HWT.
And I have to wonder if this goes on in a thriving community. Or is it just something you find in one that's not particularly aware-and-energized?
Since I began writing this post, the referenced commenter has added to their initial offering:
"I'm talking about consistently dishonest debate, consistent casual dismissal of all opinion that doesn't match theirs, consistent dismissal of any studies that don't back up their theories, consistent shooting of the messenger, consistent lack of dismissing all information even when its correct if it comes from certain people. In short, I don't believe they want to change the city for the better by engaging people but rather brow beating them. Thats destructive not constructive to the process. The amount of cynicism on that site is beyond healthy porportions. The may want to talk but they aren't prepared to listen. Thats not communication thats dictating. No use for them at all"
I don't think that what they've said here is debatable. (Ryan and I have actually had conversations and correspondences about all of this.) So my label 'muzzling' takes on a more picante meaning.
The one thing I have continually yammered-on about in almost everything I've posted on my sites or within The Spec's 'Opinion' section is the need for genuine dialogue in Hamilton. And so far, though intriguing thoughts and concepts are regularly published and commented on, I don't believe we've moved all that closer to creating that dialogue, to raising the bar for debate.
And because of this, because of our self-imposed 'miredness', I can't help but think that what's really going on is some bizarre form of 'self-muzzling'.
Clearly, we've got some difficult work ahead of us.
During the month of June, beginning with the Bay Observer and ending with Ryan's publication last night, spotlights (searchlights?) were aimed at the Hamilton Waterfront Trust.
In fact, I'll break that down a little:
The Bay Observer began asking questions about possible fiduciary improprieties concerning the HWT. The Hamiltonian linked to this coverage, and then began asking questions of all named participants. This quickly became a series, with lots of reader comments. Finally, there was an exchange with Ward 4 Councillor Sam Merulla on Friday night (while he was at a Ti-Cat game), and this was blogged about by Ryan late last night.
Councillor Merulla's tack...one of ripe (if entertainingly cheeky) dismissiveness...was summed up in this bit:
"Let me tell you what it is going to be! Stop breaking our balls until you have media credentials to request what you are requesting. Until then please feel free to ask council for permission to be a delegation to present your case so we can conscientiously serve our constituents globally."
Courtesy of a Tweet that Mark Cripps sent out (and I nabbed quite by accident), I was made aware of a Northern Life article from earlier this month, 'Sudbury in no-win situation'.
Sudbury was one of the 'forced amalgamations' of major Ontario cities by the Mike Harris government in 2001, along with Hamilton and Ottawa.
I found some of the comments to the article quite interesting, especially if you change some of the references and pretend they're talking about Hamilton. Take a look:
I always enjoy when an academic reminds me, as one of the proletariat, I'm mistaken about what I see because I'm not smart enough to know better. Sarcasm observed, that is basically what this chap did in his missive.
The problem in Sudbury is partly a massive scope of operations, but fundamentally it is mismanagement people are angry about. All arms of municipal government here are populated by people who simply cannot manage the duties required of them, and while the reasons may be many, the end result is what we have -- a mess.
"If you’re someone who lives in what used to be Capreol, but is now part of Greater Sudbury, why should you settle for less services than someone who lives in the old City of Sudbury?" Because it costs more to provide them. If you want to live somewhere with very low density, you better be ready to choose less service or higher taxes. Asking the residents in the core to subsidise urban services in the rural part of the city is what it unfair. The math is simple, it will always be cheaper to service a lot of people in a small area. There are benefits to living in a secluded area, and those benefits have a cost. Time for people to start seeing the real costs for the services this city provides.
Amalgamation was supposed to eliminate the "little Kingdoms" of small municipalities an unite them. Seems only gave them a bigger voice and another excuse to hide behind.
If the effort put into whining and holding on to the 1960s were put into moving forward the place might get somewhere. Instead we have socalled knowledgable people (he teaches the next generation) making excuses and trying to go further back in time.
Agreed re: too many 1960's thinkers here in 2012, eight dinosaurs on council, and build something new. You've all hit the nail on the head!!!
