As Peggy Lee sang...

So. 

Now that we've had some degree of closure put to 'all this', is it finally over?


Doubt it. 


I think it's been an intriguing interlude, a broad-based litmus test revealing lots about our mayor, certain councillors, Council-at-large, mainstream media, activist/commentators, and the general populace. 


I'm not so sure that most of the above want to look in the mirror, or consider perspectives that go beyond their own, fuelled as they are. 


The sad thing is that it's quite clear...at least to me...that we already have so many components required to move forward with innovation and imagination, to leave the kvetching and the sniping behind and resurrect this city of ours...


...and yet we're seemingly engaged in serially-detached and incomplete therapy. Some of it is phoned-in, some of it scribbled out on paper, some of it is delivered in-person, but none of it strikes me as being offered in the right way or resembling a process that's actually going to provide progress. The forum's not there, the cohesion's not there...and mostly, because of private agendas, the motivation's not there. 


There's shame floating around this morning, that 'this is the best we can do?!?', there's anger, there's incredulity that once again, what was promised wasn't delivered (how many times have we seen this unfold at Council in recent memory?), and the result is another sedimentary layer of frustration, of cynicism, of our legacy malaise. 


So sing on, Peggy. Sing on. 






M Adrian Brassington

Conduct unbecoming a city...?

As Peggygate 2 has unfolded, as Council's impending censure of Mayor Bratina approaches, as the various tactics of The Spectator, of the mayor himself and everyone associated or simply watching arc their way across the cityscape, it's been fascinating to observe how everything has been been presented, processed and labeled. 

As someone who tends to want to see 'the picture behind the picture' more than get all caught up in the headline-prone specifics of a situation, to me all of this has been especially disheartening. 

Because from my perspective, what's not most important is the mayor's questionable tactics in managing the Peggy Chapman 'pay raise' situation and everything attached to it, even in this second iteration. 

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'. 

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

The question from Part One wasn't 'Do we need term-limits for our councillors?', but it was undeniably connected to that one: 'Why do incumbents almost always get re-elected?'

I think it's important to state here that I'm not talking about mayoral races. Those are an entirely different animal. But with that in mind, this: a) Councillors are not Mayors. What they do is far more nebulous. To my mind, they're not even 'mini-Mayors' of their wards. They're more...'managers'. Contributing to an overall city plan...while putting out fires for constituents, looking after concerns and complaints. This means that for a challenger at election time, there is less to frame a campaign around, short of pointing out an incompetent's poor performance. And unless we're talking some truly egregious follies, it's pretty hard for a councillor to screw things up that badly and lose the voters' confidence. (Unlike with a mayor.)

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

'Term limits'. 

This catch-phrase is usually brought up in any coffee shop conversation about City Hall. 

Just as those who are burdened the heaviest by regret are invariably those who aren't currently content, by-and-large people who believe in the need for term limits view the performance of Council negatively. 

Makes sense. After all, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it', right?

Putting aside my belief that it makes no sense in and of itself to penalize good performance (this assumes that re-election imparts a stamp-of-approval on the incumbent and what they've been bringing to office), it's probably best to examine the real problems associated with trying to unseat a standing Councillor. And in the end, these elements are all parts of the whole, 'The Poor Skill-set of The 'Employer' Doing the 'Hiring', The Resident'. 

And he should know.

André Marin, Ontario Ombudsman

“I think municipalities have to mature when it comes to openness and transparency. There’s a lack of evolution. I hate to generalize, but it’s something I see. There’s a lack of embracing open government.”

How serious a problem can 'conflation' be...?

Last weekend, I ran into some typical Hamilton thinking. (It's not something the city has a monopoly on, believe me. I see it everywhere, all the time.) I wrote about it here.

The core of its dysfunction strikes me as conflation.

Which can be caused by intellectual laziness.

Or, it can be caused by wrapping oneself in an ideology, the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears, closing your eyes, stamping your feet while yelling "LALALALALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU, THEREFORE I'M IMMUNE TO YOUR RATIONAL WAYS!!!"

Or it can be caused by fear. Fear brought about by frustration, exasperation...desperation.

Or...all of the above. (We have working against us, as a kind of 'exacerbation-factor', our 'legacy-malaise'.)

