Raise the Hammer

From The Spec's article 'The view of Pier 8 from here':

"I certainly want to look at the North End and see a child- and family-friendly community. And I want to maintain it as a livable community during the process of development. The design process has already happened. We don't need to re-invent a whole bunch of new visions, we need to look at what we have planned. We need to look at what is there and what has been supported by the City and the residents. This has been a dream of Hamilton for a long time. There are really good planning strategies that are already there."

Sheri Selway Vice-president of North End Neighbours, former President

(Not sure why this article doesn't show up in an online search. At least not as of this hour.)

To me, these observations raise some very compelling questions. Amongst them, 'How should input be balanced regarding that of 'locals'?' 'How much of a say should local residents have in what unfolds in their own lives, right out their front doors? Further, I'd like to hear responses from Councillors to the thrust of Sheri's opinion...as well as contributors and commenters.

After all, one of the things that I've constantly heard about LRT is that 'the design process' is already in place! We don't need to go back and re-examine it! Let's just get it done!' Already this year, we've seen changes to existing plans: http://www.thespec.com/news/local/articl... http://www.thespec.com/news/local/articl...

I find it fascinating that we -apparently- have a dichotomy between the way those who live in/frequent the downtown see 'walkability' by way of reverting one-ways and those who drive through the area insisting that there's more to the story than just what a bunch of vocal-locals want, essentially wanting to impose their needs...versus those people who live in the vicinity of Pier 8, etc, who aren't exactly regarded as 'equal partners at the table' -not from my perspective, anyway- and those who insist this, that or the other, design-wise, who are, invariably, not 'locals'.

But maybe that's not a dichotomy at all. Perhaps it's more a ironic parallel...?