text:
TPR Email Edition for June 26, 2020: COVID Deficits, The Review Edition – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

June 28, 2020
The following Email Edition of The Public Record was issued on June 26, 2020.
Sign up to get the email editions delivered to your inbox.
Read the Email Edition in it  original formatting here:
https://mailchi.mp/thepublicrecord.ca/tpr-newsletter-the-review-edition-covid-deficits
START TEMPLATE
INTRO
Thank you for subscribing to The Public Record newsletter. More on the redesign of the newsletter in my note at the end. I welcome (and want) your feedback. What do you like, what doesn’t work, and what do you need from a local new newsletter.
Deficits, social and fiscal are the common thread of what is making news the past few weeks. The tears in our social fabric could be ignored for only so long, the pandemic made it impossible to ignore them any longer.
The front section of the newsletter begins with some notes of trends and insights written by me, for the duration of the pandemic, I’ll include COVID updates at the beginning.
Today notes: Defunding police, City Hall fiscal deficit, and a LRT proxy debate at Council
COVID-19 Hamilton Public Health Summary
Hamilton’s present Rt = 1.05
[I cite the rate of transmission as calculated by Ryan Imgurnd using open data. (BBC explainer of R values here)]
Hamilton’s COVID active case trend is downward, but we continue to have new cases with no known epidemiological link. A possible reason is asymptomatic COVID cases in the community.
a trend that is being watched closely is 54% of new COVID positive cases in the past 10 days are among those age 30 or younger. Public Health states there are no other trends of note.
Hand-washing is the most important thing we can all do. Wash or sanitize your hands whenever putting on, adjusting, or taking off a facial mask.
Hamilton Public Health says they will not implement mandatory masking in Hamilton.
The messaging on this decision is a bit unclear in Hamilton,
I’ll suggest reading this thread by London-Middlesex Medical Officer of Health Dr. Chris Mackie to give you a good summary of the reasons why a MoH does not order masking.
#DefundPolice
Activism shifted the Overton window this past few weeks, defunding police is now a part of the mainstream discourse.
Monday, around 100 people sat on Main Street in front of City Hall to protest the Hamilton Police School Resource Officers continuing to be in schools. (Picture above of the protest)
Monday night, they achieved their goal, the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board cancelled the program in a 7-3 vote.
There is much that is different about this moment compared to similar ones in the past.
At City Hall, Ward 1 Councillor Maureen Wilson and Ward 3 Councillor Nrinder Nann broadcast a call for “defunding” police which they define as “re-allocating money from policing towards community-centred supports” and a call to scale back the police budget.
Over 140 letters were on Wednesday’s City Council agenda in support of the calls to defund or significantly reform the role of police.
Nicole O’Relly of TheSpec wrote a great piece explaining what defunding police means to local political players.
Hamilton Centre MP Matthew Green is speaking strongly in Parliament for police reform, and a ban on the use of chemical weapons by police. Tear gas, for example, is effectively banned from military stockpiles by the Geneva Convention and other international treaties.
Videos of police brutality, violence, and disproportionate responses continue to be posted to social media. (In the United States, T. Greg Doucette’s massive Twitter thread of police lawlessness continues to grow daily.)
This past weekend Peel Police officer(s) fatally shot a man during a mental health call. An iman posted video of the shooting to Twitter, the video shows heavily armed police storming the man’s apartment, having used a ladder to gain access to the balcony. The community is rightfully enraged at the police tactics.
Different is the suburban flyer distribution newspaper writing a strongly-worded editorial “It’s long past time to make major changes to how policing is done”
[Forget any other media, the flyer newspapers are the top influencer in Hamilton and area]
What hasn’t changed is the Hamilton Police Service Board.
The Board is now engaging in a public relations exercise against decreasing the police budget. The Board asked Chief of Police Eric Girt to prepare a report outlying what the Chief would cut if the police budget is reduced by 20%.
Ward 6 Councillor Tom Jackson said if lower city Councillors want less police in their wards, his community be happy to see increased police presence.
A change we may see in the coming weeks: Mayor Fred Eisenberger promised over a year ago that he would step aside from the Board around the midway point of this Council term, to help improve diversity on the Board.
Canada’s largest mental health care provider, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, issued a statement Tuesday calling for mental health crises to have a medical, not police, response.
The Overton window has shifted, it is still shifting.
Ultimately, the decision on what policing looks like in the future has to involve Queen’s Park. Local police boards can make some changes. However, it is provincial government where legislation is written.
Thus, this is where the next phrase of campaigning will increasingly focus.
What is the City of Hamilton Fiscal Deficit?
City Hall is saying the City’s deficit is likely to be between $61-million to $120-million depending on what happens with COVID and the economy. It appears that it will be closer to $60-million for this year.
Municipal governments across Canada are asking for financial support from provincial and federal governments. Thus far, the federal government has announced $14 billion to be split among all provinces, with provinces then distributing the money among their themselves, their agencies, and maybe some money will make it to municipalities. (Premier Doug Ford says Ontario needs $23-billion from the federal government on its own.)
Hamilton City Hall is issuing multiple calls for immediate financial aid to the feds and province.
For decades, we’ve been warned about the flaws of municipalities only having one taxation tool – the property tax. It is not the proper means of raising revenue to fund health and social social services.
(A throwback to a December 2016 episode of my former CFMU radio show when Dr. Harry Kitchen of Trent University, one of Canada’s leading experts on municipal government finance and taxation, discussed the serious shortcomings of using property taxes to fund municipal services)
There are various scenarios being discussed in political circles, many of them include partial special funding from higher levels of government, but not full funding:
Commercial rent payments could be a challenge for the City come June 30th, I wrote a “Coleman’s Note” regarding this entitled Is Hamilton Prepared for Commercial Tax Defaults on June 30?
A Proxy LRT debate at Council Wednesday?
We have no idea when Hamilton’s B-Line LRT project will be back at Council. City Hall is presently focusing upon on a 2026 Commonwealth Games as the COVID stimulus pitch.
Ontario Minister of Transportation Caroline Mulroney has the Hamilton Transportation Task Force Report on her desk, and she’ll decide what parameters will be applied to the $1-billion dollars the province is committing to Hamilton.
Due to COVID, the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce’s regular visits to Queen’s Park are not happening, thus there isn’t the ability for them to champion the project the same way they usually do, in the continuing absence of leadership from City Hall.
A staff report on the next steps to make Upper James Street more pedestrian friendly, includes a $550,000 budget line for detailed studies and planning for A-Line transit corridor. This caused a 30 minute debate as Councillors opposed to the B-Line LRT project questioned if spending on planning for transit on Upper James is premature.
Some of them want to see the $550,000 paid for out of that $1-billion commitment to transit in Hamilton.
It was Ward 9 Councillor Brad Clark, who ran for Mayor in 2014 and is positioning to be able to run for Mayor in 2022, who led off the debate. His arguments were similar to the past about the A-Line, with the addition of how the City of Hamilton’s fiscal state is very concerning during COVID and they need to save money wherever possible.
The debate gave us a flavour of where Council is at on the LRT file. Clark’s motion to defer any action on transit along Upper James failed on a 6-8 vote. It did not exactly break along LRT lines.
Ward 5 Councillor Chad Collins and Ward 6 Councillor Tom Jackson voted against Clark’s motion, and for the work. This reflects their pro-development stance, a delay to transit planning on Upper James will delay developers looking to build mid-rise buildings.
Nonetheless, the picture is becoming more clear, LRT’s path to nine votes in favour needs either Ward 13’s Arlene Vanderbeek or Ward 7’s Esther Pauls to be in favour, likely both.
City Hall
“Hamilton Mayor Fred Eisenberger will be tested tomorrow for COVID-19 after experiencing symptoms associated with the disease”, reads a City Hall press release issued at 5pm Thursday. “The Mayor will be self-isolating at home until he receives his results.”
The HSR is reducing schedule bus service next week.
This despite HSR buses bypassing passengers and the provincial Stage 2 COVID reopening.
To increase capacity, the HSR is requesting riders to wear a non-medical face covering as physical distancing is not possible. Buses are now operating at 2/3rds capacity, including allowing some people to stand when seats are full.
On boards buses, the operators driving compartment is now separated off with plastic.
By-Passes and Schedule Reductions
Presently, there are instances of HSR buses by-passing people waiting for buses. With reduced physical distancing on public transit, the number of bus bypasses is decreasing this week.
The HSR substantially reduced service in March when the provincial State of Emergency was declared – both in response to a decrease in ridership and also to ensure the HSR had enough operators to maintain advertised service in the event of a COVID outbreak among its staff.
As of last week, the 2-Barton route was reporting a peak 50% of pre-COVID ridership, which translates into full seated loads at normal pre-COVID service.
Cutting Scheduled Service, Constraining Costs
Transit operations are a service area municipalities are experiencing significant drops in revenue.
City Hall is trying to constrain transit spending by further decreasing scheduled serviced starting June 29.
Wednesday, at Council, Hamilton General Manager of Public Works Dan McKinnon announced a goal to eliminate seating restrictions on HSR buses shortly after July 1st. And that by already by allowing people to sit every other seat on buses – combined with allowing standing loads – the HSR is increasing service capacity.
Service capacity is not service frequency – the measure we commonly use to measure bus service. Transit users don’t ask how many seats there are per hour, they ask how often buses arrive.
On schedules, Public Works says they’re reducing 1-King evening service to every 15 minutes, in fact the cut is to every 20 minute frequency.
Ending 7/8 Service at 10pm
As part of HSR service cuts planned prior to COVID, HSR is ending service on the 7/8 buses at 10pm, and there are significant reductions in service in West Hamilton with service in Westdale Village / Sterling Avenue going from six buses per hour to only two.. At Council Wednesday, Ward 1 Councillor Maureen Wilson stated she has field calls from women who are frontline workers concerned about their safety due to decreases in West Hamilton service.
New Operator Hiring Paused by COVID
A longer term challenge facing the HSR is new operator training.
Due to closures of Ministry of Transportation licensing facilities, potential new operators cannot get their B-class licenses to begin driver training. Even when the MTO reopens, driver training involves the trainee and trainer being in close physical proximity. When the trainee “platforms” (operates a bus in passenger service for the first few weeks), the trainer is close to both the driver and boarding passengers.
Thus, even if the HSR wasn’t trying to constrain costs, it is not possible to expand service. The HSR will need to rely upon overtime and semi-retired operators this fall if the HSR returns to pre-COVID levels. It cannot operate more service than it did.
Pride Hamilton filed a complaint against the Hamilton Police Service to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario on June 12, the organization announced in a press statement Wednesday.
“It’s our view that Hamilton Police Services discriminated against our organization on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression through its failure to properly plan for, protect, and respond to threats to the 2019 Pride celebrations in Hamilton”, they wrote in their statement.
The group asks “for damages of $600,000 to be allocated to support initiatives, programs, and/or organizations in Hamilton’s Two Spirit and LGBTQIA+ communities” adding they settled on this amount as it matches the cost of the 125-page Independent Review into the Events Surrounding Hamilton Pride 2019 released on June 8.
I summarized the report’s findings regarding the numerous failings of Hamilton Police Chief Eric Girt before and after the violent attack on Hamilton Pride on June 15, 2019.
Pride Hamilton retained Ross & McBride LLP to represent them. The team of lawyers is led by Wade Poziomka.
We should expect to learn more about their filing in the coming days as media obtain copies from the Human Rights Tribunal offices.
