text:
Joe Kipp, King of 1-King, Retires Friday after Nearly 40 Years Driving HSR Buses – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 28, 2017
Whoever said everyone is replaceable never met HSR’s bubbles and chocolate bus operator.
Every Monday morning, Joe Kipp walked over to the Wentworth Street North offices of the Hamilton Street Railway “looking for an opening as an operator”. It was the mid-1970s and Joe was in his mid-20s.
At the time, the HSR would only hire men older than 25 years of age and they had to be married. “That’s just the way things were then”, Joe says.
It took months of showing up before he was hired, even with “two references who did me well”. His references were Norm Keopke, a senior HSR operator, and a Hamilton Police Sergeant.
Joe started training on June 17, 1978.
After nearly 40 years behind the wheel of a HSR bus, Joe retires tomorrow at 11:57 a.m.
“Full training in those days took about a year to complete”, Joe says. At the time, the HSR ran trolleys, “suburban runs”, and inter-city Canada Coach Lines service.
It was the trolleys that “enamoured” Joe with the HSR. He started operating as a “spare board” operator, filling in for vacation and sick days. He first signed work was a late night 2-Barton. A few months later, with enough seniority, Joe signed work on the 1-King and never looked back.
For the next 20 years, with a few exceptions when he did overtime, Joe stuck to the 1-King. Where most operators quickly move to suburban routes with a few years seniority, Joe loved operating the trolley buses on King.
Even now, nearly 40 years later, when Joe volunteers for extra work, he tries to stay to the old trolley routes of 1-King, 2-Barton, and 3-Cannon.
It’s a cold Wednesday morning when I joined Joe Kipp last week for the start of his shift. Joe leaves his house just after 3:45 a.m. Much like the riders he’ll serve later in the morning, Joe takes the HSR to work.
The HSR is truly a 24/7 operation, between end of service at 2:45 a.m. and resumption of service at 4:30 a.m., the HSR operates shuttle buses to get bus operators to and from the Mountain Transit Centre.
It was only in the past two decades that Joe started taking the HSR to work, for his first two decades, Joe walked to work. First to the HSR garage when it was located at Wentworth Street and King Street, the present site of Cathedral High School. When When the HSR moved in 1989 to 330 Wentworth Street North, he continued to walk. It was only in the late 1990s when the HSR moved to its present Mount Hope location on Upper James Street near the airport and Joe started riding the shuttle.
Joe walks 1.5 kilometres from his house to get the pickup bus at Wellington Street and Main Street. The walk is quiet, other than the odd car and one Liquid Air vehicle, Hamilton’s streets are abandoned at this early hour. Even the local Tim Horton’s is closed.
On this morning, Joe’s the first operator waiting for the bus. Shortly after arriving at the stop, other operators emerge from the darkness and join Joe waiting for the bus.
It’s just past 4:15 a.m. when the shuttle bus arrives. “Hey, got any candy for me today!” shouts the shuttle operator with a large smile.
Joe has three signatures he’s known for – a seemingly endless supply of candy is one.
Good nature joking conversation starts immediately among the half-dozen operators on the shuttle. Joe is the centre of attention. Other operators ask who will give out candy when he retires.
Joe’s other signatures are waving at everyone on King, and his bubble machines over the years.
The shuttle travels up the Claremont Access, at Upper James Street and Mohawk Road, more operators board, making about a dozen and a half people on the bus.
Camera shy, nobody sits beside Joe this day, but one of the newly boarded operators asks Joe what candy he has today.
Quickly, like a movie character selling watches on a New York City street, Joe flashes his jacket revealing a cache in his inner pockets. A miniature candy cane is exchanged for a smile.
One of the guys jokes “Hey Joe, you never have candy for me!”, Joe hands him a candy and with a smile shares a lesson he learned early in his career handing out candy “guys just don’t like getting chocolate from other guys”.
Joe shares another bit of wisdom, “colder weather is better for chocolate”.
“At Main and Ottawa eastbound years ago, there was a young girl on her way to school every morning. She quizzed me once about why she never got candy”, Joe says he told her that he need her parents permission.
“The very next morning”, Joe says with a great deal of emphasis, “the young girl emerged from a car parked near the stop with her mother in tow … the youngling had candy for the rest of grade school”.
Joe says over the years, he’s enjoyed driving generations of Glen Brae students to their East End school, saying they are “always extra polite and friendly”.
[In a playful bit of banter to your reporter’s high school origins, Joe says “I’m not too sure about those Glendale students”]
At 4:30 a.m., the pickup shuttle arrives at the Mountain Transit Centre and a steady stream of operators flows into the building.
Just inside the entrance, two dozen squeeze to swipe in for the day, pick up their transfers books, and maintenance slips for the day ahead.
An ironically placed sign overhead says this is a “Quiet Area”, as “report” operators await an HSR Inspector to assign them buses for the day.
For the next few hours, this zone is organized chaos as dispatchers scramble with the daily operator shortage to figure out which buses will or will not be on the road that morning.
Even among this organized chaos of hustling and bustling, Joe is the centre of attention.
A retired operator on report this day, Ken Goobie, sees Joe. With a giant smile, Ken asks “Where’s your bubble toy Joe?!”
A few others operators join in, joking Joe should launch bubbles in the Quiet Zone. Joe says he’s still searching for a replacement after his most recent one broke about a year ago.
Joe is well known for the bubbles flying out his bus window while stopped at various locations, especially McMaster University.
Joe says he started with the bubbles for kids at the hospital.
The 1A-King end of the line was the front of McMaster Children’s Hospital for nearly 20 years, and Joe would sit there daily. “One day I spotted a bubble machine in a department story, and I had an idea. I’d start blowing bubbles out the front door of the coach”.
“Drum days were replaced with smiles”.
Officially, blowing bubbles out the window is something the HSR frowns upon, but as one HSR mid-manager told me, even they smile seeing Joe’s bubbles flying.
“In hindsight, I should have wrote a book” Joe says sharing stories of the past nearly 40 years.
“I have young passengers today whose parents, and in some cases grandparents, also rode my bus”, Joe notes.
Like many of his passengers, Joe lives in Central Hamilton, and has his entire life. He grew up only a few blocks from his present home near General Hospital, and still regularly walks to visit his mother who continues to live in the house he grew up in.
“There was a time a few decades ago when we were having some ongoing problems at night from certain shaddy characters” Joe tells with a look of reminiscence. “The HSR resorted to hiring off duty policemen to ride the bus”.
One night, an off-duty police office saw a suspect he knew with a warrant and made a gunpoint arrest on Joe’s bus, “I’ve had tense moments on the buses but never really felt for my safety”.
Joe had two buses catch fire on him over the years.
In the early-1990s, he was driving bus #8501 westbound on Queenston Road passing the Zellers Plaza at Nash Road. “Passing cars were blowing their horns at me, trying to get my attention”, Joe says with a smile.
“After stopping one driver yelled out ‘your bus is on fire!’, I didn’t even know”. He got the “seven or so passengers” off the bus and went to the nearest house to call for assistance.
By the time the Fire Department arrived “the fire engulfed the rear of the bus”. Joe explains the floors were made of plywood on this model of bus and the fire spread along the floorboards.
While one fire truck’s crew fought the fire, which Joe describes as causing a thick black smoke that stopped all traffic on Queenston Road, the “young lad” who lived in the house came out “in rubber boots, a red plastic fireman’s hat, and the garden hose” to try to assist the fire department. The engineer of the second pumper on scene gave the child a full tour of the truck.
The bus was a write-off for passenger service, the frame was salvaged and the City’s first Dental Bus was built on it.
“I lost my favourite driving glasses in the blaze”, laments Joe.
Around seven or eight years ago, Joe had his second bus fire.
Driving down the Red Hill around 4:45 a.m., Joe noticed flames in his rear view mirror.
His “0600 series” bus was shooting flames out the rear tire well. Joe suspects the regenerative breaking system was at fault. The back of the bus was a write-off when the fire was finally out.
Joe’s trained hundreds of operators over his career, including the HSR’s first two female operators.
Joe has simple advice for operators: “Never assume anything, treat people with respect, if you are a hurry and pressed for time, bad things may happen — good things never result from hurrying”.
Back at the garage at 4:30 a.m., Joe continues to get ready for the day.
Officially, his bus pulls out of the garage at 4:55 a.m., but Joe always makes sure to be on his bus no later than 4:40 a.m. to give extra time for checking the bus.
If he finds a problem with his assigned bus, it gives him time to get another and still be on time for his 5:15 a.m. departure as the third 1-King bus out of the GO Centre.
Joe enters the driver’s lounge after swiping in and getting his paperwork and transfers for the day.
As Joe nears retirement, he looks at the current HSR crisis as a “temporary bump for the company”. (The HSR’s full name is The Hamilton Street Railway Company)
He quickly chats with some of the younger operators, including Cindy who recently filled-in on Joe’s work during his summer vacation.
Joe is insistent that your reporter meet the younger operators, “they are the future” he says repeatedly.
“I know Cindy quite well, she has passion and is representative of the upcoming operators who will be here after I and others are long gone”.
“She often covered my work when I’m on vacation, my regular passengers often had nice things to say about her and others”.
While Joe insists he’s replaceable, others (including your reporter) disagree.
Just ask “Friendly Frank, The Singing Bus Driver“. Joe was on medical leave last year and Frank Palin operated Joe’s 1-King bus for the month of May and June.
Frank is one of the HSR’s most popular operators, so much so a GoFundMe campaign organized earlier this year raised over $1000 to thank him for being the friendliness HSR operator.
The campaign was organized by students who regularly ride Frank’s 51-University bus.
On driving Joe’s bus, Frank says “as the weeks go by, passengers would still board each day with either a ‘When’s Joe back’ or ‘Still no Joe?'”.
Frank took it in strive, “It was nice because drivers tend to get a bad rap, to see how beloved Joe is, it restores my faith in the system”.
Frank says Joe was one of the first operators to welcome when he was hired, and he always looks forward to seeing Joe driving through McMaster, bubbles flying out Joe’s window.
“It always made me laugh”, Frank says with a wide smile.
On this day, due to the ongoing Transit Crisis, many retirees are in the lounge on “report” as the HSR scrambles to fulfil scheduled service after Council slashed hiring early in 2017.
Among those awaiting assignment is former Amalgamated Transit Union Local 107 President Kim Cheeseman who led the union during the lengthy 1998/98 winter transit strike.
“I owe him and those who came before him for the good job I have today, for my kids’ education”, Joe says of Cheeseman.
“I consider myself fortunate to be able to obtain a good paying job with good benefits that went a long way for me and my family”, Joe says as we hustle out of the lounge to the garage.
Joe is especially proud that he job “enabled my children to get a good education and start on their own careers”.
His eldest son is an aircraft mechanic, his daughter is a child care administration overseeing a large number of Early Year Centres, and his youngest son recently graduated from the physiology program at McMaster University.
It is now 4:40 a.m., most of Joe’s passengers haven’t even awaken for the day, but he’s fully alert as I struggle to keep up. Joe cuts in between a row of buses positioned so tightly together that an extra layer of winter jacket wouldn’t fit.
