Raise the Hammer

Nice. I'd add that we would [stop local polluters from trying to circumvent clean air standards](http://www.raisethehammer.org/wots/505/postcards_against_the_excess_of_cancer-causing_emissions_deadline_&_community_meeting)

You brought up some great points Ryan, but there are many children in this city that go without. The group I belong to asked someone with influence in this city the following question. If you do not help the parents that live in poverty then how are you really helping the children.

The answer was not really a surprise but one that followed along the lines that parents do not sell well in the whole marketing scheme of things, thus the focus on children.

But no matter what the messaging tries to bring, if you do not help the parents, then you are not helping the children, thus Hamilton is not necessarily the best place to raise a child who live within a certain low income frame.

I know what you mean, Ryan. Though I'm not surprised.

I've always taken "best place to raise a child" to be code for "best place to be poor and raise a child" because discussions always seem to involve social services and not a livable city in which children can walk and bike and play and get to where they need to go without a chauffer.

I don't mean to denigrate the latter goal by that statement, I just mean that articles and announcements about "best place to raise a child" generally seem disingenuous and I never take them seriously.

Comment edited by moylek on 2010-05-16 20:23:58

I confess that I'm with Kenneth, in that I never saw the slogan as anything other than an anti-poverty initiative. Grassroot's comment that "someone with influence" said that "parents do not sell well in the whole marketing scheme of things, thus the focus on children" only confirms my suspicion. BUT...

I puzzled at your article at first, and then realized that my own bias prevented me from engaging with this issue. If I can reclaim it from the poverty advocates and treat it honestly, I'd say you have identified a real point.

I am afraid to bike on many of the streets in Hamilton - I wouldn't dream of letting a child on those streets. If the City was ever serious about this slogan, that should have been enough to get rid of the one-way streets. The fact that we still have highways through the centre of this city is further evidence that "best city to raise a child" was never meant to be taken seriously.

Comment edited by d.knox on 2010-05-16 21:27:52

I never saw "best place to raise a child" as being limited to poverty issues. I think it's meant to be an ambitious vision statement intended as a basis to transform the city.

The problem is that it is simply not taken seriously, as Ryan has pointed out.

"Best" is a big word. The goal is not "to be a good place to raise a child", "to be a decent place to raise a child", or even, "to be a safe place to raise a child." "Best" says that it is not enough just to do everything right for children as a city: we actually have to do everything better than everyone else. Better than Vancouver, better than Montreal, better than Paris.

By that measure this statement is worse than a failure. It's a farce.

"To be the best place to raise a child" ought to be a prism through which all municipal decisions are viewed and evaluated.

On every planning document, there ought to be a section where the planner defends their recommendations in the context of this goal.

The simple fact of having to do this exercise for every plan would likely have a huge impact on planning in this city (imagine being asked to write this section right after recommending retaining a truck route in a residential neighbourhood - the rationalization required would simply be too difficult!)

I never saw "best place to raise a child" as being limited to poverty issues. - adrian

Ya, I never made that connection either. Raising a child in poverty sucks no matter where you live.

I viewed it as an advertisement for Hamilton as a "bedroom community".

It is a joke though, as I said in another post - saying something over and over doesn't make it true. Hamilton needs to find more walk to go with the talk (on this issue and others).

The fact that we still have highways through the centre of this city is further evidence that "best city to raise a child" was never meant to be taken seriously.

Along with Vision 2020, GRIDS, JPC, never-ending downtown renewal schemes, billions of consultant reports, Economic Summits etc...... it's all a bunch of hot air.

Surely a stadium that draws traffic onto residential streets can only benefit the children living there. Think of the front-lawn parking revenue to be raised by those budding entrepreneurs. Why, you could almost pay a single term's tuition toward a Mohawk certificate in business with such an income. Sort of have to, now that delivering newspapers is not the steady generator it once was.