text:
BLOG: Academic Research on LRT’s Impact on Small Business in Charlotte N.C. – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 11, 2021
A recent academic research article in the Journal of Transport Geography looks at the impact of a new light rail line upon small businesses in Charlotte, North Carolina and finds:
“Contrary to the positive impacts and benefits of light rail transit often celebrated in literature, this study shows that the significant challenges faced by small businesses during and beyond the construction phase have caused commercial displacement and altered the commercial landscape in some neighborhoods along the line.”
The article is behind an academic paywall. I have not found a pre-print version online.
This study researched the economic impact upon small businesses of a new LRT line in the North Tyron commercial district of Charlotte, North Carolina. The extension to the Lynx Blue Line opened in 2018.
A couple of key points I noted from the piece follow.
Commercial gentrification and displacement of small businesses occurred along this LRT line. Commercial gentrification is already underway in Hamilton. Hamilton City Hall funds gentrification with grants to developers who renovate commercial buildings. Gentrification is going to happen, especially with population growth in the Greater Toronto-Hamilton Area. What policies will City Hall put in place to ensure enough commercial space to maintain relatively affordable rents for small businesses? We already see the removal of ground-level commercial at 405 and 415 Main Street West.
Commerical closures: Interestingly, the study compared business openings and closures between the LRT construction zone and another commercial corridor in Charlotte.
“The net increase/decrease in business between the two are following similar trends. In short, these trends suggest that there was no elevated risk of business closure in the study area during this time period compared to the risk faced by businesses in a similar corridor. However, this quantitative analysis alone is unable to assess challenges (e.g., loss of revenue) and opportunities (e.g., increased demand) experienced by businesses in the study area during this time period.”
Following completion of the LRT, there were business closures including “One of the staples of the neighborhood, a retail store located 400 ft. from the Tom Hunter station and called the Famous Mart, lamented a loss of 75% of sales volume over the five-year construction period. Even though they had already undertaken drastic measures – such as reducing salaries, cutting employees’ hours, putting stuff on sale – the store closed at the beginning of January 2020 after more than 30 years in business in that location.”
An automotive services shop closed after the opening of the LRT.
I’ll note that one of the most vocal opponents of Hamilton’s LRT project is a menswear shop on King Street West which will the traffic flow into its parking lot changes after construction and will be impacted by road closures for construction.
The report researchers include quotes from other businesses experiencing increases in traffic and sales following the opening of the LRT.
Construction challenges: The study authors include many direct quotes from business owners and managers describing the impact of construction. They describe the difficulties caused by road closures and resulting decreases in businesses due to customers not being able to access businesses easily.
Construction Communications: Two paragraphs from the researchers capture the failings of communication.
“Business owners’ perception of the effectiveness of those strategies was mainly negative. Among the interviewees, five were not even aware of the existence of the Community Relations Program.”
“The business owners who received communications on the project’s timeline claimed that that information was provided inconsistently and sometimes did not relate to the construction timeline, rather to beautification strategies.”
Obviously, Metrolinx and the City of Hamilton need to ensure they communicate to everyone on the LRT corridor and that communication is accurate.

created: October 11, 2021


text:
COLEMAN: McMaster Rebranded Homecoming Into A Party It Cannot Control – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 2, 2021
Thousands of McMaster University students gathered on Dalewood Avenue for the university’s now traditional “homecoming” bash.
As in years past, there was plenty of public intoxication, urination, and stupid behaviour.
This year can add criminal behaviour with a car flipped, as well, violating COVID regulations.
There is no dispute there must be consequences for unlawful conduct.
Those consequences need to be handed out by the police and City of Hamilton by-law officers.
McMaster can attempt to discipline the students who appear in social media clips engaged in particularly egregious behaviour. The unsanctioned event directly ties itself to the university and is not some random gathering which happens to have McMaster students present – it exists because McMaster students make it happen.
Nonetheless, even if the university sought to deal with this, it has limited investigative powers.
Hamilton police have the investigative powers and resources to attempt to identify those involved in flipping the car.
McMaster succeeded in rebranding its homecoming into a major event with ads stating “don’t miss out on the biggest party of the year” in 2017.
The university knowingly opened a Pandora’s Box.
McMaster students created the Dalewood gathering. It is now an annual unsanctioned event, drawing revellers from far and wide, and the event will continue annually for the foreseeable future.
In a tweet, Ward 1 Hamilton City Councillor Maureen Wilson is calling for McMaster to “own this annual community debacle” and for the City to “send them the bill for all policing, paramedic & clean up costs. Mac President – get your house in order & stop trashing ours.”
During my time working for Maclean’s, I covered similar unsanctioned parties in the “student ghettos” of London and Kingston. These have an energy of their own, drawing large crowds of both students and non-students.
Beyond a draconian police presence, options for stopping this event are limited. The unofficial frat houses will continue being vocal points for these gatherings. The sheer number of people will overwhelm any enforcement.
Law enforcement on its own will not solve this annual problem.
The university can create sanctioned on-campus events. Even if it does, the crowds who partake in these street parties will not change their habits. These unsanctioned “homecoming” parties will continue.
Pandora’s box is open.
“Student ghettos” create the conditions for unruly “homecomings”.
The only possible solution is reversing the studentification of Westdale and Ainslie-Wood by McMaster building significant student residence spaces to house its student body, but McMaster does not want more mortgage debt on its books.

source: news-thepublicrecord

created: October 2, 2021

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
COLEMAN: The Prince George Encampment Ruling, What It Could Mean for Hamilton – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 30, 2021
As we await the decision of Ontario Superior Court Justice Andrew Goodman on an interlocutory [temporary] injunction regarding Hamilton’s homeless encampments, let’s take a look at the recent Prince George encampment ruling in British Columbia.
B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson’s ruling in Prince George (City) v Stewart, 2021 BCSC 2089 differs slightly from the previous B.C. Supreme Court decisions regarding encampments.
[Note: the B.C. Supreme Court is the trial level court in B.C., equal to the Ontario Superior Court.]
The ruling adds to the legal test of adequate shelter. It does not fundamentally change the equation. A municipality must provide adequate emergency shelter spaces to ensure people have a safe place to sleep and maintain the bare essentials of life. If municipalities fail to do so, homeless individuals have a limited right to erect a temporary shelter in public spaces.
Arguably, the test is now adequate and suitable shelter. A distinction with little difference.
Justice Hinkson’s ruling restates previous findings that there is no Charter right to housing. [paras 88 to 90] The ability to erect an encampment remains only permitted in the limited circumstance that an individual has no other options.
In Prince George, Justice Hinkson rules the municipality is failing to provide suitable low-barrier accessible shelter spaces, and therefore, the municipality cannot remove an encampment until it creates suitable shelter spaces.
The type of encampment is dependent upon the local climate. Justice Hinkson distinguishes the climate of Prince George from the previous B.C. rulings, “The cold is a more severe threat to life for the homeless in Prince George than in Victoria or Abbotsford.”
Prince George encampments can remain in place during daytime hours. Previous rulings in Victoria and Abbotsford allowed erecting temporary shelter only for the night. Tents were prohibited from remaining in place during the day. [The Prince George encampment includes structures made of plywood and other materials.]
Hamilton’s climate is slightly warmer than Prince George. Both share a Köppen climate classification of Dfb, humid continental climate. However, Prince George “is very close to (and once had) a subarctic climate (Dfc)”. Parts of Hamilton fit into the classification of Dfa.
The addition of an adequacy test adds clarity to how municipalities must respond to homelessness.
In the Victoria and Abbotsford cases, Justice Hinkson cited severe shortages of shelter spaces, well over 100 in each instance, as the reason for court intervention to restrain the removal of overnight sleeping in tents.
In Prince George, Justice Hinkson focuses upon the barriers of access to shelter spaces.
The ruling states 81 permanent shelter beds in Prince George, and approximately 80 encampment residents. The use of temporary beds could be expected to meet the thresholds of the previous B.C. rulings, depending on what constitutes a shortage. [The Hamilton case may provide some framework for determining a threshold for bed shortages restraining municipal bylaws.]
“It is apparent that very few of the emergency shelter beds are low barrier, and it appears that many of the homeless persons in the City are ineligible to stay in at least some of the shelters,” writes Justice Hinkson in paragraph 74. “While the City contends that the availability of 81 shelter beds in the City is sufficient to house the encampment occupants, I am not satisfied that these shelter spaces are in fact accessible to all of the occupants of the encampments.”
In paragraphs 92 to 95, Justice Hinkson addresses the arguments regarding the benefit of stable encampments to residents accessing services.
“While the advantages in the preceding three paragraphs are most desirable, I am unable to accept that such considerations alone can justify the occupation of property belonging to another,” Justice Hinkson concludes.
In the Hamilton case, Justice Goodman can consider the Prince George decision. It does not fundamentally differ from the other B.C. decisions and doing so does not prejudice either party in Hamilton.
Lawyers for both the City and for encampment residents wholesomely argued about all the factors in the Prince George case. They debated shelter conditions, rules, and scenarios in which people are “service restricted” at some shelters but able to access others. One of the named applicants is an individual with complexities including service restrictions and having exhausted some attempts to house them.
It is open to Justice Goodman to provide guidance on what is required of the City of Hamilton to provide adequate and suitable shelter. [Justice Goodman stated multiple times during oral arguments that he was mindful of judicial restraint, that an interlocutory injunction is not to act as a final decision, and that the judiciary should not unnecessarily substitute its judgement for that of the municipal government.]
In sum, in British Columbia, municipalities must provide an adequate number of suitable emergency shelter spaces. When they do, homeless individuals cannot create encampments. Only when a municipality fails to provide adequate and suitable shelter spaces, including low-barrier, will the courts intervene to restrain a municipality from removing encampments.
Fundamentally, the B.C. Courts continue to exercise restraint and to leave the determination of public policy decisions to municipalities.

