text:
Coleman's Note: The Election Day Race Summary – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 22, 2018
I interviewed 102 candidates in the 34 races across Hamilton in this 2018 municipal election, and I walked away from these interviews hopeful for Hamilton’s future, hopeful about the next generation of leaders who will run again in the 2022 municipal election.
Today, we vote in our 2018 election. Here are some of my thoughts on the races, and a select few of the candidates, starting with the Mayoral race, then numerically the ward races.
Predicting voter turnout is impossible. City of Hamilton Acting City Clerk Janet Pilon has done little to improve voter turnout, and in fact, Hamilton had no election information outreach booths, no social media ads, and one of the lowest number of both advance polls and polling locations per-capita of any municipality in Ontario.
Hamilton already had below average voter turnout prior to this election.
However, a polarizing election issue in the LRT, and a widely publicized Forum Poll which claims the Mayoral race is a statistical tie may motivate voters to the polls to prevent the “other side” from winning. If voter turnout increases, it is because of polarization.
Either way, we’re going to need to address the weakness of our democracy, heal it, and strength before the next municipal election.
Before I starting a discussion of Hamilton’s mayoral race, I strongly recommend reading Andrew Coyne’s column on the London Ontario mayoral race which is being conducted with a ranked balloting system. They have many good qualified candidates, and the debate is both informed and civil. Why? Because wedge issues do not work in a ranked system, and each candidate needs to convince the voters of the other to make them their second or third choice.
In the mayoral race, it’s a two candidate, one defining issue race. Personally, I’m disappointed that we haven’t had a discussion about Hamilton’s future. Not for lacking of trying on my part, I asked candidates how they plan to managing zoning and development to ensure the Hamilton of 2041 is truly “The Best Place to Raise a Child and Age Successfully”.
If you are reading this post, you’ve likely decided who you are voting for. No matter which side of the LRT debate, no matter if you are choosing Eisenberger or Sgro, I’m hearing very consistently that people are disappointed in the mayoral campaign. I want to change this in 2022, over the next few months, I’m going to be asking for your thoughts on what media coverage and conversation is missing, and I want to hear your feedback.
We’re going to find a way of making The Public Record sustainable, and to grow in the coming three years, so that in 2022, no only will The Public Record continue to be the only media outlet covering every race in Hamilton, we’re going to go into the issues in a depth unmatched anywhere else anywhere.
With no incumbent, what will happen on Monday night is anyone’s guess.
Here’s what I’m watching for in the results, how much will the McMaster student vote increase? The City has done everything short of disenfranchisement to keep students from voting, Hamilton being the only City with a university in Canada – yes Canada – to not place a special advance poll on the university campus; the City didn’t even bother to do a voter information session on the campus.
Based upon campaign organization, fundraising ability, and community profile, most political types in the City have their expected top four candidates. With 13 candidates, I’m not so sure that we can accurately predict anything in this race.
Out of my interviews with 12 of the candidates, I’m very hopeful for the future of this ward. There are some excellent young candidates who are running their first campaigns, well aware they are not in a position to win, and understand the importance of learning to a future successful campaign. They’ve brought some great ideas into the race, and I’m hopeful they will get involved in City Hall committees during the next four years.
For Trustee, Christine Ann Bingham has more than earned re-election, and should win today.
This the race I’ll be watching, as a grassroots organized campaign of Cameron Kroetsch could see incumbent Jason Farr defeated.
Kroetsch’s campaign has successfully raised tens of thousands of dollars in small donations, with the majority coming from Ward 2 residents. With endorsements from community leaders across the six neighbourhoods of Ward 2, and those leaders out canvassing door-to-door for Kroetsch, tonight’s results will be interesting.
Interviewing Ward 2 candidates was a very interesting experience for me, this is the community in which I spend the most time, and until recently, I was a member of the Executive of the Beasley Neighbourhood Association. I enjoyed speaking with Suresh Daljeet, Nicole Smith, Mark Tennant, and Diane Chiarelli, all of who are very involved already in making Ward 2 a better community.
They are all very worthy candidates, and I know many in Ward 2 who’ve expressed a desire for a ranked ballot because of how strong the field of challengers is.
Incumbent Jason Farr was both humble and self-reflective during his interview, it leads me to believe that he realizes he has to do better if he’s re-elected this evening.
For Trustee, which is shared with Ward 1, Christine Ann Bingham deserves to be re-elected.
The running joke in July was that instead of asking who’s running, it was easy to ask who is not running during the last minute rush of nominations in Ward 3. Much the same as Ward 1, no predictions as it is harder to tell who will come out on top of what should be a close three to four way election night. This is a ward where most of the candidates are already involved, and we can expect they will remain involved no matter the results.
There’s also no incumbent in the Public School Board race, with each of the candidates seeking to fill the shoes of current Ward 3 Public School Trustee Larry Pattison passing the bar of complacency and character. What will be interesting to see what factor endorsements have in the results for Trustee.
The second sleepiest campaign is easily Ward 4, Rod Douglas wasn’t able to fundraise and mount a serious challenge to incumbent Sam Merulla. What will be interesting to watch for is if there is a correlation between the total votes for Douglas and mayoral candidate Vito Sgro indicating voters are motivated primarily by the LRT issue.
Stewart Klazinga ran a good first campaign, taking clear and strong positions on the issues. Incumbent Chad Collins ran a safe campaign, not saying much. He did have to run a full campaign this time, with Juanita Maldonado – a past NDP candidate – showing the potential of running a strong campaign. In the end, there’s nothing indicating Ward 5 will change its representation.
To watch here will be the Stoney Creek polls which used to be part of Ward 9, more to see if the incumbent effect carries over Centennial Parkway.
The Trustee races here are interesting, with two challenges to Public School Trustee incumbent, and HWDSB Chair, Todd White. Carole Paikin Miller is winning the sign campaign in Ward 5.
In the Catholic race, Ralph Agostino is trying his aspiring political hand for Trustee this election – Agostino ran for Ward 3 City Councillor in 2014 – against incumbent Aldo D’Intino.
Incumbent Councillor Tom Jackson has two challengers, but neither have mounted significant campaigns. Jackson will be re-elected with a large margin.
It is the Trustee races that are to watch here.
For Public School Trustee, labour activist Jay Edington is running a strong and serious campaign to replace incumbent Kathy Archer.
The Catholic School Trustee race sees two candidates seeking to replace Joseph Baiardo on the HWCDSB. Baiardo is one of only two incumbent Catholic Trustees who are able to vote on the budget, the remainder having family members who work for the Board. Baiardo’s The 155 Podcast interview is an excellent example of a candidate who understands the issues Trustees must manage, and the reasoning required to make difficult decisions. Running against Baiardo are Ellen Agostino and Elenita (Elen) Ranas.
We will all be watching the Ward 7 race this evening, mostly because who knows how to call this race?
The race has gotten dirty in the past few days, with one candidate unleashing attack ads against his opponents, and accusations involving various candidates accusing each other of being underhanded in the sign wars. This one will be decided based upon who has the best organized campaign, and is able to get their identified voters to the polls today.
Both Trustee races are acclaimed.
Another race which has been messy, with Eve Adams having recently moved to Ancaster running on Hamilton Mountain to try and restart her disgraced political career. Adams has run a dirty campaign to say the least, with numerous tweet wars against people (Adams spent an evening attacking me on Twitter, including accusing me of not being passionate about Hamilton nor covering municipal politics), flyers designed to look like an NDP endorsement, and signs which people claimed they did not want.
Current Ward 8 City Councillor, who is running in the new Ward 14 which is form out of a large portion of the old Ward 8, Terry Whitehead had been actively inserting himself into this race in support of part-time CHCH Weather Personality Steve Ruddick.
Whitehead has attacked his former Executive Assistant Collen Wicken relentlessly during the campaign, accusing her of stealing a email list from the Ward 8 City Councillor office. Wicken denies the accusation.
Wicken has focused her campaign on door-to-door canvassing, and is expected to have a good showing tonight.
Ruddick’s not doing as well on signs as one would expect for a well-known personality, especially considering that Whitehead’s team is effectively running his campaign.
John Paul Danko, who lives in Ward 8 after redistricting, has run a strong campaign, as a non-partisan candidate not affiliated with any political party. Danko is the focus of Whitehead’s fire in the final weeks, indicating the likelihood that internal campaign polling is showing Danko as a likely winner.
Adams, for her part, does very well door-to-door connecting with voters.
Ward 8 will be watched tonight, no prediction on my part.
For Public School Trustee, there are five candidates. Long time trustee Wes Hicks initially registered for re-election, then decided to withdraw and retire. Damin Starr is running the most visible of the campaigns. The four remaining candidates are Rochelle Butler, Erica Villabroza, Becky Buck, and Yousaf Malik. The seat is shared with the new Ward 14.
For Catholic School Trustee, John Valvasori is running for re-election with George Kalacherry challenging. Both were interviewed for the 155 Podcast. The seat is also shared with Ward 14.
Incumbent Terry Whitehead has benefited from creating news that legacy media loves during this election, and constantly getting his name in the media by repeatedly changing his positions on major issues.
Challenger Bryan Wilson has run a good campaign, focused on issues, and will have a respectable showing. He took good positions to advance the future of Hamilton, is already contributing to the community, and deserved to be heard by voters, but alas, the legacy media likes its controversies, a good smart campaign is not something legacy news covers much.
Terry Whitehead has joined the Vito Sgro mayoral campaign, and in the past week, Sgro has robocalled in Ward 14 with a pitch that includes calling on voters to vote for Whitehead to kill the LRT.
The other Council candidates are Vincent Samuel, Robert Iszkula, and Roslyn French-Sanges.
For Trustee candidates, see Ward 8 above, both the Public and Catholic seats are shared with Ward 8.
A heated and disrespectful match would be the only way of describing this as incumbent Doug Conley and former Councillor Brad Clark sling mud at each other – taking away all attention from the other challengers in the race.
I’ll note that both David Ford and Peter Lanza provided good answers in The 155 Podcast interviews, and I found them both to be excellent candidates in our discussions after the podcast. This said, they’ve been basically ignored by other media, and that harms their chances as Conley v Clark became the media narrative.
The Public School Trustee race sees Cam Galindo putting his political dreams on the line after withdrawing from the Councillor race upon Brad Clark’s registration. Clark and Galindo mutually endorsed each other.
Wayne Marston, who lives in the Ward 9 & 10 Trustee ward, is hoping to return to serving on the public school board.
The Catholic School Trustee race, in a seat shared with Ward 11, is one of the most competitive in Hamilton with four candidates: Antonio (Tony) Di Mambro, Karmen Crea, Louis Agro, and Tyler Iorio.
Opposition to LRT is strong in Ward 9. During his three month Council campaign, Galindo made no direct mention of his support for the project. Clark had a nuanced position of conditional support for LRT, which his opponents used to claim he was the “Pro-LRT candidate” in Ward 9. Clark then adopted a more anti-LRT position than Vito Sgro in response to the strong anti-LRT undercurrent on Stoney Creek Mountain.
This is one of the most interesting races in all of Hamilton, with new Ward boundaries, the incumbency advantage for current Councillor Maria Pearson is significantly diminished.
Current Public School Trustee Jeff Beattie, of the well-known Stoney Creek Beattie political family, was the first challenger to register and has been running a very strong campaign. After a respectable term as Trustee, Beattie has the ward wide profile to be competitive.
Ian Thompson has run a very strong campaign, with extensive canvassing, signs, and communications. Thompson is experienced in politics, having worked for the late Dominic Agostino, and having served on the Public School School as Dundas Trustee in the mid-00s. Thompson’s ground game could win it.
Louie Milojevic is running for Ward 10 Councillor for the second time, having finished third in 2003. Milojevic has run a very good campaign of ideas, and I’ve been hearing a lot of support for him from people I’ve chatted with in Stoney Creek. Milojevic’s canvass and ground game has been excellent.
Maria Pearson has had one of her best campaigns, and the advantage of incumbency.
The outcome? Anyone’s guess.
On the Trustee race, see my comments above in Ward 9, which shares the a joint Ward 9 and 10 Public School Trustee seat. The Catholic Trustee is acclaimed.
This is a race that shouldn’t be happening, in that the candidate challenging incumbent Councillor Brenda Johnson is not running a campaign, and could not articulate his reasons for running beyond he thought it was a good idea. This is the sleepiest campaign in the city.
An interesting note of trivia, neither candidate lives in the new Ward 11.
As for the Public School Trustee race, in a Trustee seat shared with Ward 12, there are two challengers to incumbent Alex Johnstone. Both Blake Hambly and Bruce Carnegie are running strong campaigns, Johnstone is working hard for reelection, its hard to say what will happen.
The Catholic School Trustee race, in a seat shared with Ward 9, is one of the most competitive in Hamilton with four candidates: Antonio (Tony) Di Mambro, Karmen Crea, Louis Agro, and Tyler Iorio.
Controversy plagued incumbent Councillor Lloyd Ferguson has benefited from a lot of positive media coverage, and a split field of challengers.
fffffWhat to watch for in Ward 12 is the showings of the challengers, with a good likelihood that this is Ferguson’s final term, especially if Ferguson loses his majority voting bloc on Council.
Running are: Ferguson, John Scime, Miranda Reis, Mike Bell, and Kevin Marley.
The Catholic School Board Trustee election sees two excellent candidates registered to run. Both Phil Homerski and Neil Chopp are well qualified and able to represent Catholic electors.
See above in Ward 11 for discussion of the Public School Trustee race, Ward 11 and 12 share a seat on the HWDSB.
Regardless of ward boundary changes, incumbent Arlene Vanderbeek was going to face a difficult race for re-election after making a series of unpopular decisions, such as the sale of a public laneway.
With ward boundary changes, Vanderbeek now has to cover western rural Flamborough as part of the new Ward 13.
Vanderbeek took out a print negative ad against Rich Gelder, stating he will raise taxes in Dundas because Gelder is pro-LRT and pro-transit; such a move indicates that Gelder is seen as a threat to Vanderbeek’s re-election.
Gelder has distinguished himself from the field by being strongly pro-LRT and holding to his political beliefs, stating at a debate that he’s prepared to die on the hill of LRT because ‘it’s a hill worth dying on’. His path to victory is securing the pro-LRT vote, and seeing the anti-LRT vote and others split among the other candidates.
Vanderbeek’s path to victory is a widely-split vote, and picking up support in Greensville and rural Flamborough.
John Mykytyshyn brings decades of political experience into the race, and has been able to capture good support in Greensville and rural Flamborough. Picking up small-c conservative voters in Dundas proper, and voters are who dissatisfied with Vanderbeek and against LRT could be his key to victory.
Newcomers Kevin Gray, Gaspare Bonomo, and John Roberts deserve respectable showings, Gray has particularly stood out among the rookie candidates.
Pam Mitchell ran for the second time, and articulated her ideas well at debates and on The 155 Podcast. Her candidacy contributes much to the discussion, and must be commended.
For Catholic School Trustee, see above in Ward 12 for comments on both excellent candidates, Ward 13 shares its HWCDSB seat with Ward 12.
Current Ward 13 and 14 Public School Trustee Greg Van Geffen is not seeking relection, the new Ward 13 has very similar boundaries, hence there is a single Public School Trustee for the new Ward 13.
The HWDSB candidates are Noor Nizam, Sukhi Dhillon, Chris Parr, Paul Tut, and Steven James Laur. Having interviewed all of them, I can state each is qualified, capable, and committed to the role, electors cannot go wrong with any of the choices.
Judi Partridge is seeking re-election as Ward 15 Councillor, until such time as another political opportunity arises, having sought election as the Liberal Party of Ontario candidate in the last provincial election – despite being a small-c conservative and now anti-LRT.
Susan McKechnie is the story in Ward 15, having mounted a strong enough campaign to cause Partridge to seek mutual support with Vito Sgro using the LRT as a wedge issue.
With a two-way race, we do need to look at Ward 15 tonight, but I suspect that Sgro’s blanketing of Ward 15 with robocalls, and media coverage in the final days, will help Partridge to gain a healthy margin of victory.
The Catholic School Trustee incumbent is acclaimed.
Incumbent Public School Trustee Penny Deathe is seeking re-election with one challenger seeking the seat: Janet Creet.
Deathe has proven to be a good trustee, and should win re-election.

