LARRY'S CORNER- Hamilton's Former Mayor Speaks

The Affordable Connaught: Lessons Learned

By Larry Di Ianni
(posted September 21, 2009)

Every once in a while our city is gripped by a topic which is on everybody’s mind.  When I was mayor, we had a few such as the ill-fated Maple Leaf project on our industrial park, the quest for the Commonwealth Games, and the interminable discussions about the Lister Block as some examples.  In the distant past, who can forget the community angst over Gore Park’s tree decimation?  During this term of Council there have also been some head-turning events:  the 10% tax hike on Flamborough, Tape-Gate and the breaking of Council rules, the Balsillie hockey quest and just this past week, the Connaught debate.

These topics capture the public’s imagination because the media gives the stories lots of ink, but also because Council either acts appropriately or inappropriately in taking policy issues.  Also, in this age of the blogosphere, the internet is rife with opinions galore from known and unknown sources.  To be fair, however, it isn’t just about insider talk, as is often the case, Council’s decision to endorse an affordable housing plan for the Connaught is being widely talked about.  I can anecdotally attest that I have been asked my opinion on the issue in a few public events I attended as well as at Church as we were walking out of Sunday service.  I also had occasion to chat with the mayor and three councillors at public events on the issue.

It seems that opinion is pretty uniform from everyone concerned that the decision to support this new plan for the Connaught is not a popular one.  Even the councillors I spoke with indicated that the plan was not a favoured one.  In fact one councillor told me that he has received more negative e-mails on this issue than any other.  No one other than the mayor was willing to defend the decision; and even his support seemed guarded.

I wondered what I might have done had I been confronted with having to support or reject the proposal.   For sure I believe affordable housing on this iconic building is the wrong way to go and I have written about it in an earlier post.  However, being an armchair quarterback and actually being out on the field having to make the plays are quite different circumstances.  More comment on my approach later in this essay.

I have also been struck by the internet chattering class’s position on this issue, as well as that of the mainstream media.  Both groups seem to be inflamed and are aiming squarely on staff for having made the recommendation which has created this firestorm for council.  They have also gone off on tangents, to wit: one of the developers is suing the city on another project.  How can he sue and benefit from public largesse at the same time?  The consortium was behind on taxes.  Should they even qualify for an RFP?  Senior staff doesn’t live in the city or doesn’t live downtown; do they really care about Hamilton?  The Director of Downtown renewal is a potty mouth.  Can his opinion be trusted?

All of these are distractions to the main point.  Yes the optics are bad that taxes were not up to date and that someone is suing the city while being a member of the consortium.  But these are just optics.  The city seldom, if ever, loses on taxes owing.  In fact the paper reported an $8M yearly accrual because of late charges; and as far as law suits are concerned, if one feels aggrieved one may resort to the courts.  That is what the system calls for.  One can sue and still be a good citizen unless one is doing so frivolously.  Because of the expense, people seldom do this.   There are exceptions, of course, such as taking the city to the Municipal Board as Hamiltonians for Progressive Development and Environment Hamilton are doing because they disagree with the politics of a decision.  Going to the OMB is akin to a ‘law suit’ in that one is asking a third body to adjudicate.  Some feel the two groups are being frivolous with their actions but the system allows them to do what they are doing without being called ‘evil’ citizens.

Surely the main and only point has to do with the over-concentration of affordable units in the downtown core, especially in such a historic building.  The city is sending the wrong message to others.  It is as if Council is totally giving up on the revitalization of the core by allowing a project such as this to be supported with tax dollars when there are so many other similar uses nearby.  And that is the only and very substantial point.  Not who is suing whom.  Not who is part of the consortium.  It is about the model being proposed, not necessarily the people who are proposing it.

As well, it would be charitable at least to consider motivations of all concerned before castigating as freely as some have done:  Housing staff and senior staff are trying to maximize the dollar amounts coming to Hamilton via the province and the feds.  That is a good thing.  The consortium is trying to make something out of a project that has bedevilled it and is costing them a fortune.  They should not be criticized for seizing an opportunity.  And the elected officials are tired of seeing a boarded up building in our core and are trying to adhere to some obviously severe legal opinions about what they can or cannot do.  Sometimes not all the cards are in the decision-makers’ hands.

What would I have done, had I been there?  I would have had a quiet discussion with the ownership group and tried to get them to remove the project from the roster.  If persuasion would not have worked, and it might not have, I would have encouraged Council to seek outside legal counsel on the strength of the legal opinion being received.  In other words I would have done my best to retain the vision of the Connaught in the core as an iconic and central establishment for commerce first and residential uses on the corollary lands second!  See, isn’t armchair quarterbacking easy?

BACK TO LARRY'S CORNER

HOME