Re-drawing Ward Boundaries: Ward 11, v1.0

Re-drawing Ward Boundaries: Ward 10, v1.0

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.)

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

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)

From 'The Hamiltonian'

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." 


Patrick Henry, American colonial revolutionary

I agree entirely. Which is why I believe in town hall meetings. 

(Oh, and soon, we'll be hearing from Teresa et al about The Hamilton's 'position' on them.)

I mostly agree.

As I was at the Monday, August 29th GIC meeting at City Hall, I can tell you that the Hamilton Community News editorial 'Fiddling while Hamilton burns' gets a ton right. Not everything...but enough. It's on the site, but I'm publishing it here for your convenience. 

Fiddling while Hamilton burns

The City of Hamilton has proven, yet again, that if you allow officials and politicians any freedom, taxpayers will eventually pay the price for their bumbling.

For reasons only known to people within the deepest bowels of city hall, taxpayers are now footing the bill for a new Ivor Wynne Stadium and are poised to pay triple the price for a new velodrome.

The double whammy of a new stadium, plus the ballooning costs of a velodrome has left taxpayers slack jawed at the incompetency of a malfunctioning city. And the blame can be laid squarely at the feet of a sleepy and indifferent council that has allowed city staff to run roughshod over residents’ wishes.

Ivor Wynne stadium is a classic example of indifference to accountability. Fresh off a resounding victory to renovate Ivor Wynne for the Tiger-Cats and the Toronto 2015 Pan Am games in January, at what was then believed to be a sustainable $152 million, the secret meetings began. A review of the stadium designs found that if the north stands were retro-fitted as planned, it would exceed the city’s building codes.
So what do the Tiger-Cats, Infrastructure Ontario and city staff do? Without informing council, they decide among themselves to simply rebuild the north stands, as they are doing with the south stands. In essence, taxpayers are now building a new stadium for the Tiger-Cats after the community fought against shoveling more money to the private company for a new facility.

City officials are telling the public they don’t need to worry, that a new stadium can be built within the current budget. Should taxpayers believe them?

And just to make sure that the Ivor Wynne Stadium bait and switch strategy wasn’t an anomaly, during the same time period, city staff, a few councillors, Infrastructure Ontario and cycling officials decided among themselves to select Mohawk College as the preferred location for the velodrome. Then they told councillors earlier this week during the first committee meeting on the velodrome since last August that, by the way, the cost for the facility has gone up from $11.5 million to a budget-busting $49.5 million.

Huh?

City officials said the original price tag didn’t include “soft costs,” such as design and pre-construction. Ian Troop, chief executive officer for Toronto 2015, babbled something about the original estimate for the facility being based on a figure supplied by a now bankrupt construction company.

Why should Hamilton taxpayers accept this bafflegab?

The city has committed $60 million toward the Pan Am Games, sucking the money out of its Hamilton Future Fund to near zero for the stadium and $5 million for the velodrome. Politicians in the last municipal election pledged they would not budge from that $60 million figure. But as the financial realities became apparent this week, the city needs to invest at least another $5 million into the velodrome – which will still leave at least a $12-million gap that needs to be filled – if Hamilton wants such a facility.

The entire Pan Am Games process has been flawed from the start. From the very beginning, there was no business case to have the games in Hamilton, nor was a financial strategy established for the city to pay for the games. Those mistakes have resulted in councillors scrambling to fill funding gaps, while allowing secret deals and closed-door negotiations with the Tiger Cats, Mohawk College and cycling organizations, which have no interest in these facilities beyond trying to get the municipality to foot the bill. And since the Pan Am Games is a provincial initiative, Hamilton has become a willing pawn in this entire miserable situation

Didn’t councillors learn during the last municipal election that residents were fed up with secret deals, rising taxes and politicians allowing the city to spend money it doesn’t have to benefit their friends?

Unfortunately, the only thing politicians have absorbed, is that they have become willing stooges in the dismantling of the city’s financial future.

It's sorta like a town hall...electronically...kinda...

• Thu Sep 01 2011 
• 5 Recommend

11 a.m. Spec Live with Mayor Bob Bratina

Spec Live: Hamilton Mayor Bob Bratina is today's featured guest

Hamilton Mayor Bob Bratina will be our guest today on our forum, Spec Live. During the half-hour chat, the mayor will answer selected questions submitted from the community. The topic of discussion will be focused on the Pam Am Games facilities and the decisions facing council. Follow Spec Live below by activating the platform below. The session takes a few moments to launch.