created: October 30, 2021


text:
French School Boards to Hamilton City Hall: Stop Blocking New High School – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 4, 2021
Hamilton’s two French language school boards are publicly calling out Ward 6 Hamilton city councillor Tom Jackson and Hamilton city hall for blocking their attempts to build a new joint secondary school building.
In a statement issued two Fridays ago, the boards state they purchased land at 16 Broughton Avenue in Ward 6 in 2015 to build two secondary schools with shared facilities – one for the French Catholic and one for the French Public board.
They state Ward 6 Councillor Tom Jackson is blocking the construction of the new school because “the project would have the effect of eliminating the green space from the land located on Broughton Avenue.”
Following Jackson’s blocking the project, the boards entered an agreement for land on Garner Road.
They state City Hall is not providing the needed approvals to build the school at Garner Road either.
French language rights are guaranteed in Canada’s Constitution, meaning the boards can seek a court order against the City of Hamilton for violating these rights.

created: October 4, 2021


text:
Hamilton Urban Boundary Debate Delayed to November 9 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 14, 2021
The planned City Council urban boundary expansion debate on October 25 is postponed until November 9.
City staff tell Environment Hamilton they need more time to complete their comparative analysis and evaluation of the impacts of freezing the urban boundary.
The delay comes only weeks after city staff reported the results of a postage-paid survey on urban boundary expansion. 215,822 surveys were mailed to Hamilton households with 8,233 of them returned.
81.9% of those returned surveys selected no urban boundary expansion as their preferred option.
The delay means the new Ward 5 appointed City Councillor will have a vote on urban boundary expansion. Council is planning to make the appointment on November 12.
Urban Boundary Expansion could be at the November 24 Council ratification meeting.
This creates some interesting optics as they will not participate in the November 9 debate, but vote on the final decision.

created: October 14, 2021


text:
Hamilton Will Hold Public Remembrance Day Ceremonies – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 1, 2021
Hamilton’s traditional second Sunday of November military Garrison Parade will return after being cancelled last year due to COVID.
The ceremony is held every year, in addition to November 11, except when Remembrance Day itself is on a Saturday, to commemorate the sacrifices of those who fought and served in Canada’s Armed Forces and Coast Guard.
This year the Garrison Parade will be on November 14.
The City of Hamilton is also planning to hold a service at the Downtown Cenotaph in Gore Park on the November 11 Remembrance Day. The City intends to restrict access to the area around the Cenotaph in accordance with the Province of Ontario’s COVID regulations.
“We don’t know exactly how many of the general public will show up,” said Christopher Redford, heritage presentation coordinator with the City of Hamilton. Redford is the staff support person for the Veterans Committee.
“I might suggest would be that we do as we have done in the past and that is to cordon off the area so that all those who are participants within the cordoned area can be known so we can have contact tracing and self-assessment.”
City staff state there will be small public Remembrance Day ceremonies in Ancaster and Stoney Creek at their Cenotaphs. Both ceremonies will not be promoted nor advertised as the City does not wish to draw crowds. The area surrounding the Cenotaphs will be cordoned off to 100 invited guests based upon expected COVID regulations.
The Dundas and Waterdown Royal Canadian Legions will hold invitation-only ceremonies on Remembrance Day. They will not be open to the public.
Hamilton Veterans Committee Chair Michael Rehill says they plan to ask the Dundas Concert Band to provide the band for this year’s Remembrance Day.
“I know that the military is not permitting bands to play at this point,” he said. The Canadian Forces will provide a bugler and piper for the ceremonies.
The Veterans Committee plans to use recorded band music on November 14.
The City of Hamilton will update plans if COVID restrictions change.

created: October 1, 2021


text:
Hamilton’s Central Park Soil Contaminated with Carcinogens: Environmental Site Assessment Reports – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 18, 2021
The soil under Hamilton’s Central Park, off of Bay Street North, is severely contaminated with various chemicals, including benzene, a carcinogenic substance linked to blood cancers.
Some of the park’s soil must be removed and disposed of as hazardous waste. Much of the removal is already complete.
A clean soil cap is needed to separate users from the contaminated soil, and a groundwater drainage system built to protect neighbouring homes from further contamination.
The park was created in 1981 after the old City of Hamilton expropriated the property from Currie Products in 1979. Currie operated a tar processing plant on the site and often stored toxic chemicals on-site as well.
Residents near the park warned of contamination for decades. Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment became involved in late 2012 after residents reported substances oozing out of the ground in the park.
The Ministry ordered the City of Hamilton to conduct testing, which found chemicals in the soil resulting in further testing.
The testing found serious contamination in the soil of Central Park site with “benzene PHC F2-F3, PAHs (acenaphthylene, benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[ghi]perylene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene, fluoranthene, indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene, 1- and 2-Methylnaphthalene, pyrene), metals (antimony, arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, zinc)” and “benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylones, PHC F1 and F2, styrene, trichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride, PAHs (acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, fluorene, and naphthalene), and mercury” among the contaminants.
“Concentrations of one or more of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, PHC F2, and/or F3 exceeded the selected MECP Table 5 standards in subsurface soil samples,” reads a report on the testing.
The results will not surprise nearby residents who’ve warned about the pollution for decades.
Steve Rudaniecki, who had stage IV chronic lymphocytic leukemia in his 50s and was age 61 in 2013, spoke extensively to local media at the time, sharing how others in his home and nearby houses died of brain cancers.
Rudaniecki lived in his home bordering the Central Park site his entire life.
Speaking to The Hamilton Spectator’s Steve Buist, Rudaniecki stated his mother ‘had had a breast removed because of cancer, and she also had a brain tumour. His stepfather died from a combination of lung and brain cancer.”
He told Buist of people experiencing cancers in neighbouring houses and is quoted stating, “Coincidence? I don’t know” “But seven people and four houses in a row?”
The park’s contamination is detailed in recent environmental assessments commissioned by the Hamilton City Council and released to potential contractors last week.
There have been no public discussions of the contamination at City Council, nor has the City Manager’s Office released the reports in public statements nor media releases.
It is unknown how many closed meetings have been held by City Hall to discuss the reports during the past two years.
Recent testing confirms that “The maximum measured soil vapour benzene concentration of 83 μg/m3 (SVPI 8-04 measured on October 22, 2018) exceeded the residential sub-slab vapour criteria of 25.3 μg/m3 (residential land use Health Based Indoor Air Criteria adjusted with an attenuation factor of 0.02).”
The 2019 and 2021 Environmental Site Assessment reports state the park requires an engineered groundwater mitigation system “to mitigate risks to neighbouring properties through indoor air inhalation from a groundwater source.”
The ESA is not a study of health impacts. No studies have been done regarding the health outcomes and effects for nearby residents.
The Central Park ESA reports became public last week when City Hall shared them with potential bidders for the contract to complete removal of the most contaminated soil, remediation of the ground, installation of groundwater drainage systems to stop underground toxins from continuing to endanger neighbouring residential homes and complete construction of the new Central Park before the municipal election in fall 2022.
The reports confirm the City of Hamilton has known of some contamination for decades.
In 1994, during the construction of a children’s play structure, workers found “just one foot beneath the surface, a foul-smelling, tar substance was discovered over an area of about a square yard,” reads a November 23 Hamilton Spectator article from that year.
The ESA reports cite a 1994 City of Hamilton memo and state at the time, “The City retained Golder Associates Ltd. to collect one sample from the excavation. Laboratory analysis identified exceedances of MECP residential/parkland land-use guidelines for arsenic, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), benzene, ethylbenzene, PAHs and oil and grease current at the time of the assessment.”
In addition to the contaminants in the soil, it is suspected that a rail car is buried under the park.
In 2013, responding to Ministry of Environment concerns, the City conducted a ground-penetrating radar search in the northeast portion of the park.
“The findings identified several metallic buried objects, including one that had dimensions comparable to that of a rail car,” reads the 2021 SNC Lavalin report. “No other information was available at the time to confirm the presence of the rail car, or its contents.”
The suspected rail car site is marked 14 in the satellite image map below, and the rectangular shape in the image below that which maps data collected by ground-penetrating radar tests.
Lynda Lukasik, Executive Director of Environment Hamilton, has read the latest documents and the Environmental Site Assessment.
“On reviewing the documents, it was shocking to me to learn about the extent of the contamination at the site,” she says. “If I have learned anything, it is that community members who have lived in an area for a long time know the area best, and they are usually right when they raise alarm bells about problems around them. Long-time residents should be listened to.”
Environment Hamilton says the City of Hamilton needs to share more information with the public, especially neighbours to the park.
“Given the issues at this site, there should be detailed information available to the public explaining the issues,” Lukasik says. “It’s not too late for the City of Hamilton to put some energy into being open and transparent about the situation at Central Park and the measures being put in place to resolve the legacy contamination issues there. Given that this is a public space and that the remediation is being paid for by the city, it is not unreasonable for details regarding this work to be shared with the public.”
EH is calling on the City to create a Community Liaison Committee for the remediation process consisting of neighbours, experts, city staff, and contractors.
The City must construct a groundwater recovery trench “with at least two groundwater extraction wells” to stop the flow of contaminated groundwater into neighbouring properties. The system will require permits from the Ministry of the Environment. The provincial Environmental Registry of Ontario does not list a permit being issued yet.
Once all underground work is complete, the City must install a fill cap of at least 1 metre for most of the park, with 1.5 metres required for the most contaminated sections.
The planned community garden will use raised beds with a further separation from the ground soil, and soil will be brought in for the gardens.
The City wants all work completed by June 21, 2022 to reopen the park during the summer of 2022.
The Environment Site Assessment is limited to Central Park and does not assess neighbouring properties. The ESA states they are likely contaminated due to past industrial and waste uses in the neighbourhood.
Bids for the Central Park contract close on November 3, 2021.

