Raise the Hammer

Let's please end this garbage mega city.
Let the urban core take care of itself and stop subsidizing all these whiners who halt progress every opportunity they get.

With respect, de-amalgamation is not the answer.

Do we know what was included in the total tax revenue ... was this just residential assessment per ward, or does it include commercial and industrial assessment too?

Comment edited by RobF on 2015-01-30 10:06:44

Thanks for this analysis.

Of course, any talk of "subsidy" must include cost and not just revenue!

Subsidy means that wards with higher revenue than costs are subsidizing wards with higher costs than revenues.

And it seems clear that tax per capita and, even better, tax per square km are pretty good proxies for costs. Per square km is better than tax per capita because many per capita costs (water, sewer) are paid at least partly through user charges. Other services (especially roads and fixed infrastructure) scale like area.

But it is should be absolutely obvious that when talking about "subsidies" ignoring costs and comparing revenues from wards of vastly different populations, sizes and densities is nonsense.

A good example is the new Stanton development at the site of the James St Baptist Church, which is expected to generate $750K in (the equivalent of 215 houses) annual tax on an area smaller than a suburban lot, and at no extra infrastructure cost! And, as Ryan points out, there is huge potential for tax revenue on all the surface parking lots downtown. Anything the city could do to encourage their development would lead to enormous payoffs ... like LRT or better transit for example!

Just to be clear, I assume the property tax revenue includes all commercial taxes as well (where is the $20M Stelco pays, for example?).

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-01-30 10:24:13

Maybe ward 8 and TW would like to absorb some of the hundreds of assisted living, halfway houses and lodging homes that are jammed disproportionately into ward 2.

There's plenty of City Housing Hamilton lodging in the ward. Disproportionately in Rolston.

Great article. I noticed a few spelling errors: 'So even through the average income of Ward 2 ...' and the title on the first graph is missing a 'y'.

Feel free to delete this comment - I just wanted to offer my free editing services ;).

I'm predicting that this could very well be the discussion that pushes the LRT stuff aside, both here on RTD as well as other locales such as The Spec. Especially given that LRT-wise, everything's in the Province's court, that nothing can really be done until the cheque's been cut...no matter what the Mayor wants to accomplish vis a vis a 'Citizens' Panel, which to me is a pretty safe bet for failure, and worse, yet another initiative to add to the historical 'Fail' column.

For me, the real question is 'Can Hamiltonians have an actual conversation that goes beyond typed exchanges or the maddening contributions of most of Council?' And if we can't, then I'm obliged to ask 'What are Hamiltonians capable of authentically discussing?' (Again, assuming that it's possible for so many invested parties to think outside the blog, the Twitterverse, creative lambasting by way of posters, and Facebook groups.)

Comment edited by ItJustIs on 2015-01-30 11:47:50

What is "RTD"?

My guess it's Raise the Downtown, since that's all this site ever talks about improving.

No, the goal of this site is urbanism. Density, pedestrian-friendly, bicycle-friendly, transit-oriented design for neighborhoods. It's green, egalitarian, frugal, and pleasant.

Downtown Hamilton has the best density, so it has a lot of the attention for this kind of improvement. But still, there is focus on the rest of the city too.

If the A-line LRT (James North GO out to Mohawk/Upper-James/Airport) were being built first instead of the B-line... well, I think the B-line is best because density, but still I'd support it and advocate for it, and I think most of the regulars here would feel the same. Sadly we've heard nary a peep about the A-line from ward 7 and 8 councillors who stand to benefit (Duvall/Whitehead).

When Tom Jackson killed an excellent bike-lane plan for Queensdale, we were quite disappointed. Queensdale is the perfect place for bike-lanes. RTH and CATCH were the only groups making any noise about this.

I mean, the B-line LRT plan itself is a perfect example, since the plan is Dundas to Stoney Creek. That's not "downtown" by any stretch, now is it?

Comment edited by Pxtl on 2015-01-31 16:58:25

Well, considering that "The Hammer" means Hamilton, and that ive never heard anyone not from the lower city say they're from Hamilton (even the upper ward residents will say "Hamilton Mountain" instead) I think that's appropriate.

What? Someone from ward 7 or 8 visiting Toronto or Vancouver won't say they're from "Hamilton"? People outside Hamilton would have no idea what Hamilton Mountain even is.

I understand that within the city, or environs, people describe themselves as coming from a particular area. I tend to say I live in Durand, others will talk about living on the East Mountain, and I know that many people living in Dundas or Ancaster still prefer those identifiers. But the further you get from Hamilton, the more ridiculous it is to keep insisting you're not really from Hamilton if you live in the City of Hamilton, especially if it was never an identifiable place at least somewhat known outside the immediate area (like Dundas).

It really is being a bit pedantic to claim that using the description "Hamilton" excludes everyone outside the lower city, even if some people prefer to identify with their own neighbourhood.

What would you call a website dedicated to City of Hamilton issues? "Raise the Ancaster/Dundas/Westdale/Stoney Creek/Hamilton Mountain/downtown/Glanbrook/Flamborough and assorted neighbourhoods who would rather not be associated with the name Hamilton".

