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.
I don't agree with this. I think a by-law officer should be dispatched, appropriately assess the situation and hand out any warning or tickets that are needed. From there, the warring neighbours can elect to hire a lawyer or otherwise sue each other. Why should the city be hiring mediators at no cost to the source of the problem? This service will simply be abused and if people are that vested in their issues, chances are it will have to be resolved in court anyway. I don't believe this is a good use of taxpayer $.
ReplyDeleteSorce
and...the neighbours can also call the police if the matter is out of control. An arrest usually brings much needed perspective.
DeleteSorce
My laugh for the day. I love the pic guys. Now for the serious part. No, I don't agree with the idea of the city hiring an outside mediation firm to assist in resolving neighour disputes. Are they serious? I agree with the last post about enforcing by-laws. Isn't that why have by-laws in the first place. I also think that councillors play a role in assisting their constituents in resolving their issues. We call upon our MP and MPP when we have issues that we require help in addressing. This is no different. The idea of hiring an outside mediation firm is rediculous and unjustifiable.
ReplyDeleteDonna
I do agree with this. The organization that the City is partnering with is a volunteer driven organization, not a for-profit mediation service. Community Justice Initiatives was founded on the principles of restorative justice, not the idea that we can sue each other into oblivion. As far as cost goes, this is likely a much better return on investment than dispatching a bylaw officer or emergency services.
ReplyDeleteAs a former volunteer mediator with CJI and now a Hamilton citizen, I am very pleased to see this option coming to my community.
Too often the reason behind complaints to bylaw enforcement and calls to police stem from poor interpersonal relationships and misunderstandings. They are rarely about the length of your neighbour's grass or the fence that's falling down. These disputes can quickly escalate to the court process where the anger is usually unresolved for both parties.
In most cases, the mediation process can bring about empowerment and recognition to both perspectives. It's an amazing experience to see two people at war with each other actually be friendly at the end of the mediation process. Often the solution is to stop seeing your neighbour as an annoyance and start seeing them as a human being. Bylaw officers, police and courts don't do that.
I would agree with this idea if the participating neighbours are charged for the service. It is unfair to charge taxpayers with this service, in general. Besides, if a service is not paid for by the participants, it is prone to be undervalued. Maybe we could give this a chance, but if we do, I think we need the numbers to prove that it is worth it. And it has to be bottom line savings- not simply taking pressure off of by-law officers- unless it can be proved that they are now doing other things that create revenue to offset the costs of the mediation.
DeleteSevern
Severn, I absolutely agree that we need to be mindful of the cost of administering services in our city. However, I ask you, do we charge individuals who make complaints the full cost of the bylaw investigation? How about charging the full cost of dispatching a police officer? Or for the court proceeding? These things are all funded by taxpayer’s money as well.
DeleteA first time complaint would not typically go to mediation. Cases are flagged for mediation when it appears that it is an ongoing dispute where resolving the bylaw complaint has not been effective in stopping additional, escalating complaints.
It is this escalation, using traditional services (ie. Police, bylaw, courts), that actually increase the cost to taxpayers. There are numerous studies out there (and a Google Scholar search will point you in their direction) that show mediation reduces overall costs to the justice system.
I am suggesting a balance. No we don't charge the full rate for polcing etc., but if we start augmenting those services too with additional add on costs, then things get out of whack quickly. Using your logic, if the cost of sending police to a home is greater than the cost for a mediator, then it makes more sense to attach mediation to police. Although, I don't think the idea should apply to either situation. There are enough services to deal with these matters.
DeleteSevern
I meant to say
DeleteUsing your logic, if the cost of sending police to a home is greater than the cost for a by law officer, then it makes more sense to attach mediation to police.
I agree with Captain Poultry's first comments...Well said. :)
DeleteCan you imagine if the Police asked for the same? I think people should simply do their jobs and allow the courts or police to step in if required. I'd love to have a free mediator every time I have an issue with someone. Oh wait..it's not free...taxpayers are paying
ReplyDeleteJust sayin
What will our city employees be doing with their time if we keep farming out the work? This type of things escalates
ReplyDeleteand more work gets done by outside firms while retaining the same amount of employees at city hall. Why stop there, contract out all tedious and fastidious city work and let city staff do the fun stuff! Not so quick1
I think Jason Farr should spend less time on these matters and more time worry about excessive speed limits that are proven to harm/kill children.
ReplyDeleteThe only way that I could see taxpayers agreeing to this silly idea is through a fee for service. If the disputing neighbours want to use the service, then they pay for it 100%. This expense should not lay on the shoulders of the taxpayers. In principle I think it's a silly idea. We have city staff, by-laws, councillors, lawyers and the police to address disputes.
ReplyDeleteJon
This is very typical of the types of things some counilors chase. I think it is much better to leave these matters to the institutions and departments that are set up to handle this - bylaw, police, justice system. We would be better off concentrating on dropping the lie - "The Best Place to Raise a Child", or, actually doing something about it.
ReplyDeleteTerm Limits Now
I think this is a pretty weird idea. It makes no sense.
ReplyDeletePlain and Simple