Raise the Hammer

"The city could buy Lister from LIUNA at a price high enough to make it worth LIUNA's time and sell it at a discount to another developer in exchange for a promise of timely restoration"

You are kidding right?

What if there is no developer willing to buy the lister? Just how do we enforce "promises" for "timely" restoration?

You constantly criticize LIUNA for being "greedy" and letting the Lister rot, so your solution is to reward them for this behaviour!

If your readers want to know why taxes are so high in Hamilton and why no reputable developers want to do business downtown then one of the reasons is because of thinking such as this.

LIUNA is responsible for the deterioration of Lister? So, I suppose the block was in good shape until 1999.

There are plenty of others who want the Lister. The problem is LIUNA REFUSES to sell. They say that the property is theirs and they won't sell no matter what happens. They'd rather tear it down or leave it empty than sell it.

No, but they knew what shape it was in when they bought it in 1999, and it has detyeriorated further on their watch, so:

1. they can't come crying for public funds because it's "too deteriorated to fix"

2. they can't come crying for additional funds as time goes on and it gets more and more expensive to fix, since this continued deterioration is THEIR FAULT

Capitalist,

You write: "You constantly criticize LIUNA for being "greedy" and letting the Lister rot, so your solution is to reward them for this behaviour!"

While your frustration at the sorry state of affairs is of course understandable, the problem is that there may be very little that the city can short of paying LIUNA what it wants. Consider that LIUNA is a major North American union of some 700 000 members with considerable financial and political clout. It certainly has the purse to hold onto the Lister until it gets the price that it wants, or alternately, to fight off or at least severely delay any attempts to compel it to put the property to good use by way of protracted litigation. This is why I think it might be in our best interests if the community were to accept the disappointment for the time being and focus its collective efforts at core renewal elsewhere. Of course, the natural response to this latter proposition is the fact that there are currently no comparable properties existing downtown, but that is a debate I don't wish to touch upon right now ...

This whole thing makes me sick. Especially the lying Councillors who have let the renovation of city hall run amok and yet don't believe that Liuna's renovations should cost more.
I say tear the building down at this point. The Spectator is right. If on the other hand Liuna gets its price, maybe they should sell.
Perhaps all those who love heritage can pool their money and buy the Lister. Put your money where your mouth has been.

Baystreeter.... the Spectator is NOT right. In fact, they are scraping the surface of one of their lowest points ever. Some of the trashiest, untrue articles I've ever read have been published this week. They kiss LIUNA's rear-end trying to make them sound like such marvelous folks who have done everything right. And city hall is the bad guy. Yea, city hall bent over backwards for these guys - agreed to the most expensive lease in Hamilton history. Fought for an extra $7 mil from the province. And then LIUNA goes and pulls this unethical move. After all the so-called good faith and hard negotiating work they pull this off. I'm glad I cancelled my Spec subscription last month and don't have to stare at this crap on my front porch. I can log on later in the day once I build up the nerve to see their latest stab at 'journalism'. Builders/Developers are their largest advertisers. Sadly, they allow that to take precedent over reporting factual news.

jason,

You write: "Builders/Developers are their largest advertisers. Sadly, they allow that to take precedent over reporting factual news." This is rubbish - typical of the sort of broad assumptions and baseless accusations people make on this site all the time. Consumer retail is, in most years, actually the largest industry sector advertiser at the Spectator, with EHR being their single most valuable customer. Builders/developers do of course spend considerable amounts at the paper, but this revenue is more sporadic and the paper certainly does not rely upon it.

While it is a common allegation by members of the reading public that newspapers bend their editorial stance to suit the needs of their advertisers, journalism in first world countries is still very much governed by a relatively strict code of ethics which proscribes the intermingling of business interest and editorial stance (it is also generally governed by regulatory statute, but I won't go into that). The Spectator, which admittedly has declined in quality under the depridations of Metroland (Torstar) business leadership, still very much considers itself to be governed by this code. If you know anyone who works at the paper, you too would know this (I should mention that my grandfather spent the majority of his career at the paper, so if you want to accuse me of bias, go ahead). The fact of the matter is that while journalistic/editorial ethics are certainly open to abuse, and certainly are abused from time to time, this is a rather rare occurrence, and manifests itself in ways much more subtle than you think. Professional journalists and editors really are more conscientious than you imagine. It is in their best interests to be so, for (to paraphrase Tony Burman) credibility and reputation are the only real capital that any news organization has. This capital is exceedingly hard-earned, and no major newspaper (yes, the Spec still is a major regional paper, at least by numbers) would squander it by blatantly towing the line of an advertiser, particularly one of only moderate importance.

Just to preclude any confusion, I don't mean to suggest in my above comments that statutory regimes govern the news media in a substantive way. The regulation is usually procedural, as in CRTC licensing, etc. (although it has been argued that such procedural regulation does creep into the substantive realm).

Statius you make a lot of sense. You should be running the city.

kind of sad to recall the good old days when 'first world media' actually did their job properly. You're probably one of the last hold-outs who still thinks they are.