created: October 22, 2018


text:
Current 195 Wellington Street South Residents Worry About Where They’ll Live Next – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 28, 2018
It was a short pre-hearing conference at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal on Monday as the City of Hamilton’s outside counsel told the tribunal the City was not prepared to make submissions due to the election.
Without the City prepared to file an issues list, or declare if it intents to oppose Medallion’s proposal for a 20-storey residential building at 195 Wellington Street South, the LPAT scheduled another pre-hearing date for April 15, 2019 at 10am to give the City time to prepare its submissions.
Medallion is appealing for non-decision by the City of Hamilton, to preserve it’s appeal rights under the former rules of the Ontario Municipal Board which are more favourable to developers than the new rules of the LPAT.
The Niagara Escarpment Commission is a separate party to the hearing, dealing with issues related to proximity to the Escarpment, and the Escarpment’s environment. The NEC made clear they are separate from the City. Their issues list was ready, but not presented.
Five residents of the existing low-rise building attending the hearing, expressing concerns about displacement and where they will live next. They are long term residents, who stated they are on fixed incomes, and cannot afford the significantly increased rents which Hamilton has seen in the past two years.
One resident was particularly worried about registering with their name and circumstances being revealed in the hearing. They were not going to register as a participant due to this concern. The Public Record has committed to them, and the Tribunal, not to report any identifying details about them. The reason for granting this anonymity is that the person would not have participating in the hearing, and they are a vulnerable person. Granting anonymity meets with the mission statement of The Public Record.
Each of the residents who filed to be participants stated displacement as their primary concern.
The 20-storey proposal will be judged against the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, and not the new Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan. The DTSP was passed by Council after this application was made.
Re-Elected Ward 2 City Councillor Jason Farr and Medallion Properties could reach a settlement agreement during the next few months, and file the settlement to the LPAT.
Both counsel for the City and Medallion Properties stated to the LPAT Hearing Officer that settlement talks could occur.

