Monday, March 15, 2010

Digging Up the Dirt

Update: Here is an interesting article in today's paper, about the concerns of citizens who's properties may be displaced. Selected quotes:

""The only thing I want to hear is for them to get the hell out of here," said Rose Benassi of the city's interest in her neighbourhood. "They're driving me crazy.""

"The letter is less than clear about what the city's intentions are in the neighbourhood," Rudolph said."I don't think that's fair to the residents." (lawyer representing some of the residents affected)

"If they're going to kick me out, what can I do?" "I'll fight it, (but) if they want this place, they'll take it."


See full Spec article here
The city is taking the first steps toward conducting environmental tests on some 60 properties, to get an understanding as to what soil conditions are, relative to the lands needed for the West Harbour stadium site. Testing on privately owned lands, is an essential step in the process.
Preliminary testing has already commenced on the Rheem Canada plant. In tandem, the city is also engaging in discussions about buying up properties. Clr. Bob Bratina advises that about 45 of the properties of interest, are privately owned while about a dozen belong to numbered companies.

Clr. Bratina has advised his residents to seek legal advice, out of concern that the testing may result in a negative hit on property values. A city issued letter advised affected land owners that testing will be carried out at the city's risk and expense and assures them that properties will be restored back to their original condition.

Bratina countered with a letter of his own acknowledging that the city is operating with the best of intentions, but that  land owners should consider consulting a lawyer. Bratina believes that legal fees should also be covered by the city.

Bratina also raises a good question about who will own the results of the testing information. The city's lawyer advised that the city will own the test results, but if anything is found in the top two inches of the soil that is highly poisonous, they would not be "sitting on that information". 

Bratina suggests that the city should be buying the properties first, and then testing the soil. The city says it is just a timing issue driven by the need to move forward. 

So, is Clr Bratina right in protecting and advocating for the rights of his constituents?  If you were one of the landowners, how would you react?  Do you trust that results of testing would be transparantly conveyed?  Your comments are welcome.

Information in this post is based on a fine article in The Spec entitled Bratina Puts Constituents' Concerns First, authored by Andrew Dreschel "I don't think they have the right to tell me to leave,"

19 comments:

  1. Cal. I think any information that the city has should be public . I dont trust them. Good on Bobby B.

    Elvis P.
    ReplyDelete
  2. Good for your Councillor Bratina. I admire you doing the ethical thing for the constituents of your Ward. I admire how you support and care for them and for this city. You are doing a fine job sir.

    Marvin
    ReplyDelete
  3. "The city's lawyer advised that the city will own the test results, but if anything is found in the top two inches of the soil that is highly poisonous, they would not be "sitting on that information".

    Is this a joke? Full disclosure is needed!

    Inside CH
    ReplyDelete
  4. Of course the core sampling analysis will be peer reviewed won't it Councillor Bratina? Since when is city solicitor Peter Barkwell and environmental expert able to guess at the outcome before testing has even begun? Why not make the ground-zero core samples public first, before city hall starts expropriation? Does anyone need reminding that ALL city taxpayers are footing Hamilton's portion of the bill to remediate this toxic waste-site? Starting at the edges first seems political, not scientific?
    ReplyDelete
  5. Very good points MAW.

    I believe retaining an attorney at this time is prudent and it is wise to employ one that does not do business with the city; Testing soil beforehand is a strategy to save on acquistion costs. Residential properties must be considered clean so residents receive a fair market value for their homes. Industrial properties however should have a general test done for highly lethal toxins. Aside from that the same principle applies.

    Residents must be given an option to move their houses at the city's expense within a given radius, provided the resident has a suitable location secured for transfer. This is a fair thing to do especially when someone has taken good care of their house and/or out buildings i.e. a garages.

    Properties owners should not be predisposed to giving the city a hard time though because we all need to cooperate, with much work to be done so. This is an opportunity for anyone in the ground-zero zone to make a dream come true, to find a nicer place. Think about IT, this is Hamilton's King Kong and this town is gonna rock and these folks have a garaunteed buyer playing beat the clock!

