Monday, July 16, 2012
The Spectator's View- on The Hamilton Waterfront Trust
On the heels of The Hamiltonian's article, asking the question of whether The Hamilton Waterfront Trust ought to continue in its current form, be dissolved or otherwise reconfigured to a new form of stewardship (see it here), Howard Elliott, Managing Editor Web/Opinions of The Hamilton Spectator, ponders the same question (see his piece here, or buy the print version).
11 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)
Well , The Spectators ultimate conclusion, in my opinion, is not supported by the narrative in the article, but at least now they are talking about it.
ReplyDeleteThe kicker is that they say we are getting good value for our money. That's laughable. If you want to make that conclusion, you have to compare it to a management company who could operate in the black. I am certain that is possible and I think we do need a forensic audit to get down to the details as to why it is losing money hand over fist. A company who can operate in the black, and deliver gives you good value for money. A trust that operates in the red and can't explain or won't explain, does not.
Sorce (back from the cottage)
Here is the actual background to the story. Open the link below.
ReplyDeleteGENERAL ISSUES COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 14, 2011 Charters presents to the committee of Councillors. The presentation begins at 2:02 and Mayor Bratina begins the questioning at approximately 2:38.
Watch and listen to the protagonists state their respective viewpoints
http://hamilton.siretechnologies.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=164&doctype=AGENDA
According to the public record on the video link; The Waterfront Trust William's Coffee Pub ranks number 6 in revenues for all of the 40 William's Coffee Pubs in existence as of November 14 2011. It may rank number one in losses. Revenue is not the problem; management is the problem.
ReplyDeleteGary, the question to ask is what other costs (salaries etc) are allocated to Williams from Management salaries and such?
DeleteThe Spec continues to get it wrong.
ReplyDelete"How much investment in the waterfront is appropriate, keeping in mind that the trust has not had to ask the city for money yet,..."
The truth is in City records, dating back to the early days of the HWT, that show we have indeed given the Trust monies, including from the Future Fund.
It's frustrating and irresponsible for both The Spec, and Clr. Jackson in the recent past, to continue to erroneously state that the City has not given the Trust money when City reports state otherwise. If The Spec is not interested in getting its facts straight they should leave the story alone; The Hamiltonian is the only news source we can trust at this time.
The mainstream media has begun to talk the HWT talk, and that is good. It is when they stop talking that we have a communication breakdown... and wars erupt.
ReplyDeleteThank you Mr Elliot for shining a light on the HWT: http://www.thespec.com/opinion/editorial/article/761348--pressing-questions-on-the-waterfront
Now, we would argue that the light you are shining is dim, or rose-tinted, or that it is pointing to the brighter corners of HWT, and fails to light up its darker recesses. But then we are the new media, our privilege to argue comes with the territory of not being chained to the status quo, hence, our approach to shining the light differs substantially.
So let us see where we differ in our approach.
You say: no harm, no foul.
Sure, nothing to disagree here.
You say: great strides have been made in bringing down scads of people to the waterfront.
Sure, one can hardly challenge that -- because we were not counting. But surely we can wonder that if there are indeed such large number of visitors which you have counted, then where the hell are the revenues?
You say: the losses are getting less with each passing year, and with the opening of the new facilities, revenues will start to flow.
Possibly. And to extend an olive branch, we could even agree to suspend our disbelief on this for another year.
So then, what exactly is our differences?
No one here ever denied that good things were not happening on the waterfront. While there may be debates about the scale and scope of the successes claimed - what everyone here has a serious problem with is --the appearance and emerging reality of bad things being covered up behind the supposedly good things which you choose to focus on.
Now I am sure that you got into your trade to not just write about the blooming rose bushes but also about the thorns and the fallow fields, including the propensity of mankind to use rose bushes to shroud human failings.
The key issue here is that when the first question about HWT's finances were raised by the Mayor, instead of looking at it as a --free tip-- to investigate further, you shot and bludgeoned the messenger. That was your first misstep.
Whether this was a mis-step or strategic action based on an unholy alliance with a small cabal of councillors, is for you to clarify to the people of Hamilton. At present, we only have the optics of the situation to base our perception on. Your continuing silence on this matter only further reinforces this perception.
