Not banking on the right things, clearly

Jeff Mahoney has an article in today's edition. 'You can bank on a fight in Stoney Creek' deals with the TD Bank branch closing this autumn. And some residents' reactions. 

If you check out the Comments that follow the article, you'll get some idea of the general response to the piece. 

If you do a search on 'The Downtown Issue' for this site, you'll see way more than a handful of articles dealing with Stoney Creek's downtown. The common theme is the less-than-stellar use of land. 

So the TD leaving should be seen as more a tremendous opportunity than as the loss of a local institution. 

That corner has amazing strategic potential. (So does McDougall's Garage, but that's another situation entirely.)

Though small, the location could provide the setting for a key business. Given there's barely more than two blocks' worth of authentic contiguous downtown, making better use of this land than its current use well be a pivotal shift for this long-beleaguered core. 

But instead of pondering 'I wonder what stunning development we could see there!', the people mentioned in the article would prefer that time stand still. 

A pity, really. 

Downtown Stoney Creek has long been mired in economic doldrums primarily of its own making. (And yes, I'm directly connecting the small handful of extant land and business owners with the 'downtown'.) So maybe it's not surprising to find its 'supporters' trapped in a time-bubble themselves. 

Not surprising, but sad nonetheless. 

(I'm compelled to point out that I grew up a stone's throw from the bank, and I have a memory that goes back almost fifty years. I've seen a lot in Old Towne Stoney Creek...and most of it's been the same sight, over and over and over again.)

M Adrian Brassington

Two-way vs One-way: Wouldn't it make more sense...?

The hot topic at Raise the Hammer is 'Walkable Streets'. The 'two-way vs one-way' battle.

Hats off to Ryan & Gang...

But I can't help but feel that just like with other 'causes' that have been adopted over the years, Leo's Message is being lost:

"Sometimes it's not enough to be right."

Even understanding that it feels necessary at times to draw a line in the sand, to hunker down, to draw on all the other frustrations and disappointments that Life in Hamilton is capable of providing, I can't help but believe that this endeavour isn't quite being attempted as it might be in order to gain traction and get the result that its proponents crave: a more livable Hamilton, streets-wise.

I'm not in the opposite camp as them. I have long railed against 'The Main West Esplanade'. I can't stand Cannon. King and Main...? Well...

'Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.'

Some Unsettling Truths...And a Broken Record's Refrain

Photo: Raise The Hammer

This week has seen several developments on the education-in-Hamilton front. Decisions on school closings. The disbanding of the City-HWDSB task force to find another downtown location for the Board's headquarters. And as a result, Spec and RTH articles, and endless comments, observations and...and...vilifications.

I've pretty much stood back on this issue, wanting to see how it would unfold, rather than offering up an unqualified opinion.

Wanting to see how far the outrage would go. What might result. Whether or not it would grow into a 'movement' worthy of joining, or whether it would be the civic activism equivalent of a bottle-rocket's stoppered pyrotechnics.

In a way, it's been hard to watch. There are some notable participants in the general brouhaha, people of high intelligence, of 'community leader' status (or at least 'potential'), who have articulated their thoughts admirably. (Some of these thoughts have included being heartbrokenly gobsmacked at, in the end, the inarguable lack of interest/engagement/participation on the parts of affected residents, and Hamiltonians-at-large.)

From my vantage point, my feelings have been that a) certain elements in the discussion have been wilfully ignored, or downright denied. Here's a post I put up in February about this. And b) that we need to begin discussing the merits of this notion as it applies to all aspects of decisions being made by publicly-installed entities.

However, for the time being, here is a list of 'truths' that have been germane to the 'education' situation.

It certainly makes me wonder...

I sometimes don't publish what I write. Either it doesn't come out right, or the timing's off, or the piece isn't 'appropriate'. This doesn't happen all that often...which is why I tend to publish as much as I do, to which some wags might respond 'Too bad these occasions don't happen more often'...but it happened last month.

I began writing a post entitled 'What's Our 'Starting Point'?' And then put it aside.

But then the article 'Struggling With Decision To Give $1.2 Million To Sex Offender' appeared this morning over at Raise the Hammer. By longtime RTHer (and Associate Editor of same) Adrian Duyzer, it's...it's...

Well, in an email, I referred to it as 'Candidate for 'Most Ill-advised RTH Article in 2012'.

Lynwood Charlton: The Real Adventure Begins Presently

As noted in The Spec article by Emma Reilly, last night's Council meeting rejected the Lynwood Charlton application for an exception to the Radial Separation Bylaw.

Which means they can't proceed with their plans to move the facility from 52-56 Charlton to 121 Augusta.

Which means that it's a sure-thing that they'll be appealing to the OMB.

Which means, to paraphrase Bette Davis, 'Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy ride.'

In the words of the philosopher Chandler Bing...

"Can open, worms all over."

Tomorrow afternoon/evening, City Council will be tabling a motion by Ward 2 Councillor Farr to deny Lynwood Charlton their application for a change in zoning for 121 Augusta Street, where they want to relocate the current activities at 63-66 Charlton Avenue, 'Charlton Hall'. The reasoning given?

"The proposal is contrary to By-law No. 01-142, in that it would further aggravate the existing over-intensification of residential care facilities within the central City."