    I also agree with Mr. Bratina's suggestion that any legal fees above and beyond a normal house sale should be covered by the city, thereby keeping them above board and not out digging up dirt, for the only purpose of that, would be to soil and then steal someone's shirt.
    ReplyDelete
  6. The test results should become a public record immediately as they are known along with them being forwarded to the Dept. of Health and The Ministry of Labour. Workers on the site will have to know what health and safety precautions to take to do their job safely. Does anyone remember the hidden records of Love Canal. Do residents of the city want to see uncovered truckloads of dirt from this site without being aware of the toxins in it. They will be more diligent in reporting when the proper transportation methods are not being used. As far as the city paying the property owners legal bill that is absurd. These owners knew they were taking a risk when they bought into an industrial area. Who would these owners sue? The city, because the owner did not due his due diligence and have soil samples tested before he bought the property? Did the Corporation of the City of Hamilton pollute the land? I think with an election coming this is just more grandstanding by Councillor Bratina and another attempt by him to interfere and stifle the decision made by a majority of Councillors to develop the west harbour site. He is trying to wrest away the democratic decision that has been made by our elected officials. Mr. Bratina also neglects to tell the people in his ward that many more properties will have a great increase in their property values due to a revitalized west harbour. Will the city pay my legal fees to sue these owners for my share of the increase.
    ReplyDelete
  7. Alasdair RathboneMar 16, 2010 12:52 PM
    The owners need to have an attorney; period. The city has a clear conflict in this case. If the properties prove to be contaminated, then the city can expropriate for far less than they are currently worth. The city should guarantee an expropriation rate based on current values (protecting the residents if the homes are contaminated or the city if the prove to be less contaminated than thought therefore worth more) before any testing is done. The city should also guarantee that they will compensate the owners for lost value if they land is contaminated and the city does not buy it.

    Let's not forget, however, that despite the sad stories, expropriation is a tool that has been used by this and other cities in the past, and there was much less media sympathy. While I fully support the city making all accommodations possible to minimize the impact on the residents affected, I don't think the city can afford to show those who might need to be expropriated elsewhere sometime in the future, that a few sad stories will block an entire project.

    Lastly, good on Mr. Bratina. While I may not agree with him on the stadium location, no one can say he doesn't stand up for what he thinks is right for the city and for the residents of his ward.
    ReplyDelete
  8. Alasdair said: Lastly, good on Mr. Bratina. While I may not agree with him on the stadium location, no one can say he doesn't stand up for what he thinks is right for the city and for the residents of his ward.

    I agree with you. Bratina has much more integrity than those who fund there campaigns with corporate donations and then trample people so that they can continue getting the donations.


    The domination of corporate and union donations is more striking when it is remembered that five of the 16 members of council, including Mayor Eisenberger, refused to accept those types of gifts. The others were Margaret McCarthy, Bob Bratina, Brian McHattie and Russ Powers.

    Maria Pearson topped the list, collecting 82% of her funds from corporations. She was closely followed by Bernie Morelli (80%) and Sam Merulla (79%). Dave Mitchell, Terry Whitehead, Lloyd Ferguson, Tom Jackson and Chad Collins were clustered in the 73-75% range, while Brad Clark got 69% of his financial support from corporate donors.
    Remember this when you vote.