Moving quickly, as we pass the third column of buses, Joe turns around with a mischievous smile “Watch yourself, I’ve torn many a jacket over the years!”.
The HSR manager trailing us and I exchange glances, and decide to continue at Joe’s pace regardless of the risk to our nice jackets.
At the front of the garage sits the bus Joe will drive on this day.
He manually opens the doors, and starts his routine: positioning his candy on the dashboard first, he starts the bus engine, and starts punching the day’s transfer slips.
Joe loves his job down to the fine details. Each operator is assigned a unique punch for their transfers, prior to GPS tracking and the time accuracy of modern smartphones, the punch on a transfer slip was often the only means of identifying operators in the event of a rider compliant.
Joe set his eyes on a certain punch, and when it became available upon a retirement in the 1980s, he obtained a punch that created the number 1 in transfers. Number “1” to match his route.
Joe lost the punch a few years ago, but he made the best of it. Joe says his current punch makes hearts.
Joe says in his early days working at the HSR, operators carried quarters, payphones were the only means to contact HSR control as they didn’t yet have radios.
Computers would come in the 1980s, Joe quickly notes that thanks to his union, he was able to get computer familiarization training when a medical illness took him off the bus – he worked in the fare collection department during his work accommodation.
After punching his transfers, Joe quickly jumps out of the operator’s chair and off the bus to complete his circle check.
Lights, tires, even the emergency engine cut-off compartment all get checked with his flashlight. He makes sure the bus’ wheelchair ramp works, and now it’s time to leave the garage.
The first stop is the Tim Hortons at Upper James Street and Stone Church Road. The staff greet him as a regular, it’s now 4:55 a.m.
Onward down Upper James, Joe proceeds to Fennell Avenue. Left onto Fennell toward James Mountain Road. At West 2nd Street, Joe slows down looking for one of his regular passengers.
Joe says she regularly boarded his bus at the GO Centre, upon realizing she was transferring from the 27-Upper James, he told her that he drives by her stop and would pick her up, saving her 20 or so minutes each morning. She isn’t there this morning.
At the GO Centre, Joe has four transfers ready.
It’s 5:10 a.m., all the trains are sitting in their overnight storage spots, and a steady stream of HSR Mountain buses are bringing the first passengers of the day into the Downtown Core. There are a handful of cars on the road as the City slowly comes to life. Many of the passengers are employees of the City’s private garage collection contractor GFL, others are heading to the Stoney Creek industrial area, others still are service sector employees who will serve coffee to commuters who are not yet awake.
People get on board and greet Joe by name, Joe greets them by name.
Stops “move” at this hour of the morning, with the GFL employees being dropped at the driveway of the Queenston Traffic Circle Tim Hortons, likewise the stop at Queenston Road and Chapman Avenue moves a long half-block to the front of that Tim Hortons.
Joe fondly remembers the trolley buses. Whenever given the opportunity, driving into the Queenston Traffic Circle, he’ll talk about how Hamilton’s trolley wires were not custom installed for the system. ”
The circle was a series of 45 degree turns, many a rookie operator lost their poles here”, Joe says referring to when the trolley poles would come loose of the overhead wires.
In the early 1990s, the Regional Government “finally” rewired the trolley overhead wires to customize for the curves of Hamilton’s roadway. Shortly after spending millions on rewiring, Council axed trolley service as they slashed the HSR.
Joe was able to get a few souvenirs that were on their way to melted down for scrap.
He displays them in his garage these days, he’s hoping to add a vintage HSR location transmitter from the original tracking system to his collection. He’s working on connections in the Public Works department to get one, they still hang disconnected on old poles across the City.
At Eastgate Square, Joe stops behind another bus, opens the doors to disembark his passengers and is greeted by Fred [name changed]. Fred’s an old regular of Joe’s who now takes the bus ahead of Joe. Due to the Transit Crisis, many early morning passengers have adjusted their schedules to earlier buses, if Joe gets sick [which rarely happens], it is likely his bus won’t run that day.
Fred and Joe have playful banter, giving his other a hard time for a few minutes.
Joe notes that many of his early morning passengers are precariously employed, “they had their hours ‘temporarily’ cut back from full-time during the recession a decade ago, and they still only getting three or four days work each day”.
“This is why we need unions, to protect good jobs, and to bring good jobs back”, Joe adds.
Joe gets to know the people along his routes.
When I posted that I was writing this story on the occasion of Joe’s retirement, my social media lit up with tweets and Facebook comments from current and former Hamiltonians.
“He would wave at me”, says Bonnie-Jane Gairns who was a crossing guard for many years on Queenston Road. “My day off cause kids were sleeping in I would catch his bus to go to Eastgate Square and we would chat from Parkdale to Eastgate. He would make sure I got a chocolate or candy before I went shopping”.
“He’s a great driver!”
In the 1980s, heading east out of the Wentworth and King garage, Joe saw a young woman sitting on the pavement in a city parking lot.
Joe stepped off the bus and offered her his hand. She was from St. Catharines and her boyfriend had dumped her, leaving her in Hamilton. She wasn’t sure where she was, when Joe arrived at the next payphone, he called her parents, and a few trips later, they picked her up at Eastgate Square.
Your reporter has his own experience of being “saved” by Joe to share.
Joe saved 14-year-old me from having to explain why I forgot a bag of football equipment on a HSR bus one night.
I didn’t look at the sign when I got on board, the bus went out of service at Sanford (heading to the 330 Wentworth North garage), and in my fluster, I got off the bus forgetting my bag.
Being in Grade 9, I thought this failure of responsibility was basically the end of the world. How would I explain this when I got to school that morning?
As I’m taking my morning Upper bus downtown to connect to the King, the forgotten equipment is all-consuming in my thoughts. I was really worried.
I was thinking of excuses, trying to figure out if I can get away with skipping class in the middle of the day to go to the HSR Lost and Found in the hope someone turned it in.
I board the same 1-King bus I take every morning at 8:02 a.m., the driver hands me my bag.
“Hey young man, I think you left this on the bus last night”
“How did the driver last night know I take this bus in the morning”, I asked as only a 14-year-old could naively ask.
“I’m the same driver, I take you home every night”, Joe responded.
This was the start of our friendship.
Joe says one of the reasons he loves driving at the HSR is all the friends he made over the years, and the stories.
About two years after this, Joe turned the tables on me one day. Each morning, I took Joe’s bus to school.
I often remarked that I was the “younger, better looking, with hair Joe”.
I’ll let Joe tell his version of the story of turning the table on me.
“Joey Coleman has rode my bus consistently from a young age”, Joe says. “In his younger years, Joey had a passion for bowtie donuts from Tim Hortons … one day I couldn’t resist, leaving Eastgate, Joey raised his bowtie, heavily laden with fresh whipped cream, ready to take a bite”.
“I gently tapped the brake which resulted in whipped cream being deposited all over his face!”, Joe says with a playful smile. “It was actually very funny, by the way, Joey finished the donut before cleaning up his mug”.
As I remember it different, Joe claimed he had suddenly been cut off by a car, I never did see that ghost car. Following this, I was always a little more careful that if I was going to be a smart ass, not to give Joe an easy way of returning the favour.
HSR’s fleet of 60-foot articulated buses are all equipment with closed-circuit video cameras for the rear-most doors.
Due to the smaller bus stop areas on the 1-King route, when articulated buses pull into many stops, they do so on an angle creating a blind spot. Operators could neither see the doors from inside the bus, nor using their outside-mounted mirrors.
Joe refused to operate articulated buses for this safety reason, and worked with management on the solution to the blind spot, the CCTVs resulted.
While never a health and safety representative, Joe’s been a key advisor to many union presidents over the years.
It took Joe almost twenty years driving HSR buses before he had the seniority to get weekends off.
He quickly got involved with his children’s minor hockey association, and remained involved until recently, almost 20 years, long after his kids had aged out of minor hockey.
Joe, and his wife Nancy, are involved in their church parish, St. Patrick’s Church at King Street and Victoria Avenue. [Disclosure: I attend the parish, but a different mass time than the Kipps]
They were heavily involved in the church’s roof replacement campaign, and in recent years, Joe has gone nearly every week to Costco buying hundreds of dollars worth of coffee and snacks each time to donate to the parish’s Demazenod Door Outreach.
Of this, Joe says he gives of his means. “I’m very fortunate to be lucky enough to have a strong union job”.
Thanks to his job, Joe was able to put his computer familiarization training to use in another one of his passions.
In the 1990s, Joe got himself dial-up Internet and launched himself into e-commerce selling custom built loudspeakers (Joe’s online handle remains kippsoundman to this day). He sold speakers as a hobby venture, it let him build speakers. He stopped selling online, but still builds custom speakers. Most recently, he built a set for auction at his youngest son’s Stag and Doe.
Joe’s passion these days are his grandchildren.
Joe drives the 1-King with the earliest shift ending time. As most of us go for lunch, Joe gets off his bus at 11:57 a.m. at King Street and Hughson Street Downtown, the end of his workday. He takes the HSR home, picks up his vehicle, and drives to pick up his grandchildren.
Joe retires tomorrow, he’s “had his numbers” to retire for nearly a decade now. Many thought Joe would never retire, he loves the job that much, and were caught by surprise when he announced his plans earlier this fall.
“He’s a great ambassador”, says current ATU 107 President Eric Tuck. “He’s really one of a kind”.
“I don’t know how we replace the bubble driver”, Tucks chuckles with a smile. Tuck and other operators hope to do something to celebrate Joe in 2018, likely around the 40th anniversary of his start at the HSR in June.
Joe does not wish for retirement gifts, saying the friendships he’s built over the years are more than enough.
“Christmas season has always been a treat for me. Because I’ve stayed on the same route for so long, my regular passengers always bring me treats”, Joe says of this time of year.
Many passengers bring Joe cards and gifts of various varieties, including “enough Tim cards to satisfy my coffee craving well into February and maybe March”.
Joe doesn’t have any special plans for his retirement, more time with his family and grandchildren are at the top of the list. He plans to work part-time at the HSR, especially as the HSR works to hire enough operators in the coming months, and remains short-staffed.
His first part-time shift as a retiree will be New Years’ Eve, he’ll be driving the 2:30 a.m. last 1-King bus after people ring in the New Year. It will also be the first time Joe will drive a 1-King east of Eastgate since his days driving trolleys.
For his last day as a full-time bus operator, Joe is giving all his passengers coffee and donuts.
“Treats on me!”, Joe says. “Not one day has felt like work to me out here, people have made my career great”.
Joe hopes many old friends will join him Friday for one last ride before the officially retires stepping off this 1-King at 11:57 a.m. at King Street and Hughson Street.
Joe’s first departure from the GO Centre is 5:15 a.m. going eastbound to Eastgate Square.