Published on Raise the Hammer...

(Direct link to article...as well as comments...can be found here

Opinion

Before last year, I'd never had much interest in 'local politics'. I was a typical disinterested resident. Then the Pan Am Games Stadium Site Selection Process became a local attraction...and then the election...and suddenly, I was interested.

I was watching Council meetings. 
I was talking to Councillors. 
I was reading a ton, I was attending debates. 
I was aware.


Attending the General Issues Committee (GIC) meeting at City Hall yesterday had a profound effect on me, well beyond the fatigue of sitting through a seemingly endless meeting for five-and-a-half hours.


It crystallized what had from the beginning been drifting around in my head.
In fact, I think that the process had a bigger effect on me than the particulars of the velodrome situation unfolding as badly as it did, or even the meeting's capper, the revelations about the stadium.


Even as a fairly 'critical' person, I've tended to flinch at the cynicism and negativity offered up about Councillors. To me it's always seemed too easy a gesture to make, politics too convenient a target. In some of the 'observations', I've easily noted the axe to grind, the grudge being borne. There's always too much an 'us vs them' mentality.


And to be honest, I don't believe the average person grasps what the average Councillor does during any given day, any given week. A lot of the problems in this relationship have to with a lack of engagement, but I'll leave that subject alone for the time being.

However, from the very start of my exposure to the open workings of local governance, I've been stunned. I've been gobsmacked, I've felt incredulous at what I've witnessed in Councillors, what's been revealed about them in meetings, what the culture seems to be, what appears to be the level of professionalism and competency.

Many times I've felt disheartened: This is the best we can do?


I've been dismayed by the lack of comprehension skills having read a simple document.


I've been stunned by the lack of planning that's gone into independent research.


I've been astonished at how little grasp some have had on issues that involve millions of dollars.


Now, I've had it suggested to me that there are some very 'crafty' Councillors who essentially 'play dumb' in order to get certain points on record when questioning a speaker.


Really? Seriously? Those are the kinds of games that are played in Council meetings?
I've also been angered by the apparent 'grandstanding' that some Councillors partake in, going on and on and on in their 'comments', while saying nothing new, nothing insightful, adding little to the discussion - merely lengthening the meetings. (Perhaps the John Cleese management training film 'Meetings, Bloody Meetings' should be required viewing.)


And the repetition I witnessed as several Councillors, including Deputy-Mayor Merulla, repeated themselves not just once, but several times throughout yesterday's marathon session. Um, This stuff is on record as of the first time you speak it. Are you that emotionally attached to the point that you feel you need to reiterate? And then reiterate again?

Any councillor taking offence to my remarks might want to remember that we're talking about a Council (and the previous one) that has managed to generate a tremendous amount of doubt as to its ability to manage the affairs of this city competently. The Pan Am Games Site Selection Process Débacle. The BOE/Mac Downtown Deal. And now the Velodrome Preferred Location/Cost Skyrocket Controversy.

Honestly, I don't know how much of the past fifteen months has been the result of a lack of abilities on the parts of Councillors (both independently and in concert), whether we're talking about machinations by those in the background (City Staff, developers, third-party shadow-players), or pure bad luck.

But I can tell you this, as someone who as worked in the e-learning industry designing training programs for management (in order to get the most out of personnel, to attain excellence from staff, to identify weaknesses in capabilities and find methods to deal with such shortcomings): at the very least, there seems to be a need to address the competency of those executing the roles of Councillors.

What I've witnessed hasn't just been mostly unimpressive (I feel compelled to state that on occasion I've seen flashes of brilliance in some of Council), it's been depressing.

These are our leaders. The original definition of the phrase 'to lead' is to guide someone or a group from one place to another. This requires competency, it requires the generation of trust and of faith.

I'm sorry, but in light of yesterday, I'm just not feelin' it.

Something's wrong, something mighty wrong.

From Hamilton's Past: Our Champion Mayors

Recently, Adrian Duyzer over at Raise the Hammer asked 'Where is Our Champion?'

I believe it was written (mainly) in reaction to Mayor Bratina's less-than-enthusiastic response to the current brouhaha over the possibility of LRT coming to Hamilton. 