source: news-thepublicrecord

created: October 28, 2018

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


text:
Decide Your Vote: The Public Record's The 155 Podcast – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 20, 2018
With a day until voting day in Hamilton’s 2018 Municipal Election, I’m proud to share that The Public Record’s The 155 Election Podcast has exceeded 100,000 downloads.
Of all the journalism projects The Public Record has done, this is the one of which I’m most proud. Never in living memory has a Hamilton media outlet declared its mission to be covering every single race in Hamilton, to interview every candidate, and then gone out to fulfill that mission.
Over 750 hours of work went into this project, the result is the 101 podcasts below, I hope they’ll help inform your vote.
Subscribe to The 155 Podcast on Google Play, iTunes, or by RSS in your favourite podcatcher.
Thank you to the Hamilton Public Library for allowing The Public Record to record in the HPL’s sound studios at the Central, Dundas, Red Hill, Terryberry, and Turner Park branches.
Mayor: Mayoral interviews being conducted between September 4 and September 30.
Lower City: Ward 1 | Ward 2 | Ward 3 | Ward 4
Eastern Wards: Ward 5 | Ward 9 | Ward 10 | Ward 11
Hamilton Mountain: Ward 6 | Ward 7 | Ward 8 | Ward 14
Western Wards: Ward 12 | Ward 13 | Ward 15
Mayoral candidate list of questions
Ward 1 Council candidate list of questions
Ward 2 Council candidate list of questions
Ward 3 Council candidate list of questions
Ward 4 Council candidate list of questions
Ward 5 Council candidate list of questions
Ward 6 Council candidate list of questions
Ward 7 Council candidate list of questions
Ward 8 Council candidate list of questions
Ward 14 Council candidate list of questions
Ward 9 Council candidate list of questions
Click the candidate link to visit the episode page and read a summary of key answers.
Ward 11 Council candidate list of questions
Ward 12 Council candidate list of questions
Due to Council candidate and incumbent Lloyd Ferguson’s past use of violence against a journalist, for safety reasons, The Public Record will not be interviewing him.
Ward 13 Council candidate list of questions
Ward 15 Council candidate list of questions

created: October 20, 2018


text:
LPAT Gives Durand Residents Seeking to Be Parties to Television City Hearing 30 Days to File Issues List – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 29, 2018
The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, formerly known as the Ontario Municipal Board, set March 25 to 29 2019 for its hearing of the appeal by Brad Lamb’s Television City proposal for 163 Jackson Street of the City’s non-support of the project.
The pre-hearing officer Susan De Avellar Schiller did not decide if the hearing – which will be conducted under the old OMB rules – will be a review for denial or if it will be a non-decision hearing.
Schiller is a Vice Chair of the Tribunal.
Council’s Planning Committee voted against the proposal, but Lamb’s development group filed their appeal prior to Council as a whole ratifying the denial, and are stating that by filing prior to ratification, the hearing should be conducting under the more favourable lenses of a non-decision hearing.
A large number of Durand residents attended the hearing to seek participant status, the Tribunal granted status to around a dozen Durand residents, but instructed them to meet, determine where they have common interests, and designated spokespersons for those interests.
The Durand Neighbourhood Association was granted participant status.
Three groups were granted party status, but all three quickly revealed themselves to be unprepared for the responsibilities of being a party in a LPAT hearing.
The Bentley Tower condominium corporation, represented by recent Ward 1 candidate Sharon Cole, was granted party status. Cole says the residents of 67 Caroline Street South are concerned about parking and traffic.
A resident of 181 Jackson Street West, who did not speak loudly and I couldn’t hear their name, was granted status as a party. She did not outline her issues, beyond stating that she couldn’t afford to call expert witnesses, and her issues are those of the low-income residents of the CityHousing Vanier Towers complex.
Wentworth Condominium Corporation 297 was granted party status, identifying parking, traffic, and the location of traffic controls as their issues.
The City of Hamilton’s counsel identified primary themes to the City’s issues list: does the proposed development match the character of the area, does it contribute to a healthy pedestrian environment, and does the plan conform to the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.
(The proposal was submitted prior to the completion of the new Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan, and the DTSP is not in force due to separate LPAT appeals against the plan)
The LPAT hearing officer took time and care to repeatedly explain the LPAT process to the new parties, but as the day continues, grew frustrated by their lack of preparation and statements against the LPAT process.
The lawyer representing Television City carefully protecting her clients interests while not directly criticizing the new parties.
At the end of the pre-hearing, Schiller gave the new parties 30 days to determine their issues, and charged the counsel for the City of Hamilton with coordinating communication to complete a procedural order with an issues list.
The lawyer for Television City stated they expect it will take five days for them to call their experts and counter the City’s issues list; but that they cannot predict what will be required to respond to issues that may be added by the three new parties.
Counsel for the City stated, mindful that any hearings beyond five days are now being scheduled for 2020 dates, stated they believe they can argue their case with their experts on the same days at Television City.
LPAT set the dates for the hearing starting March 25, 2019 scheduled for five days.
Both the City and Television City requested LPAT mediation to see if they reach a settlement without a hearing. LPAT agreed to assist; no details of what the settlement could involve was provided by either party.
Hearing Officer Schiller asked the three added parties if they were accept a settlement of the City’s issues list if the City and Television City reach agreement. Both Condo Corporation representatives stated they plan to continue to challenge Television City on those issues, including calling expert witnesses. (It’s unclear if the representatives have the authority to bind their condo corporations to the costs of LPAT litigation, which will likely be in the tens of thousands of dollars)
Near the end of the hearing, Hearing Officer Schiller reminded the three added parties of their responsibilities.
It is expected that a Case Management Conference will be held early in the new year, if so, it will be included in the procedural order.

created: October 29, 2018


text:
Sonoma Homes Must Wait Until 2020 for Hearing into Their Upper Sherman & Rymal Development – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 29, 2018
Sonoma Homes will need to wait until mid-2020 at the earliest for the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal to rule on the merits of a proposal for 321 units in four mid-rise buildings: two 11-storey buildings, a nine-story building, and a eight-storey building at 1518, 1530, and 1540 Upper Sherman Avenue.
On Tuesday, the morning after the municipal election, LPAT conducted the pre-hearing for the development.
Present was Ward 7 Councillor-Elect Esther Pauls who registered as an observer at the hearing. Pauls told The Public Record that she attended due to the importance of the file, the interest in Ward 7, and to ensure she is fully briefed to represent when she takes office on December 1st
The backlog at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal – formerly known as the Ontario Municipal Board – means that Sonoma Homes planned mid-rise development could be waiting until 2021 to get into the ground, unless Sonoma can reach a deal with City Council during the interim.
The Tribunal will conduct the appeal hearing over 10 days starting on February 10, 2020.
No mediation dates have been set, and neither party requested mediation services from LPAT.
Numerous residents filed for participant status, both in person and in writing.
The number of participants will be officially known in the coming weeks when the LPAT procedural order is issued.