created: October 18, 2021


text:
Hamilton’s Urban Boundary Debate on TVO’s The Agenda – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 14, 2021
TVO’s The Agenda hosted a discussion regarding Hamilton’s urban boundary expansion debate on the show last night.
Host Steve Paikin started the discussion by asking Ward 12 Hamilton City Councillor Lloyd Ferguson if Hamilton should expand its urban boundary.
“I’m still listening to that issue. Clearly, there’s two sides on this issue, two very strong [sides] … I’m going to continue listening. I’ve heard loud and clear from the No side. But I’m starting to hear a lot more from the Yes side.”
Paikin asked Ward 8 Councillor John-Paul Danko a variation of the same question.
“No, I think we need to take a firm line and stop the growth pattern of sprawl development,” Danko stated. “I think we need to grow up, not out.”
A discussion of the issue followed. You’ve likely heard most of the points already.
Mike Collins-Williams, CEO of the West End Homebuilders Association, brought their Nanos Research survey into the discussion to argue a large segment of the public favours an urban boundary discussion.
A few minutes later, Ferguson opened up a discussion stating:
“The thing that troubles me the most is when I drive around, look at this perforation of signs, and there is a lot of them “Stop Urban Sprawl,” they’re on single-family homes. So they have their dream home, but they don’t want the future to have theirs.”
Lily Noble of Stop Sprawl HamOnt responded, “Yes, a lot of them are sitting in single-family homes. You won’t see them in apartments because apartments are too high up to see our signs.”
If you are reading this blog post, you are likely familiar with the discussion points. The last five minutes illustrate well the dynamics of the public opinion debate.
[Click here to start watching just prior to Ferguson’s comments on the signs.]
In the middle of the segment, Collins-Williams was asked about intensification in Ancaster.
His answer to the question lays out the challenges of planning policy and politics in the Greater Toronto-Hamilton Area.
I’m going to quote it fully [click here to watch]:
“I’m empathetic to both Councillor Ferguson and Councillor Danko. Local control over planning is difficult. Fundamentally, they represent constituents, typically whom are homeowners rather than renters, who typically don’t like much change in their neighborhoods.
This is one of the most difficult things within planning.
The irony of this debate is, I think. the only thing that people hate more than sprawl is intensification.
And Almost every single application comes down to a political vote at Council.
This makes the intensification targets that the City has set through both the Ambitious Scenario or a No Boundary Scenario extremely difficult to achieve.
Our members are certainly building high-density intensification projects along transit lines and trying to build Missing Middle housing within existing communities.
But the Missing Middle, is well, it’s missing.
We have exclusionary zoning policies in Hamilton, and for that matter, right across the GTA.
In the City of Toronto, what’s been termed the yellowbelt, where only single-family homes are allowed to be built, and that covers most of the geographic area of the cities across South Central Ontario.
This makes the politics around intensification extremely difficult.
I’m not saying that our members are not up for continuing to intensify and build transit oriented housing.
But the fact that every single project comes down to a vote at Council. That’s a very difficult way of building the [one] million houses that are going to be required across the province of Ontario over the next decade to meet the very significant population growth that has actually been accelerating the past few years.”
Hamilton City Council will debate the urban boundary expansion issue during a special meeting on November 9. (This meeting was originally scheduled for October 25)


text:
OLT Issues Rare Cost Order Against the White Star Group for Gross Misbehaviour – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 28, 2021
OLT issues its strongest allowed rebuke against White Star Group
The Ontario Land Tribunal is ordering the White Star Group of Companies and its principal Marino Rakovac to pay the City of Hamilton $21,310.65 plus HST for the City’s costs responding to litigation White Star commenced against the City of Hamilton early this year.
OLT Vice-Chair Richard Makuch issued the rare costs orders finding White Star is engaged in a “pattern of making unfounded allegations of bad faith and bias against the City and its counsel.”
“The Tribunal finds that White Star has engaged in a repeated and deliberate pattern of unreasonable, vexatious, and bad faith conduct over an extended period of time in this case.”
Vice-Chair Makuch further agreed with the City that White Star’s behaviour is “reprehensible, scandalous, and outrageous.”
The cost order is jointly against both White Star as a corporation and Rakovac as an individual. “It is clear from the evidence that Mr. Rakovac’s conduct throughout this proceeding has been both as a witness and an advocate, which demonstrates that Mr. Rakovac is the “true litigant” in this matter and that therefore any award for costs should be made against him personally, jointly and severally with White Star.”
White Star sought nearly $33-million in damages from the City of Hamilton at the Tribunal claiming the City’s consideration of expropriating the White Star lands in 2009/10 to build a West Harbour stadium prevents them from developing the property at 271 Bay Street North, 107 Stuart Street, and 34-36 Tiffany Street directly across from the West Harbour GO station.
White Star wanted their lands expropriated and turned down purchase offers from the City of Hamilton. White Star sought to gain more compensation in a contested expropriation hearing.
In 2011, Council decided to build the new stadium elsewhere – on the existing stadium site in central Hamilton – and did not begin formal expropriation. White Star was left with their lands and began a decade-long legal saga.
In its latest OLT filings, The City of Hamilton extensively details eight of the most severe violations of legal rules by the White Star Group, including conducting examinations for discovery of City Councillor Terry Whitehead and former Hamilton Mayor Larry Di Ianni in secret without informing the City’s legal representatives as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure, threatening to commence a complaint to the Law Society of Ontario against a City of Hamilton lawyer if the City did not agree to White Star’s demands, retaining a lawyer who was no longer permitted to practice law, and numerous acts to delay the case which increased work and costs for the City of Hamilton.
The examinations of Whitehead and Di Ianni were conducted in-person on September 8, 2020. White Star admitted they intentionally excluded the City from the examinations, violating the Rules of Civil Procedure. The OLT struck the transcripts from its record for this violation.
Vice-Chair Makuch scorned White Star’s legal representative Axel Winkelmann for threatening to file complaints to the Law Society of Ontario against the City’s lawyers if the City did not agree to White Star’s demands.
This week’s OLT ruling may finally bring the lengthy legal saga of White Star’s litigation with the City of Hamilton, or it could be the beginning of new litigation if White Star seeks judicial review of the decision at Ontario’s Superior Court.

created: October 28, 2021


text:
Vrancor Takes Its Strathcona Tall Building Application to the Ontario Land Tribunal – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 13, 2021
Vrancor is taking their application to build a 25 storey building at 354 King Street West to the Ontario Land Tribunal for a non-decision appeal.
“The Phase 2 Applications for the portion of the Property where the multiple dwelling building would be located, are still being evaluated by staff and there has been no indication as to when the Phase 2 Applications will be considered by Council,” writes planning lawyer Denise Baker, a partner at WeirFoulds LLP who is representing Vrancor. “As such, because the City has failed to make a decision on the Phase 2 Applications within the time periods contemplated in the Planning Act.”
The portion of the property where the 25-storey building is proposal is already approved for six-storeys, the approvals secured in the “Phase 1” portion of the application. In Phase 1, Vrancor gained the approvals to build a 12-storey hotel next to the proposed 25-storey and approvals for the first six-storeys.
Ontario’s Planning Act requires municipalities to render decisions on major developers within 180 days of application. If a municipality does not, the developer can appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal to decide instead of the municipality.
In practice, very few major applications are decided within 180 days and developers only file for non-decision when negotiations between municipal planning staff and the developers agents stall, or it becomes clear staff will not recommend approval of a project.
City of Hamilton Senior Project Manager for urban development applications Shannon McKee writes in a report that planning staff reviewed the application and provided the developer with concerns regarding urban design.
“Based on a review of the revised concept plan and related sun shadow study the applicant was advised that concerns regarding the height and massing of the 25-storey multiple dwelling and the resulting impact the Low Density Residential 3 designated lands north/west identified through the circulation of the original application remained,” reads McKee’s report signed off by Hamilton’s Chief Planner Steve Robichaud.
[Shadow study images are at the end of this article]
Vrancor filed its appeal shortly after the 180-day deadline, with the City of Hamilton receiving the appeal package on day 192.
“It was the applicant who decided to split this application into two phases, which further added to the timeline that was their decision,” Wilson stated at last week’s Planning Committee meeting.
She is disappointed in the developers’ decision to split the application into two parts and ultimately bypass Council in favour of an OLT appeal.
“I found this experience regrettable. It was planning by a thousand cuts of variances which I do not think leads to good outcomes,” Wilson continued. “Sometimes I think I can still fit into a size nine shoe, but I am a size ten, and sometimes after a while, you have to accept the dimensions you’ve got.”
In its OLT submission, Vrancor’s planning agents state a 25-storey building is appropriate for a site directly abutting a light rail transit line station on King Street West and “will increase and diversify the housing stock within the Strathcona neighbourhood, bringing additional residents and vitality into the neighbourhood.”
The proposal seeks a decrease in parking to allow 80 parking spaces for the 1,002 bedroom units, a parking ratio of 0.08 spaces per bedroom. Hamilton’s zoning requirement is 227 spaces.
Vrancor’s traffic study report claims a higher level of HSR conventional service than what exists.
Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited incorrectly states that the Route 1A and Route 10 bus services are seven days per week from “early morning until after midnight.” The 1A service is weekday only and ends just before 7:00 pm. The 10-B-Line operates six days per week with the last bus at 10:00 pm.
The Ontario Land Tribunal has not yet set dates for the first hearings of the appeal. The public will be able to register to speak at the first hearing.
Note: The City of Hamilton prints the PDF documents sent by developers, scans the print-outs, and then saves them as a low-quality PDF.
This is why the images are of poor quality.
Ontario’s Municipal Act and Planning Act require municipal governments to produce a Municipal Record in planning appeals. The Acts do not specify standards for the quality of the file resolution.