Even by today's standards, that's a generation and a half. And for those urbanists out there, even this association is problematic...which I'll get to in a second. 

I got to thinking about just how detached many of us have gotten from even the whisper of the suggestion of the idea of leadership, of  true 'visionary leadership' coming from our mayor. And so I wanted to provide some context by relating two giants from a previous time, to frame these monumental figures in the city's history so that we can better appreciate that once upon a time, inspired leadership wasn't just a pipedream. 

However, I didn't want for it to be a retelling of their accomplishments. Each was a firebrand unto themselves, and deserve to be properly delved into, their stories properly told. (I may just end up doing this myself.) But for now...

Lloyd D. Jackson and Victor K. Copps. Our two greatest 'Mayoral Champions' of the 20th century. The two mayors who changed Hamilton more than any other, and in doing so, are often vilified by those who address the past with a perfunctory examination, fixating on what they perceive was lost in the first attempt to 'revitalize' Downtown Hamilton in modern times as well as on the namesake constructions that resulted, two of the core's perilously easy targets for such ilk: Jackson Square and Copps Coliseum. 

These two men oversaw Hamilton and its future for more than a quarter-century, Jackson from '50-'62, and Copps from '63-'76. (Interestingly, neither were the most-enduring: Bob Morrow, Mayor from 1982-2000 served the longest. But considering it was on his watch during which our current state of affairs unfolded, let's leave him out of the discussion, shall we?)

More than twenty-five years of combined stewardship. 

It's hard to imagine someone attaining such longevity today; our last five mayors were voted in during hardly more than just one solitary decade.

But I suspect that it's much, much harder for the average reader to appreciate just what it was these two true 'Champions' of Hamilton presided over. Especially the newby critics weaned on Jane Jacobs, who seem more interested in trawling through SkyscraperPage photo albums bemoaning 'what we lost' than really taking the time to do any research or develop any context. I guess demonizing's just too tempting. (As I posited here.)

(I do want to note that I'm making my declarations in full knowledge of what's relayed in Margaret T. Rockwell's 'The Facelift and the Wrecking Ball'. I'm very aware that some of the decisions made when 'Civic Square' was being planned were, in hindsight, 'questionable'. And that given the vantage point of fifty years' worth of passage, it might be possible to retroactively re-jig what was put in motion to create a better timeline. But these luxury-exercises are moot...as well as performing a huge disservice to the intentions of the time and the subsequent efforts expended.)

Mayor Jackson took office shortly after WWII had ended. The Cold War had already begun. The Korean War was about to begin. He had personally seen two world wars and the Great Depression, and Mayor Copps, while born much later, had lived through the Depression and WWII. Jackson took the helm of a city whose engines were revving from the war effort, a city requiring both stability and direction in an uncertain world. Copps took office as the 60s were taking flight, when putting a man on the moon was the impossible goal that everyone was breathless about, when each day brought something new and improved, yet more incredible changes, yet more fantastic possibilities being realized, a brand-spanking-new, sparkling tomorrow arriving each and every minute. The quarter-century+ they were mayors was a time of adjustment and change...and they each executed their responsibilities with their own style. Regardless of how contrasting these styles were, they had one thing in common: they managed with conviction and vision, and the people of Hamilton had faith in them...proven by the fact that they kept re-electing them. 

The consistent theme during their tenures?

'Leaving the Past Behind'. 

Or: 'Forging an Amazing Future'. 

It most certainly wasn't 'Let's stick with the past: it's safer and more familiar.' Hence the explanation of why so many jewels disappeared on their watch. 

So during this era, Hamilton's downtown changed enormously. No doubt, we lost some treasures. True gems were knocked down. (As were blocks and blocks of 'seedy' buildings; I shudder to think of the land bounded by King, Bay, York and James containing these same residences and businesses today. But of course the advent of 'shopping malls' and the resulting sea change in shopping habits would eventually have mandated some degree of adaptation, so again, this discussion is utter indulgence.) Yet this wasn't something peculiar to Hamilton; it was happening all the world over, and I'm sure there are worse stories than the ones some of us could regale each other with.

