Thursday, June 7, 2012
The Cost of Radial $eparation?
7 comments:
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)
Councillor Brad obviously seems to be having a bad week - which is perfectly ok, as we all go thru such weeks now and then. But while most of us would choose to stay home to recoup, he chooses to come to work and help sell more newspapers!!
ReplyDeleteI earnestly suggest he reads and publicly responds to the very serious questions that this opinion has raised nearly six months ago:
http://metrohamilton.ning.com/profiles/blogs/300-meter-separation-between-truth-and-lies
And while we are on the radial separation topic, I suggest he also re-reads this again:
http://metrohamilton.ning.com/profiles/blogs/could-a-park-spark-a-revolution-in-ward-3
as this issue too is not going away.
And lastly if he is up to it, he may also choose to read this and respond appropriately:
http://mayorbratina.com/2012/06/07/universal-nutrition-program/
"On the Charlton Hall matter and council's decision to spend $250,000.00 towards renovations rather than allow its residents to move to a new location that would have not cost the city anything..."
ReplyDeleteThis in itself frames things in a particular way.
I've spent a fair amount of time looking at the Lynwood Charlton situation. I listened to/watched the January meeting at Council Chambers, talked to the president of the Corktown Neighbourhood Association, and done research on my own. There's very little about it that's been palatable. From the knee-jerk reactions of non-residents to what they've perceived as NIMBYism, the City's unspoken policy regarding dealing with such properties (bad maintenance leading to selling them off), the strategy adopted by Lynwood Charlton in attempting to get what they want, and the really disappointing discussion about it that's unfolded in Hamilton. And the sad thing is, it ain't over yet.
As a community, we need to develop much better mechanisms to deal with issues such as the radial separation bylaw, the HWDSB, the 'livability' of our streets, and our ward boundary review. As it stands, sometimes it feels to me like we're a bunch of people yelling at each other on street corners.
It pains me to see us spend 250K ( a lot of breakfasts that would buy), for us to serve a by-law that I believe will be proven to be in violation of the Human Rights code. But some lessons are best learned by spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars.
ReplyDeleteSorce
"...rather than allow its residents to move to a new location that would have not cost the city anything...
ReplyDeleteIt is such blasé public statements that bring a bad name to career councillors.
1) Who has paid for the the renovations already completed on Augusta Street???
2) Who was going to pay for the renovations to be completed including the move to Augusta Street???
“I find it incredibly frustrating that we’re now going to be paying $250,000 to fix up a facility where, had we gotten out of the way, they would have -been- moved by now,...”
What is revealing is not the usage of the words: "they would have moved by now", --but-- "they would have -been- moved by now".
Is this a quintessential Freudian slip by the counsellor which revels more about this issue?
I cannot help but read this choice of words as a sign of deep frustration from a failed initiative to move the girls --out-- of a neighbourhood which has gone upscale, rather than a move into a new neighbourhood that went sour.
It looks like Barbara Hall is as much a victim of Hamilton politics here, as have been the innocent girls who have been used by journalists to tell compelling stories, while clearly failing to dwell on the deeper story behind the move.
If Clr. Clark insists on doing the math on the financial losses to the city at Charlton, then he may want to start by tallying the millions of dollars that were lost in 2009, because our then mayor and council did not foresee the need for a neighbourhood plan surrounding the Mohawk campus on Wentworth Street north (before or around the time it was declared surplus). A direct result of this was that large assessment revenues from a potentially large affordable rental/condo conversion of this campus was lost forever, besides getting the immediate neighbourhood polarized with the new use there, without any community consultation.
The hypocrisy on the question of radial separation by-law has reached new heights. Where was Brad Clark and now the Spectator (see Howard Elliott's editorial http://www.thespec.com/opinion/editorial/article/739402--another-bad-call-on-charlton-hall) over the last 20 years when this by-law was not enforced in wards 3 and 4. It was an outmoded by-law then and now as it had no effect on the resulting intensification of certain uses that were seen as potentially harmful to neighbourhoods by their co-location within the 300 metre radius. The by-law had no effect on 99.9% on the uses that it was intended to regulate. Just come out and say it; "Wards 2 and 3 are the geographic locations where everybody's rights to do whatever they want are protected." The City government is doing the right thing by fixing the problem that they created.
ReplyDeletesorry for the error
ReplyDelete"was not enforced in wards 3 and 4." should read as was "not enforced in wards 2 and 3"
Thank you
The hypocrisy on the question of radial separation by-law has reached new heights. Where was Brad Clark and now the Spectator (see Howard Elliott's editorial http://www.thespec.com/opinion/editorial/article/739402--another-bad-call-on-charlton-hall)
ReplyDeleteHoward states above: "that sort of investment in a building that the city has declared surplus, and which is valued at $450,000, doesn’t make sense."
Well, doesn't this argument also hold for any new buyers of this property???
Or does not this also support the case of proponents for tearing down heritage buildings across the city? and also support the argument of the BOED to close down schools and its headquarters itself? So, why get all teary eyed and angry when they use such an argument to support their decisions?
One immediately jumps on the cost angle when the BOED proposes closures. So, why are there no questions being raised on the grossly inflated renovation cost projections for Charlton house?
The radial separation bylaw, states that group homes and other residential care facilities cannot be located within 300 meters of each other.
What some in our city hope is that Barbara Hall interprets this as: No group homes shall be located within 300 meters of New Condo towers developments.