created: October 13, 2021


text:
Will the Superior Court Grant an Interlocutory Injunction Preventing Removal of Encampments in Hamilton? – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 25, 2021
Ontario Superior Court Justice Andrew Goodman must decide if the Court will grant an interlocutory [temporary] injunction to restrain the City of Hamilton from using its Parks Bylaw to remove homeless encampments on public lands.
The Hamilton Community Legal Clinic (HCLC) is challenging the legality of the bylaw, arguing its blanket prohibition banning homeless individuals from encamping violates Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”
The Superior Court is unlikely to hear the challenge until well into 2022.
The question in front of Justice Goodman is what should happen in the interim – should the bylaw be frozen, enforcement restrained by a temporary framework, or should the City be able to enforce the bylaw at its sole discretion with no direction from the Court?
If encampments are allowed in the interim, under what conditions would they exist?
Goodman states he will issue his decision as soon as practically possible.
Final written arguments from lawyers representing the City of Hamilton and the applicant homeless individuals were due today.
The HCLC lawyers represent five homeless Hamiltonians who state they have no other option beyond sleeping in tents for various reasons. [Since the challenge filing on October 4, one of the five gained stable housing]
Similar decisions in British Columbia and one other case in Ontario are informative to helping us understand what Justice Goodman will consider, and how the lawyers choose the points they argued during last week’s two days of oral arguments.
(My Twitter threads of each day last week are here: Monday & Thursday)
In determining if he will grant the injunction, Justice Goodman must apply the legal tests articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1994’s RGR -MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) and Manitoba (A.G.) v. Metropolitan Stores Ltd.
The test consists of three conjunctive parts. They are: 1) there is a serious question of law to be tried; 2) the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; and 3) the balance of convenience favours the interlocutory injunction.
If the injunction motion fails any of the tests, it will not be granted.
In the October 2020 Toronto encampment case, Black et al. v. City of Toronto, 2020 ONSC 6398, Superior Court Justice Paul Schabas denied an application for an injunction preventing Toronto from removing encampments.
Justice Schabas found the challenge met only two of the three tests.
He agreed there is a serious question to be tried [the constitutionality of bylaws prohibiting the erecting tents to sleep in public places is a serious question of law that is not conclusively decided in Ontario]. He also agreed homeless individuals would suffer irreparable harm from being decamped.
He wrote in his ruling [para 75], “I find that the irreparable harm branch of the RJR test has been met here, and discuss the City’s responses below in my discussion of the balance of inconvenience.”
The City of Toronto successfully argued the encampments prevented some people from using public parks. The purpose of the park’s bylaw is to ensure public use of parks as a commons. The City showed it was actively engaged in providing indoor accommodation to those in encampments.
Justice Schabas quoted extensively from Batty v. City of Toronto, a 2011 ruling regarding the “Occupy Toronto” camp in a park.
“When read as a whole, the objective of the Parks By-law is quite clear and sensible – it is an attempt to balance, in a fair way, the different uses we wish to make of our public parks so, at the end of the day, we all get to enjoy them,” reads paragraph 95 of that decision.
In paragraph 143 of his decision last October, Justice Schabas writes, “In my view, the public interest purpose of the By-law, to make parks available to everyone, outweighs the interests of the applicants who seek a sweeping order preventing enforcement of the By-law in all City parks. The City cannot have its hands tied and be prevented from managing its parks so that they are safe and accessible to everyone.”
Advocates for the homeless regularly cite British Columbia court decisions that restrain municipal governments from removing encampments.
These decisions are conditional upon circumstances in B.C., the key being a significant shortage of shelter beds. It is noteworthy that B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson in Abbotsford (City) v. Shantz, 2015 BCSC 1909, determined there is no Charter Right to housing.
In Shantz, Justice Hinkson wrote, “The obligation to provide housing for the homeless, if it exists, is not a burden that the City must discharge in these proceedings.”
[Note: the B.C. Supreme Court is the trial level court in B.C., equal to the Ontario Superior Court. The B.C. Court of Appeal has ruled once regarding encampments in Victoria (City) v. Adams, 2009 BCCA 563.]
The B.C. rulings, prior to Friday’s new decision in Prince George (City) v. Stewart, 2021 BCSC 2089, involved situations where the number of homeless individuals substantially exceeded the number of emergency shelter spaces provided by the municipality.
[The Prince George ruling will not be considered in this case.]
The B.C. rulings held homeless individuals could erect temporary shelter (tents) overnight while there was a shortage of shelter beds. The rulings require tents be removed during the daytime hours. As Justice Hinkson wrote in Shantz, “I conclude that allowing the City’s homeless to set up shelters overnight while taking them down during the day would reasonably balance the needs of the homeless and the rights of other residents of the City.”
Two paragraphs prior to this sentence, Justice Hinkson explained his reasons for not permitting a sustained encampment: “The evidence about the Gladys Avenue Camp satisfies me that it is unsafe for the homeless and other residents of the City to permit any sustained occupation of a particular space by the homeless. The sustained presence of the homeless at the Gladys Avenue Camp has resulted in the accumulation of between 100 and 500 used syringes in a matter of days, human feces and rotting garbage left throughout the encampment, the presence of rats, and violence and criminal activity following the establishment of the encampment.”
In their arguments, lawyers for the City of Hamilton repeatedly referred to evidence of used syringes, concerns about human feces, and pests such as rats and skunks.
HCLC lawyers argued there is a shortage of, and unpredictability to, existing shelter spaces, that rules are too restrictive, and people are being denied shelter. They added an overnight-only tent protocol ( as in B.C. ruling) is unjustly onerous for homeless individuals with disability-related and health limitations.
The applicants argued the ongoing COVID outbreak is a factor the Court should consider because shelters close to new admissions during COVID outbreaks. These closures put pressure upon other shelters, such as in August when two of the three men’s shelters had outbreaks, and the third was full.
Lawyers for the City cited the B.C. rulings to argue against the applicants’ request for an injunction allowing encampments to stay in one place. They noted the B.C. cases only allowed overnight tents, and only when there was an extreme shortage of shelter spaces.
They repeatedly argued the Hamilton situation significantly differs from the B.C. cases where the shortage of beds numbered in the hundreds and municipalities cannot meet the need for spaces.
HCLC lawyers argues Hamilton is short around 100 beds of the actual need.
City lawyers argue each of the five named applicants have alternatives to encampments. They stated that the City is expanding shelter spaces and does not have a severe shortage like exists in parts of B.C. They added that only one of the applicants had been turned away from a shelter.
The other court decisions do not bind Justice Goodman. They are persuasive precedent, the Ontario Court of Appeal has not considered the issues of homeless shelters and encampments.
Justice Goodman is unlikely to deviate much from those decisions, especially Black et al. v. City of Toronto from last October.
This gives context to Justice Goodman’s questions regarding the present COVID situation, and if he could take “judicial notice” of the fact people are ‘learning to live with COVID’, “We are in court, kids are back in school again.”
While the Justice decided against taking judicial notice and will only use the COVID statistics provided in evidence, the current statistics show COVID is a lesser concern with vaccinations available than in the late summer of 2020 when the Black et al. decision was made.
Ultimately the injunction will be decided upon the third test, the balance of convenience.
The City of Hamilton parks bylaw arguments differs in two potentially significant ways from Toronto’s last year. Hamilton did not provide police reports, and most of the inconvenience evidence was circumstantial. The Hamilton encampments are smaller, tend to be on the edges of parks, and the most contentious encampment is along the greenway of Strachan Street West.
To the extent the sizes of encampments have grown in the past two months, the HCLC lawyers cited City Council’s decision to end the previous encampment protocol settlement, which for a year held the size of tent groupings to a maximum of five.
In this case, Justice Goodman is considering if he needs to conduct the balance of convenience test with the broader homeless community in mind or only the five named applicants.
HCLC lawyers noted it is impractical for them to bring the 150+ people living in encampments before the Court. The City lawyers cited case law which suggests Justice Goodman should only consider the five named applicants.
Of the five, one is now housed, one is incarcerated, one has not tried to access homeless shelters, and two have complex histories in homeless shelters. The City entered evidence that efforts to support them have continued consistently.
Justice Goodman expressed reluctance for the judicial body of the Court to substitute its judgement for that of the legislative body that is City Council. “I have trepidation with telling an elected body how to [act/govern] … you are in effect asking me to bury a law,” he stated asking the HCLC lawyers to address this concern.
The HCLC lawyers are asking Justice Goodman to allow encampments of up to six tents at least 50 metres from any playground, school, or child care centre, and at least 200 metres from another grouping of tents.
Justice Goodman stated, “relief is usually black or white. We are trying to get creative. It is not my place to get into public policy or social policy. I must be careful.”
The lawyer for the City, in their closing remark, stated that if a broad injunction is granted, it will enable anyone to set up a tent until the primary Charter challenge is before the Court at an undetermined date in the future.
In closing, the HCLC lawyers stated, “removing tents will not end homelessness.”
A decision is quickly expected in the coming weeks.