But it's important to remember the tenor of the times. As easy as it is to lambaste those who were responsible for such actions, those who oversaw such shifts, to forget what the tone of society was, what the general view was regarding 'progress', is pure folly. Because today, when each week brings new product releases, when we've become blasé about innovation and invention mostly because we expect them, we expect them constantly and we expect them now, we don't really think in terms of 'the future'. Unless it's with dread. But back then, leaving the past behind (as opposed to today, when 'going retro' is de rigeur) was the goal. Searching out and redefining the future was far more pressing a pursuit than preserving the past or protecting our heritage. 

In a world where 'the cult of personality' reigns supreme, it may seem bizarre that we're in need a champion in Hamilton. It's perhaps even more ironic that the champion we need should be seen in our mayor, given that our current one seems to want nothing to do with the notion. (And yet he won by relying on name-recognition and longstanding public perception while presenting a platformless-platform. Funny, that. Not.) 

But we do need a champion of our own. 

And that champion should be found in our Mayor.


We also need champions in our Councillors. 

Moreover, we need champions in our communities. 

By raising the level of our behaviour, we raise our aspirations at the same time that we raise our expectations. 

This is, obviously, how cities become great. 

This is *precisely* what I'm talking about.

Raise the Hammer has an article 'In Letter, Mayor Warns About 'advocacy groups'. Here's what was sent out by Mayor Bratina:

During the time I was downtown Councillor property values and new commercial tax assessment steadily increased. In fact there were only two Wards that showed property values increasing above the average of the entire City. One of them is Ward 2. New commercial taxes in the core over the past 5 years have increased by over a million dollars. We will likely do at least the same between now and 2015.

I have visited Vancouver and every other major Canadian City at least once every year over twenty years as a football broadcaster and watched all of those cities develop through that era. I also rode their transit systems as I still do and watched the LRT's being implemented in Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton.

I became acquainted with former Vancouver Mayor, now Senator Larry Campbell... born in Brantford, went to Westmount high school here and worked at Stelco. His warning to me several years ago about advocacy groups has certainly come to pass. [emphasis added]

Mr. Kevlahan apparently is unaware that the rejection of the proposed LRT for Hamilton was led by the Durand neighbourhood association.

Finally, the LRT group headed by Jill Stephen continues to function, carrying out its mandated work. Nothing has changed except for the admonition regarding unnecessary work.
The LRT furor is a straw dog whose sound and fury signifies nothing.

Damn, but he's really beginning to sound more and more like someone's clued-out, fuddy-duddy grandfather. 

To all those people who voted him in last autumn, this question: 'Why?'

And to all those people who want to make sure that 'advocacy groups' doesn't become a pejorative term, I'd like to remind you that to ensure that we don't have leaders who are clearly disinterested in having to bother with residents, we need to 'increase the relationship of engagement between themselves and their elected officials'.

And one of the best ways is to have regular town hall meetings. 

And hopefully of this, I'll have some good news, soon. 

On the other hand...

Herman Turkstra has an intriguing editorial piece in today's Spec, 'Don't leave the LRT decision to a bunch of bureaucrats'. It's well worth the read, especially in how he frames this huge issue historically. 

But his main thrust concerns me: that of using a referendum to decide whether or not Hamilton should move forward with LRT. 

I believe in a greater degree of civic engagement on the part of residents in local governance. It's paramount to making things better. It's at the core of my belief system 'politics'-wise, and is front-and-centre here on this blog. 

But the thought of people 'voting' on an issue that's got so many implications, on so pivotal a concept... Well, it makes me cringe. 

Especially when taking into account that only 40% of eligible voters cast ballots in the past two elections. 

And that somewhere in the neighbourhood of 60% of these did so according to 'name recognition'. 

I'm not against a referendum. But I'm only for it if there is a concerted effort...and I don't just mean articles and ads in The Spec or an information display at City Hall for all to examine...to inform the public. 

Meaning?

Meaning town halls. 

Meaning information evenings. 

Meaning all Councillors having appropriate sections on their websites. 

Now, if after all this sincere effort apathy still rules the day, fine. But at least people will have been given a proper chance to develop an informed opinion. 

As it stands, our current paradigm in local governance is too rife with cynicism and indifference to stake everything on a referendum. Not to put too fine a point on it, I don't trust the average person to care enough to make the effort to educate themselves about LRT even to the degree they might in choosing their next holiday destination. Getting people involved in decisions that have such enormous implications on what their city is going to become is only a good idea if this enfranchisement goes hand-in-hand with sought-out information. 