[Disclosure: Poziomka successfully represented me after City Hall banned The Public Record from extracting public information from public election documents in 2018. Poziomka did so pro-bono.]
Early Monday morning the City of Hamilton finished the formal transfer of the City-owned bike share assets (bikes, vehicles, repair shop, etc) from Uber to Hamilton Bike Share Inc. A significant step in the process as HBS can now begin maintenance work and prepare the fleet for resumption of service.
Last week, we learned that HBS is using Moneris as their payment processor, and were close to having the financial systems in place for relaunch. (Uber processed refunds for all Sobi members)
No date for relaunch is yet available.
Hamilton’s Committee of Adjustment, where “minor” variances from zoning rules and regulations are granted, resumed hearing on Thursday using an online video conference meeting format.
After about 30 minutes to get comfortable with the WebEx video conferencing format, the meeting flowed very efficiently and similar to in-person meetings.
What makes CoA most interesting is how the gradual zoning amendments which change neighbourhoods over time are dealt with there.
The size of houses is increasing throughout Southern Ontario, two examples of how this is happening via minor variances at Committee of Adjustment. Also an example in which CoA constrains the rate of change in existing neighbourhoods to prevent development which significantly differs or unreasonably impacts neighbourhoods..
In Flamborough, two properties were approved for houses covering 26% of the total lot, whereas zoning permits 15%. These approvals have been granted to other properties in older parts of Waterdown. Concerns expressed by neighbours related to drainage of properties.
In the West Hamilton neighbourhood of Kirkendall, the area’s mid 20th century bungalows are being transformed into single-family detached homes of between two and three storey heights.
A home on Chatham Street was approved to build upper-level extensions over the existing bungalow. The neighbouring properties have previously changed to single-family detached homes.
The Deferral
On the south side of Locke Street, at 315B Aberdeen, an application to construct a two-storey detached home draw a large number of delegations of concern. 24 people registered. Many of the issues of urban intensification were discussed, a driveway onto an arterial roadway, the ownership of unassumed public alleyways, and safety in dense areas.
While CoA only deals with a narrow scope of Planning Act rules – the issue of alleyway ownership is not in front of CoA – people do bring forth their overall concerns, and the CoA listens. Thus, while all that was in front of CoA is to build the front yard much closer to the neighbourhood property (3.6m whereas the bylaw requires 12.0m), the CoA fully considered the full project and its impacts.
The proposed home is actually in the center of the block surrounded by backyard, only accessible by the alleyway, and is a rarity in Hamilton – a separate lot alleyway house.
The proposal to have a large home in this spot has more impact on neighbouring properties than would be the usual case on a street-fronting property.
The Kirkendall Neighbourhood Association delivered a good delegation outlining their concerns. Looking at the full application file, there were definite flags for the CoA, thus the neighbourhood delegation providing the needed reasons for CoA to defer the file.
As you can see in the image a few paragraphs above, the proposed house is quite large, even more so in the context of being in an alleyway. In the image directly below, you can see the proposal has four bedrooms, four washrooms which is uncommon for a traditional single-family home.
CoA deferred a decision for two weeks, to visit the site of the application to determine for themselves the merits of the variance request.
Thursday morning, the Mayor’s Economic Recovery Task Force met, and decided to break into informal working groups. They’ll submit “quick-win” suggestions on what the City can do to support businesses, but not until
Hamilton’s COVID patio bylaw does not allow restaurants whose property line abuts any residential property line to have a COVID patio, with the exception of those which had previously approved patios. Those restaurants and establishments may have larger patios than they previously were approved for.
Ward 2 City Councillor Jason Farr moved the provision at City Council.
Farr is strongly opposed to The Corktown Pub, and has been vetoing a patio for the neighbourhood pub.
The Corktown meets all the requirements of by-law and zoning for a patio, and gained all the necessary staff approvals. City Councillors are able to veto patios, and Farr is vetoing.
Farr refused to explain his veto, and now says it is because some neighbours oppose due to concerns about the tavern’s operations.
Due to COVID, restaurants are restricted to outdoor seating and take-out..
Petty politics leads to poor policy, and Farr’s inclusion of the abutment provision has resulted, thus far, in seven restaurants have been denied patios.
Three have come forth to speak to CHCH News, and all three of them are now closed — their businesses cannot survive without patios. They could go bankrupt.
In response, City staff say that if ward councillors wish to grant “special occasion permits”, staff will use this to bypass the abutment ban. This should help those six restaurants, who will have to pay fees and incur delays before they can open. For some, this added City Hall red tape could push them into bankruptcy.
All because one Councillor is writing city-wide policy focused on one property.
The Corktown’s location, at Ferguson and Young alongside the GO Station, is prime property for a mid-rise condo redevelopment.
Tuesday evening, a group of neighbours and individuals involved in Hamilton’s Irish arts community gathered in the parking lot to protest the situation, in the hopes of Farr changing his mind before the business is bankrupted.
COVID has shown us the horrors of how we’ve failed people who live in congregate housing settings. The Rosslyn, a house of horrors, among the retirement homes.
Thus far, Hamilton’s Residential Care Facilities have not been the sites of major COVID outbreaks. The conditions in some of them are unacceptable, and have been for years.
Last December, in response to calls from advocates, families, and residents of RCFs, Ward 9 Councillor Brad Clark started the process towards creating an advocate’s office for RCF residents.
Hamilton’s leaders were shocked by the unnecessary death in May of 28-Year-Old Attila Csanyi who died on the roof of Jackson Square.
Csanyi was told to leave his RCF on March 11.
This week, Clark successfully passed the creation of a “liaison” office as a stop-gap until Council can more fully determine what role an advocate’s office will have, and if Council will pass it.
Teviah Moro of TheSpec provides great coverage of this issue, I strongly encourage you to read the story he wrote about Csanyi.
The Doug Ford Ontario Progressive Conservative government gave greenfield developers the ability to try and force urban boundary expansions. In Hamilton, developers are now applying to force the City to expand the urban boundary to suit their development purposes on Twenty Road West.
Read more on the new Citizens at City Hall website
The City of Hamilton uses ESRI StoryMaps to show the changes being made to Queen Street South as the roadway is converted to two-way traffic south of Main Street West. Construction is underway.
Ward 15 Councillor Judi Partridge states she is working with Ward 7 Councillor Esther Pauls, Ward 14 Councillor Terry Whitehead and City of Hamilton General Manager of Finance and Corporate Services Mike Zegarac on bringing the Games bid forward to Council on July 6 as a potential priority to spend possible federal and provincial COVID stimulus funds upon.
Partridge stated Council supported a 2030 bid, and that they’ve been meeting with the private bidders to change this to a 2026 bid.
“There is no cost to taxpayers, there is no cost to Council, and we’ll have a more in-depth presentation on July 6th”. [YouTube Video Link]
Both Ward 8 Councillor John-Paul Danko, and Ward 9 Councillor Brad Clark expressed their concerns about the City asking for potential provincial and federal to be spent on the 2026 Commonwealth Games.
Clark noted the City has many existing priorities which are unfunded. The Commonwealth Games is not a priority.
Following the post-2018 election reveal that Hamilton City Hall knew the asphalt on the Red Hill Parkway was faulty and lied to Hamiltonians for five years – a coverup which helped to re-elect the incumbent City Councillors -, the City had to lower the speed limit on the Red Hill to 80km/h and immediately repave the highway.
The repaving is complete. The speed limit will remain 80km/h with increased enforcement remaining in place. City staff reports here.
A video uploaded to Facebook last Saturday showing a Halton Police Officer pushing and hitting a young man in Oakville has resulted in the officer being suspended with pay while an investigation occurs. Beyond just the conduct of the officer in question, there are call to discipline the other officers who stood by and did nothing.
Oakville Mayor Rob Burton tweeted “I deplore the unprofessional and undisciplined behaviour displayed in the video”.
CBC TV’s 2:49 video report is my recommendation for seeing the video and understanding the story.
Watch: CBC
More: Torstar, Global, CHCH
On Twitter: Halton Chief of Police Steve Tanner
Image: Screencapture of incident video
Last Friday, a long-time animal rights activist was fatally struck by a transport truck hauling pigs outside Fearmans Pork in Burlington.
65-year-old Regan Russell was part of a protest against the slaughterhouse. Protesters often give water to pigs being transported to the plant. Russell’s friends says she was giving water when run over. Halton Police are investigating.
This Morning in TheSpec: Family wants answers in ‘senseless and preventable’ death of Hamilton activist Regan Russell outside slaughterhouse
Read more: Torstar, CBC, Global
On Twitter: Burlington Mayor Marianne Meed Ward statement
Hamilton has a new reporter, Justin Chandler, who is a recent Ryerson graduate. Chandler’s first report for The Agenda was on how Niagara wineries were offering virtual tastings due to COVID.   (Chandler is on Twitter)
As things reopen, and we try to resume our lives while protecting against COVID infections and outbreaks, I find the above poster created by the Prime Minister’s Office in Japan the most useful guide as to what we need to do.
One of the great challenges of COVID is just how little we know about the virus, and how many of our are witnessing a scientific debate in real-time for the first time.  Different research results in different findings. This seems confusing to us, and we gravitate towards the findings we find most agreeable. Scientific debates always occur like this, and it will take time for scientific conscious, even at the fast pace of current research.
Super-spreader events are giving us insight into what conditions can easily spread the virus. ScienceNews offers us a summary of known events. Read more with interactive feature.
TVO takes a look at the terrible conditions facing migrant farm workers and the neglect of farmer owners who rely upon the farmers to do all the labour of farming.
Nearly 700 migrant farmer workers in Ontario have tested positive for COVID-19. Two have died. And without better regulations, the virus will keep spreading.
Read more on TVO.
Guests assumed Rod Foster wasn’t owner of Stoney Creek business. He says combatting racism starts with education
Professor Tricia Wood, York University, explains the research and facts showing that using public transit is proven safe in other countries, such as South Korea, which have higher ridership loads than Ontario public transit agencies are allowing. She explains that fundamentals of why large cities need strong public transit remain during and following COVID. We need more transit, writes Wood.
“Without public transit, the city will come to a halt and struggle to recover economically.”
QUOTE
“We admit, sometimes wearing a mask in public isn’t the most fashionable or comfortable choice. But some people wear Leafs jerseys, so yeah. Just saying.”
Ottawa Public Health tweet
encouraging Ottawa residents to wear face masks
Of Note
HPL’s Local History & Archives section wants your COVID-19 artifacts and stories as they create an archive for future generations to understand how Hamiltonians experienced the pandemic.
The HPL states they are particular interested in “creative writing, fiction or non-fiction submissions — from journals, to reflections, to poems or prose”
More information and submission page here.
BLOG
Our video conference bingo cards all include “cameo appearance by pets”.
On Wednesday, Ward 8 Councillor John-Paul Danko‘s family cat made a brief appearance during the Council meeting.
Danko later tweeted a high quality picture of Tinkerbell writing, “Virtual Council #9: Dr. Evil between Two Ferns Edition.“
SIGNOFF
Thank you for reading to the end. I’ve redesigned the newsletter to be more informative, and information dense. There are sections for public meetings, public notices, and shout outs in future newsletter. The newsletter is focused upon City Hall and municipal politics, please send along any events in these categories.
The format is a work in progress, I’m especially interested in articles you read about past practices in other cities.
You are one of around 1000 people who read this newsletter, thank you for your time. Especially as this is a longer than usual edition.
Keep safe, keep engaged, keep informed.
[if (gte mso 9)|(IE)]></td></tr></table><![endif]
END SECTIONS
END TEMPLATE


