LARRY'S CORNER- Hamilton's Former Mayor Speaks

Is Neighbourhood Planning the Art of the Possible?

By Larry Di Ianni
(posted August 12, 2009)

The city is having yet another planning decision appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board.  This time, the city’s plan to turn the former Waxman and Fluke properties east of Centennial Parkway and south of the QEW into a retail center is being challenged by a citizen’s group called Hamiltonians for Progressive Development. More about this group later.  The stated objection of HPD to the city’s position is that these lands are being changed from an industrial designation as employment lands to a retail designation accommodating big box development.  HPD feels that this move contradicts city and provincial policies.  In fact, staff recommended against the change even if it was approved politically.  More on this later as well.

The debate was summarized by two veteran councillors, Bob Bratina and Chad Collins.  The lands are in Chad’s ward, but of course all of council has a say, as it should, on land use issues.  Councillor Bratina’s lament is that Hamilton is creating a Wal-mart ‘nation’, and the city cannot be just that.  Councillor Collins’ argument is that these are among the most contaminated lands in the city and heavy industry is certainly not welcome on one of our ‘gateways’.  In fact the city is paying over $2M to help clean up the site.  Who is right?  More on that later too.

HPD is headed by Michael Desnoyers and Jack Santa Barbara.  Each has close ties to individuals from City Hall’s own anti-business lobby CATCH.  It wouldn’t surprise me if the strategy setting sessions are a co-operative effort among the same people who pop up in each of these groups.  Mr. Desnoyers and Mr. Santa Barbara have enjoyed success in other areas and are quite capable individuals in their own right.  But as far as city planning is concerned they have adopted a collective blind spot, I believe.  HPD says that it is for progressive development and for employment opportunities; however, their past positions belie their stated philosophy.  HPD was active in opposing the Maple Leaf project which would have created multiple thousand of well-paying jobs on lands already zoned Industrial on the North Glanbrook Industrial Park.  They are also very much against the designation of Industrial/employment lands at the Airport.  In fact, opposing the airport lands is a major raison d’etre for this group, and they see the removal of industrial lands on Centennial Parkway as further justification for designating more lands at the Airport.  This is the real reason, I feel, they are opposing the city’s move.  Many in the community believe that HPD stands for many things, but ‘progressive business development’ isn’t one of them.  However, might they be right in this one case?

I have stated before that I think it is wrong for the city to de-designate already zoned industrial lands.  I believed that when there was pressure to do so at the North Glanbrook site; I also believed that in Winona; and I continue to believe  we need the lands around the airport as well, even though the world has changed for employment in the Hamilton area during the last 3 years and we probably need far less at the airport now than we did before.  This topic deserves an article of its own.

However, and this is the big however which tries to address Councillors Bratina and Collins and their positions.  They are both right and they are both wrong.  True, staff did oppose the designation on Centennial from industrial to retail, but they agonized over their position.  Privately, they probably felt the best way of dealing with the eyesore at that site was to designate it commercial.  I am sure they felt the retail designation had the chance of creating more employment; however, on strictly technical grounds and because of provincial and city existing rules, they would be compelled to stick to the industrial designation.  Staff was being ‘technical’ and not ‘practical’ in interpreting their role and taking their position.  I am sure they also knew that Council, which has a duty to understand staff’s recommendation, but to filter it through a much more political and less academic viewpoint, would provide the ‘practical’ balance to the equation.  It appears that Council did that; and their position will likely be supported, now that the move is being challenged at the OMB.

As for creating a ‘Wal-Mart’ nation in our city, I agree with Councillor Bratina that it would not be desirable to do so.  However, I believe the laws of the market-place will look after that.  Currently Wal-Mart is at Eastgate Square and there is talk of a Wal-Mart at the Winona site.  The Centennial location would be the third Wal-Mart in close proximity.  I don’t think this will happen.  I feel, without having any inside information, that Wal-Mart will relocate the Eastgate store and move to either Winona or Centennial.  They will probably make that decision based on their own market research, but also on the speed of development on the two sites.  Whoever is first in being ready will get the prize, a Wal-Mart location as an anchor tenant.  Of course some councillors and community members might see this as the ‘booby’ prize!

BACK TO LARRY'S CORNER

HOME