created: December 28, 2017


text:
Neighbour Dispute Turns into OMB Case, One Neighbour Moves, and OMB Ruling Leaves Both Neighbours Unhappy – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 2, 2017
A lesson in the old saying, be careful what you ask for.
The Ontario Municipal Board overturned a Committee of Adjustment decision granting variances for a garage erected without a building permit that did not meet the City’s zoning requirements.
City planning staff told the Committee of Adjustment (CoA) that the garage did not meet the requirements of zoning, specifically, the garage was too close to the road and the neighbouring property. Staff recommended denial.
On a vote of 4-3, the CoA decided against the staff position and approved the garage. The neighbour appealed.
What makes this ruling noteworthy is that the appeal against the non-compliant garage originated as a neighbour dispute, and once the garage-owning neighbour moved, the complaining neighbour asked to withdraw the appeal – stating they were now fine with the garage.
Instead, the OMB upheld the zoning bylaw and the recommendation of staff to deny the variance.
“At the commencement of the hearing, I was advised by Mr. Kevin Fernandes, Counsel for the Applicant, that the Applicant had indeed moved to another location. New neighbours had moved in. The ill-feelings which once existed between these neighbours was gone now that new people had moved in. Given that, the parties no longer wished to pursue the appeal”, wrote OMB Vice-Chair Jyoti Zuidema in her decision.
The lawyer for the new owner sought to have the OMB dismiss the appeal.
Vice-Chair Zuidema wrote that she was bound to make a decision once the application was filed – especially as the appellant fought against an attempt by the original neighbour to have the case dismissed.
“Having had regard to the concerns raised by the City’s Planning Staff and given that I received no evidence to establish that the variances being sought met the four tests under subsection 45(1) of the Act, the Board orders that the appeal is allowed and the variances are not authorized.”

source: news-thepublicrecord

created: December 2, 2017

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


text:
OMB Sets Dates for Hearing on 19-Storey Proposal at 860 Queenston – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 3, 2017
The Ontario Municipal Board has scheduled 10 days to hear the appeal of Council’s denial of a 19-storey building proposal at 860 Queenston Road that was denied by Council in January. The hearing will start March 12, 2018 and be held at Dundas Town Hall. One day is being set aside for public participants, March 20, and this day will be at Stoney Creek City Hall to be more accessible for residents.
The OMB Procedural Order states the City and developer are in negotiations to reach a mediated settlement, and mediation hearing will be held on January 31. If the parties reach an agreement, then the OMB will only hold a one day hearing on March 20 to hear from participants.

created: December 3, 2017


text:
Ontario Municipal Board Tosses Council's Attempt to Gerrymander Wards, Axes Ward 14, Creates New Ward on Mountain – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 12, 2017
The Ontario Municipal Board has overturned Council’s gerrymandered ward boundaries, imposing the Watson and Associations final report Option 2 which creates a new Mountain ward and eliminates the present Ward 14; splitting the existing rural ward between Dundas and Ancaster’s existing Wards 12 and 13.
The new ward map (above) creates a fourth ward on Hamilton Mountain, with four strips wards with the western and eastern edges bleeding over the former municipal boundary.
Dr. Bruce Krushelnick, Executive Chair of the Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario, wrote that Hamilton City Council failed to properly consider enough interests across the City of Hamilton when considering new ward boundaries.
The Council was too focused upon maintaining the present arrangement of Ward 14 as a uniquely rural Flamborough Ward in order to protect their own interest.
“Having reviewed the entire body of evidence, the conclusion of the Board is that the ward boundary review came to be dominated by a concerted mandate to preserve, first, the agreement set at amalgamation that maintains a split of urban versus suburban/rural interests, and second, the rural minority interest reflected in maintaining Ward 14 (Flamborough) as an exclusively rural ward”, wrote Dr. Krushelnicki.
The OMB’s review of Hamilton’s ward boundaries is one of reasonableness, not correctness.
It was Council’s decision to divide Ainslie Wood and split the McMaster student community that was the most fatal flaw of Council’s gerrymander boundaries. At the last minute, just weeks prior to the hearing, Council suddenly changed their gerrymander wards behind closed doors to split Ainslie Wood to try to protect their wards from being overturned on populations imbalances.
“The Board regards this re-configuration of Wards 1 and 13 as an unreasonable error
which divides a community of interest without apparent justification, in contravention of one of the important principles. As a result, this revision will not find its way into the final configuration settled upon by the Board”.
As The Public Record wrote in early October, the OMB has previously considered students to be a protected community of interest and would be required to intervene, unraveling Council’s wards.
Here’s the full ruling in PDF format.

created: December 12, 2017


text:
Ward Appeal Does Not Equal Stay: Why the OMB Ruling Must Be Implemented Even if Council Appeals – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 15, 2017
Hamilton City Councillors will lock the public out of a Special Council GIC on Monday when they debate if they’ll launch a Divisional Court challenge against the Ontario Municipal Board’s decision to impose ward boundaries created by professional experts instead of boundaries Councillors drew themselves.
Postscript: Council voted 8-7 to not appeal the OMB decision during their December 18, 2017 Special Council meeting on the matter.
Council is using its privilege under the Municipal Act to go into closed session citing the OMB ruling as a legal matter.
If Council chooses to file a Divisional Court challenge against the OMB ruling, they must do so as a judicial review.
The standard for judicial review is reasonableness not correctness, the Dunsmuir Test (after the 2008 Supreme Court of Canada decision), and deference to specialized tribunals and bodies.
In short, the Court does not substitute its judgement in place of a specialized body such as the OMB. The Court is to review the decision of the OMB to determine if the ruling is reasonable.
In addition to the normal deference the Court is to give to the OMB as a specialized body, the deference is enhanced by the presiding OMB member’s possession of specialized knowledge within both the subject matter as the holder of a Doctoral degree in Urban and Regional Planning, and knowledge of the procedures of the OMB as the Executive Chair of the Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario.
Executive Chair Dr. Bruce Krushelnicki holds a a PhD in Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Waterloo, a Master of Urban and Regional Planning from Queen’s University and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Brock University.
In the Dunsmuir decision, the Supreme Court of Canada wrote at length about the need for judges to not substitute their own thinking in place of subject matter experts practicing in their specialized fields of adjudication.
It’s hard to fathom any Superior Court judge who would agree with any claim that Dr. Krushelnicki’s decision making is not grounded in knowledge of the subject matter, and that it is not reasonable.
The decision issued Tuesday is 41 pages long with 178 paragraphs, providing great detail on the Board’s reasons for decision.
Dr. Krushelnicki, with OMB Member Paula Boutis concurring, clearly articulates the issues put in front of the Board by all parties.
The decision shows careful consideration of the City’s arguments, and clear articulation of why the Board ultimately ruled in favour of the Wards produced by Watson and Associates as Option 2 of the Final (Amended) report.
The decision is reasonable, reasoned, and the decision to adopt is well explained.
Not only is the decision reasonable; the OMB itself showed deference towards the subject matter expertise of Watson and Associates. The OMB choose – without modification – one of the options produced in Watson and Associates 135 page report.
There is some concern that if Council appeals they will be able to delay implementation of the ward boundaries past the October 2018 municipal election.
The appeal isn’t a stay, the City Clerk is required by the Municipal Act to immediately begin preparation for the municipal election using the new ward boundaries.
Council would need to seek an emergency injunction seeking a stay against the OMB order. In order to gain a rare injunction, the Council must meet the test articulated in RJR — MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) [1994] 1 SCR 311.
There is a three part test:
Council’s appeal will fail on the first test – the Courts have already ruled in the OMB’s favour in similar previous cases.
While Council may feel they are suffering “irreparable harm” from new ward boundaries that don’t favour their incumbency, the Courts will look at the interests of the Corporation of the City of Hamilton. The Corporation suffers no “irreparable harm” from preparing for an election under the wards.
The undermining of the Ontario Municipal Board’s authority under the Municipal Act would be significant if the Courts were to issue an emergency injunction. In effect, an injunction will prevent the implementation of the Board’s order until 2022, and in the meanwhile, the next Council would render the order null by starting a new Ward Boundary Review process.
The next Hamilton Division Court sitting is the week of February 5 to 9. The City could seek a hearing in Toronto at Osgoode Hall, the Divisional Court conducts hearings year-round in Toronto.

