Raise the Hammer

Glad to see Morelli can make time for a flood photo-op on chch, but can't take the time to respond, or get his asst. to respond to these important questions.

Move on, Morelli! (Like he'll ever see this seeing its on that new fandangled world wide interweb he still hasn't figured out how to use.)

Just out of curiosity, how many people on this site support term limits for city council?

Ryan is this something that you have ever looked into?

maybe he can get the internet tubes installed in his house at the same time he replaces his lead water main - i can understand him not wanting to dig his front yard up twice

RM said:

Rather than term limits, I'd rather focus on the following:

* A more level playing field for candidates during election campaigns; and
* More active citizen engagement between elections, so that councillors have an easier time making informed decisions that reflect the values and goals of their constituents.
--------------------

With all due respect, what does that even mean? Incumbency is the single greatest advantage a municipal candidate has (see Kushner, Siegal and Stanwick in Can. J. of Pol. Sci., 1997, 30, p. 539-553 for a study from Ontario). In that study, the incumbency coefficient accounted for almost ALL of the effect on electoral outcome in a large city.

Furthermore, the Municipal Elections Act has also attempted to "level the playing field" with contribution limits, restricting the ability for candidates to carry forward surplus funds, and excluding expenses related to disabilities from the overall expense count, among other changes.

Without adding "TERM LIMITS" to that list, what else do you think would appreciably "level the playing field" in a city the size of Hamilton? I would suggest that all other measures would just be ineffectual tinkering at the margins of the issue.

Incumbency is a massive advantage, and despite my love for McHattie, I don't think it would be a shame if he was given one term, and then have to look for other ways to affect change in his city. I'm not a big fan of "Up or Out", but I think there are far fewer McHatties in the world of municipal urban politics than there are those type of leaders who represent static group of interests, and who turn their wards into personal fiefdoms.

What churchill park master plan? Look, I love McHattie, but Churchill Park is not something to point to - every meeting on the subject has torpedoed any improvement, and Churchill's existing structures consist of a rotting abandoned lawn-bowling club and a rotting semi-abandoned bathroom/changeroom structure that looks like something out of a slasher movie... and nothing will ever change because Westdale is full of octegenarians that are, to put it bluntly, "anti-fun".

Yes, the systems needs fixing, but not at the price of removing citizens from the equation.

How many arts entrepreneurs have started up small galleries without problems from the city in the last 5 years? Why has the Pearl Company had so many problems? The Pearl Company circumvented the process whereby the people in the neighborhood get to have input in any changes to their neighborhood BEFORE a business opens. Sending flyers out TELLING the people around you what you are doing and changing is in no way the same as a process where the local citizens have an actual voice before an adjudicator. The owners of the Pearl Company have been obstinate in their belief that they were already a legal conforming use. If they had simply paid the $1200 and relinquished control to the neighbors for that brief moment they had a right give feedback, none of this would be happening! I'm sure the rebuttals will have numerous examples of other situations, I don't care anymore. The Pearl Company has made this the whole city's problem now and I have yet to hear any admission of any accountability for the whole goddamn mess from them. If they had followed the process that so many sneer at here they would have gotten their approvals and all of this negative energy wouldn't be hanging like a cloud over them.

I do not mock or deride the process in it's imperfections, it gives the citizens a FORMAL voice and say in the decisions made around them.

@mrjanitor,

Agreed, that many arts entrepreneurs have started in the city. But they've almost without exception established outside of Ward 3.

Why do you think that is? Let me tell you what I think (ok, know).

I know of one art entrepreneur who found the perfect building, exactly what they were looking for to invest their money, but it was on the east side of Wellington (i.e. Ward 3). Guess what, they passed on that opportunity, they wouldn't even dream of buying in Ward 3. They ended up purchasing a building, and have built a seemingly successful business in Ward 2.

Why do you think they made that decision not to invest in Ward 3? Let me tell you why.

Comments like Jeremy Freiburger; "Our Councillor straight up told me he didn’t think our activity was right for “his” ward, we couldn’t get anyone to meet with the building owners at 270 Sherman who made the bold step to work with us....". The lack of councillor support they saw from the councillor at The Pearl Company drove them out of Ward 3.