created: October 25, 2021


text:
A 2017 OMB Settlement Promised No Evictions at Ventura Towers, Why Are They Happening Today? – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 17, 2021
Getting rid of long-term tenants has been a profitable game for corporate landlords in the past decade as Hamilton’s rental rates have skyrocketed – it is even more profitable today.
Seven years ago, residents at 181 John Street North and 192 Hughson Street were offered incentives to end their tenancies and leave.
In 2016, owner Greenwin Inc tried to rezone the apartment buildings with “minor variances” to demolish all four-bedroom units and nearly all three-bedroom units.
The inclusion of family-sized apartment units was a condition of zoning approval in the 1970s, which allowed the construction of the buildings with extra height.
Greenwin’s rezoning was defeated after the Beasley Neighbourhood Association (BNA) mobilized against the proposal and convinced the Committee of Adjustment to vote down the rezoning.
The issue went to the Ontario Municipal Board while the BNA worked to find a way to protect tenants from renoviction.
The BNA hired consultants and negotiated a settlement binding the City of Hamilton and Greenwin to retain many of the family-sized units.
The 2017 settlement allowed Greenwin to eliminate the four-bedroom units, and some of the three-bedroom units. In return, Greenwin agreed not to evict tenants and complete renovations in phases to ensure tenants were not pressured to leave.
“We are pleased to publicly report that Greenwood Inc has agreed that no existing tenants would be displaced as a result of this redevelopment,” stated consultant Brad Clark to City Council on October 3, 2017. “On this point, I do wish to extend my personal thanks to Mr. [Kevin] Green [CEO of Greenwin Inc.] and Ms [Kris] Boyce [President of Greenwin].”
Clark was a former city councillor retained by the BNA to assist the neighbourhood and tenants to secure a settlement deal.
Clark returned to City Council in 2018 when he won the Ward 9 seat.
Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr praised the deal and moved the motion binding City Council to approve and uphold the deal.
“Over probably two, three years now, you know it’s been a bit of a roller coaster ride,” said Farr. “I’m quite pleased to see just how this has finally come to an amicable conclusion.”
Since 2017, Greenwin did not complete its planned renovations of the building.
Recently, Greenwin sold the building to Valery Properties.
New owners Valery Properties moved quickly to begin demolishing the family units in the building and issued eviction notices only weeks after taking ownership of the building.
The City of Hamilton issued building permits for the demolition and granted road closure permits for the next year.
Under the Building Code, the City of Hamilton must issue building permits if the applications comply with zoning.
Hamilton voluntarily provides developers with road closures.
With the City issuing demolition permits, and Valery Properties completely reconfiguring the demolished apartment units, tenants face evictions.
For many of them on fixed incomes, they will become homeless.
The 2017 agreement included tenant protections; what has become of it?
Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr has yet to issue a public statement.
Some of the tenants have lived in the building for decades.
The Hamilton Community Legal Clinic and other community groups are mobilizing to assist tenants and ensure their legal rights are upheld.
On Monday, residents gathered in front of the building to call on Valery Properties to retract N13 notices to remove dozens of tenants to conduct an interior demolition of floors one to six of the buildings.
Valery Properties is offering $20,000 to tenants who leave within 30 days, $15,000 to those who leave within 60 days, and $10,000 to those who leave within 30 days.
The buyout offer states, “Under the Residential Tenancy Act, we can issue you a N13 which is a notice to end your tenancy due to the extensive renovation taking place. This means you would have 120 days to leave the building. With this option there is no compensation package offered to assist you with your new home.”
Valery Properties gave tenants only seven days to decide.
Those who did not take buyouts have now been issued with N13 eviction notices.
The tenants and community groups are calling for City Hall to act immediately to support them.

created: November 17, 2021


text:
Alberta Court Says Municipal Landmarks “Not a Soapbox” – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 2, 2021
Alberta’s superior court, the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, upheld the decision of the City of Edmonton not to light up their municipal landmark High-Level Bridge in the colours of the Alberta March for Life Association.
Edmonton initially approved the AMLA’s application following their guidelines (see website here: https://www.edmonton.ca/attractions_events/schedule_festivals_events/light-the-bridge) and then reversed the decision due to the “polarizing nature of the subject matter.”
Alberta Justice Kevin Feth considered the Christian Heritage Party v Hamilton case, which involved the City of Hamilton removing a CHP bus shelter ad in August 2016. CHP won.
Justice Feth ruled that the Edmonton case does not involve the Charter right of free expression as the bridge’s lighting is considered speech of the municipality endorsing a message.
This differs from the Hamilton case in that bus shelter ads are the expression of the advertiser and not the speech of the municipality.
“The Applicants’ legal interests were not affected since the message conveyed through the lighting installation was solely that of the City,” writes Justice Feth. “The Applicant were seeking some limited civic recognition, much like an award, which was within the sole discretion of the City to grant.”
“Not every public platform needs to be a soapbox,” the Justice wrote near the end of the ruling.

created: November 2, 2021


text:
As Opioid-Related Deaths Increase, Hamilton Public Health Resumes Drug Strategy Steering Committee – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 13, 2021
Hamilton Public Health is re-convening the Hamilton Drug Strategy Steering Committee as Hamilton is on track to see more opioid-related deaths in 2021 than there were in 2020.
Hamilton Public Health issued a rare public communication update on Friday warning that opioid deaths are increasing this year, with a 55% increase in deaths during the first six months of 2021 compared to the first half of 2020.
Public Health states that from January 1 to November 7, there were 786 emergency 9-1-1 calls for suspected opioid overdose. There were 565 calls in 2022.
“The total paramedic incidents recorded for the month of August 2021 was 109, which is the highest monthly count recorded since 2017,” the update states. “While lower, calls in September (103) and October continue to be high (74).”
The update states Hamilton needs more supervised consumption sites.
More information is available on the public health services’ Hamilton Opioid Information System webpage.

created: November 13, 2021


text:
BRIEF: A City of Hamilton Museum Still on the Table – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 24, 2021
Hamilton City Council voted today to instruct city staff to keep working to find and create a physical space for a museum to display the City’s civic artifacts and educate people on the history of the City of Hamilton – including all our region’s former municipalities and the Indigenous cultures which were originally here.
Last week, city staff presented a plan to create a “virtual” museum in response to a 2018 council motion requesting a plan to share and display Hamilton’s history.
Many of Hamilton’s civic artifacts are owned by the City of Hamilton. The City has been storing these artifacts in warehouses out of public view for decades.
Mayor Fred Eisenberger moved an amendment to the staff report directing them to prepare a report for a physical Hamilton Museum.
Councillor Nrinder Nann asked staff to also work on a plan to display artifacts in city facilities such as recreation centres and public libraries.
Many councillors praised plans to better identify and promote indigenous history and landmarks in the Hamilton area.

created: November 24, 2021


text:
BRIEF: Committee of Adjustment Member Declares Conflict of Interest, Plans to Speak on Application at Future Meeting – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 6, 2021
Hamilton Committee of Adjustment Vice-Chair Dale Smith declared a conflict of interest on a matter in front of the committee on Thursday, stating he has an interest in an application at 0 Chippewa Road in Glanbrook.
The nature of the interest was not shared. It was not stated if this involves a pecuniary interest or a matter of potential private gain.
Smith is registered to speak to the committee to put forth his views on the matter.
The application was tabled, and Smith did not speak Thursday. His views are not publicly known.
I could find no case law in which a member of a local board presented themselves as a delegate on a matter in which they have an interest.
The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act states that a member of a local board “shall not attempt in any way whether before, during or after the meeting to influence the voting on any such question” that they have declared a conflict upon.
I’ll be watching this case as it develops.

created: November 6, 2021


text:
BRIEF: Hamilton City Hall Implements Public Notice Sign for Demolitions In-Fills – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 16, 2021
The City of Hamilton is requiring public notice signs for in-fill development which involves extensive renovation or demolition following years of complaints from residents bordering construction sites.
In recent years, the purchase and demolition of older homes has become more common in Hamilton. Many of these demolition and new builds are “as of right” within existing zoning, and no public notices were required.
The signs will “advise the area neighbourhood or the area residents of what’s being proposed or that something’s being demolished, and what it’s going to look like,” says City of Hamilton Manager of Plan Examination Jorge Caetano.
Caetano says the new signs are designed to encourage builders to be good neighbours and to enable better communications between builders and nearby residents.
The signs will be required for any addition greater than 100 square metres to any existing residential home, and will be required for secondary suite construction projects.
If passed by Council, the signs will be required starting in late spring 2022.

created: November 16, 2021


text:
BRIEF: Heritage Committee Approves Security Bollards Around Hamilton City Hall – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 2, 2021
Hamilton’s Municipal Heritage Committee approved issuing heritage permits for the installation of security bollards around Hamilton City Hall to prevent the potential of a vehicle attack. Members lamented the reality that bollards are required, discussed how they will be installed, and approved the permit in a unanimous vote.
Council approved the $682,000 project in March.


text:
BRIEF: Ontario Regulation for Hamilton LRT Issued – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 2, 2021
Hamilton’s Light Rail Transit line is now officially an Ontario Priority Transit Project under the Building Transit Faster Act.
In short, Metrolinx can now use the powers of the BTTA to ensure municipal, utility, and private cooperation with construction.
The regulation describes Hamilton’s LRT as “extending east from McMaster University.” This should not be read as indicating the line could stop short of Eastgate Square.
It is standard practice for Ontario Regulations under the BTTA to state the starting point of a transit line without the final destination.
The BTTA powers most likely to be used in Hamilton are those of expropriation and Metrolinx’s control over development near the LRT corridor to ensure no interference or delay in building LRT.


text:
BRIEF: Some Upper City Hall Managers Returning to Offices in December – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 16, 2021
City of Hamilton Emergency Operations Manager Jason Thorne says some higher-level city managers will return to their City Hall and other location offices beginning December 6.
“Directors and general managers who are currently working from home will commence a phased and gradual return to the workplace,” says Thorne.
These uppermost management positions will continue to work from home some days of the week.
Additionally, some planning and economic development staff will return to City Hall starting next week. These staff are primarily engaged in development and building permit processes.
Most people working in the layers of city management have been working at home during the pandemic, with approximately 2100 City of Hamilton staff continuing to work from home.
“All remaining staff across the organization who are currently working from home will commence a phased-in gradual return to the workplace beginning the week of January the 10th [2022],” says Thorne.
“For now, this is just for staff returning to the workplace, we’re not announcing any new reopening of city offices for access by the public or city counters for access by the public.”


