There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?
Recent Articles
- Justice for Indigenous Peoples is Long Overdueby Ryan McGreal, published June 30, 2021 in Commentary
(0 comments)
- Third-Party Election Advertising Ban About Silencing Workersby Chantal Mancini, published June 29, 2021 in Politics
(0 comments)
- Did Doug Ford Test the 'Great Barrington Declaration' on Ontarians?by Ryan McGreal, published June 29, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- An Update on Raise the Hammerby Ryan McGreal, published June 28, 2021 in Site Notes
(0 comments)
- Nestlé Selling North American Water Bottling to an Private Equity Firmby Doreen Nicoll, published February 23, 2021 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- Jolley Old Sam Lawrenceby Sean Burak, published February 19, 2021 in Special Report: Cycling
(0 comments)
- Right-Wing Extremism is a Driving Force in Modern Conservatismby Ryan McGreal, published February 18, 2021 in Special Report: Extremism
(0 comments)
- Municipalities Need to Unite against Ford's Firehose of Land Use Changesby Michelle Silverton, published February 16, 2021 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Challenging Doug Ford's Pandemic Narrativeby Ryan McGreal, published January 25, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- The Year 2020 Has Been a Wakeup Callby Michael Nabert, published December 31, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- The COVID-19 Marshmallow Experimentby Ryan McGreal, published December 22, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- All I Want for Christmas, 2020by Kevin Somers, published December 21, 2020 in Entertainment and Sports
(1 comment)
- Hamilton Shelters Remarkably COVID-19 Free Thanks to Innovative Testing Programby Jason Allen, published December 21, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- Province Rams Through Glass Factory in Stratfordby Doreen Nicoll, published December 21, 2020 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- We Can Prevent Traffic Deaths if We Make Safety a Real Priorityby Ryan McGreal, published December 08, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(5 comments)
- These Aren't 'Accidents', These Are Resultsby Tom Flood, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(1 comment)
- Conservation Conundrumby Paul Weinberg, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Defund Police Protest Threatens Fragile Ruling Classby Cameron Kroetsch, published December 03, 2020 in Special Report: Anti-Racism
(2 comments)
- Measuring the Potential of Biogas to Reduce GHG Emissionsby John Loukidelis and Thomas Cassidy, published November 23, 2020 in Special Report: Climate Change
(0 comments)
- Ontario Squanders Early Pandemic Sacrificeby Ryan McGreal, published November 18, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
Article Archives
Blog Archives
Site Tools
Feeds
By ThisIsOurHamilton (registered) - website | Posted September 23, 2012 at 08:30:21
My beliefs about reversion are to a great extent aligned with Ryan's (and Jason's and Adrian's), but this intractability worries me. Especially when compared with the intractability of those against reversion, which is based on a) what they're used to and b) their -flawed- perceptions of the consequences of reversion.
Neither one are conducive to dialogue, to discourse or discussion.
I mentioned in my contribution to The Hamiltonian's 'Perspectives Virtual Panel' a 'test-case' scenario called 'The Red-box One-way Reversion Proposal'. The idea was to 'localize' a concerted effort as well as making the impetus behind it not the leadership of any councillors, but the 'will of the people'. The area east of Dundurn, west of James, south of Main and north of Aberdeen was the 'red box' on the map I'd provided. The idea was to get the two neighbourhoods -Kirkendall and Durand- to decide for themselves what streets they feel are needing reversion. (None of the contained streets, not even Charlton or Herkimer, are 'arterial roads', none of them need to be 'thoroughfares', so it's not like 'non-locals' should be deciding what form they take. Yes, this is a foundation belief for me, that neighbourhoods have the overriding right to determine what's best for them to promote the highest level of Quality of Life possible, and as I'm currently visiting Toronto, I'm witnessing up-close-and-personal how the needs of communities I've been walking through come first; I'll be posting a snap-shot album later as evidence found in this teeny-tiny sliver of Toronto.)
I chose this 'red-box' area because it's sequestered, even though my first choice was Cannon Street. It is a truly 'residential' area, the existence of which is almost entirely predicated on Life lived. In fact, aside from Locke Street, people living their lives in houses, condos or apartments is almost the entire story. So...
So the truth is, as much as I presented the notion more as an opportunity to muster engagement, to foster dialogue, to aim for consensus, the truth is that my bet, even if you were able to get the vast majority of people involved in the education, examination and conversation processes, you may well find that many of the one-ways would not be targeted for reversion. That people would be fine keeping them the way they are, thankyouverymuch.
Now; regardless of whether these people could be considered 'right' or 'wrong' in their beliefs, I'm curious as to how Ryan et al would respond to them wanting to keep certain one-ways, if that's what the majority polled expressed. Because there seems to be this 'ALL one-ways have to go!' mentality that's being pushed forward alongside all the reports and papers being cited ad nauseam.
Intractability.
So this is what I fear: that what might be accomplished in getting some sorely-needed reversions done (I'll leave it to the reader to create a mental list of 'Top Ten One-way Streets That Simply Must Be Reverted For The Sake of All Residents') will be lost in the process. That the zealotry being expressed by some, because it doesn't seem to leave room for compromise, because it often comes across as being so annoyingly arbitrary to the bystander, is going to set the cause back...or even torpedo it.
The truth is that I've lived in both Durand and Kirkendall over the past quarter-century. I've walked, run, ridden and driven the streets. Would I, as a firm believer in the greater humanity (and humane-ness) that two-ways foster, see the logic in reverting all one-ways in this 'red-box' area as is being constantly hammered home? No. Not at all.
Even acknowledging that this discussion doesn't even register on the radar of most Hamiltonians, it still pains me that so much of how we express our desire for change isn't framed by a sincere desire to come to agreements. I guess this is the result of long-term frustration. However, I do have to once again remind the principals here that 'Sometimes, it's not enough to be right.'
Comment edited by ThisIsOurHamilton on 2012-09-23 09:23:05
Permalink | Context