    Rog
    ReplyDelete
  9. It was a beautiful afternoon today so I went for a walk around the west harbour site. I encourage everyone to go and do the same. It has further convinced me that this is just election posturing by Mr. Bratina. You can park for free on Barton in front of the Rheem plant then walk down Tiffany St. which is on the east boundary of the plant. Go west along Stuart turn north onto Hess back to Barton. It looks like an atomic bomb has hit this area. The moonlighting radio broadcaster sought headlines a few months ago after the Century Theatre came down especially pointing out the Connaught. If he was a true representative for his ward he should be down inspecting this area. I saw one building where the cement block wall was caving in. Most properties were abandoned and didn't look like they were securely fenced off. There were numerous locations where garbage has been dumped. Is this an area Mr. Bratina wants the children in the residential area of his ward raised. The funniest thing I saw was the property at the corner of Tiffany and Stuart which is an abandoned scrap yard that the city posted for rezoning for multi residential units to be built. The land can't be that polluted for Bratina to offer the largesse of free legal fees if it's fit for residential use. Maybe before Councillor Bratina shot off his mouth about offering free legal services he should have got some legal advice of his own to find out if the owners of these properties have a chance at winning legal claims. If there is no chance for them to win their cases the city would be just throwing our money away. There is a large ugly city property across the street from the Rheem plant. Is the city putting it into the mix for redevelopment. There is a lot of property in the area that can be used for parking not the limited space the city claims. There is a huge parking lot at the CN facility that had about 6 vehicles there. I'm sure arrangements for event parking could be made there. Most of the tracks in the rail yard are being used for parking for train cars and engines. The saddest thing I saw was that within less than 200 yards of Stuart St. across the tracks is the beautiful redeveloped Bayfront Park. Imagine if the number of tracks were reduced and user friendly tunnels accommodating walkers, bikes, roller blades and wheel chairs connected these two areas what it would do for for the residents use and the property values. Councillor Bratina doesnt seem to have any vision on how these improvements would beautify his ward for the enjoyment of both his constituents and all citizens of the city. I talked to a garage owner in the area whose property will be expropriated. He is concerned about what price he will get but is convinced this redevelopment is the best thing that could happen to the neighbourhood. Once again I would encourage Elvis, Marvin, Inside CH, Mark, WRCU2, Alisdair, Rog, The Hamiltonian and anyone interested in the stadium location to take the same walk I did. Maybe this would be a perfect area for Mr Jelly to take his crew on the next crawl. Bring lots of notepaper. Has Councillor Bratina ever taken this walk. I took a lot of photographs on my walk to back up my claims and if The Hamiltonian has the ability to post them I would be happy to supply.
    ReplyDelete
  10. Tom:

    If you can email me a picture or two, I can post it. Probably not until tomorrow night though. Alternatively, if they are already on the net somewhere, we can just link to them. Also, please call me Cal. The Hamiltonian is the name of the blog.

    Thanks Tom.

    Cal
    ReplyDelete
  11. Tommy. How well do ya know Bratina? Not very well cause if he you knew him, you'd know that he is always walking around his ward talkign to people.He probably took that walk 10s of times times before you bud. Maybe he just cares for people? Could that be it. Ever talk to the guy Tommy. Probably not cause that would make him human, not a punchin bag huh.

    A guy on CHML who lives on Tiffay street said "it's not about them buying my house. They cant move a neighbourhood" Think aboiut it Tommy and maybe youcan see where Bobby is coming from.

    ya kneed to go on another walk and thinkaboutit

    Elvis P.
    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Tom- The site you've described was actually one of the by-law infractions we reported in our first round of complaints. I'm glad you can see the value of a by-law crawl after all, and I'm glad you came down to see this for yourself.
    ReplyDelete
  13. A photo of the crumbling cement block building Tom pointed out is on the by-law crawl website here, under "Damaged Buildings": http://bylawcrawl.wrecovery.com/bylaw.html

    If you click on "MAP", you can zoom into a google map, there's a pointer on that location, and if you click it you'll see the complaints we entered on this specific property.
    ReplyDelete
  14. Michelle HruschkaMar 16, 2010 08:03 PM
    Matt: Great work on the website.

    Tom: Yes I live close to this area and you have described it very well.

    If people are going to a stadium, it goes that some people will be partying, so the need for public transit is necessary.

    Maybe people should be complaining not about parking but the lack of transit options.
    ReplyDelete
  15. Elvis on one occasion I had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Bratina on the phone regarding a civic issue. I found him to be very arrogant and demeaning if you don't agree with his stance. Elvis have you ever taken this walk. I hope you do and then see if you continue to support your buddy Bob that this area shouldn't be developed. You cited one voice on CHML and I cited an owner of a business so that argument is a wash. Since the homes on Tiffany are on the east side of the street they may not need to be expropriated and the development could begin from that point west. When these homes on Tiffany would have a great increase in value due to the improvements I am sure you will see lots of for sale signs on the street for the owners to make a quick cash grab. I believe the owners of expropriated properties should be paid fair value but that value should be assessed on the pretext that the land wont be developed and on their true worth now while sitting in the middle of this war zone. Matt did your crawl single out the brick wall that I think was at the corner of Stuart and Hess that is ready to tip over onto the the homes on Tiffany are on the east side of the street they may not need to be expropriated and the development could begin from that point west. When these homes on Tiffany would have a great increase in value due to the improvements I am sure you will see lots of for sale signs on the street for the owners to make a quick cash grab. I believe the owners of expropriated properties should be paid fair value but that value should be assessed on the pretext that the land wont be developed and on their true worth now while sitting in the middle of this war zone. Matt did your crawl single out the brick wall that I think was at the corner of Stuart and Hess that is ready to tip over onto the
    ReplyDelete
  16. I think my last comment got the text messed up. First chance I will write it again.
    ReplyDelete
  17. Wow, Tom, your comment cut off at a very ominous spot there... Lol.