text:
City of Hamilton Releases Proposed Truck Routes – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 29, 2021
City of Hamilton transportation planning staff’s final Truck Route Master Plan update report recommends keeping major downtown streets as truck routes, but will prohibit nearly all double trailer vehicles from driving through the downtown.
City Council’s Truck Route Sub-Committee will meet Monday beginning at 9:30 am to deliberate.
There are 33 registered delegations for the meeting.
A primary focus of the debate will be trucks in the downtown.
Some delegates are asking for a blanket ban on trucks traversing the downtown. Industry interests state a new proposal to restrict trucks to five or fewer axle trucks in the downtown and north Mountain is too restrictive and costly to their businesses.
The City report states trucks with more than five axles will be allowed to operate with a “special truck travel permit.”
The report does not detail any information about these permits.
City staff state the five-axel limit will “serve to divert large longer-distance trucks to routes that do not traverse the downtown area.”
Complaints about trucks downtown have increased in recent years with port industries increasing using double-length grain haulers.
Major port industries are opposed to the prohibition on their double trailer trucks.
“The limitation to 5 axels effectively eliminates our ability to operate within this area of the City or to use western/southern routes to access highways in that direction without first taking a more circuitous route to the east,” writes Mark Hebert, National Transportation Manager for Parrish & Helmbecker Milling Group.
P&H states the restriction will be costly for their operations, “P&H receives and ships a high volume of grain and flour, which involves hundreds of truck movements per day.”
City staff estimate the cost to P&H to be between $8.37 to $19.55 per round trip for trucks that currently travel through downtown to Highway 403.
The Hamilton Port Authority and Bunge will also delegate to Council.
Steve Foxcroft of Fluke Transport Limited writes the five-axel limit goes too far and will harm trucking businesses.
“This balance is important so that business can continue to provide important tax revenue and remain profitable.”
He says if there is a limit, it should be six axels. He writes Fluke is concerned limiting trucks from passing through downtown will “create significant congestion and pose a safety risk” in East Hamilton.
In more rural areas, the final report removed proposed truck routes in a few locations.
“Our opposition to the original TRMP was focused on the 11th Concession East and Milburough Line in the northwest section of the city,” writes Greg Ryan of the group Respect Our Rural Roads (RORR).
“Given that both these roads have been removed from both the near term and long term TRMP, and given the long list of delegates, our presence at the Sub-Committee is no longer required.”
Residents north of the QEW in Stoney Creek plan to speak against allowing trucks to use the North Service Road between Grays Road and Centennial Parkway to access the QEW.
They state trucks should be required to only use the South Service Road to avoid residential areas.
“We hope that you, like us, places the value of human life as your top priority,” write Anna Roberts and Nancy Bleakley of the Lakewood Beach Community Council.
Ward 2 resident Frances Murray writes Council calling for a removal of trucks from downtown streets to enable a “vibrant street life” and encourage more small businesses such as cafes in the downtown.
Residents along Dickenson Road, near Hamilton’s airport, are opposed to additional truck routes in their neighbourhood. Airport logistics businesses are growing on the north side of the airport, and staff write new routes are required to manage truck traffic.
Ward 11 Councillor Brenda Johnson, who represents the area, will move a motion this week for the City to begin environmental assessments for a potential new highway link from the Upper Red Hill Parkway to the airport. Johnson says a dedicated highway will move truck movements away from roads with residential uses.
City staff state approximately $120-million in goods are moved by trucks to and from Hamilton each day.
Staff state the additional truck travel resulting from the five-axel regulation will equate to “higher levels of
greenhouse gasses (GHG) emissions and increased potential for motor vehicle collisions, which are contrary to the goals of the City’s Strategic Plan, climate change,
and Vision Zero Action Plans.”
They believe the restrictions will help enable “economic growth opportunities within the Downtown Secondary Plan Area” from improving “walkability, bikeability, liveability, public and environmental health in the downtown community and adjacent residential neighbourhoods.”
Earlier drafts of the plan included prohibiting trucks in many residential areas overnight between 7:00 pm and 7:00 am. Staff write that upon further study, the prohibition be difficult to enforce as many trucks conduct local deliveries at night.
Trucks with more than five axels, such as double-length fuel tankers delivering fuel to gas stations downtown, will be exempt as local deliveries.
The report makes numerous references to needing the Hamilton Police Service to enforce regulations, especially the five axel regulation.
Trucks are “disproportionately involved with fatal collisions, with nearly one in five fatal collisions involving a truck [between 2014 and 2018].”
Staff note Hamilton’s lower city geography constrains potential truck route options, creating conflicts. “Given the limited road options in various areas in the city, conflicts between truck routes and cycling routes may remain.”
Geographical limitations and one-way streets are two major factors in staff stating a truck route loop is needed to allow all trucks to travel on Barton Street East between Wellington Street North and Victoria Avenue North along the parameter of Hamilton General Hospital despite a desire from Council to remove trucks from the hospital zone where they have been fatal collisions involving trucks striking pedestrians.
Provincial laws require municipalities to allow trucks to make local deliveries off of truck routes. Trucks making local deliveries must take the shortest path from a designated truck route.
Council’s Truck Route Sub-Committee meeting begins at 9:30am on Monday. Watch live here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRmt9_Asoyk
The Council members on the committee are: Jason Farr (chair), Nrinder Nann (vice-chair), Tom Jackson, Brenda Johnson, Sam Merulla, Maria Pearson, and Maureen Wilson.

created: November 29, 2021


text:
COLEMAN: Brenda Johnson Says It is Time to Stop Developers Bullying City Staff – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 10, 2021
Ward 11 (Binbrook-Glanbrook) Councillor Brenda Johnson says it is time to end the bullying of City of Hamilton staff by developers.
” I have complained about several of them,” Johnson says, adding the complaints “fell on deaf ears.”
“While we’re all congratulating each other,” she said of voting to issue a 30-day pay suspension to Ward 14 Councillor Terry Whitehead, “I really want us to also maybe start focusing on some of the visitors that come into City Hall.”
Johnson says it is time to “have our eyes wide open to everyone and stopping the bullying that’s been happening.”
It is not unusual for some planning agents, one in particular who is widely known as a problem, to taunt junior and mid-level planning and development staff they have the power to go to certain city councillors and get the councillor to override them.
It has a chilling effect upon staff, and it is one of the reasons the City of Hamilton loses many junior and mid-level planning staff. Hamilton has been chronically short of planning staff in recent years as a result of this, and the City of Hamilton’s reputation as a terrible municipality to work in.
Ironically, these very bully developers are suffering from delays to their projects as the City of Hamilton struggles to process applications in light of the staffing shortage.
I have witnessed this behaviour and honestly determined there was too great a risk to my personal safety to report on what I have witnessed, especially without video evidence.
Hamilton City Hall is a dangerous place, I have been assaulted twice. I am regularly harassed and berated in retaliation for streaming public meetings and letting the public know what is happening. You know, journalism.
The developers which some of these bullies represent hold a great deal of power, they bundle tens of thousands of dollars in donations to city councillors during municipal elections.
Brenda Johnson has just shattered their shield of invincibility. The open secret that everyone in City Hall has known for years is no longer a secret.
Rest assured bullies, you will be called out and I will be calling you out if you dare bully city staff again.
Oh, I assure the bullies that Brenda Johnson has kept receipts, get your acts together.

