The House of Horwath

Social media commentary has intensified regarding a residential property owned by Mayor Andrea Horwath, for which a demolition has been sought on the basis of alleged structural deterioration and safety concerns. The matter is complicated by both procedural considerations and human factors.

From a procedural standpoint, questions have been raised about the appropriateness of relying solely on a privately commissioned engineering report when pursuing such an outcome. In fact, a judge has rejected that as a remedy. From a human perspective, at least part of the property is currently occupied, adding an important layer of sensitivity to the situation.

The Hamiltonian does not support criticizing or singling out the Mayor simply because she is a property owner confronting a difficult and complex circumstance. As with any matter involving public officials and private property rights, careful consideration of all relevant facts is essential before drawing conclusions or assigning blame.

The situation objectively involves a judicial decision that a municipal emergency demolition order was invalid because a statutory inspection requirement was not met. That is fact. Narratives asserting misconduct, hypocrisy, or double standards are interpretative and not grounded in the legal record as reported. Nor are such attacks supported by The Hamiltonian. 

The Hamiltonian hopes that a remedy is arrived at that satisfies the concerns while not leaving anyone homeless. 

When it Rains, it Pours

Hamilton’s Stormwater Fee Debate: Fair Funding or Over-Precision?

Hamilton has delayed its proposed stormwater fee until 2027, but the real debate isn't about timing — it’s about how precisely we assign costs for climate resilience, and whether that precision helps or hurts everyday people.

Stormwater is no longer just a nuisance; it’s a growing liability. As climate change brings heavier rains and aging infrastructure struggles to cope, cities like Hamilton are under pressure to invest in drainage, pipes, and flood protection. The idea behind the new stormwater fee is simple: charge properties based on how much runoff they generate — especially from roofs, driveways, and parking lots.

That’s arguably fairer than Hamilton’s current system, which funds stormwater through water bills and taxes, often disconnected from actual runoff impact. A high water user in a small home may pay more than a big box store with acres of pavement. The proposed model would change that, with most homes paying around $200 annually, and larger sites paying proportionally more — as is already the case in cities like Mississauga, Kitchener, and Ottawa.

And just when that seems like the sensible, fair solution, there’s this: advances in technology and data have made it possible to precisely measure and charge for runoff. But how far should that precision go? At what point does fairness by formula tip into burden? For families, farmers, small businesses, and schools — already navigating tight margins — does a highly calculated fee erode disposable income in the name of equity?

This is the tension at the heart of Hamilton’s debate. Critics, especially in rural areas, argue they see little benefit from urban storm sewers, yet could face hefty bills. Some large greenhouse operators estimated six-figure fees. Even with credits for green space and mitigation, they say the precision risks pushing agriculture and small players out. Others wonder if a flatter, less surgical model might be fair enough — and easier to bear.

Supporters counter that without a dedicated, structured fee, Hamilton’s stormwater infrastructure will remain underfunded. Flood risks will grow. And the inequities of the current system — where water usage, not runoff, determines cost — will persist.

As the city retools the plan, it must balance accuracy with affordability. The question isn’t just who pays, but how precisely we calculate that — and whether a bit less precision might actually serve people, and the city, better.

Photo by Arw Zero on Unsplash

Let's Take a Spin

One of the oldest and most reliable tactics in the spin doctor’s playbook is timing. Not timing in the sense of urgency or preparedness, but timing designed to minimize attention. The maneuver is simple: release contentious, embarrassing, or politically inconvenient news immediately before a holiday, during a long weekend, or at a moment when public attention is predictably elsewhere.

The logic is straightforward. News consumption drops sharply around holidays. People travel, celebrate, unplug, and disengage from daily information cycles. Newsrooms operate with reduced staff. Follow-up questions are delayed. Public reaction is fragmented and muted. By the time normal routines resume, the story has often lost momentum, displaced by newer headlines.

This tactic is sometimes referred to as “burying the news,” though nothing is truly buried in the digital age. The information is released, technically satisfying disclosure obligations, but under conditions designed to blunt scrutiny and accountability. The hope is that by Monday morning, public outrage will have cooled, journalists will have moved on, and decision-makers can claim the matter has already been addressed.

The practice is not limited to governments. Corporations, institutions, and organizations of all kinds use it to announce layoffs, settlements, cost overruns, or unpopular policy changes. Friday afternoons before a long weekend are especially popular. So are the days immediately preceding major holidays, when attention is naturally diverted.

