Unnecessary Eviction -Expropriation of Homes and Businesses
Decisions to expropriate proprieties around West
Harbour
The question that many constituents are asking is why the City
has decided to rush into a decision to remove tenants by using the
Expropriation Act? What will happen to
the properties that are currently being held by the City if another site is
chosen or we lose Pan Am games all together? Is the City going to sell the
expropriated land and properties to developers or will the City simply hold
these properties. How are the uprooted families feel about the fact that now
Council is eyeing yet another locations?
Council and the City moved forward with what is now a
painful experience for many families and property owners. Why was there not a
recommendation to hold an inquiry or a hearing, which is perfectly legal and
extremely logical, under the Expropriation Act?
Council and the City’s planners knew the fact that they were
dealing with a moving target and there was no real solution on hand for the
location of the Pan Am Stadium. Council failed to reach an agreement with The Tiger-Cats
and it was abundantly made clear that the football club was not interested in West
Harbour West
Harbour
I feel their sacrifices were in vain. Residents were uprooted from their
neighborhoods which they have lived in for many years. If at some point, Council chooses another
site other than West Harbour
I fear that the decision to study McMaster
Innovation Park
Liban Abdi
Ward 2 Candidate
Comments welcome
The Hamiltonian does
not endorse or counter any candidate running in the municiple election. We
are nuetral. We operate in a democratic context where free speech is
valued. Our focus is to engage Hamiltonians in dialogue with one another on
matters concerning our great city. We encourage all Hamiltonians to vote. To
get to know other candidates who have registered, click here. For
more information or to be a guest here, please email adminhamiltonian@cogeco.ca.
huh, someone who makes sense
ReplyDeleteElvis P. out
First of all, thank you SO much Liban for bringing this to the forefront. You are to be commended for taking the opinions of constituents into hand! This is all that we expect from our representative - that they have our best interests at heart and work with us, not against us as Bratina has done.
ReplyDeleteI believe that my neighbours MUST proceed with some form of legal action against the City, the City Manager and the Economic Planning area.
They fraudulently made MY neighbours leave their homes by telling them that they HAD to due to expropriation.
Bratina and Eisenberger BOTH participated in this expropriation. Bratina has NOT said that the expropriation must be halted.
Larry DiIanni was the first person to call for a halt to expropriation in this area. Thank you again, Liban, for listening and putting forth a call to action.
I'm now wondering 'who' else needs to be informed of this (Feds? Prov? Integrity? OMB?)....
I encourage everyone interested in this issue to refer to the "Di Ianni news release" section of the Hamiltonian. I tried to copy/paste sections but it exceeds the characters permitted on here.
The people of Hamilton NEED to be informed about this. It's about time we have someone who represents and speaks for the people. You are a straight shooter Mr. Abdi, I for one appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteThank You
When a bad decision is made, there's a snowball effect. That's what you're seeing now.
ReplyDeleteFrosty
It is very scary that you could be removed from your home so easily and without a firm reason. What is happening here in Hamilton???????????????????????
ReplyDeleteIt's called 'personal agendas' and disrespect for citizens on behalf of Fred and Bob B.
ReplyDeleteI can't begin to tell you the disruption this has caused to those who have left and those now left behind. It's horrible to see boarded up buildings - very ghetto looking and with NO FIRM PLAN in place.
It is, as Liban indicates, the entire expropriation was against the Law.
The current council AND city staff have broken the law.
This City sent forth people to 'bully' people into moving. Even at the Feb 2010 meeting, Bratina TOLD people that 'some of you in this room will be expropriated'. Can you imagine hearing that?
People weren't given options - they weren't informed and I believe this was simply because many of the residents have lived here for a very, very long time.
I think that the assumption was that, as seniors, people had lived their time on Barton Street and it was now time for them to 'move on'.
How horrible and despicable of the current City council.
From the headline, I thought Liban was evicting tenants...
ReplyDeleteSorry Liban, but up until the Ticats voiced their objections at the last minute the West Harbour was the site of choice for the city. The plans have been in place to build a stadium in that location since the first Commonwealth games bid in 2003.
ReplyDeleteIt was prudent of the city to procede with the neccessary expropriations when they did. They had no idea they would be ambushed at the last minute by the Ticats. Expropriations take time and in this case time was limited.
It's unfortunate that the city sometimes has to resort to expropriations, but it is for the greater good of the city. Most of the people in that area sold out before expropriation notices were required. Usually the people that need to be expropriated are ones who are trying to get rich or the ones who are afraid of change.
