Raise the Hammer

A highly relevant article in last month's Atlantic of two cities that were transformed by bold, committed mayors who ignored the naysayers and FUD and did what needed to be done. In the absence of Naheed Nenshi moving to Hamilton, we need to support those who are willing to take a bold stance, vs. being political weathervanes. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arch...

Good for McHattie. The only point I want to make is that the new CEO of the Chamber says Hamilton can do fine without LRT. Although it may appear supportive of LRT, it also looks weak and wishy washy when the position in a recent CBC article about the FAILED Vision 20/20 initiative, Keanin Loomis states: "While a plan B is needed, Loomis said that downtown Hamilton doesn't need an LRT to realize its potential." That maybe true, but either you are a champion or you are not.

Did not Mayor Bratina get his butt kicked for doing this same type of thing - advocating a position not in step with council? Shouldn't McHattie likewise be called to the caret and disciplined?

It only took a 13-year coma to get the City to ante up $2 million a year in rent to save the Lister, shouldering most of the cost of a project that council eventually came around to viewing as important for the future economic viability of downtown. Granted, council was prepared to spend tens of millions on the Lister whatever the heritage value of the end result, but maybe with time (hopefully much less time) they will come to see that LRT is similarly worthy of investment.

It all comes down to how much is it worth? Was it worth $40 million of taxpayers money to save the Lister? Sure it looks great but couldn't/shouldn't that money have gone to something else?

Considering the fact that a renovated Lister Block has resulted in 2 new businesses inside of it and indirectly resulted in many more along James North and King William, I think it was worth it. When we look at all the money that we spend on roads and infrastructure versus the one time cost of restoring the Lister Block, and the economic spinoffs it has created... it's definitely worth it. Unfortunately a lot of people can't see past the $ signs.

SHOULD it have been as expensive as it was? Probably not. But at the time it was our only choice and it does seem that LIUNA intends to put forward their own dollars to rejuvenate the area with a new condo or two, further accelerating the economic spinoffs in the area.

Comment edited by MattM on 2014-04-25 13:08:02

You are kidding, right? 40 mil invested at 5% returns 2,000,000 a year. Do the 2 new businesses inside the Lister and the "many more" (if provable) produce that return for the city?

Please tell me what the nebulous benefits of rebuilding that building are as opposed to the benefits we would have received if the land had been sold to a developer on the condition that it be torn down and rebuilt with a new facility at their expense.

McHattie just assured that he will be on the outside looking in after the next election.

There is not desire for increased taxes to build the LRT and McHattie's comments and actions will be used against him from now until the election is over. He's done like dinner.

"Everyone knows an ant can't move a rubber tree plant."

...even thought he did not say he wants to raise taxes to build the LRT.

He didn't say taxes wouldn't be raised either.

You know Ryan, I do truly apprecaite all your efforts. You are a good person with smarts and intuiation of things to come.

I really liked your comment about the status quo, you hit the mark on the head, in more ways then one.

I just ran into a former resident of Hamilton, who now lives in oil sand land.

While I listened to their view, as this person works in the toxic land of oil production. I ask how can we change the view of those who work in a field that provides them a living.

Of course this person was correct in thier view that we all use products that are by-products of oil. I did not argue against that, that person was right. It is hard to debate with someone who makes their living from such toxic enterprises.

It is sad that oil money seems to think that it can usurp the democracy of individuals for even thier pleasure of music.

Canadians come from roots, even ours, the home town of Hamilton, it is funny really to see this person trying to influence with dollars to win what they want, despite want the majority wants.

What I liked about this individual is that remember a era, gone by, in terms of hockey. This person is not a bad person but one that cannot open their mind, to anything other to what supports them money wise.

Another twisted blunder by McHattie, this guy continues to trip over his actions. Our next Mayor will have Hamilton roots, Old Hamilton will stand strong against "New Hamilton"...Time to go back to Toronto Brian!

"Old Hamilton"? I'm kind of old, but I can't relate, Ms. Me. Please explain.

Comment edited by fmurray on 2014-04-26 16:16:53

What does that even mean...

I think she supports Mr. Baldasaro's mayoral campaign.

Seriously though. As much as I like Brian McHattie, he is shooting himself in both feet and both hands. How can he hope to win? I think Fred is starting to look better and better. Call it a day Brian. There is no shame in staying put as a great councillor.

Tax Increment Financing is indeed a revenue tool that doesn't involve any new taxes or fees: it simply allows cities to borrow against projected future growth in the regular municipal property tax revenue due to municipal investment in new infrastructure.

The new infrastructure (e.g. LRT) will generate new property investment that will generate additional tax revenue beyond what the properties are currently generating. And this can be very significant: we recently heard how Blanchard's Jackson St property went from generating over $77,000 in annual taxes to only $7,000 once he demolished the building https://raisethehammer.org/comment/95906... That is just one three-storey building ... the 13 km LRT line is full of vacant lots and one or two storey buildings with plenty of room for densification.

User fees for a service currently provided out of general tax revenues (e.g. the portion of total highway costs borne by general taxes) is not a tax but a fee for a service. It does, however, free up existing tax revenue to be used elsewhere rather than subsidizing the service. A user fee could be termed a tax if the revenues are more than that required to totally cover the cost of providing the service.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-04-28 17:15:35

assuming that the LRT attracts more investment than the Metrolinx study said it would then your Tax Increment Financing would work. Not likely to happen though. But that doesn't matter on this site. As long as Hamilton gets LRT then happiness ans bliss will reign supreme.

Due to Dreshel and (Oakville's) Scott Thompson, I no longer get The Spec. $

Thanks for telling us that utterly pointless story. My dog's breath smells like dog food.

Isn't that like saying "Due to McHattie I always use the Linc?"

You know you have to pay for the Spec, right? Your analogy would only make sense if you had to pay to not use the Linc.

I think Highwater is correct. But we do pay for McHattie. So reverse it. Because of his attitude about going on the Linc I am no longer going to buy McHatte - Or as Petulant said - Because of his attitude, I am going to use the Linc even more. Bottom line, your loss for not reading the Spec - and if you use the Linc just to use it, you are just as much the fool. (I get access to the Spec for free at work though.)