Remembering that 'leadership' isn't just a City Hall issue...

"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."


Commenter 'sonofagun' on The Spec downtown grocery store article

Compelled to Muzzle?

muz·zle  (mzl) n. 1. The forward, projecting part of the head of certain animals, such as dogs, including the mouth, nose, and jaws; the snout. 2. A leather or wire restraining appliance that, when fitted over an animal's snout, prevents biting and eating. 3. The forward, discharging end of the barrel of a firearm. 4. A restraint on free movement or expression: had a muzzle put on their high spirits. tr.v. muz·zled, muz·zling, muz·zles 1. To put a muzzle on (an animal). 2. To restrain from expression: tried to muzzle the opposition. [Middle English mosel, from Old French musel, from Medieval Latin msellum, diminutive of msus, snout, from Latin msum.] muzzler n.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

---

muzzle [ˈmʌz^əl]

n

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. 






M Adrian Brassington

"Let them eat cake.," or 'Disconnect Unbounding'.

Editor/Publisher Ryan McGreal has been kind enough to publish a piece, 'Not only Dismissive but Derisive of the Downtown Core'. Additionally, I present it here:

I 'watched' the GIC meeting from this week, Wednesday June 20. The one where Glen Norton gave a pretty nice presentation for an Urban Renewal staff-generated a request for 'an amendment to the Downtown and Community Renewal Community Improvement Plan, as per the Planning Act, for the purpose of implementing a Hamilton Downtown Supermarket Development Incentive'. The incentive being a $650,000 forgivable loan/grant. I've dealt with my immediate reaction here, but I feel compelled to express stuff that's clearly rooted much more deeply, something that goes beyond this initiative, to the heart of the matter: the state of our downtown core. 

Gobsmacked = Me.

And I may as well throw in 'disheartened' and 'underwhelmed' and 'dismayed'...

I 'listened' to the GIC meeting from yesterday. (Unlike in the city where I currently am...Norfolk, VA...the visual presentation is pointless taking in.) I'd forgotten it had taken place, and I was prompted by the Spec article ''Council goes slow on downtown grocery store grant'.

Here's a comment left there: 

"If one was needed downtown it would already exist."

Unfortunately, this was the tenor of what I heard coming from councillors.

Sure, I don't mind opening a can of worms...

Will Doig, 'urban commentator' has an article in today's Salon.com magazine. Entitled 'Whole Foods is coming? Time to buy, it's an examination of the company as a driver of development in neighbourhoods. 

You know, as in 'LRT is a driver of development'.

Here's a couple of paragraphs from the article:

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.