The West Harbour site is still the site of choice for council. It was the site forwarded to Hostco last Tuesday. It's still too early to pass judgement on whether or not this move by the city was all for not.
I understand your point Mike, however City had all the time in the world to figure this out properly. As I said we have been dealing with a moving target. There was no firm stand on this issue and our leadership should have taken this stand resolutely.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with analysis Ticats voiced their objection last minute. Ticats have said definitely they are not interested in west harbour way before the vote of committee of the whole was sealed which passed 12-3 in favor of west harbour.
As for expropriation, the people needed to be given a chance to have their voice heard. Yes City sometimes has to resort to expropriations, but it must be done in a manner that is transparent and fair to all. What will happen to the land and properties if City chooses MIP site?
I don’t think people are trying to get rich or are afraid of change. Those people have lived in that neighborhood for years. It was their home.
Mike, I appreciate the dialogue but, if West Harbour is still site of choice why has Council voted to study MIP as possible site?
Hey Mike:
ReplyDeleteLiban IS correct!
The stadium at the WH was the choice of the Pan Am committee NOT the immediate or surrounding neighbourhoods. The fact that the Ti Cats said 'nay' late in the process does NOT change the fact that ONE community meeting was held where the word 'expropriation' was used by Bob Bratina AND there was no formal Plan in place.
When you refer to the Commonwealth Games and Pan Am, you are speaking about 2 groups / committees who put, again without community input, the WH on their wish list. No planning supports a stadium in the WH.
Take the time to read Setting Sail - future land use in the WH is clearly indicated.
There has never, other than the design speculation by the Spec and the White Star Group, been an architectural rendering / start of the tendering process of the stadium in this area.
With regard to your comments "It's unfortunate that the city sometimes has to resort to expropriations, but it is for the greater good of the city." are those of us in the WH NOT part of the City? Are we not entitled to provide input in process?
And: "Most of the people in that area sold out before expropriation notices were required." Who WOULDN'T sell out if you are threatened with expropriation? It's a NO WIN situation if your property is earmarked for expropriation and that is the word that was used to my neighbours.
Bottom line: Why be in such a hurry to move people out of their homes when there is NO plan in place. I'm not saying that negotiations shouldn't have started but if I recall, the City ONLY voted in favour of the WH site in August! Why start the process in May/June? People were told that they needed to be out (those who had sold) by the end of August, beginning of September. Why the rush?
Di Ianni raised the topic by calling for a halt to further expropriation - see Di Ianni News Release....Thank you very, very much again, Liban, for caring enough to look for more answers to this topic.
Mike, you are dead wrong. You have to ahore up all your partners first before you can pull something like this off. Council can't get along with themselves let alone partners. The nayoe is no leader and Di ianni needs to retire. Meanwhile people are getting expropriated. Give me a break
ReplyDeleteWH ED.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who didn't know where the city intended to put the stadium, has been living with their heads in the sand. They have voted on that location 7 times over the last number of years.
It may have been wrong the way things were handled with the local area and the homeowners effected, but the reality is most councils are going to act in the interest of the whole city and not just the narrow interest of a small group within that local area. They could have held all the meetings you want but your opinion still wouldn't change and you would still oppose it. Perhaps if I was in the same situation I would feel the same.
Liban,
The city has spent years studying the WH area as well as many other locations in this city. At some point a decision had to be made. The city made that decision based on the information they had before them not some emotional outcry fanned by misinformation being spread by the Ticats and their media buddies.
As for people having their voices heard, I don't think it would have made a difference. The city was set on that location and decided to move forward. At that time the Ticats had not raised any objections. Bob Young himself said back in January that he would accept any location as long as it made business sense. The problem was he waited too long to tell the city of his objections. There wasn't and still isn't time to study any other locations. The whole MIP study is just a show to say they tried.
Mike:
ReplyDeleteYou realize that this blog is about the fact that people have bee expropriated when there is no formal plan in place. You realize that this about the potential violation of the Expropriation Act.
A 'narrow interest'? These are our homes! And the concern extends well past this direct area! The North End West Neighbourhood extends to surrounding areas and isn't just where the stadium was supposed to go!
Thank your lucky stars that you obviously do NOT live in this area and have not been impacted by this horrible series of events.
My friend, the stadium wasn't always un-supported in this area. And again, this isn't about the stadium - it's about expropriation.