text:
ANALYSIS: Mandatory Masking By-Law Is Really About Business Practices Not Individuals Masking – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

July 10, 2020
Hamilton’s proposed mandatory masking by-law is not actually about individuals wearing masks, it is about creating obligations upon businesses to promote the practice of masking while indoors.
Once passed, and ratified by Council, the by-law imposes two primary obligations upon businesses.
1) Businesses must post signs on all entrances directing people to wear masks while indoors. The signs must have contrast between the text and background, the font must be of a sans serif script, and at least 24 points in text size. Failure to post a sign will result in a $500 fine for each offence.
2) Businesses must ensure that employees are provided masks, or a physical separation barrier from customers and each other, in the workplace when physical distancing is not possible. The city is creating a framework to enforce provincial guidelines for workplaces, and a process for employees to seek redress which is more practical to employees than calling up the provincial Ministry of Labour.
Why is this, why can’t City Council actually impose mandatory masking?
This by-law is being created under the Municipal Act, it is not a public health order under Section 22 of the the Health Protection and Promotion Act.
Provincial health privacy and human rights law override municipal by-laws, the City cannot enforce the by-law upon individuals.
Why is this? Municipalities are creations of the province only the powers prescribed to them. The Municipal Act states all by-laws Council creates must comply with provincial laws. (It’s why this by-law’s text lists various places it does not apply such as GO Transit stations, the airport, post-secondary campuses, schools, etc.)
Once someone says they have a medical or human rights reason for not wearing a mask, nobody can compel them to say what that reason is.
The by-law text includes a clear statement that nobody is to violate provincial laws while enforcing this by-law.
Section 22 of the HPPA grants Medical Officers of Health broad powers to issue orders to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. Section 22 lists various actions which a MoH can compel individuals to do, and includes a key phrase for legal purposes at the beginning of the list of powers “but is not limited to”.
The threshold to issue a Section 22 order is high.
Hamilton Medical Officer of Health Dr. Elizabeth Richardson explained the differences between her powers to issue a Section 22 order, and her role of advising Council to exercise their Municipal Act powers.
An “imminent threat” is required for a Section 22 order, said Dr. Richardson.
“The epidemiology right now for COVID-19 in Hamilton does not point to this [a masking order] something that needs to be done imminently”, she said.
Masking “is something that can weight in and consider, and Council can make a decision upon”.
Public health officials are clear, the widespread adoption of masking by individuals will decrease the transmission rate of COVID.
Some who are critical of masking orders point to the scientific debate about exactly what that decrease rate is, and other matters such as how people make common errors in masking. The fact is that widespread adoption of masking, along with other practices such as use of hand sanitizer, will decrease the spread of COVID-19.
This is why Dr. Richardson is very supportive of the proposed masking by-law as a tool to increase public awareness and adoption of masking.
You can watch the meeting live on YouTube starting at 9:30am
Further Reading
Dr. Chris Mackie, MoH for London-Middlesex outlined nearly identical reasons as Dr. Richardson in a tweet thread two weeks ago. Dr. Mackie has issued two Section 22 orders since this tweet thread, one for personal service businesses and the other for transit services.
Dr. Mustafa Hirji, Niagara’s MoH tweeted an explanation why he hasn’t issued a Section 22 order. Dr. Hirji’s explanation is comprehensive, a good read if you wish to read more on this.
TVO: Who can — and should — make masks mandatory in Ontario.

source: news-thepublicrecord

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


text:
City Hall Says Development Delays Caused by COVID Causing Delay in Development Fees Collection – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

July 9, 2020
City of Hamilton General Manager of Finance Mike Zegarac says the City is expecting a significant shortfall in development charges this year.
The City originally forecast to collect $106-million in development charges for 2020.
As of June 30, the City has only collected $30-million. The decrease is primarily related to COVID development delays, Zegarac said.
Budget lines within the Hamilton development charge accounts have shortfalls; primarily related to unfunded development charge exceptions which the City has been granting. The City eventually must fund these deficits by transferring property tax revenue into the development charge reserve accounts, the date for this transfer is not set by law.


text:
Coleman's Notes: Painting the Roadway in Protest – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