created: December 15, 2017


text:
Why I Expect OMB Decision on Hamilton’s Ward Boundaries Will be a Landmark Province-Wide Precedent – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 4, 2017
The Ontario Municipal Board’s ruling on Hamilton’s ward boundaries is expected in the coming weeks, it must be issued prior to December 31, 2017.
I expect the hearing will not just be locally relevant, but will be a landmark precedent that will guide the criteria for ward boundary reviews in Ontario for the next 20 years.
Why?
The hearing was presided over by the Executive Chair of the Environmental and Land Tribunals of Ontario Dr. Bruce Krushelnicki. He is the highest-ranking member of the Ontario Municipal Board. As ELTO Executive Chair, he oversees all five of Ontario’s environmental and land tribunals. He is not randomly assigned cases, and regularly handles complex matters in which rulings have significant impact both in the effects of the ruling itself, and the precedent set for future similar matters.
Krushelnicki’s statements during the hearing indicate that he is set to make a landmark decision. The most revealing statement came during closing arguments when he stated “let it be known to those who write academic papers on this case in the future … that we were alive to and gave great consideration to this issue [visible minorities]” (Day 7 LiveBlog, 11:46)
Very few OMB decisions have academic papers written on them; and those are the major landmark decisions that create criteria frameworks and provide clear direction to municipalities.
Dr. Krushelnicki’s statement must be seen in the context of him holding a Ph.D and having been a faculty member at Brock University.
During this hearing, in a major tactical error, one of the City witnesses entered the 1969 “Decision of the OMB re Ward Boundaries in the City of Toronto”. This decision, which overturned Toronto’s Council’s “strip” wards. The “strip” wards were designed to disenfranchise lower socio-economic class voters. OMB Chair Joseph Kennedy, in a landmark decision, refused to approve the wards, establishing the OMB has the guardian of fair voting in Ontario. This ruling has been subject to numerous academic papers and dissertations.
Dr. Krushelnicki’s statement hints towards this Hamilton ruling being similarly significant and precedent setting.
The Ontario Municipal Board does not operate with doctrine of precedent; hearings are not bound to previous decisions and each hearing chair can make their ruling without constraint to previous rulings.
In practice, previous cases are heavily cited and built upon.
I expect the ruling will provide a clear framework to municipalities on ward boundaries, and will finally put to rest a hodgepodge of conflicting OMB directions.
During the past 20 years, the OMB has wrestled with municipal representation since the mega-amalgamations of the late stages of Premier Mike Harris’ government. There were 815 municipalities when Harris became Premier in 1995. By 2002 when Harris resigned as Premier, that number had decreased to 447 municipalities. Today there are 444 municipalities in Ontario.
In Hamilton, five suburban municipalities were rolled into the City of Hamilton.
The forced amalgamations of 2001 created new municipalities which merged different communities of interest together; rural and urban areas were combined. In many places, such as Hamilton and Ottawa, these communities were brought together under the new framework of single-tier municipalities.
Only three years prior, in 1998, the six municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto were merged into the new City of Toronto – a single tier city replacing the previous two-tier Metro Toronto structure.
The Municipal Act was never amended to provide guidance on how to govern these new mega-cities (as they were called 20 years ago), what criteria should be used for the creation of the wards, and even how those reviews should be conducted.
Instead, all the Municipal Act states is that municipalities are authorized to “divide or redivide the municipality into wards or to dissolve the existing wards”. The Act allows for citizens to petition to demand a municipality review its wards.
Hamilton’s present wards were created by Ontario Regulation 448/00 and only intended to last one electoral cycle. Instead, these wards have been used in an additional four municipal elections.
The boundaries themselves were designed with political convenience, not proper and effective representation, in mind. The primary goal of the Hamilton wards was to appease the Progressive Conservative base in the five suburban municipalities by creating a “balance” where, combined with the Mayor, the suburbs would have a veto against the eight Hamilton councillors. Hence, seven suburban wards.
Ironically, the Tories would see their Wentworth-Burlington MPP Toni Skarica resign in protest of amalgamation, and newly redundant Flamborough Mayor Ted McMeekin take his place, winning the riding in a by-election for the Liberal Party. The Tories would loss their other suburban Hamilton seat, Stoney Creek, during the next election in 2003.
Across Ontario, amalgamated wards were created by provincial regulation in Haldimand, Norfolk, Ottawa, Sudbury, and Waterloo.
Most municipalities moved quickly to conduct their ward boundary reviews after the 2001 amalgamations, and to replace the provincially imposed boundaries. Ottawa decided to create wards where the primary consideration was representation by population.
The resulting wards mixed urban and rural areas, and lead to an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, the Ottawa (City) v Osgoode Rural Community Assn 2003 case. In the ruling, which is not available online, the most often referenced line from the ruling is “the Board was of the opinion that Council did not give sufficient weight to communities of interest and, in particular, rural communities of interest”.
The OMB required Ottawa to conduct a second ward boundary review. Being the first ward boundary case involving an amalgamated community, the Ottawa case has become the go-to citation on ward boundaries in a single-tier amalgamated community.
It is one of the most cited cases, and has set the direction for OMB single-tier municipal ward reviews ever since.
In the Hamilton case heard last month, it was the most often cited case by the City to advance it view that rural representation overrides all other considerations of the Carter Criteria from the 1991 Supreme Court of Canada Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask) decision.
The lawyers representing Hamilton City Council have a good primer on the Carter Criteria here.
The question is the Ottawa criteria the only criteria? Should it be? Or do we need a more clearly articulated framework for ward boundaries in mixed rural/urban single-tier municipalities?
Twenty years after Premier Harris combined hundreds of municipalities, this debate is seeking an answer.
Why would Krushelnicki choose Hamilton to preside over as a case? Hamilton is a microcosm of Ontario’s 444 municipalities.
We have rural hamlets, farming as a major industry, old urban, renewing urban, inner suburbs, outer suburbs, numerous growth nodes, are part of the Greater Golden Horseshoe, greenfield, brownfield, concentrations of visible and cultural minorities, homogeneous “Anglo-Saxon” suburbs (City’s own terminology), strong geographical features with major highways and rail lines, and all of these interests have to be balanced to create wards.
A ruling on Hamilton can be applied elsewhere in Ontario, and a comprehensive decision can provide guidance to other OMB members reviewing ward boundaries in the future.
The primary role of the ELTO Executive Chair is to provide direction to the tribunals on major matters, they do so in their written decisions.
Hamilton is still using the interim ward boundaries set at Queen’s Park in 2000 for political convenience. With the boundaries of Wards 1 to 8 set in the early 1980s, Hamilton’s wards must change, and with all wards requiring review, the Executive Chair is granted the unique opportunity to write a ruling that balances all these factors.
A key piece of evidence in the hearing is an academic paper on minority voter dilution written by McMaster Political Science Ph.D candidate Rachel Barnett with her supervisor Dr. Karen Bird. Barnett was a participant in the hearing, speaking to her findings in front of the Board.
The City objected to her speaking, and to the introduction of the paper. The City’s position is that it did not consider visible minorities during the Ward Boundary Review, and therefore it was not an issue the Board should be allowed to consider.
Barnett’s paper showed that Hamilton’s existing ward boundaries, by granting more representation to the mostly Anglo-Saxon suburbs, dilutes visible minority voting power. Hamilton’s dilution is the worst among Ontario municipalities, the result being that visible minorities are less likely to be able to obtain effective representation.
Krushelnicki, during City arguments attempting to diminish Barnett’s work, that it is a “a credible paper” and “very useful to the Board”.
He continued, “We now have a visible minority interest that has grown over the years”. Adding that as visible minorities “reside in wards with less power, they have low power” in municipal government.
“In Ottawa they worried about the lose of voice in the rural areas … Just like the rural people will lose their interest, Ms. Barnett argues the same will happen for visible minorities due to voter dilution”. (Day 7 Liveblog, morning recap)
Here’s a key quote from the OMB Exec Chair on protection of visible minorities “That’s okay to say about the rural area, but other communities than the rural area are not deserving of protection”. (Day 7 Liveblog, 11:42)
During a separate line of questioning with Dr. Robert Williams, an expert in municipal ward boundaries who was involved with the Watson & Associates team and key City expert witness, Krushelnicki suggested that the Carter Criteria must be read as protecting vulnerable or disadvantaged minorities.
The acceptable of this paper, and the lines of questioning during the hearing, indicate that Krushelnicki will be provide a line framework for applying weighting of minorities interests in considering the Carter Criteria.
The Hamilton appellant, Robert Dobrucki, brought forth the City’s refusal to release population projections and geographical data in open formats during the boundary review. Dobrucki devoted much of his time to this issue.
During closing arguments, the City’s lawyer argued against Dobrucki’s position stating the City was not required to release data.
Krushelnicki interjected ‘Wouldn’t releasing the data increase public confidence, help find errors – such as were pointed out in this hearing – and make for a better process?’
He continued stated it is “admirable” they are citizens who are willing to engage so fully with the process, and suggested it may be time for the OMB to direct that data be released in open formats to the public. (Day 7 Liveblog, 10:50)
Both parties submitted to the Executive Chair binders full of case law and past OMB hearings on ward boundaries. Each could point to cases that supported their position, and often cited the same cases to advance conflicting arguments.
It’s reflective of how disjointed the Boards rulings on ward boundaries have become over the past decades, much more so since the Harris mega-amalgamations.
Dr. Krushelnicki’s appears posed to solve this problem, and definitely hinted he is moving in this direction. We’ll see what he does in his ruling, the release of which is imminent.

