It may be fair to think that McMaster is holding the city and the Board Of Ed's feet to the fire in imposing a tight deadline around the 3 way deal.
It may be fair to view the revelation that the city's contribution nets out to 20 million dollars less than originally understood, with suspicion.
It may be fair to question why swing space was not tendered.
It may be fair to question whether the city is prepared to do business with an entity that it is involved in a law suit with.
It may be fair to question the cost benefit or lack thereof, of tearing down the Board of Ed building in the core.
Crestwood vs. Jackson Square or other sites, may also be a good question.
The belief that The Mayor really wants this deal to succeed and he may stand to gain politically from it, may be speculation within reason.
It may be fair to worry about the fate of The Right House building if the swing space is settled as envisioned.
Council may be justified in believing that they have done their share, but yet are being held hostage by the time pressures.
And there are probably a dozen other things that would infuriate a reasonable person about this 3-way deal, which is starting to feel like a tug of war.
The responsible thing for the parties to do however, is to resist becoming enraged . What is required is a shedding of these reactions, in favour of a clinical and dispassionate assessment of the benefits, costs and risks associated with proceeding. The three partners need to de-escalate the drama, in favour of a business-like examination of how and if to make this deal work. An approach not driven by egos, not driven by political jousting, not driven by cavalier conduct, but driven by the best interests of Hamilton and the core intents of the partners, and as informed by a clinical approach to measuring and assessing the variables involved, is required.
The ultimate decision that is made will leave a significant mark on our city, either by virtue of its success, or by virtue of it being regarded as another missed opportunity. The Hamiltonian hopes that the irritants, posturing, positioning and politics, give way to a reasoned and responsible approach to making a sound decision that is respectful of all interests; particularly those of Hamiltonians and the greater good.
Our call to action is for parties who are negotiating this potential deal, do so in good faith, with a degree of mutual respect and sans the gaming and blame assignment that seems to be going on.
It's time to step back and have the parties ask themselves, what kind of a contribution do they want to make in the resolution of this matter. They should begin by embracing the call to lead.
Publisher, The Hamiltonian