Your second misstep was not to apologize for publicly ridiculing the Mayor early on in this unfolding drama, when clearly, way too many red flags started emerging around the HWT's incoherent responses to reasonable questions raised by the new media.
However, instead of picking up on the line of questioning initiated by the people of Hamilton, you chose to remain totally silent on this issue for over a month. This was your third misstep in a row.
Now as fate would have it --as it always does with hubris, the messenger was proven right, and you along with the 'small cabal of councillors' were proven wrong. It is as simple as that. A fact that you may have some difficulty accepting.
But, instead of accepting this turn of events graciously, you went into denial mode and began to hype up all the good things that are happening on the waterfront.
The result of what was essentially bad optics, was made terribly worse by your finally coming out of the closet and speaking to the issue. Both Joan Walters article and your editorial piece ended up essentially being a public relations whitewash, rather than something which could rightfully lay claim to a Michener Award.
Part 1 of 1
Part 2 of 2
ReplyDeleteTo set the record straight, neither did the Mayor, nor anyone here in the new media has ever denied that good things were not happening on the waterfront's build out. It was HWT's business practices that were of serious concern to all.
And this concern grew into serious doubts with a call for a forensic audit, when adults who were respectfully questioned began to act like kids caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
Were their hands in the cookie jar? or not? is the line of inquiry we hoped you would have had the courage to adopt, given your claim to the higher ideals of journalism. But you clearly failed to exercise the moral imperative of shining a light on things that should be known and must be changed.
You broke that sacred trust - as a result of which now the the Hamilton Waterfront Trust appears to be broken to many residents in our community.
Fate indeed played a cruel joke on you and your overzealous writers. The accused has been proven innocent, and the accusers collectively now stand guilty of the fact that there are indeed well-founded concerns of financial sustainability in the operations of the HWT.
What is unfathomable to many of us here is that even up until yesterday when you still had room to reconsider your multiple missteps and talk about the 'real story' which is begging to be told to the public at large, you have chosen to instead put on your rose-tinted glasses and pen a delightfully cute success story of the HWT - intentionally leaving out all the yet unanswered questions.
Such is the madness of journalistic powers unchecked.
Hopefully, this is only about small town parochialism protecting old buddies via compromised editorial privileges, and not anything more. For it would be a great tragedy for journalism and democracy in Canada, if it turns out that this was all about bringing down 'by any means necessary' a sitting Mayor who dared to raise relevant questions to protect the public interest.
If you look back on the last year and your coverage of city affairs, you will notice that you have betrayed the 'sacred trust' over and over again. When the Mayor first spoke of not reducing the industrial development fees, his very fleeting off-the-cuff remark regarding 'not hearing any clamour about the LRT', was taken out of context and blown into a full scale attack on his integrity and judgement. When a local blog went on a rampage on this issue last summer, you not once thought it prudent to step in and correct the public misinformation. Since then you and your editorial board along with the 'small cabal of councillors' have behaved like high school bullies, and second guessed and slandered the Mayor on any and every issue.
You have allowed journalistic standards in this city to be lowered to such unredeemable depths that it would take years for thinking Hamiltonians to regain the trust you have violated with the people of this city.
We are at a stage in this city's growth, where uninspired and misguided gatekeepers are doing more harm to this city's future than it is doing good. It was never about how much money you have donated annually to kids programs in this city, or how many charity boards you sit on. It has always been about how much truth you are inclined to tell in public for the sake of those very kid's future. This is what differentiates good journalism from bad.
I invite you to do a re-write of your editorial in the spirit of journalist integrity and ask the councillors and the board of HWT the very same questions that they have consistently failed to answer to date. I ask you to put aside your personal opinions or motivations in doing so, and stand up to journalism's most sacred public duties.
This city does deserves respectable journalism in order to succeed. Here is to hoping that you continue to remain engaged on this issue.
Respectfully,
Mahesh P. Butani
The Bay Observer did a good job bringing this story to light. The Hamiltonian must be commended for keeping this story alive.
ReplyDeleteNow a paper like the globe and mail should be invited to cover this story...that's when you'll see the Spec scrambling. This is potentially the biggest scandal in town over the last little while, dubbed WATERgate, and our one paper town doesn't even know about it.
