LARRY'S CORNER- Hamilton's Former Mayor Speaks

Environment Hamilton: Methinks the group doth protest too much?

By Larry Di Ianni
(posted March 26, 2009)

During my term as Councillor for Ward 10, Stoney Creek, I was introduced to an environmental liaison committee by a staff member who interacted with the particular group. I had never heard of them so I enquired what they were all about. The staff member looked me in the eye and said, “They are a group bent on seeing that Council spends as much money as possible on their agenda.” A notable member of that group was one involved in Environment Hamilton right now.

It wasn’t my first taste of single-issue advocacy, but it was certainly my first look at a high-powered, damn-the-torpedoes, we-will-badger-them-into-submission advocacy group. They were also very smart about manipulating public opinion, mostly through a local reporter who writes on environmental issues, and lobbying effectively behind the scenes. It was also a group with many tentacles since its membership kept showing up in a number of incarnations all beating variations of the same drum. It was also a group, it is fair to say, with some good ideas which were embraced by Council, me included. My biggest concern with the group was its lack of transparency and stealth in approaching issues, often pretending that they spoke for a larger audience than they actually had. And my second biggest concern, as I was later to discover, was its penchant for hardball politics, not being afraid to besmirch reputations if it suited their end.

To credit Environment Hamilton, they are not at all like the group(s) I mention above. At least they have an accessible web-site, stated objectives, and examples of projects dear to them as well as a list of names that front the organization. This is hardly lacking in transparency. True, some of the names on the organizing Board can be found in other organizations, and there is a co-ordination of themes among all of these groups, but the attempt at legitimacy by EH is quite encouraging, as are the bona fides presented.

That doesn’t mean the group gets everything right, or even most things right. For example, recently Environment Hamilton issued a ‘report card’ on the City’s effort towards environmental stewardship, which even Councillor Brian McHattie repudiated. I say ‘even’ Councillor McHattie because he is a kindred spirit of EH, and a personal friend of many of the players on the EH Board of directors. During the last election I saw several members of that Board campaign for Mr. McHattie’s successful run to retain his seat. But the Councillor disagreed surprisingly strongly with the group’s C grade of the city’s actions on environmental matters. He repudiated their assessment. I don’t know if this was a ‘good cop/bad cop’ routine, but the Councillor would benefit from the advice of the former staffer who would say, “This is a group bent on seeing Council spend as much money as possible on their agenda.” A low grade on a report card, the strategy might go, will keep Council’s feet to the fire and cause them to improve. On the other hand (and I know this from my years in the classroom) if the demands are too unreasonable, the strategy may boomerang and cause Council to give up altogether, or at the very least dismiss the group as a serious advocate for its causes.

Oops! They’ve done it again! Environment Hamilton has just published a list of ten objectives the city should embrace in its quest for environmental sustainability. The list is comprehensive with a few good intentions, but totally impractical with some items, and outrageously expensive with others. Let me give just a couple of examples:

Their first objective is as follows: “Permanently protect Hamilton’s foodlands by freezing the urban boundary and locating 100 per cent of growth within this boundary.”

Elsewhere in my list of essays, I write why it is impossible to locate 100% of Hamilton’s growth over the next 25 to 30 years in the existing urban boundary. You may wish to look it up. Council knows this. EH knows this. Staff knows this. The Province knows this. Why EH is still beating this drum makes absolutely no sense. They should be applauding Council’s approach of downtown intensification to a higher standard than the province suggested. They should applaud the corridors approach to intensification for the rest of the existing boundary. And they should have been all over Council for abandoning the Elfrida node for any future expansions because by abandoning the node, Council has opened the door to sprawl, which is anathema to EH for all the right reasons. It is also interesting to note how clever, EH has disguised this faulty approach by embedding it into a benign ‘protect foodland’s’ cover?

The list of ten includes expensive suggestions such as the one to commit to paying for light rail transit without knowing its costs, giving away free bus tickets, setting up un-enforceable buy local targets, crippling traffic with unreasonable and impractical 30km/hr zones, committing to no new roads, despite the need for some should Council need to build a stadium in the West Harbour, etc. But the most egregiously disingenuous recommendation is this one:

“Lobby the provincial government for legislative authority to allow the city to toll roads, tax parking, impose vehicle taxes and require green building standards.”

The agenda is anti-car, anti-business, and anti-resident. The road the group wants tolled is the Red Hill Expressway, a road already paid for by the taxpayer and being overwhelmingly used by local residents. Council has already decided to not support this alternative in spite of the protestations of some of EH’s members fronting other organizations. Furthermore, vehicle taxes are already paid for by car owners and ‘green building standards’ are worthwhile but not much building is going on in the city right now, so it is a bit of a moot point. Notice the emphasis on taxing people at a time when the economy is already pulling people’s standard of living in a downward trajectory, and a time when Hamiltonians are being laid off in droves. Does it make sense to add to people’s woes? I don’t think so.

Environment Hamilton is a worthwhile organization. The city needs people who are passionate about the environment. The group could use some cross-pollination of ideas for sure; but most of all it could use a good dose of reality therapy if it is to be taken as seriously as it deserves.

BACK TO LARRY'S CORNER

HOME