Perspectives Virtual Panel - On the Water

In this beautiful summer weather, we are sure our Perspectives Virtual Panel would much rather be taking in the Waterfront, than writing about it. Having said that, here is a question we put to them concerning the Hamilton Waterfront Trust:

(Note: The responses may be long, but there is richness in them. The Hamiltonian does not edit responses- they are posted verbatim to ensure a true representation of the underlying views and perspectives)

Q. The Hamiltonian has posed 10 questions to executives of the Hamilton Waterfront Trust (HWT). We have also asked for the assistance of Clrs. Farr, Jackson, Merulla and Collins to help facilitate answers to the 10 questions. Clrs. Jackson and Farr are councilor members of the HWT board of directors, while Clr. Collins had been a long standing previous member of the board.

The questions and the responses to date, are found here http://www.thehamiltonian.net/2012/07/hwt-qas-fact-check.html

You will note that 60% of the questions remain largely unanswered.

Upon review of the questions and responses to date, or lack of responses, what would you advise council to do? Do you beleive that Hamiltonians are entitled to answers to these questions and if so, why is it important for Hamiltonians to receive answers to these questions?

I applaud the efforts by The Hamiltonian in bringing issues of interest and of importance to light.

Before I address the two questions asked of the Virtual Panel, first some context. I’ve been consistent in my stated concern about the HWT’s poor handling of the questions asked by TH. It’s really Media Relations 101, and the Trust gets, in my opinion, a failing grade. But poorly managing media relations and the gross mismanagement of civic assets (money, land, buildings, contracts, etc.) are not the same thing. Not by a long shot.

So, I think it best to separate these two issues for the purposes of this Virtual Panel. Having said that, whenever there’s the appearance of dodging questions and/or providing half-answers to fair questions, you have to be prepared to live with the impact one has on the other. Therein lies the Trust’s real challenge. If you can’t, or worse won’t, answer the questions, should we conclude you’ve got something to hide? Maybe. But maybe not.

As I’ve said on this site before, if this whole thing comes down to a matter of moving money from one budgeted item/project that perhaps came in under budget, to another budgeted item that needed more money in order to complete it, then this is much ado about nothing. It’s a practice that is happening every hour of every day in organizations, divisions, and departments across Canada. As long as you’re living within the amount allotted to you in your budget, then it’s called managing resources. If it were illegal, we’d need to build prisons in every province in the country to house the managers and executives who were “guilty” of such a practice. If, on the other hand, money is simply being mismanaged, then that’s a different matter entirely. But it still isn’t fraud.

I was present when John Best recorded his interview with Laura Babcock on her Laircast program/podcast. When Laura asked John if he was alleging fraud, he was very quick to say no. He added he didn’t think there was any illegal activity going on, but that he thought there was “concealing of screw-ups.”

Given the quality of what I see produced by the HWT, I’m a whole lot less concerned about their output, and the related costs, than I am with some other departments and agencies in town. For example, I think there might be a bigger story in the seemingly mismanaged construction project for the much-delayed Stoney Creek Recreation Centre, delays that have cost Hamilton taxpayers an additional $4.3 million because of several missed deadlines, thereby allowing the federal government to back out of its commitment of $4.3 million. We spend $4.3 million because of what I assume is poor project management on a single project. Seems like a lot of money to me for nothing. Remember, the HWT began with a $6.3 million endowment in 2000. Over the past 12 years most/all of that money has been spent, but it’s not as if we can’t see what we got for our investment. 

OK, enough context. Here are my answers to the two questions asked of the Virtual Panel by The Hamiltonian.

What would I advise Council to do under the circumstances? I would advise Council to do what they already do and that is hear a formal presentation from the Hamilton Waterfront Trust Chairperson, Bob Charters, and Werner Plessl, its Executive Director. Prior to that presentation, I would advise Councillors to receive and to review the HWT’s audited financial statements. I would advise those Councillors who are comfortable and capable of reading such financial statements to work with those Councillors who are not. Just as I would encourage those Councillors who are not on the Board of Trustees of the HWT to speak to those of who are (Councillor Jason Farr and Councillor Tom Jackson), and to those still on Council who are no longer on the Board of Trustees (Chad Collins, Bob Bratina). I would encourage them to ask questions, listen intently, confirm understanding, etc. All done prior to the presentation by the HWT. Then, I’d encourage each of them to prepare questions, observations, feedback, comments, etc. and use that preparation to ensure we have a focused, professional, and productive meeting. All obvious, but given the number of presentations I’ve witnessed in Council Chambers, not as common as we might want or think.