July 24, 2020
A group of well-organized Hamilton protesters closed Main Street West in front of Hamilton City Hall Thursday to paint “DEFUND THE POLICE” as a message of protest prior to the meeting of the Hamilton Police Services Board today.
Within the protest group, their vision for the future of policing in Hamilton varied from cutting the police budget by 20% with funds going to social services and community groups, to chants to abolish the police.
Hamilton City Hall did not interfere with the protest. The City erected traffic barriers to divert traffic during the protest.
The protesters painted their message on the road.
Shortly after 3:00 p.m., the City of Hamilton issued a statement:
As you may know, today a group of community members gathered out front of City Hall as part of a protest, and the words “Defund the Police” were painted on Main St. The City of Hamilton will be removing the paint this afternoon out of an abundance of caution and in the interest of motorist safety. The paint used is household paint that will create slippery conditions impacting safe driving on the roadway. The City of Hamilton supports the public’s right to protest and is removing the paint only in the interest of public safety.
The City’s communications statement threaded a fine needle, the City likely not wishing to be seen as heavy-handed against the protest message. The City, as of this writing, is not seeking to fine the protesters, not indicating that it is sending them a bill for the cost of removing the paint.
Under the Municipal Act and the Highway Traffic Act, municipalities are responsible for safe road surfaces. There are legal standards for paint materials used on roadways. The City has a positive legal obligation to act in regards to road safety.
The City of Hamilton did not cite the standards for road marking symbols and artistic decoration on roadways as the reason for removal.
It is fair political game to point out City Hall intentionally lied and covered up its knowledge of friction problems on the Red Hill Valley Parkway for years. It is also fair game to cite the numerous other cover-ups, corrupt public practices, or years of delay on simple public works projects. None of this removes the City’s legal obligation to act upon becoming aware of a potential road hazard.
The City quickly hired a contractor to remove the painted message from Main Street West.
The City’s statement read “The City of Hamilton supports the public’s right to protest and is removing the paint only in the interest of public safety”.
Despite this statement, the City  removed posters detailing the Hamilton police budget cost as a percentage of the overall City of Hamilton operating tax levy and recent Hamilton Police scandals.
The posters were placed on poles across Hamilton prior to Thursday’s protest.
I asked City Hall’s chief spokesperson to explain why they were removing this speech, considering their official statement. The City has yet to provide a response to the questions.
Following the protest, Hamilton Police conducted a private telephone conference with ‘trusted media partners’.
In the private media briefing, Hamilton Police Deputy Chief Frank Bergen is reported as stating police had already executed one warrant this evening, and launched a full criminal investigation of the protest.
Deputy Bergen inflamed tensions between the LGBTQ+ community and the Hamilton Police Service in June 2019 when he directed the arrest of Ceder Hopperton for a speech Hopperton delivered at a public town hall in the City Hall Council Chambers on June 18.
The arrest drove a wedge between the community and police. There were many in the LGBTQ+ who were calling for dialogue with police. That was not possible after the arrest.
There were around two dozen police officers around City Hall at various points of today’s protest.
There was a moment of tension when a man tried to start a confrontation with the protesters. The protesters did not engage the man, who came back at them many times. Police spoke to the man when he was leaving.
Others got out of their vehicles to yell at the protesters, a few stuck their heads out. In each case I witnessed, police issued verbal warnings.
The protest caused a large disruption of traffic on Hamilton’s main arterial road.
Thursday’s demonstration pushed the message of the protesters back to the top of Hamilton’s news outlets websites. Barring any unexpected major news event, it will remain in the top five stories (if not top three) over the weekend.
The organizers have shown themselves capable of closing a major street, quickly painting it, and then leaving. It was quite the feat of logistics – similar to their shut down of Main Street West last month. They used chalk during that event to write messages on the City Hall forecourt and on Main Street.
It remains to be seen what happens next, what strategies are pursued by the various players, and if there is another attempt to paint another message on Main Street in front of City Hall.
Politically, only two members of City Council have stated clear support for the demands of the protests.
A recent public opinion poll commissioned by The Toronto Star found strong support for “taking certain tasks away from police such as mental health calls and then adjust the budget to reflect the reduced burden”, 74% of choosing this response against two other options – cutting the police budget or abolishing the police to be replaced with some other kind of public safety body. (pg 94 & 95)


text:
Four Tall Buildings Proposed for Hamilton City Centre at 77 James Street North – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

July 20, 2020
Four mixed-use tall buildings, primarily residential, with 2,068 dwelling units and 3,067 square metres of commercial space.
If it happens, the redevelopment of the Hamilton City Centre site will be the largest Downtown Hamilton construction projects in 30 years.
IN8 Developments purchased the City Centre property at 77 James Street North last year, and stated in press releases they expected a cost of $700-million to re-develop the site.
They have signed a letter of intent with the Hamilton Urban Precinct Entertainment Group. Last week, the Precinct Group was awarded operations and leasing of the City of Hamilton’s downtown entertainment facilities and properties.
The letter of intent reportedly includes exploration of the commercial space in this redevelopment being a convention centre.
Hamilton Eaton Centre, as the City Centre was originally known, opened in 1990.
Planning and development firm Bousfields Inc and architectural firm SRM Architects are representing IN8 Developments as their development agents. The agents presented the development’s site plan to Hamilton’s Design Review Panel (DRP) on Wednesday, July 15, 2020.
Under the Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan, passed by Council in 2018, the proposal fits within the zoning for the site. Meeting the requirements of zoning, the proposal proceeds directly to the Site Plan approval stage of planning approvals. Thus, the City of Hamilton’s Chief Planner Steve Robichaud will determine its fate under the authorities delegated to him by City Council under the Planning Act.
SRM explained the current proposal to DRP. They state it is designed to meet the requirements of Hamilton’s Tall Building Guidelines, including shadowing restrictions and minimum tower separations.
The proposal includes floor plates larger than 750 square meters, and the length of the building faces on James Street North and York Boulevard exceeds 70 metres.
The Tall Building Guidelines state buildings should not exceed these parameters. However, the guidelines state buildings may exceed only when they meet other parts of the guidelines and the intent of planning policies are meet.
The length on James Street is 160 metres, and it is 117 metres on York Blvd.
DRP was requested by City of Hamilton planning staff to review the proposal for conformity to the intent of the guidelines.
Three of the towers are proposed to be 30 storeys tall, at or near the maximum height allowed in Downtown Hamilton (the height limit is equal to the geodetic height of the escarpment south of the site following the street grid), and the fourth tower at the corner of James Street and York Blvd will be 24-storey.
The developers agents state the slightly lower 24-storey height of “Tower 1” is reflective of its proximity to other properties.
When constructed by Cadillac Fairview, the City Centre foundation was designed to carry the load of a mid-to-tall sized building. The exact details of weight-bearing ability and where a tall building can be supported on the site are unknown. A recent court ruling involving the property confirmed the “potential to build upon the existing foundation“.
The four towers will be connected by a nine-storey podium. The proposed podium include step backs starting at two storeys along portions of York Boulevard, starting at three storeys along James Street.
The podium does not step-back for “Tower 2” or “Tower 3”. DPR members expressed some concern about this. The architectural firm explained that the building’s design elements will break up the massing of the buildings and provide for a pedestrian-friendly sidewalk realm.
The podium will be a mix of commercial and residential space. The exact amount of each is to be determined. Agents for the developer spoke at length about the uncertainties of commercial retail and office demand post-COVID.
The proposal includes what is described as an extension to King William Street.
Prior to COVID the agents say the proposal included restaurant patios between the new development and Jackson Square. The land will be private, and not legally a public sidewalk, and function has a right-of-way connecting James Street to the roof of Jackson Square. The sidewalk would slowly slope to reach the elevation of the Jackson Square roof.
With COVID, the agents say the developer is looking at live-work units along this realm as a possibility.
The agents discussed urban design architectural elements which they state will pay homage to Hamilton’s “landmarks and significant features” including the Skyway Bridge, Chedoke Falls, the old and current city halls, a total of 15 places.
Overall DPR members comments were mixed.
There were many positive statements regarding the intent of the plan.
Critiques were expressed about them bulk of the podium and the ground mass of the building. Multiple members stated they are concerned it will not interact well with the existing character of James Street North – especially the heritage buildings across the road on the east side of the street.
These members stated the area needs an urban design study looking at the overall mega block which also houses Jackson Square and Copps Coliseum.
Many members were critical of the proposal for rushing to be submit prior to the July 1st development charges increase.
“You really haven’t hit any of the marks”, stated DRP panel member architect Colin Berman. “I recommend going back to the drawing board”
The City should study the “de-malling of this block”, Berman added.
He continued “This is just a take take take development” saying it “turns its back on the city”.
Berman recommends the City’s Chief Planner and the developer look to Toronto’s Mirvish Village redevelopment for inspiration stating “it is the perfect precedent … you should be copying”.
Panel member Ute Maya-Giambattista, a Registered Professional Planner (RPP), said the proposal is not pedestrian-friendly.
“You have to break the mall”, she told the agents. She cited a lack of connection between Rebecca Street and the Hamilton Farmers Market, stating there should be a pedestrian corridor to break up the bulkiness of the proposal.
Panel member James Webb, a RPP, expressed similar critiques about breaking up the block and making it more pedestrian-friendly.
Webb focused upon what he said was a lack of consideration of the heritage character on that portion of James Street. Webb was particularly positive about the proposal to create a pedestrian lane-way between King William and the roof Jackson Square.
In summary, the Panel’s feedback focused upon the scale and how the buildings will feel to pedestrians at street level.
The zoning under the Downtown Secondary Plan does not set a density limit for tall building sites. The primary constraint on density is a requirement for 0.7 parking spots per unit in buildings with greater than 51 units.
The proposal includes two levels of underground parking, devotes approximately two-thirds of the ground level to parking contained within the podium, and a second level parking within the podium.
Will all zoning requirements met, the application can proceed to Site Plan approval. The City’s Chief Planner then determines if the proposal is approved or if they seek modifications to it.
Based upon the comments from the Panel, one can expect the Chief Planner will request the developer to make modifications incorporating feedback. Previous large development proposals have been brought back to Design Review Panel for a second hearing following modifications.
Due to the time constraints of Wednesday’s hearing, not much discussion occurred about the heritage and unique character features within the existing City Centre. The clock faces within the clock tower were installed in 1888 as part the old City Hall which was on the site. The faces have protected heritage designation.
The public art in the centre atrium of the present mall, the bronze and granite frieze, will be incorporated into the new development.
And an accidental piece of art will also be saved, the forgotten EATONS sign facing south towards Jackson Square from the windowless fourth floor of what was the Eatons department store will be included in the new development. Crews which took down all the other Eatons department store signs after its bankruptcy in 1999 somehow missed this sign.
Due to the meeting being by video conference, it was not possible to interview the developers’ agents or the Chief Planner.
The City of Hamilton did not post any of the meeting slides to its website, and the City did not release them when requested by The Public Record.


text:
Hamilton Chamber of Commerce Endorses 2026 Commonwealth Games Bid – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