What unfolds should be a fascinating litmus test in many ways. 

Of Local Elections, Local Leadership...Local Engagement, Part Three

What would term limits mean?

I believe they'd mean that we'd be swapping experience for new faces...for the sake of having some variety. 

I believe they'd mean that we'd be swapping consistency for 'new blood'...in the hope that this infusion makes for  different body movements from Council.  

But most of all, I believe they'd mean we'd be providing residents an easy-out, removing any onus of responsibility where it comes to contributing towards their own governance. 

This seems like a piss-poor solution to the conundrum of qualified incumbents and 'career politicians'. 

Elements at Play at 100 Main Street West

1) The cause of saving a loved building from demolition.

2) The importance of having the BOE downtown.

3) The importance of having Mac downtown (in its proposed configuration).


4) The revelation of the specifics of the site-selection process. 


5) The legacy resentment at the Board at being 'forced' to locate downtown in the first place, almost a half-century ago. 


6) Feelings of disenchantment/impotency by some Hamiltonians towards this unfolding situation, as fuelled by other recent situations, such as the Pan Am Games Stadium Site Selection fiasco. 

7) Frustration at the impending loss of yet another 'landmark' downtown building; loss of legacy. 

8) Anger on the parts of pro-downtowners at a further example of 're-location to the suburbs'. 

9) A general fedupedness about the dearth of genuine leadership in the city. 

10) The realities of shifting demographics in the Lower City. (And some people being in denial over them.)

So. 

Given that Hamilton-at-large has a pretty tough time grasping the intricacies and nuances of something as simple as garbage collection, is it any wonder that this discussion isn't any more evolved than the one about our radial separation bylaw?

Re-drawing Ward Boundaries: Ward 9, v1.0

Seeing as the name of the blog is 'My Stoney Creek', I may as well start where I stand. (Not entirely true, but I'm using some artistic license here.)

I think any time someone addresses how something is framed, they're going to bring into effect their own biases. Mea culpa, no contest here. 

I'm a traditionalist. I believe that 'Stoney Creek' means just that, and I've never accepted that it extends to 'Upper Stoney Creek' or any somesuch nonsense. (As it is, extending the eastern border to Fruitland Road...you know, Fruitland...is itself contentious to me...but there ya go.)

Further, I believe that in an Amalgamated Greater City of Hamilton, if I'm going to push my beliefs forward about the importance of neighbourhood associations being the foundation of activism, if I'm going to evangelize about the importance of 'pride-of-place', community identity, respect and everything attached to these things, then I believe we need to acknowledge our 'roped-in' communities and celebrate their heritage and traditions. 

So. 

The start of my re-imagining of ward boundaries begins here, in Stoney Creek, with Ward 9. 

(Apologies for the quality of mapping.)

To dream, perchance to...? Part Three

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:

To dream, perchance to...? Part Two

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.

To dream, perchance to...? Part One

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:

Regarding a 'downtown supermarket'

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

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.

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

...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

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

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. 

Regarding LRT: From Ward 9 Councillor Brad Clark

As a result of discussion on Raise the Hammer concerning LRT that had begun with this Spec article, I was prompted to get in touch with Councillor Clark for some clarification on quotes such as this: 

"Clark says the city’s first nodes and corridors land use study that looks at planning for high- and mid-rise development along Queenston, Main and King streets from Eastgate Square to McMaster University (dubbed the B-Line after the HSR express bus line) should be focused instead on Rymal Road, where he says development is happening without any sort of plan in place."

Here's what he had to say in an email correspondence: 

"The City is about to start the next phase of our urban official plan process which is the planning for Nodes and Corridors.

There are a number of Nodes and Corridors that need to be completed: including but not limited to Upper James, Rymal, James Street, Lower Centennial Parkway, Fennell, and the B- Line. Staff brought forward the B-Line as the first Corridor to be planned. They argued that their decision had nothing to do with the LRT. Yet, upon further discussion, we learned that the B-Line was not the planning staffs first choice. In fact, the only reason it was pushed forward was that they could use money from the LRT project.

The facts are that the council has not adopted or set any principles for corridor planning. James Street and Centennial have a sense of urgency since Go Transit has indicated their preference for access points at those locations. Upper James has merit for inclusion as a preference because of the development as well as Rymal.

Here were some of my questions.... Why isn't council setting the priorities? Why have we not had a status update on LRT since the beginning of the year? Why have we not had an update on the status the $3 million LRT fund? Why are our planning priorities being sidelined for LRT that may or may not come? What is the status on the funding request to pay for LRT? How much will Hamilton have to contribute?

Ultimately, we need answers to these and other questions before anyone makes a decision.

To be very clear, Council has not approved LRT. Council approved designating LRT as the preferred option for the City and directed staff to develop the business case and requisite assessments. At the time, council supported the concept to get the data required to make a decision. The province gave us $3 million to complete the studies. 

Nobody on council has stated that they oppose LRT or that we are reconsidering. We are acting with all due diligence, waiting for a decision from the province on funding at which point we must make a final decision.

Respectfully, proponents of LRT are over-reacting to councillor's rationale, reasonable and appropriate questions."

All torn up!

Lake Avenue Drive Construction