There are so many media abuses across this city and province and country and world that it would be laughable if it were not as serious as it is.
That is why alternative media is good. Not because it is faultless (just look at some of the blather on RTH) but at least it provides an alternative.
I would agree with Statius, however, that the main media governs itself according to a code of ethics. But we shouldn't confuse ethics with slant or bias. To wit: the Toronto Sun versus The Star/Spec. Both governed by 'ethics', and both slant the same stories in much different ways. The trick is to understand this.
Similarily with RTH. Many worthwhile writers-all politically biased. The trick is to know this...read everything, inform yourself and make up your own mind.
Jason, you are falling into the trap of only believing whoever tells the story to confirm your own beliefs. Broaden your perspective. It will transorm you from cynic to critic in the pure sense of the word! Very liberating.
ta ta

MediaWatch,

I couldn't agree more. The fact that ideological bias exists in the major media is indisputable. In fact, it is to be expected, and to some extent cannot even be considered a violation of journalistic ethics (you only have to educate yourself very slightly as a news consumer to detect this). This is quite different from a news organization catering its editorial stance to suit the needs of its major advertisers (such accusations are often made, but these do tend to originate from paranoid fringe perspectives).

As for alternative media, their ideological biases are almost invariably more blatant than those of the major media (often intentionally so, seeing as how they tend to cater to niche markets). The concern with so many of these outlets is is that their ideological predispositions, because so shameless, have a tendency to undermine the integrity of their analysis ...

media watch...great comments.

the biggest difference between 'indy' media and the big guys is simple: money. yes, you see definite slants and angles from the writers at RTH. The agenda is to make Hamilton a better place. We have no money involved. We don't have advertisers. We aren't paid. We're citizens with families and jobs who do this for one reason - we care about Hamilton. Don't minimize the massive effect that has on media. Big media can only say or print what the big money allows them to. I've spoken with current employees at CHCH and asked them why they don't do a story on x topic or x scandal. They've all replied the same thing - the station would never allow it. "I've tried before and by the time the editors are done with it, the piece isn't worth showing" etc.... money talks. and in our case at RTH, no money allows us to talk for the good of Hamilton.

"This reflects not a "paranoid fringe perspective" but a basic understanding of how economics works. Newspapers make money by selling a product (eyeballs) to their customers (advertisers), and a paper will simply not stay in business if it alienates its customers."

I would like to agree with this proposition, as the logic of your argument is attractively simple, but the problem with allegations of editorial advertising partisanship in media (as opposed to political partisanship) is a surprisingly consistent inability of researchers to satisfactorily quantify such claims (i.e. to convincingly demonstrate bias through comprehensive content analysis) in such a way as to stand up to the sort of scrutiny necessary to ground empirical study. One of the major difficulties with the argument has been that major news organizations are rarely as consistent in their editorial line as detractors would like to believe. Another is the fact that a good number of very strong empirical analyses of media content actually display a marked anti-business, pro-regulation, consumer rights bias in contemporary media content. This fact, if it does not disprove, at least calls into question the proposition that the reliance on advertising by major media has a substantive effect on editorial content. Donald Sutter wrote a good article along the same lines a few years ago in the AJES. That being said, I tend to agree that it is hard to resist the inference that advertisers do have some impact on editorial decisions. But it is possible to respond to this inference by reference to the effective "division of powers" which exists (or at least appears to exist) in most solid media organizations. Certainly in the days of Hearst, Pulitzer and Luce the people who made the business decisions at major media organizations were also the ones who made the editorial decisions, but this is rarely the case today.

Oh ... I think I should mention that my remark about "paranoid fringe perspectives" (in my response to MediaWatch) was intended to be a bit tongue-in-cheek.

Good discussion all around. I think that Ryan lists fairly what RTH tries to do but it does more than that, of course. In trying to support your admitted bias, you also take great pains sometimes to overly criticize opposing points of you, even though you say you welcome them. And that too is part of the discourse.
Also, you may really want to study the nature of editorial freedom versus corporate responsibility in the news media. I would submit to you that there really is a division of powers between the Publisher's responsibilities and the Editor's and columnists and reporters responsibilities. In fact, locally I see a real slant by the reporters on the left side of the political equation. (It wasn't always so witht the Spec, by the way.) As for TV, I'm afraid that the talent pool and editorial freedom is quite shallow here, unlike say the CBC with grander budgets to explore or W5, Fifth Estate type programs.

Not that I'm overly capitalistic about things, in fact almost the opposite. But we do live in a capitalist society and the honest pursuit of money is not a bad thing in our world. And just because The Spec has to meet some financial obligations to its staff and shareholders should not and does not diminish its independence to tell stories.
No, the journalistic faux pas that I see and transgressions have to do with lazy journalism that only tell part of the story rather than the whole story. The Spec issue on the airport was one such lazy story. It created a scenario of secretiveness which in the final analysis did not hold water. That story was lazy in that it didn't go back to first principles in explaining the context of the story. It was a bit of an axe job. I love axe jobs, by the way. It's just that we must call a spade...er an axe an axe when we see one.
The same thing was done by that journalist on the port if you remember and McMaster Medical school (this may have been another journalist but the same tactics were used).
So, I'm all for freedom of the press, but I am also for responsible freedom. But most of all I'm for informed media consumers.