July 29, 2020
The Hamilton Chamber of Commerce is calling on Hamilton City Council to endorse moving forward with hosting the 2026 Commonwealth Games as a COVID stimulus project.
“The City of Hamilton should work with the federal and provincial governments to secure their support to host the 2026 Commonwealth Games”, the Chamber states in its COVID priorities blueprint.
In a separate letter sent to Hamilton City Council this morning, Chamber President and CEO Keanin Loomis states the support is “contingent on securing funding from higher levels of government”.
“As you know, Hamilton hosted the first version of the Commonwealth Games in 1930 and some of
those legacies remain”, the letter continues. ” We pledge to work with the group to ensure that this large investment provides optimal community benefit in return”.
There are presently no other cities in the world expressing interest in hosting the Commonwealth Games.
In February, Hamilton City Council endorsed pursuing a bid for the 2030 Commonwealth Games to make the 100th anniversary of the sporting event which was founding in Hamilton with the 1930 British Empire Games.
The endorsement did not include a financial commitment, and Council left itself room to withdrawal at a later date when costs became better defined.
In April, proponents of the 2030 bid pivoted to bidding on the 2026 Games as there are presently no cities expressing interest in bidding fo the Games.
If Hamilton City Council does not endorse a 2026 Commonwealth Games bid, the bid proponents will continue working on the 2030 bid.
It is not clear what will happen to the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF), which runs the games, if the event does not occur in 2026.


text:
Injunction Against Removing Homeless Encampments Foretells Likely Outcome of Charter Challenge – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

July 31, 2020
A coalition of parties secured an ex-parte interlocutory injunction prohibiting the City of Hamilton from enforcing by-laws to remove two homeless encampments. The injunction is for ten days.
The coalition is challenging the City’s by-law prohibiting camping within urban areas of Hamilton. Similar blanket prohibitions on overnight camping have been struck down in British Columbia as violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Counsel for the parties, the Hamilton Community Legal Clinic and Wade Poziomka, of Ross & McBride, announced the legal win just after midday on Thursday.
The Hamilton Community Legal Clinic characterized the injunction as a “big win for encampment residents”.
This short-term injunction is straight-forward. From the perspective of natural justice, with a pending Charter challenge to the by-law, it is in the interest of justice that no party takes an action which is irreversible. A comparable familiar to many of us is the freezing of eviction orders issued by the Landlord Tenant Board when a party subject to eviction appeals the LTB decision to the Divisional Court.
The legal mechanism for an interlocutory injunction is slightly more complicated than just stating natural justice.
Without the benefit of seeing the injunction motion, and not yet having the judge’s written decision available I will discuss the common grounds and test for an injunction. (On urgent motions such as this, the reviewing judge issues an oral decision and written reasons follow)
Thus, I write with the assumption no novel arguments are being advanced in this case.
The common test applied in deciding on an injunction motion is articulated in the 1994 Supreme Court of Canada decision RGR -MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General).
The test consists of three conjunctive parts.
They are: 1) there is a serious question of law to be tried; 2) the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; and 3) the balance of convenience favours the interlocutory injunction.
If the injunction motion fails any of the tests, it is not granted.
First Test:
The threshold for this test is easiest of the three. The constitutionality of by-laws prohibiting the use of tents and prohibiting sleeping in public places is a serious question of Charter law which has not been conclusively decided in Ontario.
Second Test:
Will the applicants (in this case the persons living in the encampments who are named parties within the coalition) suffer irreparable harm? The answer, in this case, is yes, if their encampment is removed, it is likely they will not be able to resume their encampment in the event the Court rules in their favour.
Third Test:
In this circumstance, the third test is slightly more complex as the case involves a Charter challenge.
In Charter cases, the judge deciding on the motion must consider the broader public interest involved. This makes the third part of the test more complex in this case.
Without the benefit of the filings and decision in this case, I’m loath to make assumptions about how the Court decided this third test.
I’ll provide you with an instructive section of the Supreme Court of Canada decision RGR -MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General).
“Consideration of the public interest may also be influenced by other factors. In Metropolitan Stores, it was observed that public interest considerations will weigh more heavily in a “suspension” case than in an “exemption” case. The reason for this is that the public interest is much less likely to be detrimentally affected when a discrete and limited number of applicants are exempted from the application of certain provisions of a law than when the application of the law is suspended entirely.”
The injunction sought a suspension of enforcement in the case of existing encampments.
On the balance of convenience, it is fairly straight forward that people living in the encampments would be more inconvenienced by immediate removal than the City of Hamilton will be by a delay in removing the encampments.
This matter is being actively litigated in British Columbia, with decisions which are instructive to the situation in Hamilton.
Before continuing, it is important to note the Supreme Court of British Columbia is the superior (lower) trial court in that province, and not “supreme” in the sense of being an appellant or final court. Thus, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice will consider BC decisions in deliberations, but these rulings do not create the precedential value of higher court decisions.
The current state of law in BC is that municipalities cannot impose blanket bans upon overnight camping.
In Abbotsford (City) v. Shantz, 2015 BCSC 1909, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia Christopher E. Hinkson ruled municipal bylaws which “prohibit sleeping or being in a City park overnight or erecting a temporary shelter without permits violate s. 7 of the Charter, and are of no force or effect, and are not saved by s. 1 of the Charter. The declaration is limited to overnight stays between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. the following day.”
Since Shantz, the BCSC has dealt with the question of municipalities removing tents (encampments) and granted injunctions approving daytime removals.
Saanich (District) v Brett, 2018 BCSC 1648, is informative regarding the post-Shantz framework for overnight camping as the courts are determining it.
There are now at least two post-COVID BCSC orders granting injunctions allowing municipalities to dismantle encampments: a ruling by BCSC Chief Justice Hinkson issued June 10th, and a ruling (written decision pending) made earlier this week in Victoria.
The decision to grant an injunction which expires in ten days allows for all parties to prepare and submit fuller arguments to the court. In the meanwhile, the City and
Applicants could meet to reach an out-of-court settlement regarding next steps.
The City will now have a few days to submit arguments against the extension of the injunction once the ten days expire. The City will be able to argue the Applicants have not met the requirements of the second and third test by submitting evidence of harms resulting from the encampments. For example, this could include affidavits from nearby residents of the impacts they are experiencing, reports from Police of crime associated with the encampments, statements from public health regarding sanitary conditions.
We should expect the Ontario Superior Court to make a similar ruling as that of BCSC Chief Justice Hinkson in Shantz. Other groups have launched similar Charter challenges against by-laws in other Ontario municipalities. With the decision of Hamilton City Hall to move to dismantle encampments, the Hamilton case is likely to be granted greater urgency by the Superior Court. Thus, the Hamilton case may be the determinant one for Ontario’s municipalities.
Likely, Hamilton City Council will need to pass a new by-law allowing overnight camping, and to decide what supports need to be put in place to uphold the Charter Rights of Hamilton’s homeless population.


text:
Jason Farr Issues Statement Regarding Plan to Remove Homeless Encampments on Friday – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

July 30, 2020
Ward 2 City Councillor Jason Farr issued a statement late Wednesday evening in response to a number of emails sent to Hamilton expressing concern about plans announced earlier on Wednesday to clear two homelessness encampments in the Downtown Hamilton area.
In his statement, Farr says the City is offering those living in donated tents housing, shelter, or hotel space.
Farr writes that he did not direct city staff to impose the deadline of Friday July 31 for the dismantling of camps. This follows a Ward 2 resident, who wishes the encampments removed, posting a email from Farr in which the Councillor wrote that if staff don’t remove the camps “I will be issuing a motion of council to do so”.
“Since the pandemic began, over 80 individuals living in encampments have worked with our staff and our outreach partners to take advantage of the options we provided”, Farr writes.
Two encampments have been the focus of attention during the past few weeks: one on Ferguson Avenue North between Cannon Street and Barton Street, and the other in front of Copps Coliseum along York Boulevard between Bay Street and Park Avenue.
The challenges of behaviour and waste have sparked many complaints to City Hall from some nearby residents and businesses.
“As encampments get larger, the problems unfortunately associated with these sites become more acute and more prevalent”, writes Farr. “I receive a growing number of concerns from commuters of all forms, pedestrians, business people and property-owners. Each have their own stories and while all are sympathetic to the homelessness issues, they are also scared and anxious and increasingly requesting that we enforce the law(s)”.
(Personal aside, I’ve had to clean human feces in front of my office, in a spot which offers some degree of privacy for individuals who have no access to washrooms)
Farr is critical of the The Hamilton Social Medicine Response Team, a group of medical professional, for distributing tents to homeless individuals.
Ward 14 Councillor Terry Whitehead, who is a friend of Farr’s and the two golf together, took to Twitter late Wednesday expressing his disagreement with calls to not dismantle the encampments.
“You are a Dr however you are not a planner. There is a rational why the city has comprehensive zoning. Skid Row just started a with a couple of tents check it now, slippery slope. This approach is anything but compasionate ask the parents and community neighbours”, Whitehead tweeted at physician Dr. Robin Lennox.
Whitehead was responding to Dr. Lennox tweeting Wednesday afternoon that “As a physician and #HamOnt [Hamilton] resident, I urge the city to reconsider its plan to dismantle encampments. This will not solve the #homelessness crisis and will only further harm and marginalize our homeless population”.
(Whitehead continued to tweet angrily at others Wednesday night)
Farr says he is “keeping an open mind” on creating a sanctioned site for encampments “after having visited London, Ontario to see first hand how this is achieved”.
“While this short-term possible solution is not without its challenges (as I have witnessed in London) and still does not address the larger issue that sleeping rough is less safe and humane than housing, shelter and hotel options, I understand that there are some individuals who still prefer to camp. Clearly there are some well meaning organizations that appear interested in going beyond the current supports they currently offer (tent donations and other necessities) and they appear ready and qualified to operate such an area.”
Separately, community groups filed an urgent motion at the Ontario Superior Court on Wednesday seeking an injunction to stop the City from dismantling encampments.
“HAMSMaRT and Keeping Six, along with several residents from encampments, are represented by the Hamilton Community Legal Clinic and Wade Poziomka, a human rights lawyer with Ross & McBride LLP”, the group’s press release states.


