Are Hamiltonians Being Served?

As Hamilton approaches another municipal election cycle, it is easy to focus solely on personalities — the mayor, councillors, campaign messaging, and political narratives. However, voters should focus just as carefully, if not more so, on results.

In this special analysis, The Hamiltonian examines how Hamilton compares to several comparable Ontario municipalities across key measures including infrastructure, taxation, public confidence, downtown conditions, housing delivery, governance, and overall execution. The record matters, and it should inform decisions at the ballot box.

For years, Hamilton has positioned itself as a city on the rise — a community poised for transformation, investment, intensification, and economic growth. Yet when Hamilton is measured against comparable Ontario municipalities, a more concerning picture emerges: a city increasingly struggling with execution, transparency, infrastructure performance, downtown conditions, safety, housing delivery, and public confidence. This is not a matter of political ideology. It is a matter of measurable outcomes.

Hamilton residents now carry one of the heavier urban tax burdens in Ontario while continuing to confront deteriorating roads, visible disorder in the downtown core, rising infrastructure deficits, controversial governance decisions, sluggish project delivery, gun violence concerns, and persistent questions surrounding fiscal discipline and accountability.

The issue is no longer whether Hamilton faces challenges. Every municipality does. The more important question is whether Hamilton is keeping pace with comparable cities facing many of the same pressures.

Increasingly, the evidence suggests it is not.

Hamilton is often compared either to Toronto — a global city with vastly different scale and resources — or to municipalities lacking Hamilton’s urban complexity. More appropriate comparator cities include:

• London
• Kitchener
• Waterloo
• Windsor
• Oshawa
• Mississauga
• Burlington

These municipalities face many of the same pressures:
• aging infrastructure,
• housing growth targets,
• downtown revitalization challenges,
• policing and social service pressures,
• transit demands,
• and economic transition pressures.

Yet several of these municipalities appear to be outperforming Hamilton in key areas that directly affect residents’ quality of life.

Hamilton’s infrastructure deficit has become one of the defining policy failures of the modern city. Road conditions remain a constant source of public frustration. Sidewalk deterioration is widespread. Flooding vulnerabilities continue to expose weaknesses in stormwater systems. Recreation infrastructure renewal remains uneven, while major capital projects frequently face delays, redesign controversies, or escalating costs.

Comparable municipalities also face infrastructure pressures, yet several appear to execute renewal projects with greater consistency and less dysfunction. Cities such as Mississauga and Burlington have generally maintained stronger public confidence in core municipal service delivery while avoiding the level of civic frustration increasingly evident in Hamilton.

Meanwhile, Hamilton taxpayers continue to hear a recurring message: there is never enough money. Yet residential property taxes continue to climb aggressively. That disconnect is becoming increasingly difficult for residents to reconcile.

Hamilton homeowners have experienced repeated tax increases while simultaneously watching visible conditions deteriorate in parts of the city. Increasingly, residents are asking a fundamental question:

Where is the return on investment?

In many neighbourhoods, citizens point to:
• deteriorating roads,
• rising encampment pressures,
• public safety concerns,
• downtown disorder,
• lengthy project timelines,
• inconsistent bylaw enforcement,
• and declining public trust in City Hall decision-making.

This is where Hamilton’s challenge becomes particularly serious. A city can survive high taxes if residents believe services are improving. A city can survive difficult circumstances if residents trust leadership is effectively managing them. However, when taxes rise while public confidence declines, the political and civic consequences become significant.

Perhaps nowhere is the comparison more striking than in downtown Hamilton.

For decades, civic leaders have spoken about downtown revitalization as though it were perpetually just around the corner. Yet many residents and business owners increasingly describe the downtown core using terms such as unsafe, unpredictable, fragmented, and unmanaged. A phrase heard with growing frequency is: “I would not go downtown after dark.”

Encampments, open drug use, vacant storefronts, social disorder, infrastructure neglect, and public safety concerns have significantly altered public perceptions of the core- and the tragic killings.

Other Ontario cities also face homelessness and addiction crises. However, several comparator municipalities have maintained stronger perceptions of order, cleanliness, predictability, and commercial confidence within their downtowns.

Cities such as Kitchener and London continue to advance downtown intensification, technology-sector attraction, and public realm improvements with fewer visible signs of systemic paralysis. Hamilton’s downtown, by contrast, increasingly feels like a city struggling to maintain basic civic equilibrium.