text:
TPR Email Edition for October 22, 2018: 155 Choices, Pick 34 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 22, 2018
The Public Record publishes a regular newsletter, we post it at the end of each day, sign up to get future editions delivered to your inbox in the mornings, or see our archives.
View this edition in its original format, with images, on our MailChimp page. (This version is primarily for web indexing)
Election Day in Hamilton
Voting is underway as Hamiltonians go to the polls elect 1 Mayor, 15 Councillors, 11 Public School Board Trustees, and 7 Catholic School Board Trustees. There are 155 candidates combined across all the ballots, and The Public Record made it our mission to provide you with the ability to decide who you’ll vote for.
My election day thoughts on each race ward-by-ward is now on The Public Record as a Coleman’s Note: The Election Day Summary
The Public Record did something that no other media outlet has done before – interview all candidates, asking them about their platforms, way they are running, and to decrease the three words they hope will describe their term as an elected official during the upcoming four years. 102 candidates agreed to be interviewed, and over seven weeks, I travelled across all parts of Hamilton to interview the candidates for The Public Record’s The 155 Podcast.
As of Friday, there had been over 100,000 downloads of The 155 episodes. It appears that another 50,000 downloads occurred over the weekend.
I wish to thank all the members of The Public Record’s Press Club who funded this project, without patrons, the project would’ve been impossible to complete. In the coming weeks, I’ll discuss this project further, and how I plan to improve the interviews for the next municipal election. Help ensure The Public Record remains a fixture in providing comphrensive coverage of Hamilton, join Press Club today.
Election Night – I’ll be covering LPAT hearings this week (more on that below), and will be working from home Monday night. I’ll provide a full overview, and review, of election results in Tuesday morning’s newsletter.
The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, formerly known as the Ontario Municipal Board, is conducting three hearings in Hamilton this week, and I’ll be covering all three. Pre-hearings are where the parties and participants are identified, the issues to be decided upon are outlined, the expected length of the full hearing is determined, and dates for the full hearings are decided.
Monday is the pre-hearing for , where Medallion Properties is seeking LPAT approval to build a 20-storey residential building on the property which borders Corktown Park. Medallion’s appeal is for non-decision. and will be conducted under old OMB rules. The pre-hearing starts at 10am Monday at the renovated Wentworth County Courthouse at 50 Main Street East. The case number is PL171389
Tuesday the much politicized hearing into Sonoma homes planned mid-rise development at  will be in front of LPAT for pre-hearing, Sonoma recently amended the project and is now asking LPAT to rule on a proposal for 321 units in four mid-rise buildings: two 11-storey buildings, a nine-story building, and a eight-storey building. The planning consultant for Sonoma Homes, Glen Wellings, told Hamilton Community News two weeks ago that the new plan conforms with the new Urban Hamilton Official Plan, and therefore the proposal no longer needs an official plan amendment, but only rezoning. It will be interesting to hear the City’s planning staff response to the changes.
This development is in the planned Rymal Road rapid transit corridor, at the intersection of two arterial roads, and it’s hard to see how – despite the promises of aspiring politicians running for the Ward 7 Council seat – the development will not be approved in some form by the LPAT. The appeal is for non-decision under the old OMB rules. The pre-hearing starts at 10am Tuesday at the renovated Wentworth County Courthouse at 50 Main Street East, case number is PL180175
Friday, the City’s new Downtown Secondary Plan is under indirect review as Brad Lamb’s Television City appeal for  is in front of LPAT for its pre-hearing. First thing the LPAT is likely to be asked to rule upon is if the appeal is for non-decision by Council, or if its an appeal of a denial by Council. Lamb filed his appeal prior to Council formally denying the application to build two towers – one of 40 storeys, the other of 30 storey -, but after it was known that Council would vote to deny.
Lamb’s proposal is more than 25% taller than the height limits of the new Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan, but the primary section of the DHSP that will be challenge is the tower separation requirements, under the design requirements of the DTSP, the site is appropriate for only one tower. The pre-hearing starts at 10am Friday at the renovated Wentworth County Courthouse at 50 Main Street East, case number is PL180255
(The appeals of the Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan will be subject to a Case Management Conference on November 22nd)
Hamilton’s New Commercial Mixed Use Zoning Appeal
The City of Hamilton’s legal team massively screwed up two weeks ago at the LPAT pre-hearing into the City’s new Commercial Mixed Use Zoning – the top LPAT priority for Council, and one of the top priorities of Hamilton’s development and real estate communities.
The City failed to file basic zoning maps and documentation with the Tribunal, it was a devastatingly amateur error, and one which the hearing officer chastised the City for making such a amateur error that will cost thousands of dollars to the parties in delays.
The other parties asked for a quick rescheduling of the pre-hearing – there are dozens, if not hundreds of projects across Hamilton awaiting the implementation of the new zoning – and the hearing officer gave a one-day rescheduling for November 30, which the requirement that parties exchange positions and most of their arguments in writing prior to the hearing.  As for the City of Hamilton’s standing in front of the LPAT, the City lost a lot of good faith with the Tribunal for this error.
The Public Record has requested copies of all submissions and arguments in this hearing, and I’ll be there covering the pre-hearing on November 30th.
City Fails to File Required Documents to LPAT, LPAT Issues Order Against City
Adding to the major failing of the City’s legal team in the CMU appeal, LPAT issued a public ruling against the City of Hamilton ordering the City to obey the Planning Act and immediately file its documentation to the tribunal within a week of the order, and further documentation within 30 days of the first filing.
Development Charges on Laneway Housing
The LPAT hearing into a development charges levied against laneway housing will be held on February 11, 2019. This will determine the attractiveness of constructing laneway housing; which is seen as a means of adding to Hamilton’s housing stock, increasing housing affordability, and gently increasing density. The owners of Hamilton’s first laneway house are appealing what they say are unjustified development charges, the City is arguing that the development charges levied are necessary for the City to recover the costs of servicing new laneway homes, and providing services to new residents.
THE PUBLIC RECORD PRESS CLUB
City Loses to Christian Heritage Party in Divisional Court
SIU Investigating Fatal Hamilton Police Shooting
Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit is investigating after Hamilton Police fatality shot a 30-year-old woman Saturday morning. The SIU says Hamilton Police responded to a 911 call stating a woman was armed with a knife at a residence on King Street East near Wellington Street North at approximately 1am. The SIU says they are investigating one officer as a subject officer – the one who discharged their firearm – and have designated two officers as witnesses. The SIU is assigning six investigators and three forensic investigators to the case.
Be Informed
The Greater Golden Horseshoe’s Housing Crunch
McMaster’s Dr. Jim Dunn was on TVO’s The Agenda last week discussing how Toronto’s housing overflow is impacting communities surrounding Toronto in the Greater Golden Horseshoe including Hamilton. Watch on TVO.org
Andrew Coyne on London’s Ranked Balloting
When London Ontario residents go to the polls today, they are going to make history. Londoners will vote in Canada’s first ever ranked ballot election. Andrew Coyne discusses this landmark moment, and how it has changed campaigning in the mayoral race which has been focused on ideas as candidates cannot engage in wedge issue politics, needing to earn the second choice votes from those who will rank one of their opponents as their first choices.
Coyne writes:
But it’s at least as significant what else will happen on election day — indeed, what already has. The mayoral campaign, in particular, has been notably lacking in the usual name-calling and recriminations, even in the campaign’s last days: why risk alienating other candidates’ supporters, who might otherwise mark you second or third, especially in a close race?
Get Engaged
Thursday October 25
McMaster President’s Awards for Community Engaged Scholarship. McMaster is recognizing contributions of its scholars and projects to the Hamilton community, the awards event is open to the public, with tickets to the event free of charge. The awards reception runs from 3:15pm to 5:00pm at McMaster’s Downtown medical campus, 100 Main Street West.
Tuesday November 13
Our Future Hamilton Summit. The City of Hamilton says it wants your thoughts on public safety, and is holding a half-day summit on November 13 to gather your feedback on what should be the priorities for the City’s new public safety vision – including public health, emergency preparedness, and access to a healthy environment. Registration is open, and tickets are free, visit The City of Hamilton website for more information.
Tuesday November 13
Indwell Conversation on the Future of Jamesville. With the City of Hamilton’s ongoing plan to clear out the affordable housing on James Street North, known as Jamesville, and to put the land up for sale to private bidders, Indwell will discuss their ideas of the future of the site, and what a private-public partnership could be. The discussion is at the Dr. John M. Perkins Centre, 1429 Main Street East, from 7pm to 9pm.


text:
VIDEO: Hamilton Municipal Election 2018: Ward 3 Community Associations Debate – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 9, 2018
On Monday, October 8, 2018, the community and neighbourhood associations of Hamilton’s Ward 3 organized and held an all candidates debate for Ward 3 City Council candidates.

created: October 9, 2018


text:
Coleman's Note: Beverley Hotel Hamilton Proposal at Design Review Panel – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 9, 2018
My usual practice for coverage of a Design Review Panel hearing is a more traditional journalistic format of quotations with connecting sentences; in this instance doing so would not fully inform readers as to how this project is proceeding at City Hall.
The Beverley Hotel is a proposed conversion of 62-64 King Street East into a 20-room boutique hotel. Patrick Bermingham is the owner, Bill Curran is the architect, and each on their own have strong artist and design ideas, combined they’ve created an interesting design proposal for the building which sits on the north side of Gore Park nearly directly across from the Cenotaph.
Bermingham is the fourth generation owner, and former CEO, of Bermingham Foundation Solutions. Many have never heard of him, his philanthropy often unnoticed. His art career, better known.
The Beverly Hotel is his first, alongside a partner, major investment in Downtown Hamilton. Bermingham spoke about his vision for the hotel to an attentive Design Review Panel, who appeared to be sizing up this man who does not fit the traditional owner/investor profile. Bermingham himself, adding to answers that Curran gave the DRP, asked a few times if he could speak at DRP.
This DRP meeting was an exchange of ideas and questions; both the DRP and Curran have seemed to find an understanding of each other. Curran came in with a strong, a few members of DRP described it as “bold”, concept for the design of The Beverley Hotel, but not his final version – he was open to DRP’s comments.
DRP members tossed questions at Curran which gave him opportunity to explain his ideas, and followed with comments to give Curran ideas to consider. Curran responded in kind, not becoming defensive or aggressive. Curran’s initial presentation was strong, and arguing to the extreme at times, as Curran is known to do.
Much of the discussion focused on three design considerations: interaction with Gore Park’s Veteran’s Place, the proposed balcony and its conceptional statue, and a proposed canopy over the entire hotel – discussion of all three was interrelated.
How will the balcony and statue interact with the Cenotaph? Much discussion about this, ideas exchanged. In the end, the statue may not make it to the final design – we’ll have to wait and see.
Discussion of the balcony included encroachment agreements and winter control, such as ice control.
The canopy dominated much of the discussion, primarily due to its significant departure from the design aesthetic of the Downtown and older buildings of the Gore Park district, and the shadows the canopy will cast onto Gore Park.
Many members of the panel expressed various thoughts about the necessity of the canopy, with comments that the building already has unique design accents proposed, and one specifically noting that the canopy could block rain from falling onto the building’s green roof.
Comments on the proposed design of the new buildings were very positive, many of the members remarking very positively that the owner and architect plan to restore the existing facade.
Overall, the project is moving forward, with Bermingham, Curran, and the City’s Chief Planner Steve Robichaud left to work out what to do about the canopy, bridge, and if they’ll be a sculpture.

created: November 9, 2018


text:
Coleman’s Notes: Mayor Eisenberger’s 2030 Commonwealth Game Hopes Could Be Decided by Calgary’s Olympic Plebiscite Today – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 13, 2018
The citizens of Calgary are voting today in a plebiscite to inform their City Council of the community’s opinion on bidding for the 2026 Winter Olympic Games.
Local media is reporting it will be a close vote, and here in Hamilton, I’m not in a position to judge the accuracy of these reports (“close” contests drives clicks).
Here’s why Calgary’s vote matters for the Hamiltonians who wish to see the 2030 Commonwealth Games here – federal funding for major sporting events, and the close proximity between the 2026 Winter Olympics and the 2030 Commonwealth Games.
Last year, September 2017, Mayor Fred Eisenberger tried to get Council support to begin studying a 2030 Commonwealth Games Bid, and lost at Council in a 10-5 vote. Council rejected studying the potential cost of hosting.
The 2017 vote isn’t binding on future Councils, and Eisenberger hasn’t shelved the dream. Eisenberger stated he plans to re-introduce the bid during the coming term of Council.
Out in the community many who led the Commonwealth Games bids during the early 00’s continue to work on building support – the prize is federal funding for sports infrastructure such as McMaster University’s dream of a larger modern aquatics centre, various parties hope of a new 8,000 to 10,000 seat arena, and replacement of Bernie Arbour baseball field.
If Calgarians vote against hosting the Olympics, Hamilton’s Commonwealth dreams remain alive. If Calgarians vote yes to hosting the Olympics, it’s extremely likely the federal government will commit funds to support the bid, and the games if Calgary is successful.
That commitment would make it unlikely that the federal government will commit the millions necessary for Hamilton to host the 2030 Commonwealth Games.
Why the 2030 Commonwealth Games in Hamilton? Simple, emotion and willingness to host. The Commonwealth Games began in 1930 when Hamilton created and hosted the first British Empire Games.
This all written, if Calgarians vote against the bid, Milan pretty much becomes 2026 Winter Olympics host by default; the list of places willing to host mega-games has rapidly shrunk in recent years.
I recommend reading coverage from Field of Schemes, the definitive site for tracking taxpayer subsidies of professional sports and mega events. It is Field of Schemes which linked me to coverage of the Calgary vote from the New York Times, in which Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi explained one of his primary purposes of bidding for the Olympics – federal money for sports infrastructure.
Or as Neil deMause put it on Field of Schemes:
“There’s a certain logic to it in an extremely parochial way, but really, ‘If my stupid colleagues in Ottawa are gonna blow a lot of taxpayer money on the Olympics, I want them to blow it in my town’ is a disappointing position, to say the least, from a guy with a reputation for forward-thinking governance.”