text:
Joey's Notepad: Province announces $150-mil in one time Ontario-wide homelessness / housing funding – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

July 2, 2020
Today, the provincial government announced $150-million in one-time funding to be split among Ontario’s municipalities for “improving homeless shelters and creating opportunities for longer-term housing”.
The announcement does not include a breakdown of the funding by municipality, nor the formula which will be used to calculate funding.
Of note, the news release states a portion of the funding will be specifically focused to support urban Indigenous homelessness and housing supports.
Depending on how the funding is calculated , my rough guess is Hamilton could receive at least $8-million to $13-million.
(See Ontario Regulation 367/11 Schedule 4 for a sense of some of the inputs which may go into the calculation)
Could be higher, I don’t see the provinces doing a straight calculation by population, which would result in around $7-million.
City of Hamilton Director of Housing Edward John is known for providing frequent information notes for public release, we’ll likely learn from one of those how much money Hamilton receives.


text:
McMaster's Main West Student Housing Project Clears LPAT Hurdle: Final Approval Imminent – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

July 20, 2020
McMaster’s for-profit student residence project will proceed to construction in the near future following the withdrawal of Concerned Residents of Westdale as a party to proceedings at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.
The proposed 1,373 bed for-profit student residence development at 1190 Main Street West was appealed to the LPAT by McMaster University and its private partner Knightstone Capital Management.
McMaster filed their appeal for non-decision prior to rule changes as the Ontario Municipal Board morphed into the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal in April 2018. The transition included significant rule changes which were seen as less favourable to developers.
Hundreds of appeals were filed across Ontario just prior to the changes, causing a significant backlog – some appeals are waiting three years for hearings.
In 2018, McMaster was forthcoming about the reasons for their appeal, and stated their wished to reach an agreement with City Council during a public meeting of Council’s Planning Committee.
McMaster’s non-decision appeals consisted of two parts: an appeal of the zoning by-law (ZBA) and an appeal regarding Official Plan Amendment (OPA) for the site. The LPAT rejected the OPA appeal as premature.
Thus, a public hearing for the OPA application was held in October 2019.
City Council approved the OPA application granting official plan amendments to all McMaster to construct “two storey grade related units along Traymore Avenue, a step back to eight storeys and a further step back to 10 storeys for the majority of the proposed buildings” and a “15 storey tower on the western side of the development adjacent to the McMaster health sciences complex.
Council further instructed city staff to submit to the LPAT that the City is in favour of amending the zoning by-law to allow the development.
However, because McMaster had appealed to the LPAT, Council’s approval was not final.
The Tribunal held a pre-hearing of the appeal in June 2019, as is standard practice for the LPAT, during which a local residents group Concerned Residents of Westdale gained Party status in the appeal.
Thus, this group had the ability to request a full LPAT hearing, settle with McMaster and Council, or withdraw their appeal.
Legal counsel for the Concerned Residents of Westdale (which incorporated for the purposes of becoming a Party to the LPAT appeal) sent notice of their withdraw on July 16, 2020 by email to the LPAT case coordinator.
With both McMaster and Council having reached an agreement, it was extremely unlikely the LPAT would impose a different outcome. Thus, the withdrawal saves the resident’s group further legal costs in pursuing a full hearing.
In the coming days, McMaster and the City will formally request the LPAT to schedule a hearing to approve the settlement they reached in October 2019.
Andrea Dear, the Senior Planner for the City of Hamilton who is managing the file, once this is complete, city staff will complete the site plan approval process.
“If the zoning is approved, we hope to start construction during the winter of 2020/21 with an opening expected in the summer of 2023”, McMaster spokesperson Michelle Donovan writes.
“McMaster has worked very closely with the residents in the community to respond to their concerns. We have made many adjustments to the design and the overall flow of students both in and around the building in response to these concerns.”
McMaster says it will be working with nearby residents “to ensure the building is a success”
The Public Record has reached out to Ward 1 Councillor Maureen Wilson for comment.


text:
Ministry of Municipal Affairs plans to allow Council to meet by video post-COVID – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

July 20, 2020
Ontario’s Ministry of Municipal Affairs announced on Twitter today that upcoming amendments to Ontario’s Municipal Act will allow for municipal bodies to continue meeting by video in the post-COVID future.
Last Friday, during the City Council meeting, Mayor Fred Eisenberger expressed support for the pending proposal. Ward 4 Councillor Sam Merulla, who said he was video conferencing from Algonquin, said he hopes the change is made permanent to enable him to attend meetings remotely in the future.
For the coming year, under extended COVID legislation, the emergency regulations allowing municipal video meetings will remain in effect.
Amendments to the Municipal Act will likely be presented to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario this fall.


text:
Ontario Launches Public Consultation on Elevator Standards Until August 4 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

July 2, 2020
The provincial government is looking at enforceable standards for elevators, including fines against violators who fail to maintain their elevators in good order.
The proposals were posted to the Ontario Regulatory Registry this morning, and further elaborated upon in a press release.
If approved, the regulations for “enhancing elevator safety and availability” will see monetary penalties for repeated periods of non-operations elevators and failures of proper routine maintenance.
Also included, a proposal to create an open database of breakdowns and other non-functional periods.
“Publishing information about outages online is intended to help consumers, including those with accessibility needs, make more informed choices as homebuyers and renters”, the consultation documents state.
Public feedback on the proposed changes is open until August 4, 2020.
Out-of-service elevators are an issue which Hamilton City Council attempted to address by adding elevator maintenance to the local property standards by-law in 2016. Due to the limited powers available to municipalities, due to the lack of existing provincial regulations, the by-law has not been used.
A tactic of “renovictions” is to create inconvenience for existing tenants, including the shutting down of elevators for long periods of times for replacement or repair. (Elevators replacements can be very profitable as one paralegal explains)
A spokesperson for the City of Hamilton City Manager’s Office states city staff are reviewing the documentation posted by the provincial government today, and not able to speak further to it pending a review. “We cannot answer until the provincial information is reviewed by staff, which is anticipated before August”.
Hamilton Centre Member of Parliament Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre – NDP), who moved the 2016 City Council motion as the Ward 3 City Councillor to add elevators to the property standards bylaw, says regulations are long overdue.
“I can recall as a city councillors the heartbreaking stories of peoples living with disabilities being effectively shut in their upper story units for weeks at a time without proper redress. I recall the indignity of seniors being stranded in the lobby with incontinence crisis simply because landlords where too cheap to fix their elevators”, Green wrote in an email response to The Public Record.
“I find it unconscionable that the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services has taken over 2 years to move on these long overdue enhancements ensure adequate accessibility for residents. It should be noted that this is over 2 years of waiting after the Bill was passed without measurements in place to provide people with reasonable access to their homes. My hope is that this provincial government enacts fines that are significant enough to deter landlords from extended delays in repairs and that the online transparency will provide better accountability and public pressure to act on repeat offenders”
Anyone can comment on what they believe new regulations should include by visiting https://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/view.do?postingId=33368&language=en before August 4.
Usually, it takes around three to four months for regulations to be published in the Ontario Gazette following public consultations.


text:
Province to Transfer $4-Billion to Municipalities in Joint Funding Agreement with Federal Government – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

July 27, 2020
Relief is on the way to Ontario’s 444 municipalities, with extra funding for municipalities with transit systems, as the Ontario government implements the Safe Restart Agreement it reached with the federal government.
Ontario’s municipalities are running deficits due to COVID costs and decreased transit revenue. Toronto, which is being transparent with its financial budget lines, is reporting a deficit of $1.35-billion. (Matt Elliott created a helpful infographic of the cost pressures)
The City of Hamilton is stating it expects a $62-million deficit this year. Mayor Fred Eisenberger and Director of Emergency Operations Paul Johnson state the City will not be releasing its financial ledgers in response to requests for transparency from The Public Record.
The Province’s announcement of $4-billion today did not include the amount each individual municipality will receive.
Toronto’s $1.35-billion deficit projection includes a projected $700-million deficit in lost fare revenue for transit. Hamilton’s $62-million deficit includes a projected lose of $27-million in HSR fare revenue.


text:
SIU Investigative Report into Hamilton Arrest Leaves Many Questions Unanswered – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

