Kroetsch has stated publicly that he has never participated in the council meal program and agrees it should be eliminated. He says he can afford to buy his own lunch or bring one from home. He also notes that he raised the issue when he was first elected but found little support at the time for formally ending the program.
Now, in the midst of budget season — and in an election cycle — the issue has gained renewed traction.
On one level, this is about optics. Hamilton residents are facing tax increases and ongoing affordability pressures. Council is debating service adjustments, capital constraints, and structural budget challenges. In that context, even relatively small internal expenditures attract scrutiny.
Kroetsch argues that council has spent too much time debating “nickels and dimes” instead of focusing on major structural savings. That observation carries weight.
Hamilton’s fiscal pressures are not driven by lunch costs. They are driven by large-scale expenditures: labour agreements, policing, transit, housing, infrastructure renewal, and long-term capital liabilities. Eliminating a meal program does not materially change the tax levy. It does not close a structural funding gap.
But the issue cannot be dismissed simply because it is small.
Public confidence in municipal governance is built on consistency between messaging and behavior. When residents are asked to accept higher taxes or reduced services, they expect elected officials to demonstrate visible restraint — even in minor matters.
Symbolism, in politics, is not trivial. It shapes trust.
Ending the lunch program would not solve Hamilton’s financial challenges. But it would signal a culture of accountability. It would demonstrate that council understands the tone required during tight fiscal times.
The risk, however, lies in allowing symbolic debates to replace substantive reform. If eliminating lunches becomes the centerpiece of “fiscal prudence,” it becomes political theatre. Real savings require deeper analysis: service reviews, procurement reform, asset management discipline, staffing evaluations, and long-term strategic budgeting.
Kroetsch is correct that structural cost reduction takes time, patience, and political courage. It is not achieved through headlines.
At the same time, residents are justified in expecting that fiscal discipline begins with council itself.
Hamilton’s council does not face a choice between symbolism and substance. It can eliminate the meal program to address optics and public trust. Then it must pivot immediately to the much harder work — the line items that truly drive tax increases.
The lunch debate is not about sandwiches.
It is about culture.
And culture, ultimately, determines whether the public believes council is serious about the stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
Hamilton’s fiscal pressures are not driven by lunch costs. They are driven by large-scale expenditures: labour agreements, policing, transit, housing, infrastructure renewal, and long-term capital liabilities. Eliminating a meal program does not materially change the tax levy. It does not close a structural funding gap.
But the issue cannot be dismissed simply because it is small.
Public confidence in municipal governance is built on consistency between messaging and behavior. When residents are asked to accept higher taxes or reduced services, they expect elected officials to demonstrate visible restraint — even in minor matters.
Symbolism, in politics, is not trivial. It shapes trust.
Ending the lunch program would not solve Hamilton’s financial challenges. But it would signal a culture of accountability. It would demonstrate that council understands the tone required during tight fiscal times.
The risk, however, lies in allowing symbolic debates to replace substantive reform. If eliminating lunches becomes the centerpiece of “fiscal prudence,” it becomes political theatre. Real savings require deeper analysis: service reviews, procurement reform, asset management discipline, staffing evaluations, and long-term strategic budgeting.
Kroetsch is correct that structural cost reduction takes time, patience, and political courage. It is not achieved through headlines.
At the same time, residents are justified in expecting that fiscal discipline begins with council itself.
Hamilton’s council does not face a choice between symbolism and substance. It can eliminate the meal program to address optics and public trust. Then it must pivot immediately to the much harder work — the line items that truly drive tax increases.
The lunch debate is not about sandwiches.
It is about culture.
And culture, ultimately, determines whether the public believes council is serious about the stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments are welcome. Please abide by the blog's policy on posting. This blog facilitates discussion from all sides of issues. Opposite viewpoints are welcome, provided they are respectful. Name calling is not allowed and any posts that violate the policy, will 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.
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.