Bob Young supported the WH site UNTIL he found out that Freddy was having discussions BEHIND everyone's backs with the Katz Group. The Katz Group wanted to cut into BY's profit centre by taking care of the operating expenses. BY was seeking to increase his profit base and that's why he withdrew his support when he did. He felt betrayed by Freddy since Freddy was having parallel discussions with Katz Group.
I believe David Adames said on CHML on the Bill Kelly show that Larry DiIanni's call to stop expropriation was redundant, as the city was only negotiating with homeowners that came to the city, not evicting those homes on a whim.
ReplyDeleteThere is a plan for the area under Setting Sails, and land under expropriation can only be used for city purposes, not sold to developers, I am fairly certain.
Liban,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely. These people were bullied into moving and giving up their family homes BEFORE it was a done deal. It should never have happened. The site was not approved by all the parties involved when the expropriation process began. My hearts breaks for the families who were wrongly evicted.
I have to ask, Why is the East Mountain no longer a viable site? The McMaster Innovation Park has some advantages by being close to the highway, but realistically, that is what will bring the jobs and the medical funding to Hamilton. We need the MIP and the job creation that will follow. Pan Am games are an honor, and City Council seems to be scrambling to get the games, but to me it seems to be at the expense of job creation.
They should take another look at the East Mountain and leave MIP for the purpose of jobs and medical funding that will benefit all Hamiltonians for years to come.
Kim
If you're going to ask anyone to leave their home, you'd better have all the loose ends tied up.
ReplyDeleteHi Laura:
ReplyDeleteThanks for bringing this up re: show.
Look at it this way. You live in the neighbourhood and there's a meeting in February 2010 where Bratina says that 'some of you live in homes that will be expropriated'. You are shocked. You can easily see, from the maps they have at the meeting, that your home is within the boundary set for the stadium etcetera.
So you think about it. You know that you and the City are going to have to sit down and talk about $$$ - you know that the City is going to get your property, one way or the other - so you contact the City to get the process started.
Regardless of how one slices and dices it, your home is earmarked for removal. You can cooperate with the process or you can be expropriated / evicted from your home. You, by facing the inevitable, talk to the City.
After all, you might as well exercise what little control you have over the process while you can (before it becomes forced) by negotiating the price.
Problem is this: the City didn't have ANY formal plan, no basis upon which to introduce the topic of expropriation to residents. The City acted in poor faith - they put the fear of home loss into people to expedite the resident removal process for what?
The City couldn't put a formal plan in place because they hadn't met with all the stakeholders in February, 2010. Let's not forget that they only accepted the stadium / velodrome at the WH FORMALLY in August, 2010 - 6 months AFTER that Feb. meeting was held.
Developers / investors pay a LOT MORE MONEY than the City for your property. So now, folks, we have a problem. People sold out to the City for..............???? Nothing.
They may have missed out on an opportunity to realize a higher ROI due to the eagerness of the current council and City staff to get them moving.
So, when Adames said that Di Ianni's call was out of place, he's sadly mistaken. If the stadium was to go in the WH area, it WOULD have resulted in eviction if people didn't negotiate.
Let's not forget that Adames in the City's point person for the Pan Am Games.
Liban, I enjoyed meeting you and had high hopes for you and the other new hopefuls. I realize that you need to take some positions to get traction with voters but this seems a bit shameless.
ReplyDeleteCan you point me to even one former homeowner who was actually evicted from the area? Unless I am mistaken, not one single property in WH has been expropriated. So how is it that we are hearing the call to "end the expropriations"?
Is it true, as the commenter above said, that Larry DiIanni is the one who made this disingenuous call? If so, does this signal that you intend to (perhaps blindly, or opportunistically) support Mr. DiIanni as a newly elected member of council? If so you've lost me.
In fact you may have lost me already if I'm correct in believing that nobody has in fact been expropriated at all.
When did you expect the City to begin land acquisition for this project? After construction begins? The City had no idea that a key partner would suddenly back out of a plan that was years in the making.
Aren't the homes that were offered up for sale by their owners covered by the Setting Sail plan, anyway?
Many factors go into one's decision to sell their home. I know for a fact that at least one of these homes was already on the market at the time of the alleged notice of intent to expropriate. Is this expropriation too?
I am disappointed.
WWH:
ReplyDeleteI think it would be prudent for you to read all of the posts. You will have a clearer understanding of what has exactly taken place in the WH.
One of the may have been up for sale. One out of 20+.
NONE of the homes were up for sale on Barton Street West.
