Sunday, October 23, 2016

From The Green Room

The following is a message and attachment shared with the local media from Ward 3 Councillor Mathew Green:

Please accept this submission (please click here to see what the Clr. is referring to) as correspondence to our LRT GIC regarding the fate that the City of Brampton now faces having their Council reject LRT funding.

I know that there has been some confusion about that time lines and prospects for future funding of alternstives that City of Brampton staff have clearly outlined in terms of process, timing and priority.

I wanted to share it with you all well in advance of our meeting for your reading and consideration as Brampton has already set themselves back about a decade.

Let's not flirt with further purgatory...
Let's stay on track.

Your friend and neighbour,

Matthew Green
Ward 3 Hamilton City Councillor



  1. Short version: Yes, you can decline Metrolinx funding and reapply under a different route. It will just take 2-3 years for you to complete the paperwork necessary to reapply. And because you presumably put your best foot forward the first time out, there's no guarantee of success.

    Added to which, Brampton already gets half the LRT it was originally supposed to. Preumably the alternate route will still have to connect to the Hurontario LRT. So it has that much going for it — Metrolinx will already have a substantial infrastructure commitment to the municipality, and a synergy with the one next door (to say nothing of the glut of Liberal MPPs and a Brampton mayor who's an alumna of the OLP cabinet).

    The daydream machine insists that council can just throw a switch on w him and realign $1B in provincial capital spending. The truth is that such a play would set us back at least another election cycle (i.e. 3-5 years — Hamilton submitted its rapid transit plans two years before they were approved). And that's assuming you have the kind of consensus that led council to unanimously endorse B-Line LRT as their preferred route and mode. Factor in all of the ward-heeling and soap-boxing and it could be much longer. And in the meantime, the City is a radioactive project partner, having lobbied for 10 years toward a single end on a $1B project only to throw everything out at the 11th hour because of election-year cowardice.

    Maybe Ambitious City is an ironic handle.


  2. Perspective is everything.

    So there is at least 1 billion dollars available for local infrastructure, but it comes with a blurry "Thou shalt....." We only get the cash if we do as we are told. Whose money?

    2-3 years to complete the paperwork? If true we either need to find someone more adept at submitting the paperwork or we need to install new bureaucracy with better work ethic. Is this a priority or not? Gaining the consensus you envision should be easy, because it is absent now, and has never existed, at least not in the realm of the general public.

    This "our way or else" nonsense is infantile and condescending and has inspired rebellion. There will be consequences for all concerned.

    I have lived my entire life in this City, and I love it here, "warts" and all. Collectively, we have never been a community that can be lead by the nose, too much character here for that, and I am encouraged our well earned reputation remains intact.

    Matt wants to lead, I want him to serve.

  3. If a discussion cannot be had as to how to better serve Hamilton, without it setting us back 3 years, than there is definetly a failure in leadership somewhere along the line.

  4. We would be assembling what we hope is a watertight case that would rationalize the province committing $1B in rapid transit infrastructure spending to Hamilton without any capital commitment from the municipality. And the province has a project priority queue, which we will move to the back of if we exit the lineup.

    The same critics who claimed that the 10-year development timeline for B-Line LRT was some sort of overnight hoodwinking that failed to consider every possible alternative can hardly claim that 2-3 years is an unreasonable delay. The years will quickly add up. (The AEGD was supposed to take three years as well.)

    And after all, how long did it take the City to lock down its last $1B capital investment from senior government?



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.