It's time for changes (as mentioned by The Real Mucker) - the big picture calls for stopping the babysitting and building more houses, cutting all the red tape, and allowing businesses to set their own hours. I stopped in Parry Sound for groceries at 6 p.m. last evening on my way home from Toronto seeing as our PATHETIC and ARCHAIC store hours bylaw does not allow stores to be open later or longer! ONLY IN SUDBURY...
The Real Mucker6/11/2012 2:15:47 PM - Report Abuse
It's nothing to do with scandals...it's peoples small attitude..me first not the big picture. Too many 1960's thinkers in 2012. But that's what happens when a city has been babysat for 100 years by Vale and Faclonbridge....cut the cord...do something on your own.... Tear down the rust (ie Flour Silos, Watertowers). Build something new, a multi purpose centre, more housing, more parks. GET OFF YOUR ASSESS PEOPLE AND COUNCIL.
Great. Try to give a lame duck council an excuse for their incompetence. Was it amalgamation that caused the Pioneer manner fiasco? The transit ticket fiasco? Any other of the fiasco's? JR got booted out because he said he would be so much better than Mr. C. He wasn't, in fact he was likely about 10 steps backward, and that is why he did not get re- elected. The populace gave council a break last election, blaming JR. Obviously, they were wrong so do not look for the population to be as forgiving next election. Whether or not the actual services are actually delivered efficiently is not really important the average guy in the street. The average guy reads about one stunt after another, and the council is tarred with the perception that if you cannot handle even basic accounting (bus ticket fiasco), how can you run the city?
“The evidence is absolutely clear with these amalgamations: costs go up. There aren’t any savings to be had ... We were the only municipality in northern Ontario that got hammered so badly by amalgamation.” =============================================== This is a rather surprising comment especially from a Political science Professor.
Would we have had the expansion of Laurentian University or the Hospital, or the medical school or College Boreal, or Cambrian College expansion or half the national chain retail stores without amalgamation. Would levack have its water treatment plant, or McCrae Hgts adequate water pressure, or any of the 4 laning on arterial roads in Sudbury.
Segsworth just proved he doesn't know a thing outside of the classroom. This professor knows little about government funding or corporate decision making processes.
It is a load of hooey to blame amalgamation for the the municipal rating. If anything the public have a poor understanding of the benefits we got from amalgamation.
That crappy infrastructure was there before amalgamation. The bad planning decisions were made PRIOR to amalgamation.
I see two problems with our council. First, there are some council members that simply don't have the necessary IQ to run this city. These people are not "professionals". They're "street" people.
Secondly, there are eight dinosaurs still om council that are perfectly happy to live in the 1950's and drag down the rest of us with them.
Until we get a progressive intelligent council, nothing will change.
Maybe if the city didnt try nanny stating us to death here in the boonies and IF THEY would just leave us to hell alone they wouldnt be going broke. They were very arrogant when they invaded us in 2001. City hall is brutal, stupid, and ignorant, when it comes to us in their little kingdom. EVERY ONE IN CITY HALL IS SCARED OF LOSING THEIR JOBS AND ARE NOT ABOVE LYING or dirty deeds to protect them. HONESTY IS NOT THEir POLICY. I've been there victim since they took over and am so weary of the bullshit, just go away , there is nothing great about the city of sudbury
But on the other hand...I don't quite get the unquenched thirst, the unabated need to mollify.
On yet another, I do...but expect more from all concerned.
Regardless, I guess it's the inaccuracy of the lead-point that rankles, the sloppiness in messaging.
So I get that something like this comes from the anger and frustration and ire and rage that so many of the energized residents preparing to gather have been feeling. I get that this fomenting is felt to be necessary in order to keep the momentum up until the S.O.S. rally...even if the audience is much smaller than anyone involved would want to concede. (I'm not saying there's 'nobody' ready to rally; I'm sure there'll be a nice turnout for the protest. But out of a city or more than half-a-million...)