created: November 13, 2018


text:
Coleman's Notes: The Status of James Baptist and Why Keeping The Facade is Important to the New Owners – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 21, 2018
I wrote a news piece about yesterday’s Heritage Permit Review Sub-Committee hearing into the revived proposal for The Connelly tall building development on the former site of the James Baptist Church at 98 James Street South.
This is a companion Editor’s Note to share some of my thoughts which are opinion, whereas the article is a straight news piece.
Much of the Sub-Committee discussion focused upon concerns that the Hamilton tradition of demolition by neglect will occur to the remaining facade of the former James Baptist Church.
The traditional script of how this works in Hamilton was followed when Ward 2 City Councillor Jason Farr championed Louie Santaguida’s Stanton Renaissance, and City Hall’s used of a “minor alteration” loophole to demolish the James Baptist Church without public hearing or scrutiny.
Not surprisingly, despite Farr’s repeated promises that everything was fine, Santaguida’s Stanton Renaissance went bankrupt, leaving the front facade’s future subject to reasonable doubt.
Now, only a few weeks after taking ownership, the new owners are engaged in their due diligence which includes a structural engineering report on the current state of the front facade.
While there’s nothing to indicate any problems, the history of Hamilton means Hamiltonians are rightfully skeptical.
Uniquely, in this case, a demolition by neglect or loss of the remaining front facade would be very costly for the developer. It costs millions to get a development to construction – design, planning applications, marketing & communications, engineers, consultants, financing, lawyers, and more add up. The saying “time is money” is particularly true in the development industry, these upfront costs are usually financed by borrowing – each month of delay getting to construction is costly.
The current project – pending a minor variance application and approval at the Committee of Adjustment – is quite literally “shovel ready”.
They can be in the ground in 2019, especially if Hue Development is able to quickly sell units to previous buyers and tap into demand for the type of condos they are selling; especially demand for condos that will be quickly built.
The loss of the front facade will effectively void existing development approvals from City Council, and restart the entire planning process, costing Hue Development at last a full year, if not more in delay. This loss would easily be into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
That isn’t even calculating the marketing momentum costs.
Buying the 98 James Street South property out of bankruptcy was costly on a per-hectare basis; the only reason the heightened cost is a good business case is the new owners inherited the planning approvals and development planning work which the previous owner completed. (The previous owner having leverage this work to gain access to credit)
Even if the developer were able to expand the future tall building to cover the approximately eight metre width of the facade, that would not represent enough new square footage to justify the delay costs which will be incurred.
The tone of Hamilton’s Director of Planning and Chief Planner Steve Robichaud at yesterday’s meeting convened that he’s not going to accept anything less than restoration and inclusion of the front facade into the new development. He was clear that City Hall planning staff will uphold the “minor alteration” agreement.
Robichaud did state that the Building Code does allow for the City’s Chief Building Official to allow for an emergency demolition in the event the facade is structurally unsound to the point of posing a threat to public safety. Robichaud had to provide that information, but in the context of his overall answers, it was clear that City staff do not want this outcome.
Hue Developments has hired good consultants, I’m not expecting we’re going to see the Hamilton tradition of demolition by neglect repeated here. (see two sections below)
LCH Developments have a record of building projects in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. Hue Developments is a local group, they were able to finance the purchase of the property, and hire good consultants.
The project had seven or eight staff at last night’s hearing; all of whom appeared to know what they were doing, taking lots of notes during sub-committee comments.
Hue Developments is the developer, LCH Developments is the project manager. During the presentation, LCH was placed alongside Hue as more of a partnership.
mcCallumSather remain as architects.
Quinn Dressel are the structural engineers.
Adesso Design Inc. is landscape architect.
kg & a are the communications strategy firm.
One can judge a developer by the consultants they hire, both because it’s an indication of how thoughtful the developer is and what they are willing to invest in their project, but also because good firms don’t take bad clients.
These are good consultants.
As for the proposed massing and design, what appears to be proposed is a expansion of the floor plates to the balcony exterior of the former design. We’ll see how the detailed renders in the new design appear.
There were no red flags in what was shown to the Sub-Committee.
Considering the history of how this file was handled by Ward 2 City Councillor Jason Farr, the guarded skepticism expressed by the Heritage Permit Review Sub-Committee is full justified.
If we remove this history from the file, and look at the new developers and the proposal, there be a lot of excitement for this project.
I dare say that we should give the modified proposal the proper scrutiny due any major planning application; and nothing more. The past is just that now, the past.

created: November 21, 2018


text:
Coleman's Notes: The Voters Who Know Vanderbeek Best Voted Against Her The Most – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 5, 2018
I’m continuing to work on my detailed (admittedly taking too long) ward level analysis of the municipal election results.
The Ward 13 poll-by-poll breakdown shows that Arlene Vanderbeek barely won the Dundas polls which she’s represented for the past four years.
Vanderbeek only won the regular polls 2421 to runner-up Rich Gelder’s 2418. Add in the special polls, senior’s homes which incumbents get a lot of advantages and access, Vanderbeek’s margin increases to 49 votes, 2500 to 2451.
In the advance poll, Vanderbeek did better, 497 votes to Gelder’s 314. However, the advance poll includes rural Flamborough, making it impossible to determine how people in Dundas voted in the advance poll.
Vanderbeek won 3 of the 4 Flamborough polls, John Roberts won north Flamborough, where Rich Gelder did poorly, creating the ~900 vote margin of victory for Vanderbeek in the final result.
On the surface, we’re close to a hypothesis that Ward Boundary Reform saved Vanderbeek by adding voters who didn’t know her as their representative, and were more willing to vote for her than her own constituents.
Here’s why we can never truly know if Vanderbeek was truly saved by Ward Boundary Reform, because we don’t know what decision the other challengers would’ve made in Dundas only ward race.
My own thoughts are that we would’ve seen the same mix of candidates, all of whom knew how unpopular Vanderbeek was, and remains in Dundas.
(Note: I’m working on a mapping representation of poll-by-poll results, but this will take time)

created: November 5, 2018


text:
Hamilton City Centre Officially For Sale – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 2, 2018
It’s official, after over a year of private bids and Brad Lamb’s legal maneuvers after his attempt to purchase went sour, the Hamilton City Centre is officially for sale on the open market.
Court documents revealed that Brad Lamb tried to force the purchase of the property for $55-million. The current property tax assessment for the City Centre is $23-million.
Hamilton City Hall officials could barely contain their excitement at the possibility of outside money purchasing and redeveloping the 3.5-acre Central Business District site which permissive zoning allows for a wide range of uses, including residential towers.
It’s widely discussed that Cadillac Fairview, on behalf of the now defunct Eatons company, built a foundation which could support at least a mid-rise building. In the court ruling Justice Paul R. Sweeny noted this, writing the City Centre is “a unique property because of its location, history in the city of Hamilton, and the potential to build upon the existing foundation”.
During the Downtown Secondary Plan process, city staff mused that a portion of the foundation could support a 20-storey building.
Bidders for the property must agree to a confidentiality agreement prior to seeing property information details.
We have learned one new piece of information this week, the agent states on their website “all but one of the existing leases benefit from a sale and demolition clause”.

created: November 2, 2018


text:
Library Board Votes To Maintain Current Services in 2019 Budget Submission to City Council – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 22, 2018
The Hamilton Public Library Board voted to send City Council a budget submission which will maintain present library services, despite direction from City Hall to submit a budget with cuts.
Interim City Manager Mike Zegarac instructed all City departments, Boards, and Agencies to submit 2019 operating budgets with a maximum increase in spending of 1.5%, inflation is presently 2.2%. The memo from City Hall to the Library stated Senior Management Team may recommend to Council that budgets only be allowed to increase 1%.
Video of Wednesday meeting (The Public Record did not attend) shows that Hamilton Public Library Director of Finance & Facilities Tony Del Monaco told the Library Board that to maintain the present level of library services will require a $719,190 operating budget increase in 2019. Much of the increase in the budget is driven by staff costs, which are set by City Hall contracts, and increasing charge-backs from City Hall for facilities and services. The charge-backs enable City Hall departments to transfer costs onto the library to improve their own financial performance reports.
Library Board members were unanimous in maintaining current service levels. They discussed what the cost would be to bring all library employees to a living wage. Chief Librarian Paul Takala stated the cost would be $170,000. The Library Board did not add this to the 2019 budget, with discussions to occur with the new Council on living wage to occur prior to the 2020 budget process.
Later in the Library Board meeting, a discussion of library hours occurred. During the discussion, Takala stated that responding to public requests for increased hours at library branches – including make all branches open a minimum of six days per week – will require Council to increase funding. The Library Board will look into this issue for the 2020 budget submission.
Council will debate the 2019 Library Budget in late January.