Processes are circumvented all the time, i.e. a developer getting a zoning exemption on the Studebaker Plant, without even having an offer on the building, a gymnastics club getting added in at the last minute by their councillor (Lloyd Ferguson). No process, no questions, it just happened. And where is the developer at the Studebaker plant now, 2 days in April and then nothing. How does a shady deal like that happen for an out of town developer with nothing invested? I'll tell you Lloyd Ferguson wanted an exemption for the gymnastic club in his ward and like a masterful magician used the Studebaker plant as a diversion.

Morelli hates the arts. Why? Because, he hates anything he can't control, anything that doesn't have an angle for him, and like Humpty Dumpty is ready for a great fall.

From the beginning, there's been a rather shrill and adversarial tone to much of Milne and Santucci's lobbying, and I suspect that has as much to do with this as anything else. I've been involved with a lot of "fights" in my time (I usually specialize in ad hoc rental law) and this is a huge factor. Once things get personal, they get ugly, no matter who's right, legally or otherwise.

The issue here is not whether the city is creating a "attractive environment for business", it is whether the city is acting to actively discourage it, across the board. Granting a few exemptions or large cash grants doesn't change this. How can we, as a city, claim to be fighting car dependence and global warming when we still make establishment owners pay tens of thousands of dollars for not providing parking lots? These laws are the problem, not the Pearl Company.

The problem is that the same City bureaucrats have been sitting around, over-paid since well before amalgamation.
As much as we love to blame Council, ultimately it's these Fat Cats at City Hall who need a massive turnover more than anything.
Sadly, said individuals aren't subject to elections.

I'm not sure how the Hamilton Civic League is doing, but they were certainly inspired by GCL's success.

At this point, the HCL is doing OK. We won't be able to get a fantastic organization going until the next election, but thus far this is what's in process:

• Bus ads encouraging voting have been donated (one per bus inside, some exterior) and the design is finished
• Regular Cable 14 spots on voting and its importance
• Radio ads (running on several local stations)
• Print ads encouraging voting
• Statistically significant number of survey responses within multiple wards - unfortunately not enough volunteers this time around to get that information within all wards.
• Downloadable poster campaigns (going up on site this week)
• 1 hour primers at high schools
• Access to voter resource at WeVote.ca. (again should be up this week)
• Newcomers, young voters , Renters, Poverty are focus areas since those 4 groups don't vote much
• networking with several organizations (campus organizations, poverty organizations, newcomers organizations) as a part of that
• Series of monthly forums (now often in conjuction with other groups and not promoted as specifically Hamilton Civic League)

This is with a small group of volunteers who mostly work 50+ hour weeks, and three of the four board members have gone through significant job changes within the last six months, and we have a ton of great volunteers/contacts but unfortunately we haven't been able to leverage them as well as planned, especially on a shoestring budget (most has been dedicated to printing costs and open houses).

Next time around, there will be a better-focused process, and even clearer leadership and volunteer recruitment, etc. We're doing OK for the first run-through, but it'll be a much better machine the next time, and we'll have learned a ton. Personally I hope to be a better leader through the process and not in the middle of a job change the next time around either!

Focus, however, is something we've certainly gained (we're not the GCL, but we also have been looking in a lot of different directions to start, and we'll have a better focus as we continue on).

Can someone tell me why Jason Farr is running in ward 2? Honestly, when I saw the piece called, "A bridge to Farr" I thought it was going to be about how he has serious ambitions if he thinks he could get elected in ward 2. The only thing I know/heard in terms of city activity, was that he was the spokesperson for the goeastmountain site.

This could be wrong, there could be more. Anyone have some details that might shed some light?

Jarod, he would be ensuring a long standing tradition of electing radio personalities ;). When I saw the article on Farr island I thought is was about him as well...

Farr's name is recognizable by many, maybe even most, people across the City.

It seems that MANY voters will vote for a candidate based on this name recognition alone. Really, who needs a platform, or experience, as long as this remains true?

How else to explain the power of incumbency? Or Bob Bratina for that matter.

(I have a niggling worry that not-Lloyd Ferguson could actually win Ward 2 on this basis. We could conceivably elect to council somebody who has not even campaigned, or who may have put his name on the ballot as a lark.)