Di Ianni called for Fred to STOP expropriating. Fred, per Spec.com article, indicated that EXPROPRIATION would continue. Fred used the word, not Di Ianni, not Liban.
I think that Liban would be a wonderful councillor for the WH because I LIVE in the WH, and, unlike our current city rep, he listens and is called to action.
Please, get your facts straight first before publically berating a candidate.
WH ED,
ReplyDeleteI did read all the posts, including yours above.
Where you walked us through how an owner in the affected area might experience the possible impending expropriation of their home I totally felt what you are driving at. I can see how attending a meeting as you described could be jarring. And your point about wanting to take control while you still can is compelling.
But it is not an example of legal expropriation.
I just think it is a stretch to call it that and feel that doing so is a little bit of political opportunism. Having met Liban before and spoken with him one on one, I found him to be attentive and thoughtful. This "Stop the expropriations" business clashes with that impression.
I certainly understand why you might want for your ward an attentive, thoughtful and present councilor, as I live in your ward too.
It is difficult for me to prove that nobody has actually been expropriated but if should learn that I am wrong I will apologize to Liban personally.
WH ED - thanks for your information regarding my previous comment.
ReplyDeleteI know we live in an age where we distrust government intrinsically, but in this case, I think it was fair of Mr. Adames to say that it was redundant of Mr. Di Ianni to call for the end of expropriations... As WHH commented, the land acquired fits into Setting Sails, in which case Mr. Di Ianni's media release seems more about electioneering than a call to action.
From the June 17, 2010 Spectator Article: "Adames noted even if the west harbour area doesn't work for Games venues, the city has designated the neighbourhood a strategic development area." (i.e Setting Sails). The article goes on to say that the City owns 80% of the land, and it was 28 properties they pursued.
After some digging on the City's site, I found that after the February 18, 2010 COW, that real estate staff were directed to "commence the
process of land acquisitions and negotiate and execute interim
permission to enter access agreements for environmental testing
within the West Harbour precinct pursuant to City Council's
approved Real Estate Portfolio Strategy"....
(here's the link: http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/1760EF10-78F0-49ED-9534-72AA778D938A/0/Feb18Report10008.pdf - motion carried at Council on Feb. 24/10, 11-4 vote, Bratina, McCarthy, Mitchell, Merulla as nays)
So - Committee of the Whole motioned on this, and then Council backed it.
Back to the article... One resident retained a lawyer, another was still negotiating for more money, and another: "Jennifer Roberts, one of the 23 owners who agreed to sell, said she was pleased with the way the city handled the negotiation.
"They were really good about everything. They handled all our costs, moving, legal, even the disbursement of our old mortgage."
She said an independent assessor valued the property at $165,000 and the city added $5,000 to that "because it was a bit of a push in terms of timing." Her family is moving tomorrow.
City officials suggested some properties not far away and they found one they liked. But Roberts appreciated some of her neighbours' reluctance. "They've lived here much of their lives and expected to stay the rest of their lives." "
It's an emotional issue, to be sure, any of us would be upset if we had planed to live in our homes for the rest of our lives and had to sell. Look at Van Wagner's in the 1960's - or even my Great-Grandmother when they were building the "new" city hall.... but in terms of land acquisition, this is 5 homes to 23 that have negotiated with the city as of the article date, and perhaps they should be engaging Council and the Mayor's office to voice their complaints.. or the OMB, if they don't feel like they will be heard. Or even, as the same article states:
"Land owners have 30 days following yesterday's notice to seek an inquiry. An inquiry officer appointed by the attorney general hears testimony, arguments and cross- examination by both parties and reports on whether the taking of the land is "fair and necessary."
Am I missing something?
It seems like there was ample due process... regardless of how disengaged citizens seemed to be until recently, the fact remains that either way those home owners would've been asked to sell.
Sorry for the long-winded post...
Oh, the spectator article, available in cached only due to the new spec site: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:L0iLf8ey9KkJ:www.thespec.com/printArticle/790589+expropriation+notices+shock+landowners+hamilton+on&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=safari
Please note: Some people have been somehow by-passing the normal posting process.
ReplyDeleteWhen this happens, the submission sits in a SPAM folder, and can easily be missed. Further, if it is detected in the SPAM folder, it requires an internal procedure to ensure it gets posted.
We will no longer be doing that as it is too time consuming.
To ensure your posts appear, please use the normal process.
Thank-you kindly
Hamiltonian Staff