Are Hamiltonians entitled to answers to these questions and why? Of course citizens are entitled to answers to questions about how the HWT runs the organization and how it manages our assets. Just as we are entitled to answers to questions we may have about any city Department, or related organization such as HECFI or the airport. It’s our right as shareholders. Perhaps even more relevant questions are, but by no means are limited to, who gets to ask the questions, in what forum, of whom, when, why, etc.? I’ll defend our right to know and our right to comment on what we learn, but I want to temper that slightly by saying just because the HWT didn’t answer questions posed by The Hamiltonian, doesn’t necessarily mean management is out-of-control at the Trust. The appropriate forum for that discussion is with and before Council, not with TH, or the Bay Observer, or any other media outlet. Having said that, all media organizations have, in my opinion, both a right and a responsibility to look at issues and opportunities, to report on them, and to try to help educate their readers and viewers. Some do a much better job of that than others, but they all have the same goal. It’s not incumbent on individual members of Boards to speak directly to the media. In fact, I would say it would be inappropriate for them to do so. There is a hierarchy for a reason. It is incumbent on the official spokesperson(s) to liaise with the media. In the case of the HWT, presumably that person is Bob Charters, and Bob Charters alone. I think he could have done a better job of doing so than has been evident in this situation. I think Mr. Charters might even agree with me.

Graham Crawford

I come at these questions knowing that the Waterfront Trust is a very small organization. The total revenues are around $2.5 million. I don't think some of the answers are really very material and may not have been given due to the way questions were asked.

I don't see value in Question #3 around staff positions. This is a very small employer and different positions are recruited in different manners - a general worker at Williams Coffee Pub would be recruited differently than the Captain of the cruise vessel or trolley service.

Question #4 asks about company vehicles. Is the boat a subsidized vehicle? the trolley? I am guessing the question is trying to get at company cars or trucks. In a budget this small, there can't be more than two or three of these vehicles. It does not seem worth pursuing.

Question #5 asks about "expense accounts." These may be popular in movies and television shows but do not really exist. Different people would have different spending authorities. For instance, front line people would have no authority to spend any money on behalf of the Trust. On the other hand, a manager wanting to spend $25,000 might need the approval of the Board before proceeding.

Question #6 asks about "spot audits done by your accountants." An organization this small would not have a "team" of accountants and certainly would have no internal audit function. I am certain that there is a "till management" protocol in place. This could operate either with the manager balancing the cash float at the end of a day's operation as s/he prepares the float for the next day or there could be tills assigned for various shifts during the day. These would be balanced at the end of every shift. This is how most bars, stores, and restaurants operate. As a phrase, "spot audit" does not make sense to me.

Question #8 asked whether finances could withstand a "forensic audit." This, too, is a term that is popular in television and film. The cost of such a detailed audit cannot be justified given the very small dollars involved. Instead, if there is concern, the operations of the Trust could be reviewed by the Internal Audit function of the City. It is not economical to try and track every last quarter and dime. An internal audit would focus on process and procedures to make sure the appropriate checks and balances are in place.

Question #10 invites any other comment and none were forthcoming.

So, in summary, this list of questions feels like: 1) a tempest in a teapot; and 2) overkill. If I was operating the Trust, in the name of transparency, I would look at posting minutes of meetings and audited financial statements on the website. I suspect that, at its heart, what we have here, on both sides, is a failure to constructively communicate!
Marvin Ryder

"Upon review of the questions and responses to date, or lack of responses, what would you advise council to do?"

I'm not sure I would 'advise' Council to do anything. Understanding that I respect fully the work that John Best and Teresa and The Hamiltonian have put into trying to shine some light on this potentially disturbing situation, I don't think this is the situation that some want to make it out to be. I think that there needs to be more accountability from everyone involved, I think that there may well have been some 'questionable' elements to the goings-on there at Pier 8 going back some time, I think that there needs to be a 'forensic accounting' done. But I think that, as with other situations that have recently unfolded in Hamilton, what's more important than the issue in front of us is the need to address the cultural, systemic way our local governance is set up. Regarding communication. Regarding commiseration. Regarding consultation, regarding 'accountability and transparency', regarding respect shown for who the ultimate stakeholders and 'employers' are in this situation: we, the people.