created: November 22, 2018


text:
The Connolly (James Baptist) Resurrects, Presents to City Heritage Sub-Committee – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 21, 2018
The new owner of the former James Street Baptist Church came in front of Hamilton’s Heritage Permit Review Sub-Committee on Thursday to present their version of the proposed tower which was previously approved by City Council in January 2015.
Hue Developments was the winning bidder in a bankruptcy sale of the property following the financial collapse of Louie Santaguida’s Stanton Renaissance.
Hue Developments is partnered with LCH Developments to develop a modified version of the 30-storey Connolly that City Council approved.
As their first public step, prior to formal application submission to the City, the development group presented to the citizen advisory Heritage Permit Review Sub-Committee. The modifications are primarily to the front of the project, moving balconies forward from the original proposal, and the design is more contemporary. The ground level interfacing with the surrounding street continues to incorporate pedestrian friendly design and landscaping, and the first floor interior is similar in concept.
Read Coleman’s companion Editor Note on why the front facade is important to the new owners, and why Coleman doesn’t see “demolition by neglect” as a concern.
Discussion at the Sub-Committee focused on the guarantees for the preservation of the remaining front facade of the former church. City Hall, behind closed doors consulting with Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr, allowed for the demolition of the church by Stanton Renaissance as a “minor alteration” of a heritage structure, leaving the front facade in place with a requirement that any new development incorporates it.
The development group told the Sub-Committee that a full assessment of the current condition of the remaining structure is underway by a structural engineer. While there is nothing to indicate structural problems, the Sub-Committee asked questions about scenarios regarding potential structural issues.
Hamilton’s Director of Planning and Chief Planner Steve Robichaud, responding to questions from Sub-Committee members that could not be answered until the current condition is known, stated that the City’s planning staff will require the developer to incorporate the facade into the new tower as per the terms of the minor alternation heritage permit.
Robichaud stated that the Ontario Building Code does contain provisions for an emergency demolition of the structure if a structural engineer were to find the remaining facade was unstable and posed a danger to public safety; but this would only occur after a peer review. There is no information indicating there are structural issues with the facade, and the discussion only occurred as a hypothetical.
Architect Christina Karney of mcCallumSather told the Sub-Committee that the project will require minor variances for some of the changes. Karney, who has worked on the project for mcCallumSather since 2014, explained how the changes fully respect the original heritage permit, ensure the church facade remains the focal point of the new structure as it relates to James Street, and how the lobby of the new building will continue to fully incorporate the facade.
Following the meeting, Karney confirmed to The Public Record that the proposed height of the building remains the same as previously approved, and the changes are primarily related to setbacks from James Street and Jackson Street.
Hamilton’s Director of Planning and Chief Planner Steve Robichaud said setback variances must be considered by the Committee of Adjustment.
Following Committee of Adjustment, the development will proceed to final site plan approval by Robichaud and City Hall planning staff. The 2015 Council approval of the project was incorporated into the Downtown Secondary Plan.


text:
Eisenberger Talks LRT on CHCH – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 24, 2018
Mayor Fred Eisenberger sat down with CHCH News Sunday evening for a 5-minute year end interview.
Eisenberger opened stating the new Council is an exciting change entering into 2019, making special note that 7 of the 16 members of Council are women – the most of any Hamilton City Council in history.
Here is a summary of the issues discussed.
Asked about the pending Council vote on the maintenance and operating agreement, Eisenberger stated “Well, I think the more important green light we need to have is from the Premier and the Province of Ontario – I think this is much more critical.”
Eisenberger continued by stating progress on the project is moving forward “everything is moving forward, so I don’t expect there is going to be a vote at Hamilton City Council.” Continuing “I expect that the Premier is going to give us the thumbs up, which he sort of did in Grimsby”. Eisenberger stated he has a mandate from the voters to implement LRT.
CHCH’s Nicole Martin tried multiple times to get Eisenberger to answer on the pending Council vote, each time, Eisenberger redirected his answer away from the thrust of the question.
At present, it is not clear if there are enough Councillors in favour of LRT for approval of the maintenance and operating agreement. The operating agreement has been repeatedly delayed, and City staff are not stating when it is expected to arrive in front of Council for a decision.
“Let’s make it available, but also regulated, controlled so people know what they are getting”, Eisenberger stated.
Eisenberger is in favour of a regulated legal retail market for cannabis in Hamilton, stating this will help to decrease the black market which is supporting the current illegal cannabis storefronts across Hamilton.
Eisenberger holds shares in a publicly traded cannabis production company. His involvement in the cannabis debate has been cleared by the Integrity Commissioner, and is in keeping with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act as he is not a controlling shareholder, does not hold more than 10% of any publicly traded company, is not a director of the company, and does not have a pecuniary interest as defined by the Act.
Council will debate legal cannabis retail at a special January 14 Council meeting, public delegations will not be allowed at this meeting.
Council must decide before a January 22, 2019 provincial deadline if they wish to ban cannabis retail in Hamilton. If Council does not make a decision prior to January 22, the Council is deemed to “opt-in” to legal retail in Hamilton. Potentially millions of dollars in excise tax payments are at stake in the decision, if Hamilton Council votes against legal retail, the City of Hamilton will not receive any of the excise revenue the province plans to share with municipalities.
Eisenberger touted Council’s $5-million per year targeted funding for Affordable Housing.
Eisenberger renewed his calls for the federal government to move forward with the funding for the National Housing Strategy, that the problems of poverty in Hamilton are urgent and require more resources than just what City Hall can provide.
Eisenberger closed this segment saying these issues “keep me awake at night” adding “social unrest can happen if we don’t address these issues”.
The full 5:16 interview video can be viewed on the CHCH website here: https://www.chch.com/fred-eisenberger-interview/

created: December 24, 2018


text:
TPR Newsletter for December 30, 2018 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 30, 2018
The Public Record publishes a regular newsletter, we post it at the end of each day, sign up to get future editions delivered to your inbox in the mornings, or see our archives.
View this edition in its original format, with images, on our MailChimp page. (This version is primarily for web indexing)

created: December 30, 2018


text:
Update to Tech, The 155 Podcast, and Administration of The Public Record – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 17, 2018
Some quick updates of the administrative nature.

created: December 17, 2018


text:
$10.1-Million for YWCA Ottawa Street Affordable Housing Project – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 22, 2019
Note: This story was first posted to Joey’s Instagram this morning. Follow Joey on Instagram for regular photo stories.
$10.1-million from the National Housing Strategy is going to the new YWCA Ottawa Street affordable housing project. The project will create 50 units of affordable housing for women and their children, including 10 fully accessible units. All common areas will be fully accessible. Of the 50 units, 15 will be dedicated for women with developmental disabilities.
In addition, the building will house a new YWCA location on Ottawa Street, including their successful senior’s centre.
Today, YWCA CEO Denise Christopherson stated the project has completed the Site Plan stage of the City of Hamilton’s staff review process [the project received Council planning approvals in July 2017, the project needed to secure funding, complete planning reports and studies, prior to Site Plan completion].
Christopherson states they expect to receive building permit issuance in the coming weeks, and construction will begin shortly thereafter.
Federal Minister of Seniors and Liberal MP for Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas Filomena Tassi made the announcement. Noting the cold, Tassi skipped over her prepared speech, and talked about the importance and impact of the YWCA’s Ottawa Street location to her as a child growing up on nearby Grosvenor Avenue one block to the west.
The City of Hamilton’s affordable housing development charge waiver is an in-kind savings contribution of $1.5-million to the project.

created: January 22, 2019


text:
Design Review Panel to Spallacci: Consider Two Towers Instead of Three at John Street & St. Joseph’s Drive – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 10, 2019
The “reality is this [proposal] is not in the Downtown, it really is in a neighbourhood”, urban planner Tim Smith stated to Spallacci group’s representatives as members of Hamilton’s Design Review Panel discussed a proposal for three tall buildings, of 22 – 23 storeys each, with 700 units in the south portion of the Corktown neighbourhood.
Smith is a member of the DRP.
At stake, is how Hamilton is going to grow well, and how the Urban Hamilton Official Plan will be applied outside of the Downtown Secondary Plan zone.
Sergio Manchia, Principal of Urban Solutions and a Registered Professional Planner, representing the developer Spallaci Contracting Limited, told the Design Review Panel that while the proposed site at 299-307 John Street South & 97 St. Joseph’s Drive is outside of the Downtown Secondary Plan zone, it is “still an integral part of our downtown”.
Manchuria provided good reasons why the site is appropriate for tall buildings, and described the area as a triangle of tall buildings.
There are numerous tall buildings nearby, Manchia noted, to the east (Olympia Apartments at 33 storeys, and the Arkledun at 20 storeys – both of which are taller than the escarpment), to the north (Oakland Square Apartments West & East at 21 storeys each), to the northwest (the four Villa Marie buildings at between 14 to 16 storeys each),  and the Innovation Tower of St. Joseph’s Hospital (10 storeys) to the west.
The current proposal from Spallacci is the result of over a year of negotiation with the City of Hamilton’s planning staff; with the height brought into compliance with the City’s tall building guidelines [which do not officially apply to this proposal as the guidelines are part of the Downtown Secondary Plan], changes to tower design and separations, and residential units proposed on the east side of the building overlooking Woolverton Park.
Manchia told DRP that existing rental units on the site will be included in the new buildings.
“The 67 units will be incorporated into the development”, adding the rental units will be fully integrated in the towers, not separate. He stated this it he minimum number of rental units, that the final unit mix is not determined, and there could be more rental units.
Manchia spoke positively of staff suggested changes which were incorporated into the plan prior to the DRP presentation, He noted staff suggested more separation between the proposed two towers on the John Street footage of the site and the proposed single tower on the east side. This created a “view corridor” on the site, which Manchia stated would provide for escarpment sightlines.
One of the interesting features of the slight is the significant differences in elevation at St. Joseph’s Drive compared to Charlton Avenue.
DRP members provided much praise for elements of the design, the proposed podium top tower residence spaces, and the commercial spaces on John Street and Charlton Avenue.
The elevation changes mean street-accessed commercial units are on different levels of the podium.
DPR member Jackie VanderVelde, a landscape architect, asked about the setback of the podium from the property line. The setback proposed is 1.2 metres, VanderVelde suggested it should be five metres to protect the root systems of the mature tree canopy on the east side of the park.
DRP member Tim Smith, an urban planner, asked about the shadow studies and shadowing of the park. Other members noted the park would “be completely in the dark on June 21st”. June 21st is when the Sun is at its highest point in the sky, the date of least shadow.
The length of the unbroken podium was of concern to urban designers on the DRP. Some discussion was had about splitting the podium into two and creating a mid-block connection between the park and John Street.
Architect Vincent Colizza, DRP Chair, stated that with “no break in the urban wall” of the podium, the proposal does not meet “good urban design principles, especially when you have a park on the other side”.
Colizza was critical of the design for being boxy, stating there is “no attempt to terrace, no attempt to bring down the middle tower to bring sunlight into the park”. He added the building is not contributing to expanding the public realm because the podium rooftop is planned to be accessible only to residents.
Smith added to the concerns about the design. “A full podium and tower approach might not be right, that said you’ve done a lot here … you’ve made a good move in bringing the heights down from the original proposal … generally I think the height is okay. He added that “the overall massing of the project is something you’d see right Downtown”, stating “I think this site is appropriate for two towers”.
Smith, with other members indicating nodding agreement, emphasized that three towers as proposed are too much for the site. “It’s too close to the park in the case of Tower B … the one has to go or you’ll need to shrink the floor plates”.
Colizza argued the site lacks the mass transit service required to support 700 units, noting that the limited rush hour train service of the Hunter Street GO Station does not qualify as mass transit. John Street at Charlton is one of the most serviced local transit bus stops in Hamilton, with 42 buses per hour at peak times.
[Routes 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 33, and 35 all converge en route to Downtown. It is possible the HSR will streamline Mountain connectors with shuttle routes to Sam Lawrence Park, Lime Ridge Mall, and Mohawk College in September 2019 – this will decrease the number of buses per hour while improving service by removing ineffeciency]
Colizza’s comments were rooted in a concern about the number of parking spots proposed, the density with limited access points for 700 vehicles, and that 550 or 600-square-foot condos don’t sell well in other cities when not with 600 metres of mass transit.
Manchia noted the hospital generates much parking demand in the area [a “temporary” commercial parking lot presently operates on the site], the developer is considering some public parking in the building, but that one parking spot per unit has been the market demand recently in Downtown Hamilton.
Colizza noted that high-density developments work best when residents use mass transit, and 700 new vehicles in a concentrated area is problematic.
Near the close of the meeting, Colizza expressed to City of Hamilton Chief Planner Steve Robichaud that projects of this nature and size should have two DRP reviews and that the proposal presented – which Colizza described as a “final option” – should have been brought to DRP earlier to provide more meaningful feedback at a lower cost to applicants.
At the end of the meeting, there was a good discussion between Manchia and panel members.
DRP is an advisory body, and the DRP report is considered by the Chief Planner in writing the staff report which is presented to Council.
This particular DRP attracted many planners from the City’s community planning team, and urban planning team. General Manager of Planning and Economic Development Jason Thorne observed most of the meeting from the public gallery.

