Raise the Hammer

On the swing space

It is a crying shame that the posts of Bhutani are now met with disgust from me (and probably more people) regardless of content. Still in a state of disgust after his last round of attacks (baseless) on Mr. Crawford and others. Makes me really want to stop reading the RTH and I know it in no way reflects the efforts of everyone who volunteers their time to write articles and post comments. Still bugs me though.

disgusting is down voting posts that simply quote city documents because they come from a particular poster and generally running off anyone with an opinion that doesn't comply. Its sad this level of closed mindedness has overcome what used to be a good place for discussion

It is a crying shame that the posts of Bhutani are now met with disgust from me (and probably more people) regardless of content.

I agree. It's saddening.

It reminds me of the situation in the US regarding the Tea Party and far-right Republicans, where, because they're wrapped in their flag (ideology), they're unable to actually discuss important issues.

It speaks volumes about the level of discourse in this city.

But I appreciate you having the self-awareness to recognize what you have. Peace be with you, my friend.

Jeez...when you put it that way it doesn't sound very good, does it?

Thanks for continuing to hold council's feet to the fire. We need some answers, and soon.

I'm pretty sure Jan Zurakowski probably built a doghouse or a shed at some point in his life. Shall we alert the proper authorities to have those declared UNESCO Heritage Sites? Maybe the sustainability fairy will flit over from Portland, sprinkle some pixie dust and POOF, a magical organic food co-op that generates eight figures worth of annual profit will arrive, buy the BOE, and turn it into an adult fingerpainting collective.

For some people it's not about the building, for some people it's about the City throwing money at other organizations in deals which are of questionable value to the city as a whole. Read the article above - the heritage and architecture of the building is not metnioned once! The whole article focuses on costs and benefits.

It has nothing to do with organic food co-ops and fingerpainting. As with all complex issues there are a variety of reasons why people might be in favour or against this deal. Some people are in this to save the historical building, others are in it to save a building that is too "young" to be torn down, others are in it because they want the HWDSB somewhere downtown (not necessarily in that building) and some just question whether we're getting the most for our money.

Lumping such diverse arguments together with some hypothetical and ridiculous arguments to "negate" them is just bad form.

Tell me, do you not care what the city does with your tax dollars?

http://mystoneycreek.blogspot.com/2012/0...

What I've noticed is that so many don't even want to discuss the various elements and how they've shaped opinion...mostly, I guess, because they can't imagine that their own 'weighting' of elements is off.

That is a fairly accurate list of issues on your website.

You seem to imply people should discuss the various elements and how they've shaped opinion. Are you advocating discussion for the sake of information exchange, to get citizens to have a greater appreciation of other viewpoints, or are you suggesting such discussion should be used to determine the weighing of elements to be applied in order to achieve the "correct" answer?

Because while the first is worth (if problematic) goal, I think the second is the job of council/HWDSB/McMaster, and it's merely the job of citizens to ensure that their personal elements (whatever those might be) were considered appropriately (which is why process and transparency are so important).

I think a bit part of this issue is citizens feeling their own personal elements were either not given sufficient weight, OR that the decision was pre-determined some time ago with no consideration given to any objective elements.

"Because while the first is worth (if problematic) goal, I think the second is the job of council/HWDSB/McMaster, and it's merely the job of citizens to ensure that their personal elements (whatever those might be) were considered appropriately (which is why process and transparency are so important). "


I believe this is where the breakdown of civil discourse originates. It seems to me that if citizens are only interested in promoting their own ideas while ignoring the ideas of others you get the type of political environment that reflects that reality.

Comment edited by mystoneycreek on 2012-02-27 13:45:58

People just haven't participated sufficiently along the way. You snooze...you lose.')

Could we please stop perpetuating this zombie lie? This was a closed process, consciously designed to exclude the kind of public input they received initially - the input that showed the overwhelming public preference for keeping the board downtown. Or is this the type of input you consider 'personal' and 'arbitrary' and therefore justifiably ignored in your books?

Comment edited by mystoneycreek on 2012-02-27 14:09:03

How's this?

On top of doing an atrocious job of rationalizing the Mountain move, the board inexplicably kept secret a report that looked at other sites.