"Do you beleive that Hamiltonians are entitled to answers to these questions and if so, why is it important for Hamiltonians to receive answers to these questions?" 

It goes without saying that Hamiltonians are entitled to answers to the questions asked. But the silly responses by some of those questioned notwithstanding ('silly', 'ill-advised' and proving just how badly the governance design needs to be re-jigged), at times I have been reminded of the general desperation present in the city by the righteous indignation shown from the residents' side of the discussion. What I've seen hasn't been the reasonable exchange it might have been. Unfortunately, our longstanding frustration with the status quo tends to make us prickly and because the situation is adding to this frustration, things don't improve. In fact, they get worse. Sometimes it's not the players who are the problem, it's the way the game is designed that's the problem. While I hate the word's connotation, the point is valid: we need to change the game we're playing. 

As for the answers' importance... I think that in almost all situations, we're entitled to sincere and accurate responses to our enquiries. But we live in a city where we've never had that kind of rapport, at least not since the Age of The Internet descended. Yes, there's been some stonewalling on the parts of the various players. (Ouch, again.) Yes, there have been some unacceptable responses. But there's also been a certain level of unreasonableness on our side. Attributable to the fact that we maintain the paradigm in front of us, where we never really assert our rights. Instead, when something goes south, we kvetch and complain, we whinge and whine...and call for better public servants and term limits and...and for all concerned (guilty') to be pilloried. Hardly the sign of an evolved and informed populace.

The Pan Am Games Stadium Site Selection Process. The HWDSB/Mac downtown project. School closings. AEGD. The HWT. Probably LRT, within the next two years. Unless we change the design of our local governance...specifically our roles within it...these frustrating, disheartening situations will keep repeating themselves. Here's to hoping we learn some lessons from the one currently in front of us.
M Adrian Brassington

The Hamilton Waterfront Trust is a registered charity, just like hundreds of other registered charities in Hamilton. From what I have been able to gather, from my council contacts is that one, or more, disgruntled ex-employees have taken their insider information to the media, with outrage the result. The perception is that the Trust is blowing taxpayers money, when in reality they are spending the money the trust received from the Harbor commission when it was created. 

They have never asked city hall for operating funds. At this point, they have basically spend all their money, and will need to drastically increase their fundraising if they are to avoid asking city hall for a hand-out. With new restaurants paying leases and property taxes there seems to be a little light at the end of the tunnel. I was also outraged when the first story came out in the Bay Observer, but after many conversations and e-mail exchanges with councilors and management staff close to the situation I have come to the conclusion this is a manufactured crisis, nothing more than a red-herring. 

When long-serving Councillors, like Chad Collins, or Tom Jackson put their political reputations on the line, you can be rest assured there is nothing hinkey going on. If anything, the PR surrounding this issue has been a dismal failure, as has their meager fundraising. Nobody is arguing they don't do good work, as Hamiltonians appreciate access to the harbor. Personally, I think the Trust has passed the tipping point and will probably survive without a cash infusion from council going forward. Once the 2012 financial statements are issued, a clearer picture of the state of the Trust operations will arrive. Until then, we are guessing. If council really wanted to clear the air, they should invest in a forensic audit to clear the air, once and for all. A small price to pay to ensure accountability and transparency going forward.
Respectfully,
Mark-Alan Whittle

I haven't followed the controversy in detail. I did see the piece written in The Hamilton Spectator which was pretty favourable to the Trust. I also know that John Best, whom I respect for his intellect and journalistic abilities, has had some issues with the Trust and has written about them. I have also watched the development on our waterfront and fully support the direction it is going in. So I come to your questions with some preconceived notions which are fairly positive.

In answer to your questions, I do believe that any organization needs to be transparent and forthcoming. That is motherhood and apple pie.

Having said this, I have to think that Councillors on the Trust are as sensitive to public scrutiny as anyone else. If they don't see anything untoward, I want to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Some of your questions are loaded as well. For example:

"Are members of the Trust provided with company vehicles that are subsidized in any way, in whole or in part, including the cost of gasoline or fuel, through taxpayer dollars? If so, how many vehicles and what is the value of the subsidy?"

If you have some information in this regard, why not simply state it rather than fashion a gotcha kind of question.