created: November 10, 2021


text:
COLEMAN: Helping Terry Whitehead’s Lawyer with a Municipal Act 101 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 10, 2021
Ward 14 City Councillor Terry Whitehead hired a real estate lawyer to write and send a legal letter calling for Council to “end the prosecution of Councillor Whitehead here and now.”
The three-page letter is a master class in why you shouldn’t just hire a lawyer just because they are a lawyer, much as one does not hire a podiatrist to conduct your brain surgery.
Sure, the podiatrist is a medical doctor, but you may wish you stubbed your toe after they’re done with your brain.
Real estate lawyer Jack Restivo is neither a municipal law nor constitutional law expert, but that does not stop him from trying to Lionel Hutz his way through Terry Whitehead’s case.
Briefly, after years of harassing and bullying staff, Terry’s favourite Integrity Commissioners have turned on him and said he cannot be threatening to fire staff, badgering people in public meetings, spreading malicious lies about people, and carrying on like an intellectually under-weight insecure tyrant.
For his years of gross misbehaviour, Hamilton’s Integrity Commissioners recommend a minimal slap on the wrist penalty of suspending his pay for 30 days, that he be prohibited from harassing staff and only allowed to speak to the City Manager or General Managers.
Terry is outraged, the kind of rage he experiences whenever someone with a Ph.D. shares their expertise at Council.
So, Terry went off and found a lawyer, much like a petulant little child angry at a school teacher for taking away their Game Boy during class.
Enter Lionel, I mean Jack Restivo.
Preventing Terry from harassing staff is “to say the least, absolutely shocking” his lawyer writes.
“It represents a direct attack on the democratic right of free speech accorded to every person in a democratic society. Where is the legal authority empowering a City Council to abrogate the right of free speech and dictate with whom an individual may or may not communicate?”
Let’s first begin with our terminology.
Freedom of Speech is American terminology lifted from the First Amendment in the United States Bill of Rights.
We have Freedom of Expression in Canada, Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Any lawyer who practices even the slightest amount of constitutional or administrative law knows this important difference.
Terry’s lawyer continues that by not allowing Terry to harass staff members, the municipality “seeks to ‘gag’ the Councillor and prevent him from discharging his duties and obligations to those who have elected him.”
He writes this is the “imposition” of a “Gag/Restraining Order” and that only the Superior Court can take the action city council proposes.
Lawyer Jack is not done, “This penalty is unacceptable in our democratic society. It is unenforceable, repugnant and cannot stand.”
Okay, lawyer Jack, why don’t I exercise my “right to free speech” by walking into your office whenever I want to read the Municipal Act to you in my loudest voice?
Arguably, I’d be helping lawyer Jack, but I suspect lawyer Jack would call building security and have me removed from his workplace.
I am sure lawyer Jack Restivo is a perfectly competent lawyer to assist you with the legal paperwork when you sell or buy a house.
He likely can quote chapter and verse from the Land Titles Act, the Land Registration Reform Act, and all relevant laws in his area of specialization.
Based on his letter’s legal arguments, lawyer Jack does not even know the Municipal Act exists.
In the Simpsons, Lionel Hutz relies heavily upon the Blue-Haired Lawyer to know a bit of what is happening in the courtroom.
Hamilton’s Integrity Commissioners are our Blue-Haired Lawyer, focused on pleasing their client and failing to show their competence to please Mr. Burns.
Principles Integrity owners Janice Atwood-Petkovski and Jeffery Abrams never mention the Municipal Act once in their report against Whitehead.
(Every other Ontario Municipal Integrity Commissioner uses proper legal writing, and they explain how the Municipal Act governs a case.)
Lawyer Jack wildly argues Council does not have the authority to suspend Terry Whitehead’s pay “Council may wish to consider whether, at law, it has the authority to impose suspension of payment for any time whatsoever, as such suspension is not a ‘fine’ which Council has the authority to levy, but rather, is essentially an award of damages exceeding the authority of Municipal Councils. Generally, only a Court of Law is allowed to award damages.”
Section 223.4 of the Municipal Act states, “The municipality may impose either of the following penalties on a member of council … suspension of the remuneration paid to the member … for a period of up to 90 days.”
In the early days of Lionel Hutz’s fictional legal career, there was no Internet. Today, even Lionel Hutz cannot be excused for failing to conduct a Google search.
Jack Restivo’s law office is at 4 Hughson Street South in Downtown Hamilton, yet his legal argument may lead you to believe he has never passed City Hall in his life.
In an attempt at a nitpicking novel legal argument, Lawyer Jack tries to argue the City of Hamilton’s Human Resources Department has no legal standing to file the harassment complaint against Whitehead on behalf of the staff of the City of Hamilton.
There is an argument to be made that because the City’s Integrity Commissioner bylaw states complaints must come from “a request by City Council, a Member of Council, a City employee, a City resident, or a person who has business, institutional or other premises in the City” that the Corporation of the City of Hamilton cannot institutionally file a complaint.
In similar cases of harassment of staff by elected officials in other municipalities, the complaint is from the City’s Chief Administrative Officer or a human resources manager.
In the complaint against Whitehead, the complainant is “The City of Hamilton Human Resources Department.”
Lawyer Jack just could not leave his argument at a sober conclusion, but he had to go all Terry Whitehead.
Lawyer Jack absurdly argues the Human Resources Department is “ambiguous and non-identifiable.”
He is truly the lawyer for Terry, continuing, “One is left to wonder exactly what it is that this entity represents. Does it represent the Manager or Managers? Does it represent each and every member of that Department? Was a vote taken with regard to lodging the complaint as an entity and did 100% of members of the Department agree with advancing the unqualified complaint?”
The Substantive and Real Issue of Bias and Conflict-of-Interest of Janice Atwood-Petkovski
Integrity Commissioner Janice Atwood-Petkovski retired as City of Hamilton Solicitor in February 2017.
She and Abrams formed their Integrity Commissioner firm shortly afterwards and were awarded a non-competitive contract to be Council’s ICs in July 2018 with three non-competitive extensions [2,3,4] before being made Council’s permanent ICs in March 2020.
During their first four contract periods, Atwood-Petkovski and Abrams closed all complaints without any public investigative report nor sanctions against Councillors who threatened people on numerous occasions.
Terry Whitehead was among the councillors allowed to get away with harassing and threatening people.
As a member of the Council Governance Committee, which oversees the Integrity Commissioner, Whitehead supported Atwood-Petkovski being in the role. He voted in favour of the contracts.
After Atwood-Petkovski and Abrams were signed to a six-year contract as Council’s ICs, Whitehead took to Twitter, threatening to send them after citizens.
Now that the Integrity Commissioners are showing symptoms of integrity, Whitehead is concerned about the appearance of conflict regarding Atwood-Petkovski’s relationships with City of Hamilton councillors and staff.
“it is our position that the investigation itself is replete with conflict of interest to the extent that the investigation is irrevocably tainted. The investigation involved extensive interviews conducted by an Integrity Commissioner who is a former employee of the City of Hamilton and constitutes a clear and transparent conflict of interest. As noted in the Reply, the past associations of that Integrity Commissioner with Staff and presumably Members of the Human Resources Department render her participation suspect with the inevitable innuendo of inherent bias.”
What’s that saying about the arsonist complaining about their house burning down?


text:
COLEMAN: RIP Ted Gill, Hamilton Transportation Engineer – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 15, 2021
Today brings the sad news of the death of transportation engineer Edward (Ted) Gill at age 71.
Ted Gill emailed me a few years ago suggesting we have coffee at Williams Coffee Pub on the waterfront to discuss public transit.
As many of you know, Ted was a strong proponent for fixing Hamilton’s conventional transit system, implementing bus rapid transit, and was opposed to the planning light rail transit system.
He wished to discuss the common ground we shared to see transit improved and to better understand why I supported the LRT.
Years of insightful and informative discussion followed. I always looked forward to our conversations because I learned much from Ted in them.
COVID, sadly, paused our conversations.
One of our last email correspondences was in January 2020 regarding public transit engineering. Ted offered some great advice on what to learn, especially what would be practical for me to know as a journalist.
He became an engaged citizen in retirement because of a passion for building a better Hamilton.
There are many who disingenuously argue for Hamilton to implement BRT because they do not want higher-order priority transit in Hamilton.
Gill wanted higher-order priority transit and strongly believed with BRT we could see more priority transit corridors sooner.
We have lost an important voice for transit and transportation in Hamilton, one whose critical informed analysis would have helped to ensure a successful transition to light rail transit during the B-Line’s construction in the coming years.
Gill’s obituary can be read here.
A virtual memorial service will be held Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 3:00PM – to register please visit tedgillmemorial.eventbrite.ca

created: November 15, 2021


text:
COLEMAN: Vanderbeek being Powers Landlord Is Not a Conflict of Interest – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 17, 2021
The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act seems reasonably straightforward and strict to a layperson.
After all, why wouldn’t a politician with a financial interest in a decision not automatically be in a conflict of interest and have to recuse themselves?
In practice, the world is complex and full of gray areas. This is why the MCIA has eleven conditional exceptions for councillors to continue to act when they are some minor personal financial interest or an interest in common with the general public.
Newly appointed Ward 5 Councillor Russ Powers reportedly lives in a building owned by the Vanderbeek family of Ward 13 Councillor Arlene Vanderbeek.
Many residents of Dundas have contacted me saying I should expose this conflict.
I am now doing so, to explain why it is not actually a conflict of interest.
Powers’ rent payments constitute a direct pecuniary interest for Vanderbeek, and falls under one of the eleven conditional exceptions of the Act.
The landlord-tenant relationship is clearly not a factor in Vanderbeeks’ decision-making.
Section 4(k) of the MCIA states a council member is not in a conflict of interest if the “interest of the member which is so remote or insignificant in its nature that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the member.”
Vanderbeek’s landlord-tenant relationship is insignificant. The Vanderbeek’s own multiple rental properties. Powers’ rent is inconsequential to Vanderbeek’s finances.
Further, Powers’ is a financially sound individual. He can pay his rent regardless of if, or if not, he is appointed as an interim city councillor.
This matter is the very definition of a “remote and insignificant interest”.
It “cannot reasonably be regarded as likely” this relationship has any bearing on Vanderbeek’s decision-making.
Her personal experience and decade-long professional relationship with Powers are obviously why she voted for him to be the replacement Ward 5 city councillor.
Powers was Ward 13 councillor and retired in 2014 when Vanderbeek first won the seat. Vanderbeek was Powers’ administrative/executive assistant and was an elected councillor on the old Town of Dundas Council prior to amalgamation in 2001.
In sum, there is no conflict.
The fact Powers is renting from the Vanderbeeks amounts to trivia for political insiders – and an opportunity for this brief explainer of how the MCIA works in practice.
Our local understanding of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act is not helped by the fact members of Hamilton City Council misuse it by declaring conflicts for reasons of political strategy to avoid voting on issues, that is a column for another day.