    What I would suggest is that you enter the complaint to by-law staff at mle@hamilton.ca, unless you still consider that sort of behaviour vigilantism or something. ;) Describe the specific spot you're referring to, the closest intersection, and the by-law infractions you're aware of. Let us know if you receive a response. Photos are good to send too if you have them, but if not, Google Street View can be a good way to find that information.

    I've entered a complaint on the property already, and if it's a concern to more people, we should all enter our complaints. No matter what happens on this spot, stadium or not, it has to be cleaned up.
    ReplyDelete
  18. You will note that at the top of the blog, you will see two new links (tabs).

    One reads Home (which takes you to the front page of this blog).

    The other says Selected Pictures of West Harbour Site. That tab will lead you to the pictures Tom Robertson took. That page also allows for comments on the pictures.

    Please have a look and thanks Tom for the pictures.
    ReplyDelete
  19. Emended comment
    Elvis on one occasion I had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Bratina on the phone regarding a civic issue. I found him to be very arrogant and demeaning if you don't agree with his stance. Elvis have you ever taken this walk. I hope you do and then see if you continue to support your buddy Bob that this area shouldn't be developed. You cited one voice on CHML and I cited an owner of a business so that argument is a wash. Since the homes on Tiffany are on the east side of the street they may not need to be expropriated and the development could begin from that point west. When these homes on Tiffany would have a great increase in value due to the improvements I am sure you will see lots of for sale signs on the street for the owners to make a quick cash grab. I believe the owners of expropriated properties should be paid fair value but that value should be assessed on the pretext that the land wont be developed and on their true worth now while sitting in the middle of this war zone. Matt did your crawl single out the brick wall that I think was at the corner of Stuart and Hess that is ready to tip over onto the unprotected sidewalk? Elvis did you take this walk and what did you "thinkaboutit"? Would you raise your children there?. Now the second guessers are all coming out of the closet. This is the first time I have ever heard the NDP come out with a policy against environmental clean up as it is not worth spending the money on according to Andrea Horwath. I guess she is against clean up projects in the bay as well. She will lose a lot of votes for her party to the Green party over that and while the Green party will not win a seat the lost votes could be the margine to cost her party seats to the Libs or Pcs. Today I heard a representative of Primus on the radio who claim to be the Cat's biggest sponsor. Primus' concern is not with the facility but the visibility from traffic passing through since they want to purchase the naming rights. Should we change the location for the benefit of Primus rather than whats good for the city.? What a benevolent group Mr. Young has involved himself with. Has Mr. Bratina or anyone from city staff consulted with the property owners that live south of Barton St. their opinion? I think there are a lot more votes there Bob.
    ReplyDelete

Your comments are welcome. Please abide by the blog's policy on posting. This blog facilitates discussion from all sides of issues. Opposite viewpoints, spirited discussion and even pointed comments are welcome, provided they are respectful. Name calling is not allowed and any posts that violate the policy, will simply not be authorized to appear. This blog also reserves the right to exclude comments that are off topic or are otherwise unprofessional. This blog does not assume any liability whatsoever for comments posted. People posting comments or providing information on interviews, do so at their own risk.


Comments posted on this blog, may be used as excerpts in whole or in part, in other media sources .
This blog believes in freedom of speech and operates in the context of a democratic society, which many have fought and died for.

Views expressed by commentators or in articles that appear here, cannot be assumed to be espoused by The Hamiltonian staff or its publisher.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)