I would like to see the answers to the questions. Then I can decide whether this is something worth further investigating. But why aren't they answering?
ReplyDeleteSince The Spec has been content in doing several pieces, in the last week or so alone, that shine a florescent light on the HWT, perhaps they might want to lean to something warm and fuzzy - talk to the City's Planning Dep't and ask how City planners felt when the HWT hijacked an expensive City planning exercise for the North End and Harbourfont area. Check out City reports and documents that state clearly what the City has thought of the HWT relating to tardiness and surprise-attack plans that arrive after the fact of City/Council-approved plans.
ReplyDeleteTalk to the North End neighbourhood and find out how many times the HWT has actually engaged in neighbourhood planning issues for the years ending 2010 (hint: none).
Perhaps ask the HWT how many times they attended a years-long North End planning process in which the HWT was a stakeholder; sorry, that's unfair because the HWT never did attend one Community Advisory Group meeting; yet, the City planners attended each one, for years.
The Spec can contribute by giving Harbourgate a side that's not being covered by The Hamiltonian, who is asking the right 10 Questions, and is engaging/helping citizens to do something (Gary Santucci and Sept delegation).
Ask City planners what they thought of the HWT's plans some years back; indeed, ask City planners how they planned the bulk of the present landscape (minus diesel-polluting trolleys, ice creams shacks, etc...) and how do they feel that the HWT continues to get credit...especially from The Spec.
So far, what I continue to read in The Spec makes me happy that I receive it for free...I simply would not pay to read the nonsense they have been writing about the HWT lately, 'tis embarrassingly skewed.
"...The Spec can contribute by giving Harbourgate a side that's not being covered by The Hamiltonian...
ReplyDeleteThat is simply not going to happen until new blood is infused on the Editorial Board.
So maybe the New Media can develop a localized version of the "Aunt Deborah Test" to get their attention:
"An Aunt Deborah Test predicts whether a financial scandal will reach a critical mass of mainstream awareness. (The idea being that if my Aunt Deborah knows about it, it's probably a big story.)":
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/07/li-bored-why-some-wall-street-scandals-stick.html
The Aunt Deborah Test:
----------------------
Step 1: Take the headline dollar value of the scandal (in billions)
Step 2: Add the number of criminal charges, SEC settlements, and/or executive resignations stemming from the scandal
Step 3: Multiply by the number of well-known companies and high-profile personalities involved (let's define "high-profile personality," for these purposes, as an elected official, a Hollywood A-lister, a billionaire, or a C-suite executive at a Fortune 500 company)
Step 4: Add or subtract the following point values:
+5 if the scandal is set in the U.S. or involves an American firm
-10 if it's set in the Eurozone
+2 for each incriminating e-mail or wiretapped phone transcript dredged up during the investigation
+5 for each endearing nickname ("Big Boy," "Honey," "chunky but funky") given to a player in the scandal
+5 for each Congressional hearing at which red-faced lawmakers yell at a falsely contrite financier or regulator
+10 if the financier wears POTUS cuff links to Capitol Hill
-10 if he wears jorts
+5 if the scandal involves a consumer product that lots of people use every day, like debit cards or porn
-5 if any of the phrases "complex derivative," "mezzanine tranche," or "benchmark rate" appear in stories about the scandal
+10 if the scandal could be explained to a fifth-grader
+50 if the scandal involves a fifth-grader
+2 if the principal figure in the scandal has a regular table at The Four Seasons Grill Room
+20 if the principal figure in the scandal has a mistress
+10 if the principal figure in the scandal previously asserted the safety/profitability/legality of the thing that was ultimately revealed to be not at all safe/profitable/legal (See: "tempest in a teapot," "I would die and go to hell if it's a Ponzi scheme")
+3 if the scandal involves Goldman Sachs
-3 if it involves a Trump
+10 if the scandal stands a reasonable chance of being optioned by Oliver Stone
+10 if poor, downtrodden victims (farmers, foreclosed homeowners, Phil Falcone) are victimized by the scandal
+5 for each deep-breathing exercise Matt Taibbi needs to do after reading about the scandal before his heart rate returns to resting
----------------------