While legal, the tactic raises ethical questions. Transparency is not merely about releasing information; it is about releasing it in a way that allows meaningful public engagement. When timing is used to avoid that engagement, it undermines trust and fuels cynicism.

For readers and citizens, recognizing the tactic matters. When controversial news appears at a strangely quiet moment, it is worth asking why now. Often, the timing tells you as much as the content itself.

At The Hamiltonian, we recognize the hallmarks of spin and have no regard for it. It is a cheap tactic that proved effective ages ago when it was new. Today, it is a hallmark of evasiveness and a lack of respect for the public. 

At The Hamiltonian, we do not hesitate in calling out this tactic even though, as a result, we are sometimes as welcome by some entities as a skunk would be at a tea party.  

Hamilton City Centre- Before and After

In June of this year, The Hamiltonian published an article examining the condition of Hamilton City Centre and the impression it leaves on visitors encountering one of the city’s most visible downtown landmarks.

At the time, the building’s deterioration and apparent neglect were difficult to ignore. In response, The Hamiltonian contacted both the property owner, Darryl Firsten of in8 Developments, and the City of Hamilton to ask why the site had been allowed to fall into such a state and what plans, if any, were in place to address its appearance.

Both Mr. Firsten and the City of Hamilton responded to our inquiries. The full exchange with Mr. Firsten is available to readers by clicking here.

Today, The Hamiltonian revisited the site and observed that Mr. Firsten has followed through on his stated intention to commission a large-scale exterior art installation on the building. A photograph taken today illustrates the change, with the previous condition shown on the left and the updated exterior on the right.

In our earlier correspondence, Mr. Firsten stated: “As soon as market conditions improve, we intend to knock the building down and put up some spectacular towers. In the meantime, we are doing our best to deal with the graffiti that is occurring on the building.”

The Hamiltonian acknowledges Mr. Firsten’s efforts to act on his assurances and thanks both him and the City of Hamilton for engaging with our questions and responding to concerns about this prominent downtown site. Whether the interim makeover represents a meaningful improvement is a matter we leave to our readers to decide.

Still No Word...

The City of Hamilton has repeatedly deferred releasing the costs associated with the Water Workers strike. Despite multiple follow-up requests from both Greg Hoath, Business Manager for the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 772, and The Hamiltonian, the information has not been provided.

We have emphasized to the City the importance of publishing these figures early in the month, rather than closer to the holiday period when public attention traditionally shifts away from municipal matters.

The City may choose to be transparent or not. While we cannot compel disclosure, we can continue to pose clear, fair, and reasonable questions. How the City responds — or declines to respond — remains its responsibility to explain.

Photo by Pierre Bamin on Unsplash

Season's Greetings Fact or Fiction

It’s the holiday season, and The Hamiltonian wanted to share a little cheer.  In that spirit, The Hamiltonian is pleased to share a Fact or Fiction challenge featuring quirky statements about Hamilton that may be fact or fiction. 

Below are ten statements. Some are true. Some are completely made up. Your challenge is to reply with one word per line: Fact or Fiction.

 No Googling for answers please. 

Here are your statements:

1. Hamilton once displayed a rotating Christmas tree in Gore Park during the 1970s.

2. Former Mayor, Larry DiIanni once served as an elf supporting Eastgate Square’s Santa Clause 

3. Allan’s Candy Factory once closed down for three days because their machines over heated while meeting season demand for candy canes. 

4. The first official Christmas lights festival in Hamilton took place at Dundurn Castle in 1939.

5. The city once organized a “Snowman Parade” downtown because there was no Santa Claus available that year.

6. A 1950s radio contest challenged Hamiltonians to write a holiday jingle — the winner received a live turkey.

7. The old Eaton’s store on James Street North had an annual holiday window with animatronic raccoons.

8  A local steelworker union once decorated a Christmas tree entirely with miniature replicas of steel tools.

9. In 1983,  Andrea Horwath won a contest by flawlessly whistling the first verse of Santa Clause is Coming to Town  

10 A Hamilton family became known for hanging more than 25,000 Christmas lights on their Concession Street home, drawing nightly car traffic until the early 2000s.

Please think of your answers numbered 1 to 10, using only “Fact” or “Fiction.” Thank you for joining in the fun — Warm regards, The Hamiltonian

Are you ready Hamiltonian?? Do you think you know the answers? Click here to see them.