created: December 4, 2017


text:
"The 155" Election Podcast – The Public Record’s Hamilton Election Podcast – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site
Ed Wiens
May 9, 2024
The Public Record exists in service of democracy and as part of our service, The Public Record offered the 155 candidates in Hamilton’s 2018 municipal election the opportunity to be interviewed for our The 155 Podcast. In each race, candidates were asked to answer the same questions. 102 candidates agreed to be interviewed. The interviews allow you to listen to all the candidates to help inform your decision.
The Public Record is Hamilton’s most comprehensive coverage of our municipal affairs, the only media outlet to cover all committees at City Hall, the only media outlet to consistently cover hearings at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, and produce Hamilton’s only local affairs podcast. Sign up for our newsletter to stay informed on what’s happening at City Hall, and why it matters:
Subscribe to The 155 Podcast on Google Play, iTunes, or by RSS in your favourite podcatcher.
Thank you to the Hamilton Public Library for allowing The Public Record to record in the HPL’s sound studios at the Central, Dundas, Red Hill, Terryberry, and Turner Park branches.
Mayor: Mayoral interviews being conducted between September 4 and September 30.
Lower City: Ward 1 | Ward 2 | Ward 3 | Ward 4
Eastern Wards: Ward 5 | Ward 9 | Ward 10 | Ward 11
Hamilton Mountain: Ward 6 | Ward 7 | Ward 8 | Ward 14
Western Wards: Ward 12 | Ward 13 | Ward 15
Mayoral candidate list of questions
Ward 1 Council candidate list of questions
Ward 2 Council candidate list of questions
Ward 3 Council candidate list of questions
Ward 4 Council candidate list of questions
Ward 5 Council candidate list of questions
Ward 6 Council candidate list of questions
Ward 7 Council candidate list of questions
Ward 8 Council candidate list of questions
Ward 14 Council candidate list of questions
Ward 9 Council candidate list of questions
Click the candidate link to visit the episode page and read a summary of key answers.
Ward 11 Council candidate list of questions
Ward 12 Council candidate list of questions
Due to Council candidate and incumbent Lloyd Ferguson’s past use of violence against a journalist, for safety reasons, The Public Record will not be interviewing him.
Ward 13 Council candidate list of questions
Ward 15 Council candidate list of questions

author: Ed Wiens


text:
2018 Hamilton Municipal Election: The Debate Calendar – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site
Ed Wiens
May 9, 2024
Hosting a debate or forum? Let Us Know, email: electiondesk@thepublicrecord.ca
List of Mayoral Debates
Lower City: Ward 1 | Ward 2 | Ward 3 | Ward 4
Hamilton Mountain: Ward 6 | Ward 7 | Ward 8 | Ward 14
Eastern Wards: Ward 5 |Ward 9 | Ward 10 | Ward 11
Western Wards: Ward 12 | Ward 13 | Ward 15
No debates have been scheduled yet.
No debates have been scheduled yet.
No debates have been scheduled yet.
No debates have been scheduled yet.
No debates have been scheduled yet.
No debates have been scheduled yet.
No debates have been scheduled yet.
No debates have been scheduled yet.
No debates have been scheduled yet.
No debates have been scheduled yet.
No debates have been scheduled yet.
No debates have been scheduled yet.
No debates have been scheduled yet.
Traditionally, the Flamborough Chamber of Commerce hosts a candidate debate.


text:
2018 Hamilton Municipal Election: The Issues – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site
Ed Wiens
May 9, 2024
The Public Record is compiling a list of issues that matter in the 2018 municipal election. We invite you to submit your issues to us by email: electiondesk@thepublicrecord.ca
We will list issues on this page that we’re working on, once we’ve produced a summary of the issue, the issue will be linked to a separate page which will list candidate positions on the issue.


text:
2018 Hamilton Municipal Election: Ward Polling Division Maps – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site
Ed Wiens
May 9, 2024
The Public Record obtained the 2018 City of Hamilton Ward Polling Division maps on May 15, 2018 in PDF format. We formally requested the maps in GIS format to the City’s open data office on May 16, and will link to the City’s open data page when they become available there.
Important Note: The polling divisions do not mean the voting location will be within those boundaries; the City will release voting locations on September 4, 2018.
Lower City: Ward 1 | Ward 2 | Ward 3 | Ward 4 | Ward 5
Hamilton Mountain: Ward 6 | Ward 7 | Ward 8 | Ward 14
Eastern Suburbs: Ward 9 | Ward 10 | Ward 11
Western Suburbs: Ward 12 | Ward 13 | Ward 15
Download map (right click “Save Link As”): PNG image format | PDF document format
Download map (right click “Save Link As”): PNG image format | PDF document format
Download map (right click “Save Link As”): PNG image format | PDF document format
Download map (right click “Save Link As”): PNG image format | PDF document format
Download map (right click “Save Link As”): PNG image format | PDF document format
Download map (right click “Save Link As”): PNG image format | PDF document format
Download map (right click “Save Link As”): PNG image format | PDF document format
Download map (right click “Save Link As”): PNG image format | PDF document format
Download map (right click “Save Link As”): PNG image format | PDF document format
Download map (right click “Save Link As”): PNG image format | PDF document format
Download map (right click “Save Link As”): PNG image format | PDF document format
Download map (right click “Save Link As”): PNG image format | PDF document format
Download map (right click “Save Link As”): PNG image format | PDF document format
Download map (right click “Save Link As”): PNG image format | PDF document format
Download map (right click “Save Link As”): PNG image format | PDF document format


text:
City Planning to Developers: Don't Assume You Can Build on Unassumed Alleyways – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 15, 2018
Hamilton’s Chief Planner told a gathering of developers they must secure permission from the City’s real estate office prior to submitting development plans to the Planning Division if they include public unassumed alleyways in their plans.
The discussion occurred during the monthly Development Industry Liaison Group meeting.
Steve Robichaud reminded the development community they can only submit applications for properties they own, or they have written permission to build upon. He stated the planning division received numerous applications which plan to build on municipal public unassumed alleyways.
Without a letter from the City’s real estate office authorizing the applicant to apply to development on City lands, the Chief Planner says applications are deem incomplete and will be returned to the developer “we don’t have room on the fifth floor to store applications”.

created: January 15, 2018


text:
City Plans to Install Another 10 Pedestrian Crossovers in 2018 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 13, 2018
The City’s Public Works Department has only installed pedestrian crossovers at 21 locations in the two years since the Province implemented changes to allow for the lower cost type of pedestrian crossing.
There are presently 99 other locations identified as needing crossovers painted and signs installed. Public Works plans to complete 10 of them in 2018 using $400,000 from revenue raised by red light camera violations
The report states the City has installed 37 crossovers; the City’s count is technically true.
Why the discrepancy between Public Works’ preferred means of counting and the number of locations?
The City is counting each intersection as four crossovers or three in the case of Queen and Herkimer, single crossings with pedestrian island as two, and counting multiple pedestrian crossing inside bus-only HSR transit terminals.
Within the HSR Mountain Garage Transit Terminal, the City says there are two separate pedestrian crossovers. At the Mohawk College Transit Terminal, a location restricted to HSR vehicles, the City counts three separate pedestrian crosswalks.
The 10 locations planned for 2018 are:

created: January 13, 2018


text:
Council Exploring Local Solutions to Metrolinx HSR-PRESTO Requirements – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 16, 2018
Hamilton City Councillors are hesitant to accept terms imposed by Ontario’s Provincial transit oversight agency Metrolinx for the use of the electronic PRESTO fare system.
Under new terms of use being imposed by Metrolinx’s on the 905-belt municipalities, local transit systems must generate a minimum amount of commission revenue to PRESTO or face clawbacks in their provincial gas tax funding.
Gas tax revenues projected to double to $21-million by 2021-22
For Hamilton’s local public transit agency, this means going from paying $422,039 at a 2% commission rate to $4,098,005 at a 9% commission rate in 2027.
Metrolinx is regarding that 80% of HSR revenue by from PRESTO media by 2021. To reach 80%, HSR must discontinue paper tickets and passes.
Councillor Terry Whitehead was the first Councillor to express concerns about the elimination of HSR bus tickets, saying HSR tickets are widely available at corner stores across Hamilton.
Metrolinx has signed a exclusivity contract with Loblaws for selling transit fare media; the City is forbidden from allowing local businesses to sell PRESTO fare materials.
Councillor Sam Merulla said the difficulty in adding money to PRESTO cards, the limited number of locations to do so, will be harmful to the working poor who will be forced to pay higher cash fares as a result.
Merulla asked City staff what the costs will be for the City to continue offering HSR paper bus tickets for sale in corner stores across Hamilton.
Nancy Purser, the senior HSR manager in charge of fare systems, told Councillors the City will have to pay PRESTO a minimum amount for all fare media as commission, and she was not sure if the City will be allowed to maintain tickets under PRESTO’s conditions.
Merulla moved a motion for a staff report providing options for continuing HSR paper tickets to ensure the working class are able to access lower cost transit.
Councillors voted to table the item pending the staff report requested by Merulla.

created: January 16, 2018


text:
Divisional Court Upholds OMB Decisions in Oakville Glen Abbey Development Rulings – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 30, 2018
The Ontario Divisional Court delivered a rare ruling involving an Ontario Municipal Board decision on what constitutes a complete planning application.
Justice Harriet Sachs dismissed an appeal request from the Town of Oakville regarding two OMB decisions on the Glen Abbey development project.
For those in planning and development, the decision provides useful guidance on when a planning application is complete; as the court supports the lengthy OMB decision in this matter.
For the purposes of The Public Record‘s coverage, the ruling serves another use, the Divisional Court shows deference to the OMB Executive Chair and the decision making of the Board.
This ruling is instructive to those considering appealing the Hamilton Ward Boundaries decision, I wrote in December about the tests of judicial review (Dunsmuir Test), and deference to specialized tribunals and bodies.
This ruling contains a couple of paragraphs I’d like to highlight:
[7]               For the reasons that follow, I would deny the motion for leave to appeal. In summary, I find that while there may be an argument for an alternative interpretation of the Act as urged by the Town, this is not sufficient to cause me to believe that there is a serious debate as to the reasonableness of the Review Decision, especially when that decision is neither inconsistent with the express purposes of the Act, nor inconsistent with the express wording or scheme of the Act. As the Supreme Court of Canada held in British Columbia (Securities Commission) v. McLean, 2013 SCC 67 (CanLII), [2013] S.C.R. 895, in considering whether a tribunal’s decision is reasonable, the inquiry is not whether another reasonable interpretation exists; rather, the tribunal has the “interpretive upper hand” such that deference is owed to any reasonable interpretation.
In paragraph 19, Justice Sachs clearly defers to the OMB’s exercise of its expertise in specialized areas of law:
[19]           There is no dispute that the standard of review applicable to the issue raised in the proposed appeal is reasonableness. In the Review Decision the Board was interpreting the provisions of its home statute. Its expertise with respect to this statute and the policies underlying it were directly engaged.
The Ontario Divisional Court upheld a series of decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board in regards to the Town of Oakville Glen Abbey golf course development. (The Glen Abbey development is hotly opposed in Oakville)
In short, the OMB ruled that ClubLink’s development planning application was complete, Oakville had deemed it incomplete and refused to process it. The OMB ordered the Town of Oakville to begin processing the application, starting the statutory timelines on the decision date of June 7, 2017.
ClubLink requested the Chair of the Board review the decision, specifically seeking the Chair vary the date of complete application to be November 10, 2016 when ClubLink submitted to the Town.  The OMB Executive Chair and OMB Associate Chair jointly issued a ruling granting ClubLink’s review request, and deemed the application complete in 2016.
This is significant, as it grants ClubLink the right of appeal to the OMB for non-decision – the ability to bypass Town Council being very advantageous to ClubLink in this instance.
The Town Council appealed to the Divisional Court on both the original ruling and the review decision on application completion date.
In the decision released last week, the Court decided to dismiss the application for appeal, with reasons provided.