As Sy Syms said, 'An educated consumer is our best customer.'

What happens in a marriage when there's no genuine ongoing dialogue between the partners? When activities and the day-to-day practicals aren't really discussed so much as announced, then implemented? (Then reacted to. Oi vey!)

What happens in a family when there's only perfunctory communication between the parents and children? How is the familial dynamic affected?

What happens in the workplace when there's a dearth of back-and-forth between employer and employee? What happens to morale, what happens to productivity...what happens to the viability and success of the business?

As you know, I've been blogging for nearly a year now about 'increasing the relationship of engagement between residents and Councillors'. The gist of these editorials has been to imagine a different local governance landscape, one that's about as far away on the continuum from 'the resident votes every four years and then gets on with their life' and 'the Councillor is voted in and is left alone to do their job...without having to be worried about their constituents 'bothering' them'. 

What's been unfolding on the GO/LRT front has been setting off alarms for me in this regard. So not only is there seemingly (please note my generous slant) a decided lack of visionary, confident leadership, there's some pretty crap communication going on. (Anyone read the 'response' from Mayor Bratina to the Durand Neighbourhood Association regarding LRT?)

So here I am, a needle chronically stuck in the groove, the whiney, yammering voice bullhorning his belief: we need 'town hall meetings' regularly going on within the city. For each ward, and for the community-as-a-whole. Ones that are streamed online, ones that are posted on YouTube. Put on by every Councillor, as well as the Mayor. (I see no reason why they can't be hosted by The Hamiltonian, Raise the Hammer, Urbanicity as well as the usual MSM bunch.) Issues such as LRT, GO, and as raised by a commenter on The Hamiltonian, the Barton Street Pan Am Games Stadium Clean-up, all of these need to be part of the general, ongoing discussion that a thriving, functional City must sustain in order to qualify as being 'functional'. 

Solid marriages, families, organizations need healthy dialogue; why do we believe a municipal relationship should be any different?

As a result of happenchance of the most serendipitous kind, I'm reading John C. Maxwell's 'Thinking for a Change'. Now, I didn't pick it up because of what's unfolding in Hamilton regarding LRT and all the associated discussions about leadership and vision, but a section I just came to really stood out for me. Which is why I'm taking the time to type and relate it. 

You can find many big-picture thinkers who aren't leaders, but you will find few leaders who are not big-picture thinkers. Leaders must be able to do many important things for their people:

-See the vision before their people do.  That's one of the reasons they are able to lead. Leaders not only see the big picture before others do, they also see more of it. This allows them to...

-Size up situations, taking into account many variables. Leaders who see the big picture discern possibilities as well as problems. As Max de Pree says, the first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. Doing that allows the leader to form a foundation on which to build the vision. Once leaders have done that, they...

-Sketch a picture of where they're going. Too often when people present the big picture, it is drawn up as a bright image without any challenges or obstacles. That false portrait leads only to discouragement when followers actually take the journey. The goal of leaders shouldn't be merely to make their people feel good, but to help them be good and accomplish the dream. The vision, shown accurately, will allow leaders to...

-Show how the future connects with the past to make the journey more meaningful. Most people want to touch their past before they will reach out to their future. When they can do that, moving forward seems natural and right. When leaders recognize this need for connection and bridge it, then they can...

-Seize the moment when the timing is right. In leadership, when to move is as important as what you do. As Winston Churchill said, "There comes a special moment in everyone's life, a moment for which that person was born... When he seizes it...it is his finest hour."

Granted, we in Hamilton are limited in our perceptions of what's going on at City Hall by the media coverage we're provided, as well as the degree to which each Councillor's connects with their constituents. But these days, I don't think it's being too cynical to wonder just how much certifiable leadership is taking place in our local governance, nor is it being too skeptical to wonder just how much vision is present. Not to put too fine a point on it, are there any 'big-picture thinkers' on Council?

As I stated in a recent editorial addressing this very issue, leaders should be proceeding at all times with a sense of responsibility and pragmatism while consistently driving the city forward with vision. So our leaders should be inspiring residents to strive for something greater, a better, more liveable city, fostering a greater general ability to see the big picture...nurturing a collective vision of Hamilton.