created: January 10, 2019


text:
Does Council Prefer Political Buddies Over Qualified Appointees? TPR Files FOI Request to Determine the Facts – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 8, 2019
Do Hamilton City Councillors prioritize the appointment of their personally connected friends over more qualified Hamiltonians in determining the members of the City’s Agencies, Boards, and Committees (ABCs)?
The Public Record is setting out to determine if this is or is not the case.
On December 20, 2018, I filed a Freedom of Information request to the Hamilton City Hall asking for a list, in Excel or CSV format, of public information regarding ABC applicants.
Specifically:
As is the practice of the City of Hamilton, the City Clerk will wait 30 days prior to mailing, via Canada Post, their response to TPR’s formal application under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
The MFIPPA Act requires municipalities to respond to formal requests within 30 days. Lettermail post marked on the 30th day meets the minimal requirements of the Act. Whereas other municipalities will communicate by email, Hamilton increases FOI costs and delays by use of Canada Post.
Hamilton City Council operates the worst ranked municipal freedom of information office in Canada, as measured by the Newspapers Canada annual FOI audit.
The Public Record is preparing for a likely quasi-judicial battle for this public information; as Canada’s worst municipal freedom of information office, the City of Hamilton commonly denies requests with frivolous claims of exception.
TPR’s request has been tailored to ensure an eventual release order from the Ontario Information and Privacy Commission. Here the reasons why the information requested must be released under MFIPPA.
The Public Record is not requesting any personal information, I am not requesting copies of any documents submitted by the candidates, not requesting the minutes of decision making of the Selection Committee, and not challenging the decision of the Selection Committee to exercise Section 239 of The Municipal Act to make its decisions in closed session.
Simply put, the MFIPPA request is to determine if the concerns regarding possible disqualification of qualified persons for political reasons from serving on public agencies, boards, and committees is true or false.
This information will eventually be released. That fact alone will have to be considered by the Selection Committee. I’ll update you when I receive the City of Hamilton’s mailed response delivered by Canada Post.
Prior to the close of applications, I provided seven people advice on the appointment process, and reviewed three people’s applications.

created: January 8, 2019


text:
Four Running for MSU President, Coleman's Notes on the Debate – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 23, 2019
There are four candidates for McMaster Students Union president this year, Jeffery Campana, Josh Marando, Justin Lee, and Madison Wesley.
I attended the election debate Thursday on campus. Both because I’m interested in post-secondary matters, and more importantly, the MSU represents the largest ratepayer association in Hamilton.
We don’t often think of the undergraduate student association as a form of neighbourhood association. They are, and have a major impact at City Hall and across Hamilton as a whole.
Council’s gerrymander of ward boundaries was overturned in significant part by the MSU’s deputation to the Ontario Municipal Board, the rental housing licensing pilot is only possible because the MSU is vocally and actively supporting it at City Hall, the Hamilton Transit Riders Union has the MSU has a founding member – and MSU delegations at City Hall are listened to by Council, we’ve seen a rethinking of Ward 1 as a pedestrian area similar to Downtown because of the MSU, and Hamilton Police handling of sexual assault investigations are in part changing due to MSU services advocacy on that front.
In short, the MSU President can be one of the most influential individuals at City Hall. In large part, because uniquely, the MSU is the only group lobbying City Hall with full-time staff that is not seeking profits by changing Council decisions and City regulations to benefit their corporate clients.
All of the MSU’s work could be in jeopardy from Voluntary Student Unionism being imposed by the province. Read my related news piece “Provincial Student Fee Announcement Could Cost HSR over $7-Million in Revenue” for more on this.
I attended my first MSU debate, as a student, in 2007, and been at most debates since. Particularly noteworthy at this debate, the amount of discussion about off-campus issues from candidates. Quality of rental housing, rental housing licensing, negative stereotyping of students in the community, and transit routing were discussed.
In years past, Hamilton effectively did not exist to presidential candidates, with the focus almost entirely on campus. It’s nice to see this change in the past couple of years.
Thursday’s debate was held with a new pressure in students politics which has not existed previously in Ontario — Voluntary Student Unionism.
It’s not entirely clear, due to some vagueness in the Ontario Government announcement earlier in the day, but it is likely that the mandatory MSU fees changed to every full-time McMaster undergraduate student will becoming optional. The VSU model appears, from the announcement, to be an “opt-out” model, which will prove challenging to the MSU.
(Opt-out means students will pay fees to the institution, then seek refunds from the student union. Whereas, if fees are made “opt-in”, students are not charged the fee by the institution.)
McMaster’s undergraduates were the first in Canada to negotiate and secure a Universal Bus Pass (U-Pass for short) in 1995.
The U-Pass remains popular with a large part of student body, as evidenced by its continuation by referendum every three years.
For the City of Hamilton perspective, the U-Pass is a key revenue driver for the HSR.  With 100% of the student body paying a fraction of the cost of a years worth of bus passes offsetting the cost of providing service to the significantly less than 100% of students who use the pass on a daily basis. McMaster University promotes the pass to potential students as included in their tuition. (Less so in recent years with all but Toronto post-secondary institutions having U-Pass agreements)
Thursday’s government announcement stated that “walk home” services is considered an essential service; meaning McMaster could be able to declare the U-Pass to be essential and mandate the fee.
What does a student union look like if students can opt-out of paying for it? None of the candidates had strong answers for this question on Thursday, it was clear they realize if elected, they’ll have a challenging year ahead of them.
[I’ll emphasis the announcement is still fresh, unclear, and voluntary student unionism is a new concept to everyone in Canadian post-secondary education]
Student Union debates involve a lot of name dropping, and this year’s debate was no different. Interestingly, for a MSU debate, the name most dropped was Ward 1 City Councillor Maureen Wilson. Candidates often stating how they are planning to work with her on off-campus issues.
[There was no name drop of Mayor Fred Eisenberger that I heard during my 90 minutes at the debate, but I wasn’t there the entire debate]
It’s interesting to note the positive tone the candidates used in reference to Councillor Wilson, a phenomenon I’ll seek to better understand in the coming year. This is a shift from the traditionally concerned to adversarial tone past candidates used when speaking about previous Ward 1 Councillors Brian McHattie and Aidan Johnson.
Transit routing and efficiency was a significant topic of discussion, one candidate making this a key slogan of their campaign.
Another candidate delivered a impassioned statement, one of the best I’ve heard, regarding the negative stereotyping of the student community as party animals and generally being nuisances in Hamilton. She rightfully noted the inaccuracy of the stereotype, and her desire to address this problem more aggressively if elected.
Street lighting and community policing were topics. Recently installed LED lighting in West Hamilton is street focused, and in many areas, tree foliage blocks lighting from reaching the pedestrian sidewalks. Candidates were in general agreement about wanting more lighting both on and off campus.
West Hamilton had a series of prowler incidents during the past fall, and break-ins of student homes.
Two of the candidates are second year students at McMaster: Justin Lee and Madison Wesley. Both attempted at points during the debate to highlight the age difference between themselves and the other two candidates. Jeffrey Campana is in his eight year on campus, Josh Marando is a fourth year student.
The statements on age missed the mark for Lee and Wesley. Interestingly, neither of them were running a disruptor or introduction campaign. Usually, candidates running in early years either try to convince the student body it is time for significant change, or they are running a campaign to establish their competitiveness in future years.
With the provincial government so adversarial to student unions, threatening their very existance them with Voluntary Student Unionism, reminding voters your opponents are more experienced is not a wise strategy.
By an hour into the debate, it became apparent Lee and Wesley see the race as between Campana and Marando.
Observing student politics for 14 years now, there was a first for me. Campana cited the National Post as his news source for the recent provincial changes to post-secondary funding in Ontario.
Campana had a repeated speaking point, which he delivered strongly, this/the “PC Government is simply not for students like us”.
Marando enters the presidential race with more MSU and policy experience than the other candidates, I’ve met him at various civic events. He spoke of how he’ll partner with other student unions against the PC government.
The Thursday morning announcement was so radical, there was no way for the
It will be interesting to see how students vote, and then how the new 2019/20 MSU executive grows in their roles. It will be an interesting year ahead, and at City Hall, the City’s 2019 transit operating budget could be facing a $7.1-million dollar shortfall if the provincial voluntary student unionism framework includes forbidding mandatory universal transit passes.
Over at the McMaster student newspaper The Silhouette (which itself may lose its student levy funding), an interesting opinion piece on how students completing off-campus full-time Coop placements are not allowed to vote in the MSU presidential election: The McMaster Students Union denies some students their electoral rights
It was especially nice to see the MSU hire two sign language interpretators for the debate, this is the first debate I’ve attended with this service.
And this note provides me with an excuse to re-share the greatest student election debate ever:

created: January 23, 2019


text:
Provincial Student Fee Announcement Could Cost HSR over $7-Million in Revenue – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 21, 2019
The Ontario Progressive Conservative Party government announced a form of Voluntary Student Unionism last Thursday, unveiling significant changes to student fee regulations.
Dr. Merrilee Fullerton, Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, states that all of Ontario’s publicly funded colleges and universities must make all but “essential” student fees voluntary, with easy online opt-outs for students not wishing to pay those fees.
Left unknown is if the McMaster University and Mohawk College mandatory fee for the local transit Hamilton Street Railway universal bus pass will be considered “essential” by the provincial regulations, made voluntary, or exempted from the framework in some way.
The announcement states that “walk home” programs are deemed essential safety services, and student levies for these programs must continue. Will universities be able to claim U-Pass’ are a measure to ensure students can get home safely?
Presently, all full-time undergraduates at McMaster, and all full-time students at Mohawk College must pay $206.16 in the 2019/20 academic year towards the HSR universal student pass – the fee is charged regardless of if a student uses local transit.
McMaster commuter students living in Mississauga pay for HSR passes, meaning if the province makes the HSR fee voluntary, opting-out will attract large portions of each institution’s student body.
McMaster full-time on-campus graduate students will pay $252.38 for their 2019/20 pass.
[Redeemer University College students pay $171.98 for their UPass. Redeemer is not publicly funded, and the contract between Redeemer and the City of Hamilton is not affected by any provincial regulation changes]
The HSR’s 2018 revenue forecast was $42.4-million, of which $7.1-million was from McMaster and Mohawk U-Passes, 16.7% of the HSR’s overall revenue.
ADULT CASH                            $   6,189,343.00
ADULT TICKET                        $  17,120,477.00
STUDENT TICKET                  $    2,740,243.00
ADULT PASS                             $   5,133,539.00
STUDENT PASS                       $   2,850,693.00
DAY PASS                                  $         68,889.00
SENIOR PASS                          $        927,170.00
McMASTER MSU UPASS      $     4,131,632.00
McMASTER GSA UPASS       $        767,298.00
MOHAWK UPASS                   $    2,203,063.00
REDEEMER UPASS               $        105,248.00
EMPLOYER COMMUTER PASS $ 199,382.00
If Queen’s Park ends mandatory UPasses, the HSR will need to determine if it will again offer a term discount pass for Mohawk and McMaster students, or simply expect them to pay for monthly adult passes.
[Prior to the 1995 implementation of the McMaster U-Pass, the HSR offered a discounted four month post-secondary pass].
In the immediate short-term, HSR management will need to respond to a loss of over $7-million in revenue.
Asked if HSR management will ask Council to increase its budget to replace the revenue, which translates into an approximate 0.8% tax levy increase, or look at cutting service.
“We are working through this announcement to better understand what the implications might be,” wrote HSR Communications Officer Amanda Kinnard in response to The Public Record’s questions on how the HSR will manage a potential loss of revenue.
In a related read, here’s the Ottawa Citizen’s coverage of the U-Pass issue in Ottawa: Letting students opt out of transit fee could jeopardize u-pass program

created: January 21, 2019


text:
City Manager to The Public Record: Releasing City YouTube Videos Could Cause Crime – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 15, 2019
The City of Hamilton’s Senior Digital Communications Officer Andy Zimmerman, responsible for updating the City’s social media accounts, says that releasing two videos URLs on list of the City’s YouTube videos could “facilitate the commission of an unlawful act”.
Hamilton City Council operates the worst ranked municipal freedom of information office in Canada, as measured by the Newspapers Canada annual FOI audit.
The Public Record is using freedom of information to determine how long the City Managers Office was streaming public meetings on YouTube for internal staff viewing while not making those streams public.
Following TPR‘s FOI request, the City Manager’s Office has made the YouTube stream available to the public.
The Public Record is reviewing an appeal of the City’s security claim, which raises serious questions about privacy and security of information. If these videos are of such sensitivity, what are they doing on YouTube in the first place?

created: February 15, 2019


text:
Ed Smith Heading to the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority Board – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site
Become a Press Club member today and help TPR grow local journalism here in Hamilton
February 26, 2019
In a very good move for public governance and accountability, noted Niagara public interest watchdog Ed Smith is the new St. Catharines representative on the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority.
Smith, who lead the fight to expose and end questionable practices among the Old Guard of Niagara Regional Council – which was swept out of office in the October 2018 municipal election – was infamously sued by the NPCA for his 2016 report on the rampant problems and questionable practices under the rein of Carmen D’Angelo as Chief Administrative Officer of the NPCA.
D’Angelo was Hamilton City Council’s appointee to the NPCA prior to becoming CAO.
Smith retired from the Canadian Forces at the rank of Major after a 25-year career in the CF.
A Director of a Better Niagara, Smith has been instrumental in the court cases which cleared out the Old Guard Council’s attempt to stack the NPCA Board with themselves prior to the end of the previous Council term.
Smith is planning to delegate to Hamilton City Council on March 20th at the General Issues Committee meeting.

created: February 26, 2019


text:
Explainer: How Council Created The DARTS Budget “Problem”, and Why Politically They Won’t Fix It – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 5, 2019
Hamilton City Council is debating DARTS ridership growth, and the cost of providing para-transit in Hamilton.
This afternoon, Monday, February 11, DARTS Executive Director Mark Mindorff will be in front of Council as some Councillors demand DARTS cut their budget while delivering more service in the coming year.
The Summary
Para-transit: City Council is legally required to fund the DARTS budget increase – under provincial law, the City must provide para-transit, the City must charge the same fare for para-transit as regular transit. Because regular transit is free for many users of DARTS, DARTS is seeing a decrease in revenue at the same time as the growing number of older seniors and people living independently with chronic medical conditions is increasing demand for DARTS. For all the posturing on DARTS by Council, DARTS is cost-competitive, and the case of DARTS budget issues is Council decisions of the past.
During a January 25, 2019 Council budget meeting, Ward 12 Councillor Lloyd Ferguson, who is opposed to the Ten-Year HSR Transit Plan, moved for a review of the arms-length agency which operates Hamilton’s para-transit service.
DARTS, the Disabled and Aged Regional Transit Service, is legally a separate non-profit corporation from the City of Hamilton. DARTS has its own Board of Directors, and its own Executive Director.
Within the Hamilton Street Railway, a duplicate layer of management exists for para-transit oversight of DARTS.
The HSR determines eligibility for DARTS, under strict requirements set by the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.
During the past 20 years, the OHRT has set down a series of rulings which have determined that the City of Hamilton is required to fully fund DARTS, that DARTS cannot restrict the number of trips a qualified passenger may take, and that DARTS cannot charge more than the equivalent cost of using the HSR.
The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act also requires fare parity. [Ontario Regulation 191/11 Section 46.(1)]
All people over the age of 80 ride the HSR for free, all who use a personal mobility device [such as a wheelchair, scooter, or walker] ride the HSR for free under a “voluntary pay” policy. Because of fare parity laws, DARTS must provide free transit to these passengers as well.
Seniors age 65 to 79 pay $295 per year for a HSR annual pass. Similarly, unlimited use of DARTS is $295 per year.
Since 2012, when the City of Hamilton started to fully obey AODA fare parity regulations, the use of DARTS has increased while revenue is decreasing. An aging population is a major factor in the increase, with improved health care enabling more independence for persons with chronic medical conditions to live in the community.
[Council was cautioned in 2009 when they implemented free HSR transit for persons over the age of 80 that the AODA was likely to be amended to include fare parity for DARTS riders.]
For 2019, DARTS requires a budget increase of $4.3-million to meet increasing demand for rides.
The most recent update on DARTS costs, from a July 2018 meeting of the Accessible Transit Services Review Sub-Committee shows that DARTS is continuing to perform at a higher standard of service and lower cost per trip compared to previous years.
During that meeting in July, one of the discussion points was increasing use of DARTS by commercial nursing homes. A few homes are using DARTS for transportation instead of having their own shuttle vehicles as in the past. DARTS is required by AODA to provide service to the residents of nursing homes, and a companion if needed, at the same rate of no charge as the HSR.
In short, DARTS cannot cut its budget, it cannot refuse service, and it cannot charge fare when a similar trip on the HSR would be no charge to the passenger.
To fix the DARTS budget deficit, Council would have to end free HSR transit, and politically, that’s a non-starter.

created: February 5, 2019