I think journalists should also be open and transparent with their agenda. As you state, the Bay Observer has made some 'disturbing assertions' against the Trust and yet the authorities, including the Finance staff at the city seem not disturbed; nor has the Spectator reached the same conclusions. I am assuming that they too looked at the same info. So we have two media, three if we count you, all reaching different conclusions. This has to be baffling to the public.

I thought that the Trust did respond to questions at a Council meeting some months ago. I even interviewd its chair on Hamilton Talks on Cable 14. ALL of Council endoresed the Trust and by implication was satisfied with their answers. Now, the issue is on the front burner. Is there something going on beyond the questions being asked?

In conclusion, here is what I would ask:

1. That Council be up front and report regularly all activites and funding of any of its committees, including HWT.
2. That media be up front with its agenda, including the role of the mayor's office regarding this issue.
3. That any suspected wrong doing be reported to the proper authorities with appropriate documentation.
4. That we support the work at the waterfront, but be informed on its plans and processes.

Larry Di Ianni

As a resident of The City of Hamilton I feel it is imperative that our Councillors answer each and every question to their up-most ability. I understand that not all Councillors have the answers and if this is the case a simple, I will gather facts and get back to you as soon as I have the answers.

There are many questions that have simple yes or no answers so I feel there is a great deal of facts that are not going to come out by this group. No one wants to step up to the plate and take this issue all the way. I see again a great deal of Councillors that are afraid of losing their jobs in the near future.

As a elected official it is your responsibility to provide positive answers and solutions to the residents of Hamilton. We are paying their salary and as such they seem to forget they are working for US......

I am not saying they all need to provide answers but the Councillors that are or have been directly involved with this issue should have the answers at their disposal.

In conclusion, again the residents of Hamilton are the only people that are losing in this issue as we again have poor representation for the existing members of this Council.
Ken Chartrand


In response to the question, below are some excerpts from an article which I decided not to send to the Hamiltonian.net last month for publishing.

This article is written in reverse order (i.e. Conclusions first, then Notes and Article), and was triggered by the visible lack of response to questions raised here, and the shameful closing of ranks by the media on this issue.

My advise to the council is this: Make a sincere effort to understand the different approaches and outcomes on Pier 8 between 1) pure private sector development; 2) development funded by public monies for the benefit of a select few in the private sector; and 3) true stewardship of public lands. It is when these differences are ignorantly or intentionally blurred for personal or political reasons that simple questions go unanswered.

Whatafront Trust

Conclusions:

There are many questions yet unanswered, as there are many question yet to be raised. The optics of the situation around the HWT is extremely poor, and left uncorrected will lead to conclusions such as: croynism is alive and kicking in our city, or that our local media is journalistically compromised beyond redemption; or that "stewardship of public lands = political re-election campaigns = land grab". All of which is -not equal- to a real peoples place; and most definitely -not equal- to a true and pervasive re-connection of the people to the waterfront.

What started off as an earnest good faith inquiry was promptly dubbed as an "axe to grind" by some in the accredited media and the small cabal of councillors.

This article is [was] called "Whatafront Trust" -- partly in jest, and partly to redeem those voices in our community that have been maligned by the local press for their ability to question anomalies in the politics of our city. Voices that most functioning democracies need -- least our community ends up becoming what our local press wants it to become - an enslaved, fearful, huddled mass of compliant life form -- much similar to our accredited journalists, or even our bright podcaster who often drowns pertinent questions with a wine soaked laugh track in order to hide the fear and shame that comes from not having the courage to do the job that needs to be done.

Notes:

I start with the conclusion first, only to recognize and celebrate the cutting-edge, innovative style of journalism that the Spectator has invented in recent time -- where conclusions are reached first, based on the principles of 'six-degrees of separation' that permeates the politics of our city -- and subsequently, questions are asked tenderly and often gingerly to ratify a priori conclusions. The ensuing technique of free-play used in developing the story line of articles allows Spectator writer/s to jump, skip and hop with abandon from one point to another in rapid succession to give the simulacrum of investigation while alluding to having duly performed their pesky but 'sacred' journalist duties. This style has become so popular and profitable that even our otherwise staid local mountain side tabloid has adopted it in its recent attempts to cover up the anomalies on the waterfront. It helps lull people into a soft, comforting stupor and aids them in forgetting the hardship and sloth of their day-to-day "Hamilton Grind". So, for obvious reasons, I too have adopted the same approach in this article, as quite simply, its popular, and it works. Hence - Conclude first, Inquire later!