Hamilton also faces growing criticism surrounding housing delivery timelines and development uncertainty. Developers, residents, and industry observers have repeatedly raised concerns regarding approval delays, policy unpredictability, planning friction, appeals, and shifting political direction.

This matters economically. Cities perceived as difficult, unpredictable, or politically unstable risk losing investment momentum to competing municipalities. Increasingly, Hamilton’s reputation within policy, development, and civic circles is becoming associated with conflict, delay, and inconsistency.

Perhaps the most damaging issue facing Hamilton is not infrastructure or taxation. It is trust.

Hamilton has faced repeated criticism surrounding transparency, disclosure practices, communication controversies, and public accountability. In today’s edition of The Hamiltonian, readers will also find coverage regarding the City’s continued refusal to disclose to the water workers’ union and Hamilton taxpayers the full costs associated with managing the water workers strike. That refusal has now triggered additional proceedings before the Information and Privacy Commissioner — resulting in yet more taxpayer-funded legal and administrative costs.

Ultimately, Hamilton taxpayers continue to pay for both the original issue and the resulting disputes surrounding disclosure.

The growing perception among some residents is that information too often emerges reluctantly rather than proactively. History has demonstrated that controversies involving withheld or delayed information — including the Red Hill Valley Parkway Inquiry and the sewage spill controversy — can carry serious political consequences.

Modern municipal governance depends heavily on legitimacy and public confidence. When residents begin to believe decisions are opaque, selectively communicated, politically managed, or shielded from scrutiny, cynicism accelerates rapidly. Cynicism, once entrenched, is difficult to reverse.

Hamilton increasingly risks becoming known not merely for governance problems, but for defensiveness surrounding governance problems.

Hamilton’s central challenge may ultimately be summarized in one word: Execution.

The city does not lack studies.
It does not lack strategies.
It does not lack consultants.
It does not lack vision statements.
It does not lack plans.

Hamilton has plans for nearly everything.

What residents increasingly question is whether City Hall can consistently execute at the level taxpayers should reasonably expect.

For example, while City Manager Marnie Cluckie has publicly indicated progress on customer service improvements, residents still do not have access to a public-facing performance dashboard, clearly defined service metrics, or a formalized public performance contract tied to executive accountability.

Comparable municipalities have generally demonstrated stronger performance in:
• project completion,
• downtown management,
• housing facilitation,
• fiscal predictability,
• communications,
• and civic confidence.

Hamilton, meanwhile, often appears trapped in a cycle of:
study,
delay,
controversy,
revision,
reassessment,
and political fragmentation.

Over time, that cycle erodes confidence not only in elected officials, but in the institution itself.

Significant municipal mismanagement is not beyond Hamilton’s experience. The cyberattack that occurred under the watch of the current council resulted in the shutdown of critical municipal systems, widespread operational disruption, and substantial financial costs to taxpayers. The incident became particularly concerning when the City’s own insurance provider reportedly declined coverage, citing failures related to appropriate system protection and verification protocols.

Hamilton still possesses enormous strengths. Its geography remains strategic. Its healthcare and education sectors remain major assets. Its arts and culture community is vibrant. Its industrial and logistics advantages remain significant. Its neighbourhood character continues to be deeply valued.

Most importantly, Hamiltonians themselves remain resilient, engaged, and passionate about the future of their city. But civic goodwill is not unlimited. The danger facing Hamilton is not sudden collapse.

The danger is normalization.

Normalization of deteriorating standards.
Normalization of disorder.
Normalization of delays.
Normalization of weak accountability.
Normalization of rising taxes paired with declining public confidence.

Cities rarely decline all at once. More often, they gradually condition residents to expect less. Hamilton does not require perfection. But it does require measurable improvement.

Residents deserve:
• clearer accountability,
• stronger execution,
• greater transparency,
• improved fiscal discipline,
• safer and more predictable public spaces,
• and infrastructure performance that reflects the taxes they pay.

The question facing Hamilton is no longer whether change is needed. The question is whether the city’s political and administrative culture is prepared to confront the scale of change required.

Because when Hamilton is measured against comparable Ontario municipalities, the uncomfortable reality is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore:

Too often, Hamilton is not leading the pack. It is struggling to keep up.