Perhaps it finally occurred to trustees that if they had released those documents last year when they made the decision to move to the Mountain, the community would have had almost a full year to properly debate and sift through the options.

As it is, they’re now paying a very public price for their unnecessary secrecy, just as they’re on the verge of trying to consummate a complicated deal with McMaster.

What on earth are you talking about? The only thing I am trying to shut down is the inaccurate notion that the board went through an open process that the public failed to participate in.

What 'discussion point' is it exactly that you wish to 'examine'? Oh, and BTW online fora are public.

One would think you'd revel in the chance to put those who have transgressed so baldly against Hamiltonians on the spot, to finally get some 'justice'.

Again, no idea what you are talking about. I have made numerous requests to trustees to release evidence that would disprove some of my contentions, contentions that I arrived at after a thorough examination of what little evidence they have released to date.

and to be accurate, I was relating SOMEONE ELSE'S THOUGHTS

Yes. Relating someone else's falsehood is what is known as perpetuating a falsehood.

Comment edited by highwater on 2012-02-27 14:40:35

You have both (MyStoneyCreek and Highwater) made important points and contributed to this discussion.

I think it's important to know that some people out there think that there was a process, and no one participated in it.

I also think it's equally important to question whether that statement is accurate, and to consider evidence that suggests the decision was made 1) in advance, 2) without little or no input, 3) in a closed process, 4) and that what little input was solicited was ignored (for reasons that are remain unsatisfactorily explained).

Both points are important, and you were each right to make that point, but as with the HWDSB the process could leave something to be desired.

It's clear you're both passionate about this issue and this city, but, in my humble opinion, you're both getting too personal. Take a step back and try and write (and read) each other's posts with a little less vitriol, because we need both of you, and people like you (and Jason and Ryan and Mahesh and Capitalist and everyone else), working together if we're ever going to make things better.

I would take mystoneycreek a little more seriously if he wasn't so damn personal all the time. Positivity goes a long way!

Positivity goes a long way!

Then be sure to check out tomorrow's Spec.

You mean this?

Uh... Nope.

That's today's Spec.

: )

Ah. I thought your comment was from last night.

Comment edited by mystoneycreek on 2012-03-01 04:39:13

Anything to do with public money should be debated publicly, with allowed input from The affected public.

Good letter Graham. There are too many extra inserts to this deal. It's like buying an Easyjet ticket. 9 pounds for the fare. 40 pounds taxes. 5 pounds paying by credit card. 10 pounds baggage. The 9 pound upfront fare is what you get in the PIC stage, and that sounds great. By the time the total costs are laid out it's past that stage. Too late to complain people, you had your chance.

And on a completely speculative, 'downer' note...

http://mystoneycreek.blogspot.com/2012/0...

Graham never ceases to amaze me how he can so eloquently take a very complex issue, analyze it and create a brief summary. Brilliant, even though the summary makes me sick.

Hasn’t the straw man arguments of Herman Turkstra been debated and dismissed already on the Hamiltonian? I think he realized he overstated and made an error in judgement. It would be nice to see a public retraction from such an important voice for progressive change in our city.

I wonder if the attitude of Turkstra, Bratina et al about the building stems from their generation's gut instinct that they - and I don't mean them personally - totally screwed up our city in the 60s, and so here they're trying to make amends in the only way they know - by doing the same thing they did in the 60s! It was an attitude that said buildings are merely pieces of the urban fabric that can be put up or taken down at will. It was built on the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation's post-war opening of the coffers and the fed's guaranteeing of homeowner debt - buildings can just be built; credit can just be extended. So if there is a problem with the building - too large a setback, too few people using the forecourt - then you just try again. It ignores the fact that buildings are expensive, or rather it ignores the fact that costs of a building are far greater than merely the capital line or the depreciation. It ignores the fact that taking down a building means uprooting a community and filling a landfill. I think newer generations are getting this idea. I expect a time will come when the very idea of demolishing a building will be seen as sacrilege - not to mention that the price (here I go on price again) of construction and demolition will be more accurate and hence unjustifiable.

There's an incredible amount of ego involved here too. I've never been a big fan of Victorian architecture but I would never dream of suggesting a Victorian building should be torn down just because I don't happen to like it.

The arrogance it takes to advocate demolishing a perfectly sound public building based on one's personal preference is staggering.