Whether you like it or not there is an entity called "the City of Hamilton" and this website is concerned with issues affecting all parts of the city (other examples include the aerotropolis, or the A-line LRT).

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-01-31 12:36:30

Ah, okay. So he is mocking and misrepresenting the goals of the writers and commenters on this site by deliberately using the wrong name, but passively-aggressively not actually spelling it out. It would have been nice if the fatalistic ItJustIs answered the question straightforwardly him or herself.

At least that's clear now.

I thought it might be a typo, or referring to something else.

As has been pointed out before, many of the common issues (like transit improvement and LRT, saving heritage and safer streets) are important to the City as a whole. But it should be obvious that the lower city faces many specific challenges and, as many suburban councillors like to point out, 'downtown is for everyone' so it is everyone's issue.

Most importantly, however, if you or anyone wants to write about issues you feel are specifically important to the suburbs, or a particular part of the suburbs you should just do it. It will be published and commented just like all the other articles. If no one writes the articles you want to see about the suburbs ... write one yourself. This is an entirely volunteer enterprise and, as far as I know, Ryan has never refused an article because it is 'about the suburbs' or presents a suburban point of view.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-01-31 10:02:34

Agree with your comments. My experience is that RTH is concerned about quality of content more than policing a particular editorial line. Impressions to the contrary are about who contributes ...

The problem the "RTD" seems to mock, however, is worth a little bit more comment.

In my "professional" life i do research and write about suburbs/suburbanization. For all that i might contribute by writing about suburban matters in Hamilton, I've only lived in Wards 1&2 in my four years as a Hamiltonian. Perhaps more importantly, my work isn't about Hamilton empirically. From experience if i did comment on our suburbs or suburban issues based on my expertise, secondary sources, and firsthand knowledge of them I'm certain to be immediately attacked as one of those downtown "elites" talking about "the suburbs".

You really can't win to be frank, and i'm someone who's spent more time living in suburban places (mostly in Vancouver) than urban ones (in Toronto and Hamilton). The puzzling part of "RTD" is that it never addresses why members of our Council from suburban wards care so much about relatively inexpensive and minor projects in the "Core 4" wards (especially in 1&2). As has been noted, it's something of the absurd that a 2km bus-lane in Wards 1 and 2 that costs a couple hundred thousand $ of Metrolinx funds is debated to death at GIC, while Sam Merulla tells us that the "core 4" have largely deferred to their suburban colleagues on decisions in the suburban wards.

Millions spent on suburban infrastructure rolls by without a peep, but a bus-lane on King or cycle-track on Cannon gets sensationalized coverage in Spectator. Perhaps we should start to take a greater interest in suburban matters ... there's a lot of consequential things happening out there. But then we'd be told to mind our own business. You're from downtown, don't come out here and tell us what to do.

Comment edited by RobF on 2015-01-31 12:53:04

Good point. Perhaps we should tackle all the code red neighbourhoods, crumbling schools, pollution issues and lack of safe transportation options in Ancaster, Waterdown and Dundas before we waste time on the Shangri-la lower city.

Jason, you're being your usual ridiculous self.

There's Code Red outside of the core. You know that.

When will we take on the issues surrounding Rolston? When will we devote the time, energy, and resources to improving quality of life on the mountain on major streets like Upper James, Mohawk, and so on?

From the maps, my take is people should remember that density pays. What's good for the core is great for the rest of the city's taxes.

Still a flawed assessment as the urban one doesn't take farms into account, but what can you do. Better than tax by population.

Thanks for pulling all this together, Ryan. Very insightful (and/or validating.)

Once you figure in social programs the suburbs probably do subsidize downtown, but that's because this city is a dumping-ground for the region's social ills and the provincial downloading moved many social welfare programs into municipal purview for no freaking good reason. That seems the height of callousness to blame on the core.

But in terms of pure infrastructure/services? I'd be surprised to learn of any subsidy of downtown. Mountain homes may have higher assessment per-person, but they also have much more overhead in servicing. Their buses run half-empty, their roads require more plowing per-resident, etc.

There was an article on here in the summer which pointed out that the HSR makes a profit in the lower city in terms of cost to service versus fares, which is used to subsidize transit in the suburbs.

I'm actually confused about that because if you open the 2011 IBI report it says that the HSR loses money on every route, but that the 1-King is at almost break-even. Funny discrepancy in reports... I imagine it comes from deciding whether to include some overhead or not.

It could be due to different ways of accounting for costs, or it could have changed since ridership on the Main/King corridor has increased by 20% in the past five years and now accounts for 42% of the entire ridership of HSR.

How about showing where the money is spent? What about the tens of millions wasted renovating Gore Park every five years? the Lister Block? City Hall? the Subsidy to events downtown?

To a first approximation, costs are proportional to population and inversely proportional to area.

But if you want to start talking about specific projects, it's worth remembering that festivals and events throughout the city get subsidies, the City has built nice new recreational facilities all through the suburbs (e.g. skating rinks and bocce courts). And The HDSB has moved its headquarters to the mountain. Not to mention street renovations and improvements in Stoney Creek and Ancaster.