created: January 30, 2018


text:
City plans to transfer two downtown parking lots to CityHousing for affordable housing, will house Jamesville residents – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 7, 2018
UPDATE: Councillors on the Affordable Housing Sub-Committee approved the transfer which still needs to be ratified by City Council in the coming weeks. Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr amended the motions slightly to clarify that Jamesville residents will be offered housing in the new developments, but not required to move to them. Of the Bay and Cannon parking lot, Farr hinted at plans for a public-private partnership to build a mixed-income community at the site.
CityHousing will take possession of two downtown City of Hamilton parking lots to build social housing to replace the townhouses of the existing Jamesville CityHousing in Hamilton’s North End, if a motion authorizing the sale is approved by Council in the coming weeks.
Council’s Affordable Housing Site Selection Committee will vote to transfer two municipal parking lots to CityHousing, #66 at 106 Bay Street North, and #73 at 253 King William Street. Unused City of Hamilton lands at the rear of Macassa Lodge at 701 Upper Sherman Avenue will be transferred as well.
The motion (PDF) states “CityHousing Hamilton Corporation has begun a revitalization process that requires the acquisition of land for the rebuilding of 100 units of social housing following an approved sale of poor performing single and semidetached housing units, as well as for the relocation of residents from the Jamesville social housing community in the West Harbour during its redevelopment”
The decision to use these parking lots, if passed and implemented, will keep the residents of Jamesville in the Downtown area. The City is presently in the process of selling the Jamesville lands – located across from the West Harbour GO Station – or partnering with private developers to create a “mixed-income community”
The Affordable Housing Site Selection Committee will discuss on vote on this motion during their next meeting on February 15 at 3:00pm in City Hall. The sub-committee report should be voted on by Council’s General Issues Committee on February 21, with full ratification of Council to follow on February 28.

created: February 7, 2018


text:
Coppley Expanding Manufacturing in Hamilton's Downtown, Planning Move Down MacNab Street to Cannon Street – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 8, 2018
Premium tailored clothing company Coppley is planning a new 6,822 square metre three storey manufacturing facility in Hamilton’s Downtown, just down the street from their present headquarters.
Founded in 1883 as John Calder & Company, Coppley is a Downtown Hamilton landmark with their current headquarters at 56 York Boulevard across from the Hamilton Farmer’s Market.
The new facility will enable the company to enhance its manufacturing processing while remaining in Downtown Hamilton, architect Drew Hauser told the City’s Design Review Panel on Thursday.
“Staying in the Core is a key part of their business plan,” Hauser said. “85 to 90 percent of their staff use public transit”.
The proposed manufacturing facility was reviewed by the Design Review Panel, with the panel providing positive feedback to the architectural team from McCallumSather.
“I think it’s so cool that Coppley is staying Downtown … I think its totally something to be celebrated”, said DRP member Colin Berman, a landscape architect. He felt the initial design is understated. “I’m not sure if you’ve gone far enough to celebrate this use Downtown”.
DRP members suggest many tweaks to the initial design. Berman suggested the design of the corner at MacNab and Cannon should be a display for the “latest and greatest suits” designed by Coppley, or another form of interaction with the street.
Members strongly encourage the architect to install a lighting system for the loading bay on the west side of the building which which enters and exits onto Cannon Street across the Cannon Cycle Track. Members wish to see the loading bay needs “screened” to continue the street wall design of the building for the full length of the north facade.
Suggestions were made to modify brick and metal design on the facades to be more “visually interesting”, and better animated to the street, by “paying homage to the patterns of fabric”, use of more brick, and “warmer tones”.
DRP member Tim Smith, a Registered Professional Planner, said he the design should reflect Coppley’s historic building on York Boulevard, and suggested the architect work to minimize the “steel metal treatment” considering surrounding houses are primarily built with brick materials.
“It’s a building that just seems so out of context for me, compared to both the historic Coppley buildings and the surrounding buildings”, Smith said.
A large area of the upper floors of the planned building require climate and light control due to the nature of the fabrics used in creating suits; members of DRP suggested various means of compensating for the lack of windows on the upper floors.
The development will include demolishing the existing Coppley warehouse on the site. The existing administrative offices will be integrated into the new building.
Overall, DRP was very supportive of the project.
Kimberly Harrison-McMillian, the manager of the City’s urban planning team, says Coppley has not yet submitted its final planning application for the development.
“We’re going to do everything we can to assist this application”, Harrison-McMillian told The Public Record after the meeting.
Hamilton’s Chief Planner Steve Robichaud attended the meeting, and says the Planning Division is happy to see Coppley growing in Hamilton, and remaining in the Downtown.
Glen Norton, Hamilton’s Director of Economic Development, says the expansion is “good news for all of us”.
“Coppley has deep roots in this city”, Norton says. “We will do whatever we can to assist in the physical move and modernization”.
The design will be further developed, and return to the Design Review Panel for comment after the planning application is submitted.
Construction timelines were not discussed at the meeting.
After the meeting, architect Drew Hauser said Coppley’s management will be sharing details of their plans in the near future, first with their employees.
The future of the existing Coppley building at 56 York Boulevard was not discussed at the meeting.
The building’s owner, and his family, have continuously opposed heritage designation for 1856 building. The building is separatedly owned from the company. Coppley has been owned by New York based Individualized Apparel Group since 2012.
In 1979, Hamilton’s Board of Control approved heritage designation of the building. The owners appealed, and in 1980, the Conservation Review Board upheld the City’s designation.
Council never implemented the enacting by-law, but due to the CRB ruling, the building enjoys the same heritage protections as a designated buildings.
In March 2015, Chief Planner Robichaud updated the Hamilton Municipal Heritage Committee on the heritage status of the building, writing:
The property is currently subject to the Notice of Intention to Designate from
1979. By maintaining the status quo, the City would continue to manage change
to the property through the Heritage Permit process as if it were designated, as
per the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act. However, the property would not
be eligible for a City designation plaque, nor would it be eligible for the City’s
financial incentives for protected heritage properties.
At the time, Enkin family – which has owned the building since the 1950s – continued to opposed designation. City staff say they are not aware of any change in ownership or position on designation by the building owners.
The next meeting of the Hamilton Municipal Heritage Committee is February 15, and it can be expected the Committee will seek an update from staff on the status of the building.
The Globe and Mail recently published a feature on Coppley’s Hamilton operation and the history of the company.

created: February 8, 2018


text:
Dave Hanley Named Hamilton's 2017 Citizen of The Year – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 23, 2018
Last fall, I was asked to write a letter supporting the nomination of Dave Hanley as Hamilton’s Citizen of the Year.
This week, the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce announced that Dave is posthumously Hamilton’s 2017 Citizen of the Year.
Below is an edited version of the letter I submitted supporting Dave’s nomination.
Hamilton’s Citizen of the Year is awarded to one person who serves as the personification of the many Hamiltonians who collectively make our community better for their being part of it.
Those awarded Citizen of the Year collectively serve as a beacon for Hamilton’s son and daughters to aspire to be.
David “Dave” Michael Hanley is a worthy nominee for Citizen of the Year; and if awarded this honour posthumously, his example will join that of previous recipients in continuing to inspire Hamiltonians.
Dave, and use his first name because he had not an ounce of pretension, arrived in Hamilton five years ago and quickly integrated into our community.
When Dave arrived on Hamilton’s food scene, he sent a series of media releases for his new venture Dishcrawl. I was publicly critical of him for using a 416 number, his personal cellphone, stating that he wanted to promote a local event, he should be local, and we did not need more 416ers trying to change us.
I was wrong about Dave, and over time he taught me I was wrong about outsiders.
Dave’s response to this was not defensive, and in fact was disarming. A simple note that he was moving to Hamilton, that he planned to get a Hamilton number,  he hoped to meet with me at some point in the near future, that he was equally skeptical about promoters, and he would seek to overcome my skepticism.
What could’ve easily been a cold non-relationship turned in one of the most valuable and inspiring relationships I’ve had in my 35 years as a Hamiltonian.
Dave showed me how to be a better Hamiltonian, to be more welcoming, and to see seemingly normal parts of Hamilton as assets instead of just places.
Each Saturday, I go to the Hamilton Farmers’ Market, and look at the space between the Market and York Boulevard seeing the many PopUp Hamilton events Dave held in the space and how it made it an asset. Same for the old, now gone, warehouses on Pier 8, the Museum of Steam and Technology, and an array of other Hamilton locations.
Dave’s tireless involvement with, and promotion of, Food4Kids helped grow the charity, and inspired me to quietly become involved in volunteering with another local charity. If Dave could make the time, I could as well.
Dave became the best of Hamilton, he connected people, connected ideas, and made events happen.
The impact of his ability to make Pop Up Hamilton happen is yet to be fully measured; gaining temporary use permits for venues across Hamilton is a feat that clears the path for future events in Hamilton that build civic fabric and pride.
Dave’s death was a tragic event felt across a wide swath of Hamiltonians. I felt it personally.
As Hamilton’s independent journalist, I can speak to Dave’s ability to clear the infamous bureaucratic hurdles of Hamilton City Hall.
Only days after his death, hundreds of Hamiltonians gathered in Sam Lawrence Park to remember Dave and share stories of his impact on their lives.
Dave was to hold one of his Pop Up Hamilton events in the park that September Saturday night, a feat of logistics and negotiation that would’ve been one of those “I was there” moments in Hamilton’s history.
That one day the event will happen, hundreds of Hamiltonians will enjoy food and friendship overlooking our great city is a testament to Dave’s impact – he taught City Hall that enabling events in public spaces creates public benefit and makes our Hamilton better.
Dave’s personal impact on me is that I’m a kinder, more thoughtful, less skeptical Hamiltonian.
My roots are deep in East Hamilton, and with those roots comes skepticism about outsiders coming to change Hamilton. Dave proved my skepticism wrong, his love of all things embraced me, and enables me to embrace our Hamilton even more.
In 2014, Dave found a way to invite me to a Pop Up event. Seeing that I was with a good friend, he invited her to the next event at the Farmers Market, saying to her “I think you’ll need a date for the evening, and Joey’s always the gentleman”. I enjoyed the event, and would take a complimentary ticket in December 2015 as well. Dave asked nothing in return, except that I meet new people and experience new Hamilton culinary experiences.
I think of Dave often, mourn his loss each Saturday I’m in the Market and don’t see him.
There’s a Sobi bike that was renamed in his memory. Originally, the bike’s name was “Dave”, six letters have been added “B-E L-I-K-E”.
Honouring Dave with Citizen of The Year will encourage more Hamiltonians to Be Like Dave, I cannot think of any better reason for granting this award.
Sincerely,
Joey Coleman
Hamiltonian