But on the other hand, there's this blood-lust, this...well, rage. I'd pay to get the more vocal of 'the energized' in the same room with the HWDSB trustees. Just to see what would result. (Better yet, I'd pay blood to actually have 'The Overseers', the race of aliens who published that revelatory tome 'The Truth' do the same in this instance. Oh, wait; that book didn't end up getting published, did it? My bad.) I've been a little gobsmacked by the fervour of some of the online comments; I'd bet they wouldn't unleash in-person the way they have via their keyboard. (But, maybe they would.) Not because I don't feel that passion is called for, but more that a) we've created yet another 'Us vs Them' situation, and b) we're suddenly out to hector, to vilify, if not pillory, rather than actually generate dialogue. The countdown to 2014's election has already begun. Not sure how many of these brave souls will be as committed to 'cleaning house' at that point as they are right now.
As for 'expecting more'... I know, I shouldn't. I tend to ascribe too many concomitant abiliies to the intelligent; it's a horrible bias, and admittedly one of my biggest flaws. LOL I think that I can cut myself some slack by conceding that they're not actually engaging (publicly, anyway) with anyone who might challenge them on their interpretations...and when they do, the person making even the most sincere, objective comment gets sprayed with so much high dudgeon bile that it pretty much ends the conversation then and there.
And the final point, 'splitting a community in two'... Puhlease. This situation stinks. No argument from these quarters. But what's transpired hasn't been a case of anything being 'split in two'. That phrase connotes that an issue has been contentious enough that a community has been polarized. Such as, for instance, a security guard/neighbourhood patrol member killing a youth, one of these being from one community, the other being from another, and people take sides, investing in the situation all manner of seemingly unrelated issues, creating a conflagration, one that tears the place apart...'splitting a community in two'. Or, a stadium being proposed for one part of town, while the current location wants the new development too, and factions are formed and things get all 'territorial' and messy, resulting in a 'community split in two'. In the case of the HWDSB destruction of Singer building/relocation to an Upper Hamilton location, I don't sense that here. At all.
Yes, I sense outrage. I sense the rising clamour of protest.
But I also sense disinterest. A distinct lack of investment, of engagement with a profound issue. (Ironically...although not really...the same can be said about the 'walkable streets' issue. Hmm...)
Unless Graham is seeing on the one hand (or split-half) the objective, cogent editorials from The Spec, etc, and the articles written by his co-horts in combination with his endless stream of posters on the other side of the division. But it's a stretch to say that Hamilton has been 'split in two'.
Oh! Wait! Unless he's talking about Ward 2, or Durand and Central neighbourhoods being torn in half because the School Board is leaving for Upper Hamilton environs...but even that is a tenuous stance, given that a lovely Mac facility will be constructed on the former HWDSB headquarters site, and surely to God in the world of 2012, we no longer have to have physical immediacy to make things happen on just about any level. Methinks there's some sizeable conflation going on here, utilizing the points found in this post back in February, 'Elements at Play at 100 Main Street West'. (Surely to God he can't be talking about the proposal to use the Cannon Knitting Mills location being torpedoed pre-emptively 'splitting a community', namely Beasley... Can he?!?)
Therefore, I'm wondering if maybe the first priority of 'the engaged' should be...aside from giving Scott London's articles a read...to stop mainlining Hyperbole™.
"As it is, many students are less able to concentrate, write well, think coherently and synthesize information than they were a few years ago. “When I polled my class, more than half of my students said they wished Facebook didn’t exist. Many told me that Facebook can diminish the quality and depth of personal relationships and weaken their basic communication skills. But, of course, they had to be on it because everyone else was.”
No...
...fucking...
...kidding.
The above quote...not the salty one, the one that precedes it...is from the Maclean's article 'Control, alt, delete?'. It should be required reading for all parents.
"Be a role model for your child, and unplug as a family. 'I’ve heard poignant stories from kids who’ve grown up with parents pushing the playground swing with one hand while texting with the other, or keeping their eyes and ears glued to the phone at their kid’s soccer game. Many kids have told me they feel less loved by their "always on" parents'.”
...and I'll concede that for 'some' of the dissident/engaged/citizen intelligentsia in the city, what I have to say –and the way in which I say it– just has them turning away...