But the elephant in the room is what has been spent on roads (I assume you would count the hundreds of millions spent building and maintaining the Linc and RHVP as money spent on the suburbs), and we have recently spent $75 million on the interchange at Clappison's corners (between the city and the province), and approved $18 million for a new street on the East Mountain and $20 million for widening a road in Waterdown.

And we're still pushing ahead with a massive expense, at least $120 million, to service the aerotropolis lands, much of which will likely become new uneconomic sprawl residential.

Where is your data showing we spend "tens of millions" on Gore Park every five years ... I've never heard that.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-01-30 16:34:14

events downtown? drop in the bucket. the number one budget item is roads. so road km per resident is probably the most important metric if you really care about tax expenditures. i'll let the public works manager's words speak for themselves:

"This is a significant issue for the overall roads program. We should be spending $180 million. We’re significantly below that. We’re not even providing 40%. We have a problem. We have a crisis. There’s not enough money to do all the roads then local roads suffer. To be as blunt as I can, when we have problems with bridges we close them. Roads may have to go back to gravel which is totally unacceptable but that’s where we’re heading until we get additional resources. I know it’s a challenge, but if I don’t address the collectors and arterials, we have a significant problem in the overall program. So it’s as candid as I can be. The roads are failing and they’re getting worse. Thanks."

Comment edited by seancb on 2015-01-30 16:25:45

What about you going back to your bridge?

Thank you, Ryan. These are the sorts of numbers and maps I think the entire city needs to see and mull over. Any chance of the Spec picking up the ball here? Certainly the CBC would be nice, too. I don't say this lightly; RTH does a fantastic job of clearing the air and presenting the most pertinent facts. Sadly, the perception of RTH isn't universally lauded, which is an injustice to the hard work you folks do.

That aside, I think we all need to spread the word to our own networks on this one. If we can't break through our collective silos and show our more mainstream friends and readers what they haven't been told by their councillors, then we're going to lose the big fights to come.

All the technicalities and calculations aside, I see this as a case of "Why do I have to help other people with their problems while not getting any direct benefits for myself?" And, I think this is the wrong way of looking at the situation. One of the beautiful things about our city (and our province and country) is that we help one another through the re-distribution of tax benefits. In this way, the system IS NOT FAIR. Some people receive more help while others have to carry the burden of this need. The positive side of this is that it leads to a society that is more equal, and ultimately, more healthy and sustainable.

I like where your heads at Eric. Ultimately, humans ARE selfish beings more concerned with our own self interest than the helping others. This will eventually lead to out own self destruction, as it's already leading to our destruction of the planet. Terry Whitehead is an idiot, but unfortunately he probably does represent the direct interests of his ward. What he fails to understand is that having a vibrant downtown IS in the best interest if his ward but his short sightedness is his handicap. The problem here is that RTH tends to use things like "facts" and "studies" as opposed to emotions and hyperbole. This is a microcosm of the real problem that Hamilton has, which is lack of community and solidarity. This is a fractured city and the suburbs vs urban nonsense needs to end.....I'm just not hopeful that it will.

Comment edited by kingkos on 2015-01-31 15:02:10

Well said Ryan, but not the entire story is told. The 2014 Budget pie shows the following in terms of capital expenditures: Of the $158M cost $69.1M went to Pan Am (Stadium I suspect with the prov. paying $57M) $8M to Pan Am Precinct, $7.7M to West Harbour, $3M to Pan Am Rec Center, $2.6M to Downtown Projects and $.5M to city housing. Almost the entirety to downtown related capital works.

So who is subsidizing whom exactly?

And what about the majority of services like Fire and Police....what is the proportion demanded by downtown vs suburbs?

I like your analysis but this side of the story is seldom told.

The only thing more terrifying than Terry's logic is his lack of understanding of basic language conventions; his defensive, petty, and embarrassing Twitter posts would be hilarious if not for the fact that this man's vote has the ability to significantly impact Hamilton.

I understand the concept of democratic elections, but it still kind of blows my mind that an individual so unqualified has the opportunity to shape our city. Sadly, most council members have absolutely no idea what makes a city great. To make matters worse, they completely ignore the recommendations of city staff who are educated and trained in these matters.

My current job required six years of university education. In addition, I am expected to continue my education through additional professional development courses. Admittedly, my profession has far less of an impact on an entire city's population than that of a councillor.

Have these councillors bothered to ever read anything about basic urban planning principles? Have they ever visited other cities to learn from and be inspired by?

Clearly, most councillors have no interest in such things. I'm aware that their interests lie more in self-preservation. Why learn about transit or economic development when it's so much easier to satisfy a constituent's request for a new blue box?

5.12 Correspondence from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario respecting nominations for the 2014-2016 Board of Directors
(Duvall/Collins)

Recommendation:
(a) That Councillor Whitehead be nominated to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario;

hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/AD1F3C7A-7B7C-492F-8A58-7CCF6690B87E/0/Dec17CouncilMinutesECopy.pdf