Ryan I really enjoy reading RTH but I agree with mediawatch that your sometimes too harsh to your critics ... especially to Statius ...

I don't agree with a lot of things he's said on here but he is obviously an intelligent person and offers a refreshing change of tone and opinion to RTH ... but yet you come down on him like a ton of bricks and I'm just glad he's strong enough to fight back! it sems more professional to me when the editor just respectfully disagrees and then moves on to more important things (feuding and arguing each other to the death after a point has already been made is not an important thing IMO!)

Besides I am assuming he is a lawyer so he will just keep arguing you into the ground even if he does not believe what he posts!

Pinto,

I do appreciate your kind remarks but I sincerely hope that Ryan does not heed your advice. One of the cardinal strengths of this site, and of alternative media sources generally, is the ability and willingness of editors and staff to engage regularly and vigorously in debate with the readership. RTH would lose one of its primary attractions if Ryan were to "just respectfully disagree" and cease debating with myself and other posters simply on the basis of some extraneous notion of "professionalism". This is not a newspaper. And even so, I do believe that most editors in the major media, being by nature a rather contentious bunch, would readily engage in protracted debate with their critics if they had the time, patience, etc. to do so.

If I have time I would like to offer a more thorough response later, but for the time being let me say that I think FOX News, while indeed a major media organization, can fairly be classified as an exception to the general rule of editorial independence. In some sense I think it stands as a holdover from the "days of Hearst, Pulitzer, and Luce" which I reference above. The tactics and practices of FOX, I believe, are generally acknowledged, and decried, as being out of step with the principles which tend to govern major media.

There are archival photos by I believe Loonsbury Realtors of Lister during the 90s when businesses were still functioning in the building and renting the ground floor units. Fact is that the building was in decent repair for quite a long time leading up to the sale to LIUNA. It was not in GOOD shape but it was not even near to the state of disrepair that resulted from the LIUNA sale. It's totally clear to anyone willing to do the research that LIUNA was waiting for a public handout to repair the building. Which is a clear sign of bad faith in business. Worst of all the city was complacent with this and allowed for the Lister to stew without enforcing property standards.

I think we have to start looking at Lister with a broader scope and start outlining what all parties involved have done wrong in regards to downtown revitalization. The City of Hamilton should not be involved as a property developer. I don't think there is any proven case where a city re-develops it's downtown with public money and is successful long term. If that were the case Jackson Square would have been a booming success. It clearly is not and is in fact the first major symptom of the City of Hamilton mixing it's business. The city should be concern with the running of a city. A crazy notion, I know.

For instance of a dearth of parking spots becomes a problem tax parking businesses accordingly to increase density and encourage transit. If derelict buildings are a problem enforce heritage and property standards. For too long the city has depended on public money and developer cronyism to re-develop downtown and drive the economic engine. This has FAILED so miserably that there is no denying that continuing down this path will only lead to a more thoroughly blighted downtown and overall city.

Let's get our tax dollars out of developers like Hi-Rise and LIUNA's pockets and into programs for the enforcement of property standards, systems of FUNDING for private developers and infrastructure that makes a city useful even, gasp, profitable! At this point even if Lister is developed with public money for public offices I don't think it bodes particularly well for downtown. Not if we were able to make downtown the sort of investment developers will spend THEIR OWN MONEY ON as opposed to public dollar. Public dollars we need DEARLY to build transit, fight poverty, prevent disease and preserve our natural environment.

Come ON Hamilton, start working like a real city and stop these loser city economics. You're worth it, now walk the walk!

LIUNA bought a heritage building and has been breaking the law ever since.

I didn't know I moved to Banana Republic.

Kevin, you are a banana. For the record when Liuna bought the building it was not heritage designated. They bought an empty building. To this day there is no provincial designation on the building....get rid of the junk!

Kevin, even the mafia operates in a banana republic. Using LIUNA and Law in the same sentence issurely an oxymoron.

If Kevin is a banana woodster is a doorknob. It sure is easier to lie about organizations than it is to face the truth. Stop watching so many reruns of Goodfellas, my good fellows.

You don't have to watch Goodfellas, you just have to read the paper:

www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060828.wxbarber28/BNStory/National/home

baystreeter, it helps to have a librry card. Woodster is right on!

The same newspaper highwater that you guys keep saying is not telling the truth?
Regardless, they own a decrepit building. Tear it down and build something new. Even the papers said so.

Thanks for the clarification. I will believe it when I see it but if it happens the champagne will be on me. Something needs to be done.

Who's ever said the Globe doesn't tell the truth?

Now you are talking Highwater. I love the globe. It takes me 45min to do their puzzle. It only takes 5 mins to do the Spec's. It's all downhill after that, I'm afraid for both papers.
However, the Lister must go...or stay, but not in that shape. Moaning and groaning ain't gonna bring it back...action will. And money of course.