...but in the end, as Einstein said, 'The definition of 'insanity' is to keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.'
"I think I'm still in a bit of denial about this travesty. It has been there for most of my life. Then, it symbolized Hamilton's ambitious future. Within a few months it will be a statement about our acceptance of mediocrity, albeit in a shiny new envelope. This is not progress."
-Graham Crawford, 'Dissident' Primoris
Um, so did 'Civic Square'. One-way streets. The industrial strip.
Look; I'm all for self-expression. I'm all for political satire, for freedom of speech, for community solidarity, for all that. (I'd be one hell of a hypocrite were I not, huh?)
But to return to the well and quote yet another entertainer, 'This is disturbing on so many levels.'
Yeah, be mindful on October 27, 2014 and craft your vote consciously. Bring whatever biases you feel are appropriate within your value system and cast your ballot accordingly.
But seriously; doesn't that pretty much cast the mental die for the next 875+ days?
Doesn't this mean that for all intents and purposes. what's happened during this term so far is going to determine how someone who agrees with this effort (found here, by the way), will vote more than 28 months from now?
So I propose instead that it's
Time to Rethink our City's Governance
(And that means you.)
Honest-to-God; this mindset of 'WHEN'S THE NEXT ELECTION?!?', 'WHEN WILL WE BE FREE OF (fill in the blank)?!?' is enough to corrupt all synaptical processes. Because let's face it: though a 'new hope' in the form of a Candidate Saviour is the fervent wish, it's entirely possible that Mayor Bratina could win again. Or that a candidate who eventually proves even less palatable could be voted in. Or...or...
So how about re-thinking the roles that we as residents, as Hamiltonians play, one that involves engaged citizens by way of energized neighbourhoods? How about moving towards taking our rightful place at the governance table along with Council and The Others (who, for the most part, are Developers-in-Various-Guises)? How about being more involved, participating more, actually effecting the change we want to see in our own day-to-day?
Therefore, I invite my dissident brethren and sistren to get all this out of their systems, all the dissatisfaction and rage and barely-attenuated apoplexy, and instead of waiting two years to try to get your candidate(s) elected, how about working on how to change the paradigm in ways that we're fully capable of, now?
So I offer up this in response to the effort's main thrust:
Liberal cabinet minister Ted McMeekin says the education ministry put “absolutely no pressure” on the public school board to abandon the option of building its new headquarters downtown.
McMeekin says fears the province might pull its support for the headquarters stem not from government coercion but the “skittishness” of trustees.
“This board tends to be risk averse and fairly conservative,” said McMeekin, minister of agriculture and MPP for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale.
“It’s unfortunate they terminated the process they agreed to.”
McMeekin was responding to the suggestion that the board prematurely bailed on the proposal to build at the historic Cannon Knitting Mills in the heart of Beasley neighbourhood out of fear the ministry might change its mind about the $31.6 million headquarters
Consider it a localized travelogue, a veritable barbershop/hair salon musefest, a Speaker's Corner indulgence for a good rant...or a seemingly endless -though segmented- Op-Ed piece. You can also find me at the Town Halls Hamilton and the Hamilton Neighbourhood Associations sites.
My name is M Adrian Brassington. I'm a writer. I've included Stoney Creek in more than a handful of the creative projects I've brought to fruition (and even some I haven't.) I've lived in various cities in three countries on two continents. Several years ago, I returned to the town I grew up in after being away for almost a quarter-century. I'm a left-of-center dreamer who has strong opinions about everything I have an opinion on (I don't tend to open my mouth unless I feel I know what I'm talking about; the 'unqualified opinion', AKA 'talking for the sake of declaring oneself' is one of modern society's scourge-habits), whose belief system is grounded in community, responsibility and respect and runs contrary to the standard 'free-market, consumption-based, materialism-as-validation' precepts.
I love my hometown and won't apologize for wanting it to be far better than it is...even if I'm perceived as being too strident, a snob and not willing to suffer fools gladly.
z
l)
sellum, diminutive of m