created: February 23, 2018


text:
Medallion Properties Takes City to OMB on 20 Storey Redevelopment of 195 Wellington South – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 16, 2018
Medallion Properties have filed an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board on their application for a 20-storey residential redevelopment of their property at 195 Wellington Street South in the  Stinson neighbourhood, which borders onto Corktown Park.
The Hamilton Spectator wrote about the proposal last summer when it was still a 19-storey plan.
The Ontario Municipal Board has assigned case number PL171389 to the appeal. The first pre-hearing date has not yet been set.
The application was first submitted to the City of Hamilton on February 3, 2014, deemed complete by the City’s Planning Division on February 28, 2014, and under the Planning Act, the City had 120 days to make a decision.
After June 3, 2014, Medallion had the option of appealing to the OMB for non-decision.
Medallion was continuing to advance its application with the City until late last year. In August, planners from Bousfield registered with the City’s lobbyist registry.
With significant legislative changes to the OMB, including renaming to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, many developers filed appeals in late 2017 as their appeal rights are stronger under the old OMB rules compared to the new LPAT.
The Public Record has requested the full planning application from the City of Hamilton and requested notification of hearing dates from the OMB.
Residents and other interested parties will be able to seek participant status at the OMB pre-hearing, it is at the OMB’s discretion to allow or disallow participants.
The Public Record will report when the pre-hearing date is set, subscribe to our newsletter below to get the story delivered to your inbox.
CORRECTION: The original version of this article stated the development as being in the Corktown neighbourhood. It is in fact in the Stinson neighbourhood geographically.

created: February 16, 2018


text:
No Outdoor Entertainment on Hamilton Patios for Summer of 2018 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 15, 2018
Hamilton’s new patio entertainment by-law will not be decided by the Ontario Municipal Board in time for this year’s patio season.
This means the City’s previous ban on entertain on outdoor commercial patios will remain in effect for another patio season.
In a pre-hearing ruling issued Monday, the Ontario Municipal Board set hearing dates of September 25 to 27, 2018 for an appeal of the City’s new bylaw.
Last January, City Council voted to allow entertainment on outdoor commercial patios in six major commercial districts, the West Harbour, and 18 specific rural properties.
Numerous residents near the then-Hamilton Waterfront Trust lands spoke against granting outdoor entertainment to Sarcoa restaurant on the HWT Pier 8 land, following complaints from both the Hamilton and Burlington sides of the harbour about loud music from the club in previous years.
City Council decided to not separate the approval for Sarcoa from the other patio zones, passing them together. Neighbourhood association West Harbour Neighbours appealed the approval to the Ontario Municipal Board.
The result is the city-wide prohibition against entertainment on outdoor patios will remain in effect.
No other parties or participants registered at the pre-hearing.

created: February 15, 2018


text:
Stoney Creek Developer Appeals to OMB for Four Storey Development at 261 King Street East – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 16, 2018
J.A.N. Group Inc filed an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board on their application for a four storey residential building at 261 King Street East in Stoney Creek. The site is located west of Green Road.
Kevin Warner of Hamilton Community News wrote on the project in 2016, reporting the initial plan was to develop 48-units, and that Ward 10 Councillor Maria Pearson was supportive of the concept.
Pearson tells The Public Record the developer was working productively with City staff making changes to their application; including decreasing the density of the proposal and addressing traffic concerns.
Pearson says she will be mailing residents who attended the public engagements on the proposal to inform them of the appeal, and assist them with being heard during the OMB process.
This development, along with many others, appealed to the OMB for non-decision in advance of significant legislation changes to the OMB. The soon to be implemented Local Planning Appeal Tribunal system will be weighted towards municipal council decision making, whereas the present OMB is seen as weighted towards developers.
Residents and other interested parties will be able to seek participant status at the OMB pre-hearing, it is at the OMB’s discretion to allow or disallow participants.
The Ontario Municipal Board has assigned case number PL171383 to the appeal. The first pre-hearing date has not yet been set.
The application was first submitted to the City of Hamilton on October 24, 2016, deemed complete by the City’s Planning Division on November 4, 2016, and under the Planning Act, the City had 180 days to make a decision.
After April 22, 2017, Medallion had the option of appealing to the OMB for non-decision.
The Public Record will report when the pre-hearing date is set, subscribe to our newsletter below to get the story delivered to your inbox.


text:
42% of Hamilton's Grade 2 Children Have History of Tooth Decay, Medical Officer of Health States in Oral Health Report – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 18, 2018
Thousands of Hamiltonians don’t have access to dental coverage, and both they and their children are suffering from serious oral health ailments as a result, Hamilton’s Medical of Officer of Health states in a report to Council this week.
Dr. Elizabeth Richardson says the lack of access to dental care means thousands of Hamiltonians are forced to suffer from oral health issues such as tooth decay until they become a medical emergency requiring intervention at local hospitals; often tooth extraction and treatment for related ailments that get covered by OHIP.
Statistics are particularly bleak for thousands of children who require tooth removal each year from day surgery units at local hospitals, and the situation is worsening.
Dr. Richardson says public health dental staff screened 17,122 elementary students in the 2016/17 school year; 1471 kids needed urgent dental care, another 3244 needed preventive dental care.
The statistics for Grade 2 students are very concerning, 42% have a history of tooth decay, 1 in 10 “require urgent dental care”, and nine schools report “very high rates of untreated cavities”.
42% of Grade 2 students have a history of tooth decay, 1-in-10 Grade 2 students require urgent dental care, and nine of our schools – the majority of them in the Lower City – have “very high rates of untreated cavities”.
There’s another trend the report is revealing, as the Lower City gentrifies as Real Estate Investment Trusts drive up rental rates, lower income families are being forced to move into the poorly serviced suburbs.
A map (above) in the report shows that postal code L9A is now seeing the same number of children requiring oral day surguries at Hamilton’s hospitals as our poorer Lower City neighbourhoods.
Dr. Richardson says her public health division is working to expand their free dental programs to serve more patients each year; and expand the availability of preventative dental care.


text:
City Continues Settlement Negotiations with OMB Appellants on new Commercial Mixed Use Zoning – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 2, 2018
The City of Hamilton is negotiating with over 20 parties who appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board against the City’s new Commercial Mixed Use Zoning.
Hamilton’s Chief Planner Steve Robichaud told the City’s Development Industry Liaison Committee that his staff continue to meet with various appellants to resolve their appeals without a full OMB hearing.
Robichaud told DILC that implementation of the new zoning will not be done until all appeals are settled.
In similar past city-wide zoning amendments, the City successfully sought OMB orders to implement the zoning exclusive of appellant properties.
The City recently implemented Transit-Oriented Corridor Zoning by OMB order with the exemption of the Fortino’s Plaza on Dundurn, the No Frills property at Main and Tisdale, and the former No Frills site at The Delta – the owner of these properties being the only appellant against the new zoning. The City continues to negotiate with them, and the OMB has not scheduled any further hearings at this time.
During the February Business Improvement Area Advisory Committee meeting, multiple BIA coordinators expressed disappointment that the new zoning will be delayed. The Stoney Creek, Barton, and International Village BIAs all stated they need the new zoning to enable new business ideas to open.
Under Hamilton’s outdated zoning bylaws, many modern business uses are prohibited because the language of Hamilton’s old bylaws is restrictive use. The new zoning bylaw uses permissive language, allowing for a wider ranges of uses.
The outdated bylaws mean that many businesses require rezoning applications, costing tens of thousands of dollars, or minor variances, costing thousands of dollars, to open.
At present, the OMB has not scheduled a pre-hearing to begin organizing the appeals hearing.
The Public Record registered with the OMB to receive notice of the hearing and will provide coverage from the OMB hearings when they occur.


text:
City of Hamilton 2018 MFIPPA Statistics Report Shows City Failing to Meet Timelines in Nearly 20% of Requests – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 14, 2018
The City of Hamilton released its 2018 MFIPPA Statistics Report to The Public Record following our request for the document which the City is legally required to submit annually to Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner.
The City’s Manager of Records & FOI Lisa Barroso states in the report the City received 220 requests in 2017, and completed 193 requests last year.
Of the completed requests, the City says none came from academics, researchers, or community associations. Only 15 came from the media, the City states. (The Public Record is not considered media by the City Clerk)
Of the 193 requests, 156 were completed within 30 days. The City self-reports that it failed to meet statutory time limits in 35 requests.
The full report PDF can be read here.