July 27, 2020
ANALYSIS
Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit has been the subject of numerous Ontario Ombudsman reports regarding the shortcomings of its investigations.
In recent years, the SIU has been required to explain their conclusions and findings of fact in reports released to the public.
Last week, Special Investigations Unit Director Joseph Martino release his conclusions regarding a early April 2019 arrest in Hamilton which result in a 55-year old man going to hospital with two fractured ribs.
In this case, Martino took over a year to conclude the SIU will not lay charges against one or both Hamilton Police officers involved in this arrest.
The entire investigation turns upon if the arrest was legal. If the arrest were illegal, it follows that the use of force was illegal as well.
Martino’s report decides the arrest was legal, without answering many of the pertinent questions necessary to determine legality.
As an independent watchdog investigation body, the SIU’s role is to make finding of fact.
The process of fact finding is to be free of unreasonable bias and emotion. Police are neither the “good guy” nor the “bad guy”. The injured party, often a suspect or criminal, is not the “bad guy”.
The facts must be determine, the SIU’s finding must provide reasonable explanations for its conclusions, and SIU decisions must be clear in their legal reasoning.
Director Martino’s report leaves many questions of fact unanswered, without explanation of the reasons his investigation was unable to find the missing facts.
The Events as Described by the SIU
Two Hamilton Police officers arrived at a private residence to arrest a man for a series of thefts of gas from a gas station. The man opened the door to his home, denied having committed the alleged crimes, and asked the officers if they had a warrant for his arrest.
The officers did not have a warrant.
“The Complainant closed the door on the officers and indicated they were not welcome”, reads Director Martino’s report.
At this point, the two Hamilton Police officers begin the process of obtaining a warrant.
As one officer arranged for the warrant, the other kept watch over the house. The suspect exited the house into his backyard.
It is important to emphasize that police are not allowed to enter into private property without a warrant.
The Events the Director Isn’t Sure About
Martino states the officer keeping watch told the SIU he feared the suspect was planning to escape and began a pursuit. The pursuit being entering the backyard prior to obtaining a warrant.
The officer cited their ability to make arrests without warrant when in pursuit of a suspect fleeing.
Nowhere in his report does Martino state there is any evidence the suspect exited the backyard. Without this, it is questionable if the arrest was legal.
The officers state the suspect was resisting arrest, and during that struggle the suspect suffered multiple fractured ribs.
The question of the legality of the use of force is what needs to be determined.
If the officers lacked the authority to make the arrest, in that they entered the suspect’s property without legal authority, then the use of force is not justified in law.
Director Martino’s report states there is “evidence to the effect that the Complainant was arrested on his back deck” Later in his report, Martino decides this evidence is inconclusive. No alternative explanations are provided.
The report continues “Were the foregoing evidence accepted, then the Complainant’s arrest was arguably unlawful and SO #1 and SO #2 could be open to charges of assault. I am not prepared to accept the evidence, however, as it is insufficiently reliable to warrant resting criminal charges on it. The source of the evidence that the arrest took place here is not reliable. Given this issue, as well as the chaotic nature of the arrest, I cannot conclude with sufficient certainty that the arrest started on the rear deck of the Complainant’s home”.
Martino does not explain why the evidence is unreliable. At no point in his report does Martino discuss any evidence the arrest happened outside of the suspect’s property.
Two paragraphs later, Martino writes “Finally, aside from whether the arrest occurred in a dwelling-house, the question arises whether the officers were trespassers in the Complainant’s rear yard at the time and the impact of such on the lawfulness of the arrest. Here, too, the factual and legal issues are so equivocal that I am unable to arrive at any firm conclusions. SO #1, who first entered the backyard, suggests he had authority to do so without the Complainant’s permission pursuant to the doctrine of hot pursuit. SO #1 was clearly in error in surmising as much. ”
In the same paragraph Martino submits that he is unable to determine if the officers were trespassers to be in the suspect’s rear yard, despite determining that the officers were “clearly in error” when they declared themselves to be in pursuit of the suspect.
It would follow since the officers were “clearly in error” as Martino states, they had no legal grounds to enter into the backyard.
Martino decides there is an alternative explanation which makes the arrest potentially legal.
Director Martino’s reasoning continues: “Was SO #1 therefore a trespasser? Perhaps, were it not for evidence that the Complainant opened the gate to his rear yard, albeit under duress, to let SO #1 in. To add to the complexity, it is not entirely clear whether SO #1’s status as a trespasser necessarily affects the legality of an arrest which was otherwise justified by a belief based on reasonable and probable grounds in the Complainant’s guilt for the gas thefts: Le (2019), supra, at para. 128.”
In one paragraph, Martino determines the pursuit was “clearly in error”. Two paragraphs later Martino states the suspect may have opened his back gate “albeit under duress”?
Again, Martino report raises yet more unanswered questions? What caused this duress? Was the suspect responding to the “clearly in error” pursuit? If so, does the opening of the gate suddenly make the pursuit legal?
Martino does not answer any of these questions, deciding to proceed on the basis that the arrest was lawful.
“I am simply not persuaded that there are sufficient grounds suggesting the Complainant’s arrest was unlawful to warrant that issue being put to the test before a court”, Martino writes. “I proceed, therefore, on the basis that SO #1 and SO #2 were proceeding to lawfully arrest the Complainant when they confronted him in his backyard.”
Thus, he concludes “there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case, and the file is closed”.
Ultimately, after taking over a year to complete what should’ve been a simple investigation, the SIU investigations leave us with more questions than answers.
This serves no one, not the injured party, not the officers involved, and not society.
No wonder the reports of the Ontario Ombudsman and findings of the Honourable Justice Michael H. Tulloch state the Special Investigations Unit is failing short of being the police oversight Ontario needs.


text:
Toronto Star Poll: Interesting Public Opinion Data on COVID, Education, and Policing – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

July 18, 2020
Some interesting data in the latest Campaign Research polling for the Toronto Star last week. The polling document is 105 pages.
The poll groups Hamilton and Niagara together as one region. This grouping is not useful for determining what the poll is indicating for Hamilton specifically, we are very different from Niagara.


text:
2026 Commonwealth Games Cost Estimated at $1 Billion Says Private Bid President – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

August 4, 2020
The estimated cost of hosting the 2026 Commonwealth Games is now somewhere between $1 billion to $1.1 billion, says private bid group President PJ Mercanti. This compares to an original $1.5 billion forecast to host the Commonwealth Games in 2030.
The bid group’s goal is to have the federal and provincial governments cover up to 80 percent of this cost, with ticket and sponsorship revenue covering 10 percent to 15 percent to “help close the gap”, and a combination of private money, a “modest” amount from Hamilton Future Fund, and municipal “in-kind” contributions to “help close the gap, if there is a gap”, Mercanti said.
“It is a no-brainer”, he said. “It is unfortunate that some Councillors took a position to not even listen to the new deal”.
The 2026 Games will involve 16 venues, instead of the planned 21 for a 2030 Games with around 3000 athletes competing. For comparison, Mercanti said the 2015 Toronto Pan Am Games involved 30 venues and 7000 athletes. He said this makes a 2026 Commonwealth Games will be more manageable and cost-effective.
Mercanti’s statements came during a recent meeting of the private 2026 Commonwealth Games bid group and its supporters to plan a public relations blitz in advance of the August 10 City Council debate on whether to commit to the games.
The video meeting included Ward 7 City Councillor Esther Pauls, bid members Louis Frapporti, Cecelia Carter-Smith, Greg Maychak, Jasper Kujavsky, Thérèse Quigley and at least a dozen other people.
Much of the discussion focused upon how to convince Hamilton City Council to approve the 2026 Games and win over a skeptical public to make the Games a focus of Hamilton’s COVID recovery spending.
Presently, six Councillors have firmly committed to the Games, with three firmly opposed, another three have expressed opposition but carefully chose their words to say they could support a ‘no cost’ Games, and another four expressed general concerns.
The bid group needs to secure at least nine Council votes for the City to move forward towards hosting the 2026 Games.
“What the City will commit to initially is not a commitment to any funding,” said Louis Frapporti, the lead spokesperson for the bid group. “If it is the City’s view … that it does not want to spend a single penny, the City can decide to not spend a single penny. We may reduce a venue, we may reduce a sport”.
“The goal is to ultimately get the federal and provincial governments obviously to be at the table”, said Mercanti.
Mercanti stated that in conversation with Progressive Conservative Member of Provincial Parliament Donna Skelly, that Skelly describe the opportunity to bid as “enticing”.
Frapporti states staff in both federal and provincial ministries of sport are “very supportive” but the civil servants state the decision of support is ultimately up to the respective Cabinets.
He states the federal government will be supportive in principle if the provincial government signs on in principle. He says provincial support is contingent upon Council first voting in favour.
Bid team member Greg Maychak, who recently retired from the City of Hamilton as a Senior Project Manager for sports after 34 years working for the City, says the new bid will involve six new venues, six renovated venues, and four venues which will need “overlay” for the games.
Mercanti and Frapporti told supporters that the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) has dropped many of their hosting requirements, allowing Hamilton to redefine what hosting a multi-sport event means for a community.
As it stands the CGF is asking the Hamilton bid group to secure support for hosting a 2026 Games because no city elsewhere in the world is expressing interest in hosting them. Without a 2026 Games, it is possible the Commonwealth Games will be no more and there will be no 2030 Games.
Traditionally, multi-sport international games require the athletes’ village to be concentrated in a single location or a very few locations. CGF says the Hamilton bid can disperse the housing in multiple locations. Mercanti said this will help make the affordable housing component of the games more responsive to local needs, and the housing could be part of private developments already planned in Downtown Hamilton.
“We have an opportunity here to show the world – Olympics, Pan-American, all multi-sport governing bodies – how games should be managed and run”, said Cecelia Carter-Smith. “Even as sad as it is with the pandemic, not just locally but globally, it has opened a door for us to leave a legacy like no other”.
The group had a lengthy discussion of how to win public support which began when a supporter, who I could not identify by voice, said they are concerned people are hearing Brad Clark’s critique against the Commonwealth Games as a municipal priority.
What is the strategy for communicating to Hamiltonians?, a supporter asked.
Frapporti said they have stories planned in local media and a social media campaign leading up to the August 10 Council vote.
“CHCH, I’m confident because I’ve had discussions with them, will be a partner with us in communicating”, said Frapporti. “The Spectator has been very supportive in advancing the conversation, you’ll see more from them”.
“We even got a few celebrities we’re going to surprise everyone with, who have a Hamilton background, haven’t been here for awhile, they have reached out to see how they can help”, he added.
Carter-Smith said those opposed to the Commonwealth Games “need to give us an opportunity to share with everyone what we can do. You can’t make a decision on something until you have the facts”.
“We are doing this now for the future”, she added. “This is an incredible opportunity”.
“We are known as the Ambitious City, let’s prove it!”