text:
COLEMAN: What’s Next on Encampment Enforcement in Hamilton? – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 5, 2021
This week’s Ontario Superior Court ruling to not grant an injunction to stop homeless encampment removals or evictions in Hamilton is not surprising.
Interlocutory [temporary] injunctions are rarely granted, designed to maintain a status quo, and are very conservative in their construction.
As I summarized in recent weeks, the case law was weighed against an injunction.
What comes next?
The City of Hamilton wants to begin disbanding encampments one resident at a time, avoiding a heavy-handed approach for now. There will be political pressure for immediate and swift enforcement.
Politicians cannot interfere in how law enforcement exercises its discretion.
The Hamilton Police Service will deal with law enforcement matters, such as bicycle “chop shops” within encampments, as law enforcement matters.
The HPS has shown reluctance to apply law enforcement use of force to dismantling encampments.
This is a police service that takes great pride in creating the Social Navigator Program and the [mental health] Crisis Response Teams, which have social workers partnered with police officers.
The Police commander leading the HPS response to encampments came up through the ranks working on crime prevention in the Downtown Core. More on this in a few paragraphs.
Let’s quickly look back on the events of the past three months.
Hamilton City Council declared an emergency on August 9, using the language of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act to hold a no-notice closed meeting to end the previous Encampment Protocol negotiated with advocacy groups in 2020 during the early months of COVID.
The Protocol, which nobody was happy about but brought predictability to the issue of encampments, set rules for the size and location of encampments.
Council cancelled the Protocol and expected the Hamilton Police Service to immediately respond on August 31 to assist the City in removing encampments.
Hamilton Police used their discretion and did not break up encampments. This seems to have come as a surprise to City councillors.
Earlier September seems like a long time ago. Society was worried about the fourth wave of COVID. Projections warned it could be the worst wave of the pandemic thus far.
Hamilton Police adopted a cautious approach and did not agree to the City’s requests to break up encampments.
During the Protocol, Hamilton Police responded to maintain the peace while City of Hamilton crews removed encampments or limited their size to the agreed five tents.
Without the constraints of the Protocol, the number and size of encampments grew.
On October 8, the Hamilton Community Legal Clinic filed the legal challenge, and an injunction was issued temporarily blocking the City from enforcing its Parks Bylaw pending this week’s decision.
This brings us to today, and the question: what will Hamilton Police do?
Hamilton Police Inspector Frank Miscione of the Community Mobilization Division is the key decision-maker for how Hamilton Police are responding to encampments.
The Social Navigator program, [mental health] Crisis Response Unit, the ACTION team, Crime Prevention Unit, and the Victim Services Branch are all within this Division.
Homeless and marginalized people are often the victims of crime. They are also witnesses to crimes. They are invisible to society, and criminals often treat them as invisible as well.
Insp. Miscione spent many years as a front-line cop in the Downtown Area. As a Sergeant, he was responsible for preventing and solving crime in most of Ward 2. As a member of the Beasley Neighbourhood Association, I would frequently communicate with then-Sgt. Miscione.
Many crimes were solved because some marginalized people trusted Sgt. Frank [and Sgt Jay Turner], and would share what they witnessed. This trust, and the resulting tips, helped lead to many arrests.
Police exist to prevent crime and solve crimes not prevented. They do exercise the state’s monopoly upon the use of force.
It is the latter role that Hamilton City Council wishes them to exercise.
Chief of Police Frank Bergen is savvy to politics and public perception.
I expect we’ll see police enforcement at encampments with obviously visible displays of illegal activity, such as bicycle chopping. There may be the removal of encampments with fire risks, such as propane tanks or the use of highly flammable ad-hoc building materials.
Other encampments without criminal activity, and residents who have “high” acuity, will be navigated to services over the coming weeks, likely well into December.
Mark December 15 in your calendar. This is when City Council is scheduled to vote on a new homelessness response policy. Ward 9 City Councillor Brad Clark is pushing for an immediate expansion of emergency shelter spaces.
Prior to COVID, there were encampments, and they decreased each year as winter set in.
It will be fire safety which I expect to be a point of contention as encampment residents try to stay warm at night during this transitional time.
Longer-term, I ponder whether society will still treat homelessness as a crisis if it becomes almost invisible again?

created: November 5, 2021


text:
Councillors Split Over Closed Session Changes to 2030 Commonwealth Games Bid – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 17, 2021
Update 24-November-2021: Council voted 9-4 to ratify the closed session changes to the 2030 bid.
In favour were: Clark, Eisenberger, Farr, Ferguson, Merulla, Pauls, Pearson Powers, Vanderbeek.
Opposed were: Danko, Johnson, Nann, Wilson.
Hamilton Mayor Fred Eisenberger warned Hamilton City Council today that if they voted down a closed session recommendation regarding the 2030 Commonwealth Games bid, they would effectively “abandon the entire Commonwealth Games process.”
Hamilton is presently the only bidder in the world for the 2030 Commonwealth Games, which will be the 100th anniversary of the founding of the games in 1930 when Hamilton hosted the first British Empire Games.
The international Commonwealth Games committee is actively trying to find a bidder for the 2026 games. The 2022 games will be held in Birmingham, United Kingdom.
The vote on the closed item passed by a narrow 5-4 margin and will go to City Council’s ratification meeting next Wednesday.
Voting in favour were Mayor Fred Eisenberger and councillors Tom Jackson (Ward 6), Maria Pearson (10), Lloyd Ferguson (12), and Arlene Vanderbeek (13).
Opposed were councillor Maureen Wilson (1), John-Paul Danko (8), Brenda Johnson (11), and Judi Partridge (15).
The details of what council is voting upon are not publicly known.
“We also need a separate agreement with HUPEG [Hamilton Urban Precinct Entertainment Group] and Hamilton 100, who are the manager or will be the manager of the facilities that are Hamilton or FirstOntario center FirstOntario place and the convention center,” Eisenberger stated.
Council spent over an hour in closed session discussing the item. Council did not release any information to the public about the discussion.
Councillor Wilson said the new agreement involving HUPEG and the Hamilton 100 bid group is “an unanticipated addition to the process to develop the final hosting proposal for the 2030 Commonwealth Games.”
“My understanding is the Hamilton 100, when they were last presenting towards this council said that they were not looking for any financial contribution. But then, in appendix B, it states that the sources of funding federal, provincial and or municipal, and the amounts available are still to be determined,” Wilson noted.
Ward 8 Councillor Danko says the bid has changed from what Council originally approved. “It is now a regional games, versus a City of Hamilton games … completely different than what led up to Hamilton being selected.”


text:
Hamilton Health Sciences at 25 Years: Notes from Innovation in Real Places – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 28, 2021
The founding of Hamilton Health Sciences 25 years ago features prominently in this year’s Balsille Prize for Public Policy winner Innovation in Real Places: Strategies for Prosperity in an Unforgiving World authored by University of Toronto professor Dan Breznitz.
“The top management of both Stelco and Dofasco was instrumental in the restructuring of the health system of the city. Not only had steel executives been sitting on the boards of hospitals, and ensuring a flow of needed expansion capital, but in critical junctures they led transformations,” writes Breznitz on page 117 of his book.
“The most important such event was the amalgamation of all the main hospitals, but one, into Hamilton Health Sciences (HHS) in 1997. At that time, a group of steel executives, led by Robert Jones, used their knowledge of managing unionized multisite plants to steer the merger of several hospitals to a successful conclusion (this being Canada, all the hospitals involved were public unionized organizations), as well as to secure the $250 million extra capital HHS needed.”
“Steel executives also rebuilt connections between HHS and the city’s other hospital, St. Josephs, which includes an agreed upon division of labor and joint, cross-appointed vice presidents across the two organizations to improve integration. Thus, since 1997, Hamilton has ended up with a strengthened and deeply integrated care system.”
Breznitz devotes a full chapter to innovation in Hamilton.
The hospitals are a success story, with their roots in the glory days of Hamilton’s steel mills and our labour unions. Hamilton’s health care research and development companies benefitted from funding from steel companies and strong union secured benefits.
“The early growth of the capacity and willingness to “play” with these technologies was due to the union health benefits (for workers, retirees, and their families) of the steel companies. These acted as a source of both demand and early revenues,” writes Breznitz (pg 120).
The Hamilton chapter is a fascinating read of how Hamilton’s steel mills laid the foundation for today’s health care sector.
It is not a chapter of puffery, Breznitz looks at the challenges Hamilton faces competition to retain innovation, the limited local economic benefits and very little spin-off from research for Hamilton, and he explains many of the problems with how municipal governments approach innovation, mistakes Hamilton City Hall continues to pour money into.
The book is a good read, give your local Hamilton bookstore a call to request a special order.

created: November 28, 2021


text:
Hamilton Planning Staff Releasing Discussion Paper on Migrant Farmer Residences in Jan or Feb – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 30, 2021
The City of Hamilton’s planning staff say they’ve completed a draft discussion paper discussing options for the City to change its zoning and official plan policies regarding migrant farmer residences.
Heather Travis, senior project manager for policy planning, told the Rural and Agricultural Affairs Committee on Monday, “we’re targeting either January or February Planning Committee to get that draft discussion paper before Council.”
The paper will discuss servicing, location, and size requirements for this form of housing.

created: November 30, 2021


text:
Hamilton Procurement Bid Notes – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 4, 2021
– the City is looking to have maintenance rehabilitation work done on the Longwood Road bridge over Highway 403. The work is necessary and has been on the books for a few years now. The bridge will undergo significant work (or even potential replacement) as part of the LRT project. The LRT maintenance yard will be on the south side of the bridge, meaning LRT vehicles will cross the bridge to enter and exit service.  It will take years to plan the large bridge project and it will be a complex project as construction must avoid impacting traffic flow on Hwy 403. (and yes, one can argue if LRT were not delayed a decade this rehab would not necessary)
– bike curbs will be installed from the Dundas Castle Parking Lot (215 metres west of Dundurn Street) to “120m East of Queen St N.”. The City posted the bid this week and wants all construction to be complete by November 26 of this year. The bid closes on October 22nd, giving less than a month from getting the contract until completion. The City’s engineers have completed the drawing for the infrastructure. (see pages 43-45 of the bid documents – https://hamilton.bidsandtenders.ca/Module/Tenders/en/Tender/Detail/48be82d8-ed9c-4078-97fc-03611dededd9)
– studies are required before shovels can get into the ground on the Waterdown bypass. City Hall wants to get work underway in 2022 prior to the election on the project which is designed to divert traffic off Dundas Road in old Waterdown by connecting Highway 5 to Highway 6 with this road travelling north of old Waterdown.
People in Waterdown are rightfully frustrated the City approved thousands of new homes which have been built prior to the installation of this highway bypass. In 2018, Waterdown residents nearly kicked Ward 15 Councillor Judi Partridge out of office with her margin of victory being only 216 votes. City Hall got the warning and staff have been working this term to shore up Partridge by getting the bypass to the start of construction before the election.
– The City is willing to spend up to $3.7-million to expand the St. Marks Church building on Bay Street South at Hunter Street which is across from Hamilton City Hall. The building will serve as a meetings and event space for the City and available for community rentals.
The City wants construction to begin no later than March 2022. Construction was suppose to start in 2019.

created: November 4, 2021