Article:

These are willynilly bits and pieces from my original article, in keeping with the trend set by the local media:
..........
The key question remains: how does one justify the act of conclusions much before questions are asked or even answered - while appearing to be deeply concerned about public interest?

The answer is quite simple. Just develop an ability to skip and dance around disconnected observations, facts, events, and personal relationships and soon you will develop the aura of integrity in your work.

Here is how you begin:

"Let me start by showing you where we began....
ok, this is likely a different version!
Our slogan is connecting you to the waters edge....
just let me find my place on my notes..."

http://hamilton.siretechnologies.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=164&doctype=AGENDA watch at: 02:06:45

After flashing a slide of Pier 8 in aerial view (from the 1980's) to set the tone of urgency, quickly establish the connection to your contributions and firmly assert that without your work, the entire waterfront would have been a parking lot today. (Never mind that there are pictures of Pier 8 from 2003/05 showing clearly that the Pier 8 was already in an advanced stage of development by a third party. Never mind that the first significant project to be initiated on the waterfront with the funds given to HWT was in Ward 5 and not in Ward 2. Never mind that the trail connecting Pier 4 to Pier 8 was worked on much later after the work in Ward 5 was done and most of the money depleted.
..........
Compelling images and the right amount of skipping and jumping in between disconnected time lines and disjointed events is all that it takes to nail the case. It is that simple.
..........
Bob Charters demeaning comments in reference to the criticism that he and his board justifiably received were heart felt and persuasive enough to make the media rapidly close ranks. You see we are a networked, connected culture. We do not have the time or the energy left anymore to look at facts. Charter's knows this clearly. We don't.
..........
It is quite obvious to anyone who cares to look deeper that both our local newspapers have erred gravely in their journalistic duties. The magnitude of their error here pales in comparison to their collective error in 2010.
..........
However, before further judgment is made against these two publications, it is important to get clarification from both their publishers, as to whether the three articles which appeared in the press that set the tone of the ensuing waterfront 'Kumbaya' was nothing more than a lame cover-up by a few rogue journalists --- or was it indeed a result of their respective editorial policies sanctioned by their publishers.
..........
Given the optics created entirely by the highly questionable behavior of the local press and the HWT - it is also appropriate to ask and clarify from the HWT and the councillors connected with the HWT, whether this tax-payer funded development is --or is not-- just a "stage set" for the ultimate land grab of the balance of Pier 8.
..........
Pier 8 to date, has no comprehensive master plan, outside of the ham-fisted recreational master plan (see: West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan Comments from PIC #3 - May 8th, 2007 - http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/29414D4C-9F41-486F-AF90-16AE6C56F8A9/0/PIC3Comments.pdf ) (http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/6AFF18E7-58D7-4CE7-A230-0BAC4A1EA401/0/PIC3Notes.pdf ) nor is the city keen on developing a public RFP process for opening up the design and development of Pier 8 broadly to the private sector. We hear of the need to develop the water front lands from HWT. But for whom? is the question that remains yet to be asked.
..........
From: ( http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/459244E2-63DA-4671-9885-55136E793F21/0/wagmeeting4notes.pdf )
" I am also including you in this distribution as there are issues with some elements of the current plan and supporting documents that I feel are important for you to be aware of sooner rather than later - specifically in the areas of public safety, and viability of the density and nature of business/restaurant uses being proposed. Some of these items were not reviewed or discussed at the recent Advisory Group session, but were discovered when I reviewed the Waterfront Trust's written plan, the Public Works Department report to the Mayor and Members Committee of the Whole dated December 15, 2008 (report number PW09004?), and the Commercial Opportunity Study prepared by Malone Given Parsons Ltd in July 2008. It is not clear what degree of rigour or review has already been applied relative to these items. By highlighting them to you at this time I hope to ensure that appropriate due diligence is applied prior to final decisions or commitments being made by City Council."

" The 'success' of Williams Coffee Pub has been used to justify the proposed density and nature of new businesses to populate the area. -- It is unclear what the Waterfront Trust and the authors of the Commercial Opportunity Study based their claims of 'success' on, as the Waterfront Trust's own financials (as reviewed at the October 2008 council meeting) show that Williams was still struggling to cover operational expenses at that time. See section 2.f. for explanation."
..........
It is no secret that the previous Mayor's passion was to "develop" the waterfront lands at any cost primarily for political expediency. It is no coincidence that he was also involved at a senior level with the Port Authority for years. It is also no secret that to date the Port Authority HWT board member has maintained total silence on this matter - while Chad Collins has been celebrated as a hero in the local press for what he supposedly "got done" on the waterfront. The question that the press fails to ask is where and how this money was spent -- and why was Ward 5 the first and far bigger beneficiary of this fund? when it was the waterfront in Ward 2 that was in dire need of revitalization?