created: August 4, 2020


text:
Coleman's Notes: "accidental exposure" to politics on social media increases participation – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

August 22, 2020
OPINION
Sharing political news and ideas on social media is an effective means of boosting voter turnout, a 2015 academic study of political participation finds.
The findings “suggest that inadvertent encounters with political content on social media are likely to reduce the gap in online engagement between citizens with high and low interest in politics, potentially broadening the range of voices that make themselves heard”.
The researchers found among British respondents “scarcely interested in politics” received a 113% boost in their online political activity from an increased in “frequency of accidental exposure to politics on social media”.
This may, in part, explain why conspiracy ideologies and extreme polarization seems more common. Many people are being accidentally exposed to conspiratorial content, and then engaging with it themselves. Over time, people come to believe it, especially since so many of these ideologies provide easy answers to complex issues.
Thus, disengaging from social media will not solve polarization – and I agree social media is exhausting at time.
Sharing good context, engaging in thoughtful conversation, and being understanding especially when it is hard to be understanding, is how we help improve our politics and our society.
If you are reading this column, you are likely already well engaged in thinking about politics and the issues which will decide your vote.
You may also share a desire to see more people vote, and for a more deliberative approach by all of us to voting.  This is the mission statement of The Public Record, and what I’m working to do with the upcoming relaunch of The 155 Podcast.
We could see a federal election as early as this fall, however, spring 2021 seems more probable. (But who knows with 2020, anything is possible)
No party won a majority of seats in the 2019 federal election. Minority governments average 505 days (1 year, 140 days), the current minority government is just past the halfway mark of this average (255 days as of August 22, 2020).
In 2022, the Ontario provincial election is scheduled for June 2nd and the municipal election is scheduled for October 24nd.
The time is now to start the conversations with your friends about issues. The most important thing is to have a dialogue, remember, we wish to improve our politics and respond to the polarization which divides us within ourselves and from each other.


text:
City Council to Vote on Selling Four Alleyways in September – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

September 5, 2020
Hamilton City Council will vote on selling four alleyways in various parts of the city in September.
Abutting property owners are seeking to purchase alleyways at the following addresses:
Hamilton City Hall is presently studying the future of alleyways with a report from staff due for summer 2021. The review will, in part, determine how alleyways relate to housing availability in Hamilton with the creation of laneway housing.
City Council decided against imposing a moratorium on alleyway sales during the review.
In November 2019, city staff stated the City of Hamilton has 642 alleyways. A map of alleyways is available on the city website here.

created: September 5, 2020


text:
City Forecasts Balanced Budget for 2020 Thanks to Federal and Provincial COVID funding – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

September 23, 2020
Hamilton City Hall is forecasting a small surplus of $420,000 for 2020, thanks to significant federal and provincial funding supports during COVID. This compares to early deficit forecasts of over $60-million dollars.
Councillors heaped praise upon the Premier and Prime Minister for their support of municipalities.
“I know a lot of us are critical of the Province and Federal government when they are not there for our municipality”, said Ward 5 Councillor Chad Collins. “I wanted to publicly thank the Premier and the Prime Minister for living up to their promises. When they said they were going to be there for municipalities, they certainly have come thought”.
Public transit is one of the largest cost centres for municipalities as ridership is significantly down due to people working from home, and others finding different means of travelling. Mass transit’s operating budgets relied heavily upon busy routes, with full seats and standing loads, to be near or slightly above operating cost recovery to balance budgets. The Hamilton Street Railway implemented significant service cuts in March, and is presently operating reduced service.
Higher levels of government have provided $17.2-million in COVID transit funding. The City of Hamilton claims it transit COVID costs are $19-million for March to end of September. Separate one-time COVID transit funding from higher levels of government is expected for post-October service.
The City of Hamilton is receiving $11.4m for social service costs resulting from COVID this year, and $6.8m for the first quarter of 2021. This is primarily being used for housing services supports for homeless and precariously housed individuals.
$27.6m has been committed to the City of Hamilton for COVID operating costs in both 2020 and 2021. The City can apply for additional funds.
The City is expecting to receive additional funds from the Ministry of Health and from the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program.
Demand for para-transit is significantly down, and the City is saying $10.6m as a result.
The City saved approximately $7.4m from reduced hiring of students this summer and from a lower than expected number of winter storms in the first months of the year. (Hamilton General Manager of Finance and Corporate Services Mike Zegarac grouped these savings together for some reason)
Recreation closures due to COVID saved the City $7.8m.
The City is drawing on reserves, and financing savings due to delays in projects. Zegarac’s presentation today included another $14.5m in positive variances including these financing changes.
The City may receive additional COVID funding from higher levels of government, the City expects it will need to carry over any surplus to absorb ongoing COVID costs in 2021.

created: September 23, 2020


text:
City Hall and Homebuilders Reach Deal on New Urban Comprehensive Zoning – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

September 16, 2020
The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, formerly known as the Ontario Municipal Board, issued noticed this afternoon that Hamilton City Council and the Hamilton-Halton Home Builders’ Association have reached an agreement on the HHHBA’s appeal of Hamilton’s new city-wide urban commercial and mixed-use zoning bylaw.
The new commercial and mixed-use zoning bylaw is the result of years of consultation and study by the City of Hamilton’s planning and economic development staff. It is designed to streamline the planning process, and modernize Hamilton’s commercial zoning by using clearer language to enable future flexibility as the economy changes.
Zoning in some parts of Hamilton dates back to the 1950s, and is often restrictive by forbidding new types of businesses from opening. The bylaw also allows for more mixed-use buildings, with the goal of increasing residential development above commercial developments.
HHHBA, along with around two dozen other parties, appealed the By-Law to the then-OMB, now-LPAT. (It is not unusual for a city-wide bylaw to be subject to this number of appeals)
The HHHBA appeal is only remaining appeal which is city-wide in its primary nature (others have city-wide appeals but are primarily interested in their own properties).
Three of the other appellants – 64 Main Street East Hamilton Inc., King Stuart Developments Inc., Royal Connaught Inc. – have stated they consent to the HHHBA/City of Hamilton settlement “conditional on site specific scoping”.
The LPAT has called a settlement hearing for October 15, 2020.

created: September 16, 2020


text:
Coleman's Column: Without Coverage, Municipal Elections Are Noncompetitive – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

September 27, 2020
I’m particularly proud of The 155 Podcast because I gave voters the opportunity to hear from candidates, and for candidates to speak to voters. In Service of Democracy is the motto of The Public Record and I delivered.
Study after study after study proves the value of local journalism to local democracy.  They confirm the decline in coverage of local elections, caused by decreasing number of local journalists as daily newspapers close, is making local elections less competitive and voter turnout is declining more rapidly in communities that have lost daily news coverage. The result is increased corruption in local government resulting from lower accountability.
Last week, academics Meghan E. Rubado and Jay T. Jenning’s wrote a public article about their research of the impact of decreased staffing at 11 medium-sized California newspapers and the impact upon local elections in those communities.
They “analyzed the relationship between newsroom staffing levels at 11 daily newspapers and the outcomes of 246 mayoral elections in 46 cities served by these newspapers. The period of study was 1994-2014.”
“We found that when newspapers cut more staff, the mayoral races that followed included fewer candidates, resulted in larger victory margins for winners, and more regularly featured unchallenged incumbents. It appears that local political competition suffers when newspapers decimate their newsrooms. Results for voter turnout were suggestive that staff cuts also lead to decreased voter engagement.”
I’ll draw your attention to a chart included in their article on the decreasing size of newspaper staff size:
Much as been the case in other studies, they found that new online niche media sources [such as this publication] and blogs have not filled the void left. [It is hard work, I know better than most]
My mission is clear: provide the information which enables voters to be informed and engaged. 2022 is quickly approaching.

created: September 27, 2020


text:
Council Committee Votes Against Hearing Water Bill Appeals – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

September 24, 2020
Hamilton City Council’s ad-hoc approach to high water bill appeals may be at an end.
Councillors on the Audit, Finance, and Administration Committee decided against hearing two resident appeals of water bills.
In Favour: Clark, Johnson, VanderBeek, Partridge
Opposed: Wilson, Collins, Pearson, Ferguson
Ward 10 Councillor Maria Pearson was first to express she would not support hearing the appeals.
“I’m concerned about getting these requests again”, Pearson said in regards to continuing appeals of staff water bill decisions to Council. “It is our policy, we charge for water and a little more for sanitary water going out”.
The two appeals are individuals who installed new sod on their properties, and used a larger than usual amount of water this summer as a result.
Hamilton’s water bills have two components, a charge for water used and a charge for wastewater treatment which is based upon that water usage.
During the past few years, Council has heard appeals from individuals who’ve had high water usage. Often, these are outdoor leaks and the individuals seek to have wastewater fees waived. By policy, staff are not allowed to waive these fees.
At Council, the vast majority of appeals have been decided. Council has, when requested by the ward councillor where the appellant lives, granted wastewater fee waivers for homeowners who live in their homes. They have declined to give relief to landlords, including in situations where a tenant left hoses or other outdoor water running.
The decision to decline appeal delegations needs to be ratified by the full City Council during their scheduled ratification meeting on September 30th.
During the past few years, Council has heard appeals from individuals who’ve had high water usage. Often, these are outdoor leaks and the individuals seek to have wastewater fees waived. By policy, staff are not allowed to waive these fees.

created: September 24, 2020