@Seriouslyjadednow

Yeah, I had the same thought about Marvin Caplan. Even if I had no idea about his platform or who he is, thanks to his real-estate signs I've known what he's looked like for the past decade or so.

I never understand why real-estate agents really want to be famous personally. My dentist doesn't have signs with his face on them.

Comment edited by Pxtl on 2010-10-01 13:10:35

My dentist doesn't have signs with his face on them. - Pxtl

But that dentist with the ridiculous haircut has ads on buses.

...a long standing tradition of electing radio personalities - FarTooLong

Well when one of the main criteria for sitting on Hamilton council appears to be loving the sound of your own voice, I guess it makes sense???

That's what I thought. Radio personality, public image and all...a sign for him just popped up on a lawn down the street...I have only had to prevent myself from making a cheap looking kite a couple of times.

I have to admit I like the campaigning aspect. I don't know what it is, but there's something about having a candidate (respectfully) offer you their time and tell you what they're about. After which, I/we usually spend a few moments picking apart the conversation.

I find sometimes, though, a candidate might do worse for themselves by talking to people. Sometimes being the key word.

Mer and I were at the amazingly super-tastic SuperCrawl and happened to walk by the window where James Novak(sp?) has his campaign material. I asked who this guy was and she mentioned that despite a lot of words on a piece of bristol board (or something of higher quality...) that it said nothing about what his positions/opinions were on certain things.

Luckily he was standing just out of peripheral to swoop in and .not. answer any questions we had. I find it difficult not to openly speak my mind in such circumstances. We asked about his material and his choice of how and why he put together the material present. His answer was simply that he wanted to establish that he had been around a while and was respected and respectable and all the good traits people wish they had.

He then spent the next 5 minutes down-talking Matt Jelly and his campaign manager, at which point Larry DiIanni came and shook our hands (it was unavoidable...awkward, and cowardly on my part to be honest...to not tell him where I thought his campaign material belonged)

It's amazing how much attention people will pay to make their written image seem as something, and perhaps enhance their physical image as well. But when you get down to it and talk to people, it's pretty easy to see who's talking with tuna salad in their mouth, and who genuinely believes what they're gunning for and how they think they'll get it, and the career politicians who have more control over their facial expressions and reactions than pro poker players.

One of the reasons I like mayor Fred to be honest. You can see very clearly the frustration he has at some Council Meetings. And it's not a manufactured irritation to make it appear as though you're invested in a topic or situation when really you could care less...it's genuine. (either that, or he is SO good I haven't yet seen through him) But I doubt that to be the case.

There is a thought inducing opinion piece titled "What would you do with $60m?" by Mark Chamberlain in the print version of today's Hamilton Spectator. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be an available link to it on thespec.com.

Mr. Chamberlain makes a particularly important observation:

"With all the issues facing our city today, we have for far too long been focused on the best place to locate a $150 million-plus, publicly funded football stadium, of which $60 million plus is planned to come from the Hamilton Future Fund even though the board has made it clear that the fund should only be used if the stadium is located at the west harbour.

The fact that discussions continue should alone be cause for alarm, but even more concerning is there has been no public engagement for alternative uses of the $60 million.

Imagine what this could do for city building."

Mr. Chamberlain later states that there are many possible alternative uses for the $60 million from the Future Fund and he provides two examples:

1. implementation of the Shifting Gears Cycling Master Plan;

2. investing the money "into family medicine and training of family doctors while redeveloping our downtown" although he notes that such a facility is now planned for the McMaster Innovation Park because a previous plan to build it downtown was deemed to be unaffordable.

He then provides a litmus test in using these Future Fund monies: "Have we considered the absolute needs of Hamilton? Improved health, affordable housing, public transportation, walkable/cyclable infrastructure and jobs- or a stadium?"

Mr. Chamberlain completes his opinion piece with a cautionary note: "Investment in luxury will be the largest misuse of public funds in the history of our city and will haunt us and our children for decades.

I love football. I love the Tiger-Cats. I love my city more."

And this city needs more people like Mark Chamberlain. His question, "What would you do with $60 Million?" should be asked to each candidate for mayor and councillor during the current Hamilton municipal election campaign.

-

Comment edited by RenaissanceWatcher on 2010-10-02 07:54:09