Four months later, nothing has changed. Not really.

In another arena entirely, about four months ago, I posted this:

A few musings about our HWDSB situ... a) How differently would the discussion be if the building at 100 Main West wasn't 'historically/culturally valuable'? 

b) Why has there been no focus on the aspect of 'consolidation' of services within the Board, which includes the physical requirements apart from offices? 

c) How important is it to have the Board downtown, in a changing world? (and the corollary, If the situation were different, and there was an amazing development available to move into that property, would there still be as much resistance to the Board moving 'out of the core'?), 

d) Can most of all this be attributed to a lousy 'dialogue mechanism' being in play? and finally, connected to Matt's presentation this week about 'the destruction of buildings in the downtown over the past half-century', 

e) Is anyone ready, willing or able to concede that we have a massive amount of conflation going on, the nature of which actually does more harm than good?

The reaction was- Well, I won't get into that, here. Let's just say...'inflammatory crickets'. 

I was quite surprised that people seemed far more impassioned about protecting their emotional beliefs (turf) than actually exploring the facts of the situation. I doubt anyone involved was familiar with Scott London's take on what's really, really necessary here:

The Power of Dialogue

Thinking Together: The Power of Deliberative Dialogue

Sometime after the above incident, I posted this article:

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?

As we are heading into a ramped-up campaign to at least try to put the brakes on the HWDSB's plans (At the facebook page S.O.S., the 'We Need 3' effort, and the Beasley Neighbourhood Association's letter to NDP leader Andrea Howarth just to name a few), the need for genuine and authentic dialogue has been increased. 

I just hope that we get the mechanisms in place to allow this dialogue to happen at the level it's going to have to unfold at for anything substantive to result. 

Because the issue is just one that residents could learn some valuable lessons from, expand their skill-set as a result of, equipping themselves better towards taking their place at the governance table. (AEGD, ward boundary reform, the 'livability' of our streets)

Fingers crossed. 

M Adrian Brassington