The Hamilton Beach Trail: "In the spring of 2003, the Hamilton Waterfront Trust and the City of Hamilton completed construction of the 8.5km Hamilton Beach Trail – a multi-use, fully accessible waterfront trail which winds along the shores of Hamilton on the Lake Ontario side of the Beach Strip and forms part of the Lake Ontario Trail, which stretches 350km along the shores of Lake Ontario from Niagara-on-the-Lake to Trenton."

Hamilton Waterfront Trail Extension: "The Hamilton Waterfront Trail Extension is a ‘continuation’ of the existing Hamilton Waterfront Trail built by the City of Hamilton between Princess Point and Pier 4 Park in 2000. The 1.9km trail extension starts at Pier 4 Park and proceeds eastward, just past Pier 8, to Eastwood Park. The trail runs at or near the water’s edge, parallel to Guise Street and Dock Service Road.

The trail portion of the north and east sides of Pier 8 was funded as a joint project between the City of Hamilton, the Hamilton Port Authority and the Hamilton Waterfront Trust.

Features include: interpretative signage; connections to the Canada Marine Discovery Centre, H.M.C.S. Haida, Williams Fresh Cafe, Scoops Ice Cream Parlour, and Hamilton Harbour Tours.

The Hamilton Waterfront Trust and the City of Hamilton jointly funded the sculpture located at the corner of Pier 8: Rafaga-Unleashed by artists Edwin and Veronica Dam De Nogales, which was unveiled in 2005."..........
What is deeply disturbing is that the "land development" being done presently by the HWT on Pier 8 --entirely at the cost of tax-payers-- is driven primarily by narrow minded short-term commercial motives-- rather than true stewardship of waterfront lands for broad public use.
..........
The way Pier 8 has been designed and developed, it sure as hell is not a "people's park" that is open to people from all walks of life - like it is on all the other Piers from 1 to 4. And as time goes, it will become more and more difficult for Hamiltonians of average means to access Pier 8.
..........
So what is really going on? As Laura posed amidst the loudest nervous laughter yet recorded in podcasting history - a new benchmark for interruptive journalism was set in her John Best interview. A journalistic standard that is unsure of it ability to perform the sacred duty of journalism - afraid of offending Hamilton's circle of six-degrees of separation, yet claiming to hold the torch for future generation and proclaiming boldly: 'authentically finding real truth'.
..........
Epilogue:

The reasons for not seeking publication of the much longer article is because I have come to the conclusion that until a few rogue journalists in our local media remain in bed with select agencies/individuals in our city, there is no public good that will truly accrue in Hamilton. It is a shame that such things are happening - but that is the reality. And it is pointless for anyone in this city to expend their time and energies in correcting the sins of such people who simply do not know better. Until such individuals remain in power in this city be it politically or in the media -- this sort of mindlessness will continue to occur. And getting them out of power may not be an option presently because there are far too many apologists in Hamilton on their side than on the side of those seeking truth and transparency.

This article was about highlighting the deeper fault lines at the HWT. Fault lines which were merely wedged open by the unanswered 10 questions here. The bigger question that yet remain to be asked is: was public money used to propel private and political careers in the name of opening up the waterfront to the people? and who actually is the true beneficiary of all this public investment on the waterfront?

Former Mayor DiIanni proudly commented recently about the parking lot on Pier 8 being already full. This to me sums up the foolishness of this enterprise as well as the false lessons that he chooses to highlight.

The full parking lot is a precursor to the demise of a peoples place and not the bellwether for it's success.

No one less than the previous Mayor Eisenberger including Chad Collins and Tom Jackson will have to eventually step up to the people of Hamilton and give a full account of the how's, why's and what's of the dismally grandiose development of Pier 8 in Ward 2, in comparison to the smooth and swift waterfront development in Ward 5. This is only the first among many questions yet to be raised, which predictably, may well remain unanswered for generations to come.

Mahesh P. Butani