text:
Coleman: Pike Is Running to Win Hamilton Centre as the Liberals Plan to Force Horwath to Watch Her Own Backyard – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 17, 2018
Could Hamilton Centre be a riding to watch in the upcoming provincial election? A few months ago, merely asking the question would get you laughed out of the room. A few weeks ago, eye rolls. After seeing Deirdre Pike’s nomination speech today, and looking around the room, it’s now a reasonable question to ask..
But Hamilton Centre is a safe NDP seat you say, after all the NDP have held the seat “forever” and David Christopherson managed to hold it when the Bob Rae NDP government was swept out of government.
Interestingly, in 1995, it was assumed that Hamilton was an NDP fortress – with the possible exception of Hamilton Centre.
“As part of your owner’s manual for this column, it should be remembered that I remain a committed New Democrat.” former NDP MPP Mike Davison opened his April 28, 1995 column in The Hamilton Spectator. The writ for the June 8, 1995 election was dropped the day his column was published.
Davison wrote the Liberals may unseat then first term MPP David Christopherson, Hamilton Centre had swung back and forth between the Liberals and NDP multiple times during the 1980s. The other seats in Hamilton were assumed to be safe, the NDP holding Hamilton East since 1963, Mountain since its creation in 1977, and Hamilton West since 1982.
The Liberals ran a strong campaign in Hamilton Centre in 1995; expecting to pick up the seat.
When results came in on election night that year, it was an major surprise. The NDP lost all its safe seats, and Christopherson was the last NDPer standing in Hamilton. He held on by a narrow 690 vote margin, but in the context of the NDP rout that night, his thin margin became the stuff of mythology. The Liberals all but abandoned the riding.
Twenty-Three years later, they want to take this “safe seat” from NDP Leader and current Hamilton Centre MPP Andrea Horwath.
Will the Liberals take Hamilton Centre? Their nominee Deirdre Pike, who was confirmed today, is campaigning to win, and the Liberals are pouring resources and talent into the race.
Pike is a strong local candidate, widely known, widely respected, who has stronger social service and justice credentials than most NDP candidates. The NDP cannot outflank Pike on social issues, and Pike has both the networks and story to draw a large number of voters from the NDP in the riding.
The obvious value for the Liberals in having a strong candidate in Hamilton Centre is feeding the media at least one campaign story of Horwath needing to defend her own seat. Depending on the campaign narrative at the time of the local cable television debate, it could change provincial momentum.
Pike’s strengths are Horwath’s strengths. When Horwath debates Pike on Cable 14; she has much to lose, whereas Pike merely needs to hold Horwath to a draw to achieve a victory for the Liberals.
Kathleen Wynne made her first unofficial campaign stop in Hamilton Centre today for the nomination confirmation of Pike. Wynne spoke in Hamilton at the same time Horwath was unveiling key planks of the NDP’s provincial platform.
Wynne received little media coverage (other than myself, I only saw) CHCH and Cable 14 from the local pool) today, as Horwath enjoyed a good day of earned media.
The Ontario Liberals are very unpopular, having been the provincial governing party since 2003, they are entering the election with a great deal of political baggage and a leader in Kathleen Wynne who is viewed unfavourably by nearly 2/3rds of Ontarioians.
The Ontario NDP are entering the election with Horwath enjoying the highest favourable rating among major party leaders. Horwath’s 30% favourable rating is more than double Wynne’s. More importantly, her unfavourable is only 17% compared to Wynne’s 62%, and Progressive Conservative leader Doug Ford’s 38%.
With these numbers, Wynne cannot directly criticize or attack Horwath without risk of backlash or increasing the public perception of Horwath as Premier in waiting. Wynne needs to outflank Horwath, which she has been doing by introducing policies NDP voters want such as the $15-minimum wage, partial pharmacare with OHIP+, and the basic income pilot.
Being a party leader means an exhausting schedule of travel, and limited time in your riding. Staff and other MPPs are entrusted to manage constituency issues between elections, the central party entrusted to send extra staff and resources to run the local re-election campaign.
No matter, it’s no substitute for one-on-one handshakes at the door. This is a disadvantage for a party leader who leads a provincial campaign; they do get a lot of media coverage which can compensate in part for not being at the door.
As the writ approaches, and campaigns enter the lawn sign phase (let’s be honest, the campaigns are already underway), much of what matters is what what is harder-to-see. The door-to-door canvass, the phone banking, and the building of detailed voter databases that feed into critical election day voters’ lists.
At Pike’s nomination today, I saw the building blocks of a strong campaign. There were the usual City Hall Liberal mainstays: Larry DiIanni, Ward 1 Councillor Aidan Johnson,  Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr’s Executive Assistant Maureen Scally, and Mayor Fred Eisenberger’s Chief of Staff Drina Omazic.
Most important for Pike, there were many neighbourhood leaders in the room, these are the all important poll captains who get out the vote on election day.
With 23 years since the last serious race in Hamilton Centre, depending how the provincial election goes, the local campaign machine may decide the race in this riding.
One person in the room knew better than anyone else how close a race in Hamilton Centre can be. She ran against Christopherson in 1995 as a young lawyer carrying her eight-month-old daughter during the campaign. Filomena Tassi is today the MP for Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas, and will prove a key asset for Pike.
Yes, Hamilton Centre could be a riding to watch.


text:
Coleman: Thinking about Neighbourhoods and Localism – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 12, 2018
This column was first published in The Public Record’s newsletter. Get our content and columns before they appear on our website by subscribing to our newsletter edition.
I’ve been thinking alot about our we define our communities and localisms this past week. Wednesday morning, I was interviewed by a fourth year McMaster ArtSci student who is writing her thesis about the Beasley neighbourhood, one of her questions was how many places have you lived in your life? I’m don’t have an exact count, but my unstable childhood and being in foster care did give me an advantage of living at some point in every ward in Hamilton except the new 12 and 15.
The student asked me which neighbourhood in Hamilton I would say I’m from; my answer was the East End around Glendale Secondary because that’s where I went to high school and made the first stable friends of my life. I could’ve said Gibson, Congress, Central, or Lisgar/Berrisfield, I didn’t even live in Corman as a child (the official name of the neighbourhood Glendale is located).
In journalism and politics, we talk about neighbourhoods as rigid lines on maps. However, we don’t live our lives in easily drawn lives, we live our lives with people, we talk about experiences, both of which happen to occur in places. In my case, I define home by the people I’m friends with.
In 2015, I wrote an often cited column How to Define Hamilton’s Neighbourhood Boundaries and Localisms: East, West, North, South, Upper and Lower?,
Now, only three years later, the piece is outdated in some areas because of the substantial growth in grassroots engagement.
What has changed in the past three years?
I noted on Twitter the increased neighbourhood cohesion in Rolston and ‘neighbourhood Facebook groups’ as examples. The responses to this were informative, I didn’t know that residents of Bruleville call their neighbourhood Birdland, and am interested in learning how you perceive your neighbourhood. This is today’s newsletter subscribers only Facebook discussion topic, I will use your feedback to inform my updated series of articles on Hamilton’s neighbourhoods and localisms.


text:
Coleman: Thinking Differently on Downtown Planning – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 13, 2018
This column was first published in The Public Record’s newsletter last Thursday. Get our content and columns before they appear on our website by subscribing to our newsletter edition.
Tuesday night’s community meeting on the Downtown Secondary Plan was hugely successful.
Moderator Cameron Kroetsch and the organizing team successfully brought together over 100 people representing a wide range of interests from across Hamilton’s Downtown communities. The format saw four speakers provide an overview of the plan, what plans look like in other communities, consideration of the competing interests involved in a secondary plan, and methods of ensuring development creates opportunity for as many as possible such as Chicago’s planning regiment and Section 37 benefits.
Following the speakers, breakout groups formed around interest topics, including small business, music venues, creative studios, affordable housing. Recommendations and ideas from the groups will be compiled and released by organizers in the coming week.  (Further reading: The Inlet’s excellent summary of what happened at the event)
The biggest achievement of the event was commercial building owners sitting beside homeowners joining with tenants at the same table alongside interests ranging from heritage to churches, music venues to small shopkeepers.
There has never been a meeting on the future official plan for the downtown that has brought these interests together to express their desires, and begin the community discussion of how to balance them in such a way as to ensure a vibrant downtown beyond the accounting ledgers of development and taxation. Absent from the room were large developers and noticeably absent Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr.
The City’s Director of Planning and Chief Planner Steve Robichaud attended, sitting in the audience, listening intently, and taking notes. He stated to me staff continue working on the final draft of the Secondary Plan that will go to Council in April, and that changes have been made based upon feedback from various stakeholders, including community groups and neighbourhood associations.
What Happens Next? What Will Change in The Plan?
Planning practice and policy across Ontario is in a state of some uncertainty with the change from the Ontario Municipal Board to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. Nobody outside of Queen’s Park knows exactly how LPAT appeals will work compared to OMB appeals.
We do know that LPAT will defer to local planning policy, and make it possible for municipalities to create clear planning policy without guessing what developers will to get approved at the OMB despite local policy. The significance of these changes should not be underestimated.
In practical terms, the City’s October plan was outdated on December 12, 2017 when Royal Assent was given to Bill 139, completely changing the foundation of local planning policy across Ontario.
The soon-to-be-old existing Downtown Secondary Plan is not even a paper tiger; developers knew they could propose nearly anything, and if they couldn’t convince the Ward Councillor to support it; they would be able to go to the Ontario Municipal Board to argue for what they wanted anyway.
Once Places to Grow was implemented in 2005, the existing Secondary Plan was completely eclipsed by the OMB’s mandate to implement intensification. Height limitations set low that were designed to force developers to negotiate with City Hall to build tall buildings instead became the very reason the OMB would allow tall buildings near almost no regards for the Secondary Plan.
LPAT changes this, municipalities no longer enter negotiations with developers with both hands tied behind their back, City Hall’s hands are untied, and they now set the agenda. Municipal plans must comply with the provincial frameworks, of course.
In practical terms, zoning under the OMB was planned with lower height and density limits than what the City wanted, knowing that developers would seek 20 if they were allowed 10, and the OMB would likely approve it. Under LPAT, what the Secondary Plan – combined with policy – says is what developers will be allowed.
What does this means for changes we should expect to see when the final draft Downtown Secondary Plan is released? For one, we should see the Tall Building Guidelines brought into the Plan as policy, instead of a mere suggestion as they were in the revised draft in October. Expect an increase role for the Design Review Panel. Most visible should be a refinement of the as-of-right height permissions if the Tall Building Guidelines are made policy, made rules, the guidelines will limit tall buildings to sites which are appropriate for height.
The final draft of the Secondary Plan will be posted to the City website on March 19. Council will debate the plan during the April 17, 2017 Planning Committee which will begin at 9:30am that day.
In the coming weeks, we need focus on the underlying planning matters we need to understand to effectively engage on the Secondary Plan. This will be the focus of my coverage.